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 ; Sat, 29 Jul 89 00:23:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 29 Jul 89 00:22:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #564 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 564 Today's Topics: Re: Apollo Ascent Modules Re: Apollo Ascent Modules breaking up NASA Lagrangian Points Sci.Astro A&E Rebroadcast of NBC Apollo coverage Re: Frequently asked SPACE questions NASA funding is not transitive Re: NASA funding is not transitive Apollo-era technology spinoffs continue to enhance human life (Forwarded) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Jul 89 19:14:54 GMT From: att!chinet!john@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (John Mundt) Subject: Re: Apollo Ascent Modules In article <8907160317.AA01918@crash.cts.com> pnet01!pro-sol!pro-newfrontier!pro-nfmail01!pro-harvest!edward@trout.nosc.mil writes: >The ascent modules, of the Apollo lunar landing missions, were abandoned to >orbit the moon once the astronauts had transferred back to the command module. >Are any of the ascent modules still in orbit about Luna? Or have they all >fallen to ground since then? Later flights had the ascent modules purposely were impacted into the surface of the moon to test seismic recording devices with a known force. When the first one was done that way, geologists reported that the moon rang like a bell, demonstrating that the moon had a solid core, rather than a liquid one. I believe that the orbits of later flights were also less stable than that of Apollo 11. The later flights used the command module to change to a 10 x 60 mile high orbit before the lander separated, while on 11 I think that the command module stayed in a circular orbit. (Corrections, not flames if I'm wrong, please.) -- --------------------- John Mundt Teachers' Aide, Inc. P.O. Box 1666 Highland Park, IL john@chinet.chi.il.us (312) 998-5007 (Day voice) || -432-8860 (Answer Mach) && -432-5386 Modem ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 89 20:26:51 GMT From: frooz!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: Apollo Ascent Modules From article <184@enuxha.eas.asu.edu>, by kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl): > The ascent stage of Eagle was left in orbit; I believe that most (if not all) > excepting Apollo 13's LEM ascent stage were deliberately crashed into the > surface to get seismic data from the experiment packages left on the moon. The ascent stage of Orion (Apollo 16 LM) was left in lunar orbit rather than impacted. It too has probably decayed by now. Pedant's note: NASA abandoned the abbreviation LEM in the mid sixties, before Apollo flew. The official abbreviation since then has been LM for Lunar Module. (The E was for Excursion). I believe the Apollo 10 LM AS (Snoopy) was sent into solar orbit after it was jettisoned; the descent stage was left in lunar orbit. Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 89 02:29:46 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: breaking up NASA In article <14471@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >>One thing I miss from this list is space technology research -- the space >>equivalent of the aeronautical research. That's the single most important >>contribution NASA could make to spaceflight. NACA enormously speeded up >>progress in aviation; we're overdue for the same thing in spaceflight. > >I can, like, totally dig this scene, man. :-) > >It does sound like a natural for NASA/NARA/whatever, but it should be >picked at a bit more closely, like artichoke stew. In the first place, >a well defined MISSION should always come first, and NASA/etc should be >carefully evaluated in each case as to whether it's the right agency for >the job. > >Take high angle of attack (HAA) aircraft research for example - Henry >and I both see AvWeek pix of this about every other week. Why are they >doing it? Because EXISTING flight modes and missions need better HAA >performance. What do they need to do it? One or two old planes and >some wind tunnel time. How's it going? Great. How potentially >beneficial for the dollars spent? Very. > >Now take the laughable supposed "mission" of lowering launch costs. Has >NASA got any damn business being involved? Snort! Let Boeing or >someone with a *stake* in lower launch costs do it. Uh, ever heard of winglets? Supercritical wings? Energy-efficient jet engines? Compression lift? Practical transonic wind tunnels? These things were *not* invented by Boeing or those other people "with a stake in lower flying costs". They were invented by NACA/NASA, in pursuit of its general mission of improving aeronautical technology. A lot of the launch-costs problem is bureaucratic and political and financial, but better technology *always* helps. And NASA has been doing pretty much diddly-squat about it for the last couple of decades, despite it clearly being part of their mission. NACA's contribution to aeronautics, and in particular to lowering the cost of flying, is almost beyond measuring. It is difficult to find any major development in wing cross-section