Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from corsica.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 ; Mon, 26 Jun 89 03:16:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 26 Jun 89 03:16:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #512 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 512 Today's Topics: SCI.GEO voting results -- FAILED Saturn V/Adv. Propulsion Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth Re: Don't mess with NASA? Re: Contractors selected for Advanced Launch System studies (Forwarded) Re: Super strings Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth US vs. USSR space program budget. Re: Magellan Status for week of 06/20/89 (Forwarded) Rocket Fuel Queries ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Jun 89 20:12:40 GMT From: leah!ss6349@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Steven H Schimmrich) Subject: SCI.GEO voting results -- FAILED The attempt to create a SCI.GEO newsgroup has failed due to a lack of interest. The final vote tally was 61 for and 9 against. A list of the voters is included below. YES votes --------- 1 - erlebach@turing.toronto.edu - Beverly Erlebacher 2 - msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu - Mark Robert Smith 3 - uvm-gen!tnl!gwollman@uunet.uu.net - Garret Wollman 4 - palle@mop.luth.se - Bertil Paulsson 5 - mccombt@turing.cs.rpi.edu - Todd McComb 6 - bill@emx.utexas.edu - Bill Jefferys 7 - nelson@vax1.acs.udel.edu - Todd Nelson 8 - marque!lakesys!davek@uunet.UU.NET - Dave Kraft 9 - platt@rodan.caltech.edu - John Platt 10 - metzge@uncecs.edu - Ellen Metzger 11 - rang@cpsin3.cps.msu.edu - Anton Rang 12 - dschmidt@athena.mit.edu 13 - dalex@eleazar.dartmouth.edu - Dave Alexander 14 - mercerd@sliver.bacs.indiana.edu - Doug Mercer 15 - rsmith@udel.edu - R. Timothy Smith 16 - siili@opmvax.csc.fi - Tero Siili 17 - Peter_Knoop@ub.cc.umich.edu - Peter Knoop 18 - alan%essex.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK - Alan M Stanier 19 - uwmcsd1!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uunet!RELAY.CS.NET.todd!reed! - Todd Ellner 20 - uwmcsd1!uunet.UU.NET!ficc!peter - Peter da Silva 21 - joe@hanauma.stanford.edu - Joe Dellinger 22 - @MCC.COM:arisco%cadillac.cad.mcc.com@mcc.com - John Arisco 23 - khl@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu - Kenneth H. Lee 24 - yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu - Yaron Sheffer 25 - clt@newton.physics.purdue.edu - Carrick Talmadge 26 - naucse!rrw@arizona.edu - Robert Wier 27 - dhl247@leah.albany.edu - Debra Lenard 28 - etnpp@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca - Richard Lammers 29 - davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu - David Meile 30 - ejh@SEI.CUM.EDU - Erik 31 - bnewsl!sw@att.att.com - Stuart Warmink 32 - @CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:MAINT@FHSS.BYU.EDU - Kim Sullivan 33 - welty@Lewis.crd.ge.com - Richard Welty 34 - lemay@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu - Lawrence T. LeMay 35 - apollo!catapano@EDDIE.MIT.EDU - Patrick Catapano 36 - phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu - Phil Howard 37 - @CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:LOIZEAU@CGEUGE52.BITNET - Jean-Luc Loizeau 38 - dietz@cs.rochester.edu - Paul F. Dietz 39 - van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a864@uunet.UU.NET - Jono Moore 40 - paulc%skat.usc.edu@usc.edu - Paul Cartwright 41 - visdc!jiii@uunet.UU.NET - John E. Van Deusen III 42 - EWTILENI@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU - Eric W. Tilenius 43 - ficc!jeffd@uunet.UU.NET - Jeff Daiell 44 - elf115!rec@uunet.UU.NET - Roger Critchlow 45 - streeter@lansoar.crd.ge.com - Kenneth B. Streeter 46 - inmet!thy@uunet.uu.net - Tom Yelton 47 - uwmcsd1!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!jwl - James Wilbur Lewis 48 - greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU - Gregory A. Nowak 49 - cbnews!wbt@att.att.com - William B. Thacker 50 - skyler@uncecs.edu - Patricia Roberts 51 - bathurst@phoenix.Princeton.EDU - Bruce Bathhurst 52 - nate%hobbes.intel.com@RELAY.CS.NET - Woodstock 53 - dciem!nrcaer!cognos!alzabo!kebera@uunet.UU.NET - Krishna E. Bera 54 - somewhere!gak@wansor.shell.com - Gary A. Kern 55 - kasameye@lll-lcc.llnl.gov - Paul W. Kasameyer 56 - pvo3366@oce.orst.edu - Paul O,Neill 57 - @CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:SELLAMI@CGEUGE52.BITNET 58 - wcpl_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu - Wing Chiu Peter Leung 59 - @RELAY.CS.NET:tv@mscunx.sp.unisys.com - Tim Veerkamp 60 - mnd@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu - Mohib N. Durrani 61 - @po2.andrew.cmu.edu:jk3k+@andrew.cmu.edu - Joe Keane NO votes -------- 1 - dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU - David Mark 2 - lear@NET.BIO.NET - Eliot Lear 3 - UNASMITH@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU - Una Smith 4 - cew%venera.isi.edu@usc.edu - Graig E. Ward 5 - biep@cs.vu.nl - J. A. Biep Durieux 6 - NMBCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU - Nelson Broat 7 - jjc@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu - Jeffrey J. B. Carpenter 