Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Thu, 13 Apr 89 05:17:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8YF6KFy00UkZM55U4H@andrew.cmu.edu> Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 13 Apr 89 05:17:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #363 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 363 Today's Topics: The Soviet ZOND probes to Venus and Mars. Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and oth AD Astra Delay! Aliens and the law Cross posting evil ( was Re: Power vs Energy) Re: Questions and Henry Re: DSN mission launch dates Re: QUESTION? ASTRONAUTS AND F-19 STEALTH. Astronaut Qualification Requirements (was Re: QUESTION? ASTRONAUTS...) Space terminology Re: Power vs Energy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Apr 89 21:26:00 GMT From: renoir.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) Subject: The Soviet ZOND probes to Venus and Mars. I have apparently confused my Soviet ZOND Mars probes (and we all know how painful that can be): ZOND is the Soviet word for "probe". Three probes designated ZOND were sent to the two planets nearest Earth in the early 1960s. ZOND 1 was a failed attempt at a Venus flyby in 1964. ZOND 2 was launched on November 30, 1964, possibly as a flyby photographic mission of Mars with a lander capsule. Contact was lost with ZOND 2 in April of the following year. It did pass within 1,500 kilometers of the planet on August 6, 1965, less than one month after the successful flyby mission of the U.S. MARINER 4 probe, which took the first close-up photos (22 in all) of the Martian surface. ZOND 3 was launched on July 18, 1965. Though originally intended as a Mars probe, ZOND 3's mission was changed to an "engineering test" when the Soviets missed the Mars launch window opportunity. ZOND 3 first flew by Earth's Moon, where it took the first photos of the lunar farside since LUNA 3 in 1959. It then headed out into inter- planetary space, where it continued to function and communicate out to the orbit of Mars, though ZOND 3 was nowhere near the planet at the time the probe crossed its orbit. The three ZOND probes all bore a great resemblance and had similar design functions to the VENERA probes to Venus of that time period. Larry Klaes ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 89 19:10:00 GMT From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!p.cs.uiuc.edu!silber@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and oth >> >>plutonium-powered thermionic generator of Apollo 13's LEM. >> >HUH? All American (and probably all Soviet) manned spacecraft use >fuel cells for electrical generation. The U.S. doesn't make much use >at all of nuclear-powered satilites, except for deep-space probes. The LEM had what what was essentially a nuclear battery to power the scientific experiments left behind. (These were intended to provide years of useful data.) ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 89 04:33:00 GMT From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov Subject: AD Astra Delay! An Announcement From.... The Headquarters of.... The National Space Society Due to unforseen circumstances beyond the control of the Staff of Headquarters, the magazine AD ASTRA will once again be delayed. Members should expect to see the new issue by mid-April. Our apologies for the delay. April 4, 1989 The Management! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 89 09:50:05 EDT From: loeb@math.mit.edu To: amdahl!drivax!macleod@apple.com Cc: space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: Aliens and the law Please send me that reference you mentioned about alien law. Yours +-----------------------------------------------------+ Daniel E. Loeb | Internet: loeb@math.mit.edu | del^2 | ATT: 617/776-1605 (w/ Answering Machine) | | Bitnet: s19990@mitvma.bitnet | "I'm a vegeterarian not | UUCP: trout!pnet01!pro-angmar!loeb | because I love animals, | USnail: 45 Concord Avenue, Apartement 32, | but because I hate | Somerville, MA 02143-3939, USA | plants." | MIT: 2-032, x2190 | +-----------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 89 17:07:06 GMT From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) Subject: Cross posting evil ( was Re: Power vs Energy) >Article about power and energy Please edit newsgroups lines. This article had nothing to do with astronomy. That's why I unsubscribe from certain newsgroups. Yet another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." Live free or die. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 89 14:50:33 GMT From: osu-cis!netsys!lamc!well!tneff@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Questions and Henry In article <713@rocksanne.UUCP> kirby@bozo.UUCP (Mike Kirby (co-op)) writes: >1) Henry, do you have anything positive to say about the U.S. space program? > I mean do we do anything right anymore? If the above quoted poster (or anyone else) wants to see something positive about the US space program in this newsgroup, let him write it himself. The nice thing about sci.space.