design, for example, that *didn't* come from NACA or the aeronautics side of NASA. These things, by and large, were *not* done in pursuit of specific missions. And in particular, they were *not* done because NACA wanted them for its own use. The technology side of NASA needs to be *less* focused on specific missions and vehicles (like one we could name), not more. >There's no doubt that if you DEFINE an international Mars mission, for >instance, NASA needs to be tasked with inventing the craft needed... NO!!! Absolutely 100% wrong!! NASA needs to be tasked with making sure the necessary technology is there. Not the same thing at all. NASA is no longer capable of designing and building vehicles economically; this isn't all NASA's fault but is nevertheless true. NASA should be helping other people build vehicles, the same way NACA helped other people build aircraft. That approach just seems to work a whole lot better. (Actually, part of the problem is that NASA itself is no longer capable of building vehicles *at all*. Few people now seem to appreciate the extent to which NASA's biggest success story -- the Saturns -- relied on NASA's own manufacturing facilities. The contractor for the Saturn I wasn't even *chosen* until after the first flight -- that bird was built at Marshall Spaceflight Center, by NASA engineers under Wernher von Braun, not by a contractor on a cost-plus contract. The Saturn V was a more cooperative venture, but the first few were still built at Marshall, by a mixed NASA/industry crew under von Braun. Industry deeply resented this way of doing things, and it was the first capability NASA lost in the post-Apollo cutbacks. With results that we all know. However, I am not suggesting bringing this approach back, unless we can find someone like von Braun to run it. That one man made quite a difference.) -- $10 million equals 18 PM | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology (Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 89 00:28:37 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!sudhama@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Chandrasekhara Sudhama) Subject: Lagrangian Points Hello, this is my first posting. Would someone please explain (either on this network or in private email) the stability of the equilibrium points in the Earth - Moon system? That is, why are points #1 and #2 in stable equilibrium? If I remember right, they are 60 degrees ahead of and behind the moon in her path. Any info on the other points is also welcome. #4 MOON #1 #2 #3 EARTH #5 Thanks, sudhama sudhama@walt.cc.utexas.edu "Cold hearted orb that rules the night Removes the colours from our sight" - The Moody Blues ------------------------------ X-Delivery-Notice: SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender. Date: Tue, 11 Jul 89 16:51 GMT From: DI301@ccuab1.uab.es Subject: Sci.Astro Please, where is Sci.Astro ? Which is its email adress ? Thanks ! ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 89 20:42:00 GMT From: frog!john@eddie.mit.edu (John Woods) Subject: A&E Rebroadcast of NBC Apollo coverage Someone asked about "some cable network rebroadcasting NBC's Apollo coverage". Here's the scoop. All times are given in EDT. Arts and Entertainment (A&E) cable network will be rebroadcasting the NBC live news coverage 20 years after the original at the following times: Liftoff Sunday 16 July 9:20AM - 11:00 AM Moonwalk Thursday 20 July 10:30PM - 2:00 AM (and again on Sunday 23 July 2:30PM - 6PM) Splashdown Monday 24 July 1:30PM - 3:00PM -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu People...How you gonna FIGURE 'em? Don't bother, S.L.--Just stand back and enjoy the EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS... ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 89 22:11:13 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Frequently asked SPACE questions >1) What happen to Saturn V plans? > >Underconstruction by Henry. Wow, so THAT'S where they went! How does this man find the time, with C news and everything. :-) PS I hope Toronto has adequate barge facilities... -- "My God, Thiokol, when do you \\ Tom Neff want me to launch -- next April?" \\ uunet!bfmny0!tneff ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 89 06:51:51 GMT From: leech@apple.com (Jonathan Patrick Leech) Subject: NASA funding is not transitive In article <26240@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes: >... The cuts Eric describes would result in a >$1.2 billion surplus for other programs if the space station is cancelled. The other programs may not have anything to do with space, however. -- Jon Leech (leech@apple.com) Apple Integrated Systems __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 89 03:02:01 GMT From: grits!ddavey@bellcore.com (Doug Davey) Subject: Re: NASA funding is not transitive In article <14462@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: > The time has come to abolish NASA. (It probably came in 1980, but > better late than never). In the true 80's corporate raider spirit of > Gordon Gekko, we should spin it off into its components. > > * Aeronautical