8 - msw@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu - Matt S. Wartell 9 - oucsace!paul@att.att.com - Paul J. Mech -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- | Steven H. Schimmrich | Internet : ss6349@leah.albany.edu | | Department of Geological Sciences | "The Rock Men are very primitive | | State University of New York at Albany | Flash, they have no science." | | Albany, New York 12222 (518) 442-4470 | Dr. Zarkhov. | -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 89 21:44:49 GMT From: oliveb!mipos3!omepd!mipon2!larry@apple.com (Larry Smith) Subject: Saturn V/Adv. Propulsion Several postings recently have been on the Saturn V. There will be a paper entitled "History in the Making - The Mighty F-1 Rocket Engine" presented at the AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE 25th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit on Monday morning July 10, 1989 at the Monterey Convention Center, Monterey, CA. The author of the paper is D. Warren, from Rockwell International (the parent company of Rocketdyne, the developer of the F-1). There will be other papers that morning on the LEM descent engine, the Apollo Reaction Control System, the Titan liquid engines, the Agena engine, and perspectives on propulsion for the Viking Mars-Lander. There may also be a paper on Liquid Propulsion in the USSR. All of the above papers are called Session 21 and entitled LP2: Liquid Propulsion History. Each paper should take approx. 1/2 hour including questions (not much time I agree). The above talks are currently scheduled for the Steinbeck Forum room at the Convention Center. The F-1 paper is currently scheduled to be presented at 11:30 AM. The first paper is at 9:30 AM. This session runs till 1:30 PM. Registration will be at the Convention Center on Sunday, 4-7pm and Mon-Thurs from 7:30am till close. On-Site fees are: AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE Member $225 AIAA Student Member $0 Student Nonmember $12 Copies of papers are available after the conference from AIAA Library at 212-247-6500. Costs: $3.50 members, $4.50 nonmembers per paper. I would expect the entire conference proceedings on microfiche to be the cheapest way to go (when this is available). The F-1 paper is AIAA number 89-2387. The complete list of sessions/papers can be obtained from the May 89 issue of Aerospace America magazine. By the way, this conference is one of the major conferences on state of the art aerospace propulsion concepts in the world. The F-1 was a great engine, and the future concepts that were being proposed based on F-1/Saturn technology in the mid 60's (ie: NOVA, Saturn V Cluster, Multiple F-1 cumbustors per engine, etc ...) were really exciting, even though they got killed. However, today, there is even more going on to be excited about in terms of high performance aerospace propulsion versus the F-1 days. And today, its not all located in the U.S. either. So in my opinion, lets not resurrect the F-1, lets fund and develop whats being researched today. See my recent posting to sci.space on LACE rocket engines for just one example. Larry Smith ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 89 18:34:50 GMT From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul Dietz) Subject: Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth In article <626@stsci.edu> sims@stsci.EDU (Jim Sims) writes: >However, if you deploy it at maximum altitude (with such a light payload), >you can't get back to it again with ANY payload, since rendevous is a LOT >more expensive than just tossing something over the side wherever you happen >to be at the time. This means that if something goes wrong (don't _even_ think >about it), you have to wait for the orbit to decay to a sufficiently low >altitude to go fix it. (If we can't even get into orbit, the chances of NASA >flying a mission with NO payload just to fix up the HST are minimal to nil) Does this mean that after something goes wrong, the orbit decays, and we launch a shuttle to fix it, we can't reboost it to the original high orbit? Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 89 18:58:27 GMT From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA? Don't get any ideas: I'm only rebuilding a .newsrc file so I am temporarily reading certain old groups along the way. In article <109957@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >On my way into work this morning, as I passed Moffett Field, >I noticed a NASA helicopter hovering about the active runway. > >What use could they have for a Bell HueyCobra (AH-1)? > >(I know, it's probably a testbed for some new rotor design, >but, on the other hand, perhaps someone is getting tired of >vocal critics... :} ) General rotorcraft design. The converted Cobra gunship is a high performance design. We have to put up with with the racket outside our office window. Very distracting. I have promised the Ride of the Valkries for my officemate. On a more serious note: I was driving 880 in Fremont when I noticed our Chinook had gone down in a field (there were mechanics working on it). Where ever you can set down....... You just have to look carefully. 