* is the high signal/noise ratio. Henry is, as it turns out, one of the reasons this is true. It is better to contribute something substantive of your own than to attack what someone else chooses to contribute. Sounds like a line worth adding to Eugene's next oldfarts message... -- Tom Neff tneff@well.UUCP or tneff@dasys1.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 89 15:26:30 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: DSN mission launch dates From article <21900051@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, by kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu: > > /* Written 2:40 pm Apr 6, 1989 by PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV in m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */ Here are the acronyms Kevin didnt list: BS-3A Broadcsting Satellite (NASDA,Japan) DFS Deutsche Fernsehen Satellit (DFVLR, Fed Rep of Germany) GMS Geostationary Meteorological Satellite (NASDA,Japan) MUSES-A I forget the acronym, but it is an ISAS,Japan lunar probe. (Mu Space Exploration Sat???) TDF Telediffusion de France (a French TV network) .----------------------------------------------------------------. | Jonathan McDowell | phone : (617)495-7144 | | Center for Astrophysics | uucp: husc6!harvard!cfa200!mcdowell | | 60 Garden Street | bitnet : mcdowell@cfa.bitnet | | Cambridge MA 02138 | inter : mcdowell@cfa.harvard.edu | | USA | span : cfa::mcdowell | | | telex : 92148 SATELLITE CAM | | | FAX : (617)495-7356 | '----------------------------------------------------------------' ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 89 18:15:18 GMT From: tank!eecae!shadooby!sharkey!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@handies.ucar.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: QUESTION? ASTRONAUTS AND F-19 STEALTH. In article 344IZDA@CMUVM.BITNET (Jean Hill) writes: > I am a new participant in this discussion group. I would like to > know more about the program for the astronauts in the United States and > the qualifications needed to be accepted into this program... I don't know what the formal qualifications are, but here are some practical comments I contributed to Eugene's seemingly-defunct frequently-asked-space- questions postings a while ago: ------------ Q. How do I become an astronaut? A. We will assume you mean a NASA astronaut, since it's probably impossible for a Westerner to get into the Soviet program, and the other nations have so few astronauts (and fly even fewer) that you're better off hoping to win a lottery. Becoming a shuttle pilot requires lots of fast-jet experience, which means a military flying career; forget that unless you want to do it anyway. So you want to become a shuttle "mission specialist". If you aren't a US citizen, become one; that is a must. After that, the crucial thing to remember is that the demand for such jobs vastly exceeds the supply. NASA's problem is not finding qualified people, but thinning the lineup down to manageable length. It is not enough to be qualified; you must avoid being *dis*qualified for any reason, many of them in principle quite irrelevant to the job. Get a Ph.D. Specialize in something that involves getting your hands dirty with equipment, not just paper and pencil. Forget computer programming entirely; it will be done from the ground for the fore- seeable future. Be in good physical condition, with good eyesight. (DO NOT get a radial keratomy in an attempt to improve your vision; its long-term effects are poorly understood. For that matter, avoid any other significant medical unknowns.) Practise public speaking, and be conservative and conformist in appearance and actions; you've got a tough selling job ahead, trying to convince a cautious, conservative selection committee that you are better than hundreds of other applicants. (And, also, that you will be a credit to NASA after you are hired: public relations is a significant part of the job, and NASA's image is very prim and proper.) The image you want is squeaky-clean workaholic yuppie. Remember also that you will need a security clearance at some point, and the security people consider everybody guilty until proven innocent. Keep your nose clean. Get a pilot's license and make flying your number one hobby; experienced pilots are known to be favored even for non-pilot jobs. Work for NASA; of 45 astronauts selected between 1984 and 1988, 43 were military or NASA employees, and the remaining two were a NASA consultant and Mae Jemison (the first black female astronaut). Think space: they want highly motivated people, so lose no chance to