research - a strong, important and well managed > program dating back to the 40's. Retain present structure > intact and rename National Aeronautics Research Authority > (NARA). Keep those high angle of attack planes flying! Back to the 40's!? Try 1917. The NARA that you propose existed from 1917 to 1958. It was called the National Advisory Council on Aeronautics i.e. NACA (pronounced en ay cee ay, never as a word). I agree with your point, but your history is a little off. It was World War 1 (not 2) that got the government heavily into aeronautical research. Langley Research Center in Hampton, VA (the original NACA center, now a NASA center) celebrated its 70th anniversary in 1987. NASA was created from NACA. > Phone Tree Alert! (the sci.space equivalent of Attention K-Mart Shoppers! > ) Let's get the above passed right away. Comments? > -- > "My God, Thiokol, when do you \\ Tom Neff > want me to launch -- next April?" \\ uunet!bfmny0!tneff | ___ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ Doug Davey | /__/ /__ / / / / / /__) /__ bellcore!rruxi!ddavey | /__/ /__ /__ /__ /__ /__/ / \ /__ (ex-NASA Langley employee) | ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 89 06:47:57 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Apollo-era technology spinoffs continue to enhance human life (Forwarded) Jim Ball Headquarters, Washington, D.C. July 13, 1989 RELEASE: 89-117 APOLLO-ERA TECHNOLOGY SPINOFFS CONTINUE TO ENHANCE HUMAN LIFE Twenty years after the triumph of America's first lunar landing, the technologies developed to enable manned spaceflights and exploration of the moon continue to enhance human life here on Earth through technology spinoffs to the fields of health, safety, comfort and enjoyment of life. The achievement of the national commitment to land U.S. astronauts on the moon and return them safely to Earth spurred major advances in emerging technologies, such as computers, which became smaller, lighter, and more efficient to meet the requirements for manned spacecraft. Some specific examples of everyday products that employ technology from the Apollo program: * The lunar roving vehicle, developed for use by the Apollo astronauts to venture several miles away from their landing base, was the source of a unistix controller now used by severely handicapped people to accelerate, brake and steer a typical passenger vehicle on the highway. The vehicle's rubber tires, which had to have low temperature pliability, were developed for NASA by Goodyear, which used the technology to produce an all- weather winter radial tire for use on automobiles. * Scratch resistant sunglass lenses were derived from a highly abrasion-resistant coating developed to protect, from harsh environments, the plastic surfaces of aerospace equipment like the helmet visors worn by moon-walking astronauts. * A collection of cordless tools -- such as drills and dust vacuums -- were derived from tools developed for the astronauts to use on the moon while collecting surface and subsurface lunar soil samples. * Patient monitoring equipment, commonly used today at nurses stations to monitor the heart rate and other physiological signs of hospital patients, employs the same technology that was developed to monitor astronaut vital signs during spaceflight. * A special fabric developed for Apollo spacesuits, with the qualities of being thin, light, flexible, yet durable and non- combustible, provided the technology basis for heavier material used for constructing fabric roofs on structures like Michigan's silverdome. * For moonwalking safety and comfort, the Apollo astronauts wore lunar boots which featured a three-dimensional "spacer " material for cushioning and ventilation. The material has been modified for use today in a popular line of athletic shoes designed for improved shock absorption and reduced foot fatigue. * Hundreds of lives have been saved through a widely used commercial raft that will not capsize in heavy seas. The raft employs a NASA-patented water ballast stabilization system used in rafts developed for the returning Apollo astronauts after their splashdown. * An electrical power controller, developed for use on the Saturn rocket to conserve energy, has been widely used to reduce energy consumption in electrical motors. * A 3M-designed, meal-heating unit developed for Apollo spacecraft crews served as the basis for an electronic food warming system used in hospitals. * The inorganic coatings developed to provide corrosion protection to the seaside launch gantries used for Apollo-Saturn missions have seen widespread industrial use on coastal and ocean structures such as bridges, pipelines, ships and oil rigs. * Insulation technology developed for the Saturn V booster fuel tanks by Rockwell International provided an improved insulation for the wells holding fresh-caught fish on tuna boats. These are but a few of the spinoffs, estimated to number in the thousands, which can be traced directly to the technology that launched and landed Americans on the moon in July 1969. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #564 *******************