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: "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene Live free or die. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 89 19:49:00 GMT From: deimos.cis.ksu.edu!ceres!tjl@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Contractors selected for Advanced Launch System studies (Forwarded) In article <27098@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: > Jim Cast > Headquarters, Washington, D.C. > > Jerry Berg > Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. > > > RELEASE: 89-99 > > CONTRACTORS SELECTED FOR ADVANCED LAUNCH SYSTEM STUDIES > > > The Advanced Launch System is intended to provide, by the > 1998-2000 time period, a dependable, reliable, high-capacity > national launch capability while reducing by a factor of 10 the > cost of placing payloads in Earth orbit. Oh no, didn't we hear this about the Space Shuttle about a decade or so ago? -- Joe "Those who would sacrifice ** I disclaim none of my opinions. liberty for security, ** deserve neither." ** CERES::TJL B. Franklin ** tjl@ceres.physics.uiowa.edu ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 89 17:53:34 GMT From: hubcap!ncrcae!ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@gatech.edu (Wayne D. T. Johnson) Subject: Re: Super strings In article BOCHANNK@DB0TUI11.BITNET writes: >Does anyone have some informations (books, articles, scripts) about the >super string theory? There was a front cover article in Discover a couple months (maybe a year) back. Sorry but I don't have the exact reference here. -- Wayne Johnson (Voice) 612-638-7665 NCR Comten, Inc. (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or Roseville MN 55113 johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 89 02:12:25 GMT From: stsci!sims@noao.edu (Jim Sims) Subject: Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth The issue/problem of what altitude to deploy HST is currently under study. The problem is not quite as simple as it sounds (ie. put it as high as you can just _won't_ cut it) THere are several competing factors: To get maximal performance, only HST and IMAX are onboard. Deployment is currently set for 310-330 nm. This allows _minimal_ contingency fuel for 2 re-visits during deployment for problem resolution (and return of the shuttle 1/2 ;-) ) (conservative estimate of RCS fuel remaining = 0 !!! lbs (of 25000)) Since HST is relatively light (25,000 lbs) but HUGE, the shuttle can put it _way_ up there ("we could put it a _lot_ higher, but we couldn't get back" - pilot at deployment crew visit at the 'tute last month - "and we _really_ don't want the record _that_ bad...") However, if you deploy it at maximum altitude (with such a light payload), you can't get back to it again with ANY payload, since rendevous is a LOT more expensive than just tossing something over the side wherever you happen to be at the time. This means that if something goes wrong (don't _even_ think about it), you have to wait for the orbit to decay to a sufficiently low altitude to go fix it. (If we can't even get into orbit, the chances of NASA flying a mission with NO payload just to fix up the HST are minimal to nil) clearer? jim -- Jim Sims Space Telescope Science Institute Baltimore, MD UUCP: {arizona,decvax,hao,ihnp4}!noao!stsci!sims ARPA: sims@stsci.edu SPAM: STOSC::SIMS ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 89 21:48:54 GMT From: rti!xyzzy!dg-rtp.dg.com!briggs@mcnc.org (Allen Briggs VPI intern) Subject: US vs. USSR space program budget. The difference between the budget of the space programs in the US and in the USSR cannot be measured only in dollars. The Russian space program is designed around improving existing technology. Instead, the US tends to start from scratch on each project. Does anyone have any figures on what percentages of the two budgets go _directly_ to R&D? Allen Briggs briggs@dg-rtp.dg.com ... !mcnc!rti!dg-rtp!briggs ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 89 20:54:25 GMT From: sgi!daisy!wooding@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Mike Wooding) Subject: Re: Magellan Status for week of 06/20/89 (Forwarded) From article <27301@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, by yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee): > SPACECRAFT > Distance From Earth (mi) 6,324,124 > > Velocity Geocentric 5,064 mph > Heliocentric 62,493 mph > > One Way Light Time 33.3 sec Would anyone care to explain Geocentric vs Heliocentric velocity of the Magellan? I've noticed that the GV is slowly diminishing while the HV is increasing. Just curious - m woding ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 89 02:57:21 GMT From: ganoe@arizona.edu (Bill Ganoe) Subject: Rocket Fuel Queries I've been mulling over (yet again) the cost of getting off the planet. I've seen several references to the cost of equivalent electrical energy to get to orbit in a hypothetical situation, but I've never seen any figures for what real LOX, LH2, N2O2, etc. would cost a real launch operator in today's real world. Can anyone out there provide some price quotes? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #512 *******************