demonstrate motivation. Keep trying. Be lucky. ------------ -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 89 23:33:17 GMT From: rochester!yamauchi@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Brian Yamauchi) Subject: Astronaut Qualification Requirements (was Re: QUESTION? ASTRONAUTS...) In article <1989Apr11.181518.3936@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article 344IZDA@CMUVM.BITNET (Jean Hill) writes: >> I am a new participant in this discussion group. I would like to >> know more about the program for the astronauts in the United States and >> the qualifications needed to be accepted into this program... > >I don't know what the formal qualifications are... The information below is from the NASA Announcement for Mission Specialist and Pilot Astronaut Candidates. This is available from: NASA, Johnson Space Center Astronaut Selection Office ATTN: AHX Houston, TX 77058 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mission Specialist Astronaut Candidate: 1) Bachelor's degree from an accedited institution in engineering, biological science, physical science, or mathematics. Degree must be followed by at least three years of related, progressively responsible, professional experience. An advanced degree is desirable and may be substituted for part or all of the experience requirement (master's degree = 1 year, doctoral degree = 3 years). Quality of academic preparation is important. 2) Ability to pass a NASA Class II space physical, which is similar to a military or civilian Class II flight physical and includes the following specific standards: Distant visual acuity: 20/100 or better uncorrected, correctable to 20/20, each eye. Blood pressure: 140/90 measured in a sitting position. 3) Height between 60 and 76 inches. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Pilot Astronaut Candidate: 1) Bachelor's degree from an accedited institution in engineering, biological science, physical science, or mathematics. An advanced degree is desirable. Quality of academic preparation is important. 2) At least 1,000 hours pilot-in-command time in jet aircraft. Flight test experience is highly desireable. 3) Ability to pass a NASA Class I space physical, which is similar to a military or civilian Class I flight physical and includes the following specific standards: Distant visual acuity: 20/50 or better uncorrected, correctable to 20/20, each eye. Blood pressure: 140/90 measured in a sitting position. 4) Height between 64 and 76 inches. _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 89 03:21:29 GMT From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!acu@purdue.edu (Floyd McWilliams) Subject: Space terminology An interesting question came up in conversation a few minutes ago: If an object is in orbit around a larger body, that object is called a "satellite." So what is the larger body called? -- "Life's for my own, to live my own way." Floyd McWilliams mentor.cc.purdue.edu!acu ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 89 14:03:31 GMT From: calvin!johns@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (John Sahr) Subject: Re: Power vs Energy In article <3603@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) writes: >Concur that power is an issue in general in space flight, but it should >not be near the issue that ENERGY is. Regardless of whether it should be the case, Mr. Merrits comments about Henry Spencer's power requirements were irrelevant, as the issue was "How much power does it take to push a 20 ton space ship at 1g with reaction engines" >The space shuttle can do 5 g. That is power. Note that we have been able to >do moderate accelerations for a long time. However, we have no way to let it >out of LEO not due to power constraints, but due to energy constraints. [] >The "we need power to push the ship" comes from all the mass on-board to >supply energy (power for an extended period). The limiting factor is >energy available, not power. The momentum change required for motion >is gives energy requirements, not power. [] This is not true. If you double the rate at which you expel mass, you halve the exhaust velocity required for the same thrust (force), and halve the power required to produce that thrust. However, mass is precious on a long flight, so high power processing may be more important than high energy storage important (i.e., you're willing and able to store a lot of energy). Ultimately, both power and energy are constrained in real designs; costs are associated with increasing either. The trick is to trade them off sensibly. -- John Sahr, School of Elect. Eng., Upson Hall Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 ARPA: johns@calvin.ee.cornell.edu; UUCP: {rochester,cmcl2}!cornell!calvin!johns ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #363 *******************