Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Fri, 10 Nov 89 03:25:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0ZKcLlu00VcJ4ToU4A@andrew.cmu.edu> Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 10 Nov 89 03:25:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #230 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 230 Today's Topics: Provisional Launch Scheme ESA / ARIANSPACE Re: Design for Luna City Re: Manned Jupiter Mission Re: Design for L.C. and Space Hotel Why Sun synchronous (was: Re: COBE Press Kit (long)) Re: Atomic weapon/power demographics RE: Space Digest Re: Atomic weapon/power demographics KSC Space Shuttle Report (Forwarded) Re: More Info on NASP Re: More Info on NASP ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ReSent-Message-ID: Resent-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 89 09:19:12 EST Resent-From: Harold Pritchett Resent-To: Space discussion group Date: Thu, 9 Nov 89 10:10 N From: "Rob A. Vingerhoeds / Ghent State University" Subject: Provisional Launch Scheme ESA / ARIANSPACE From Flight International (November 4th, 1989): ARIANESPACE provisional manifest: V35 December 1989 Spot 2 (plus six sub-satellites) Ariane 40 V36 January 1990 Superbird B/BS2X Ariane 44L V37 March TDF 2/Kopernikus 2 Ariane 44L V38 April Eutelsat II/MOP 2 Ariane 44L V39 May Skynet 4C/G Star IV Ariane 44P V40 June SBS-6/Galaxy 6 Ariane 44L V41 September Eutelsat II/Italsat(*) Ariane 44L V42 October ERS 1(*) Ariane 40 V43 November Satcom K3/Inmarsat II F3(*) Ariane 44L V44 December Anik E1 Ariane 44P *************************************************************************** * Rob A. Vingerhoeds Ghent State University * * member scientific staff Automatic Control Laboratory * * Computer Science * * * * Grotesteenweg Noord 2 tel: +32-91-22.57.55 ext 320 * * 9710 GENT - Zwijnaarde fax: +32-91-22.85.91 * * Belgium email: ROB@AUTOCTRL.RUG.AC.BE * *************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 89 18:01:57 GMT From: sgi!archer%elysium.corp.sgi.com@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Archer Sully) Subject: Re: Design for Luna City In article <3926@ur-cc.UUCP>, llkl@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Laurie Kleiner) writes: > > I could almost swear that somebody has written about this. Heinlein in _The > Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ maybe? (I automatically think of Heinlein as > the first to write about anything ... so this probably isn't right.) > Close. In 'Its Great to be Back' he postulated that the environment 'in the Moon' would be pretty well scrubbed and free of atmospheric bugs. When Loonies came back to Earth they all got horrible colds. That's as close as he came on that mark, as far as I know. -- Archer Sully (archer@sgi.com) "Blood, your precious Blood!" -- Nosferatu ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 89 03:35:24 GMT From: att!dptg!pegasus!psrc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Subject: Re: Manned Jupiter Mission What has gone before: The Jovian Van Allen radiation belts would be a serious threat to a manned* mission to Jupiter. Magnetic shields would be useful for getting rid of the high-energy betas and alphas, but you'd still need lots of mass between you and the outside (both to shield against the low-energy stuff, and so you don't die immediately if your "force field" goes down). Everybody's bummed -- carrying the shield with you will greatly lengthen the journey, requiring lots more supplies, or a recycling system with more 9's in the efficiency (or most likely, both). (*An equivalent non-sexist term would be "staffed". Hmmm. "Staffed space flight." "The staffed space program." I don't think I'm quite ready for this one, and I talk about waitpersons and female actors. Needless to say, this is only my opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the equal opportunity policies of my employer.) If you've got a lot of time for planning, this isn't necessary. The crew of Discovery II will need a shield in the Jovian system, but not for the whole trip. So build a big shield (ideally, out of lunar or other non-terrestrial material, to reduce launch costs), and send it on a cheap route to high Jovian orbit. Then wait (or more likely, turn your attention to the manned spacecraft). Add crew and volatiles, and launch your vehicle to rendezvous with the shield, far away from the radiation belts. Dock, attach firmly but gently, and head into danger and excitement. The only problem I see off-hand is that you can't aerobrake the manned spacecraft. Is that serious? Any other objections? Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 89 20:51:09 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Design for L.C. and Space Hotel In article <6873@pt.cs.cmu.edu> twilson@PROOF.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU (Todd Wilson) writes: >... lives might be prolonged considerably >should they make such a move. Younger people would probably also get >a similar effect... This is not clear at all. The long-term biological effects of low gravity are simply unknown. I seem to recall that animals living in centrifuges at (somewhat) high gravity actually have *longer* lifespans than their counterparts at one gee. -- A bit of tolerance is worth a | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology megabyte of flaming. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 89 19:23:19 GMT From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Stuart Warmink) Subject: Why Sun synchronous (was: Re: COBE Press Kit (long)) Tom Neff writes: > Neither this press kit nor the AvWeek article satisfactorily explains > a basic question: Why does COBE need that sun synchronous orbit? > Why isn't an ordinary equatorial orbit good enough? In COBE's sun synchronous orbit, it always faces away from the Earth and at roughly 90 degrees from the sun. As COBE orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the sun, the sensors will automatically scan all of the sky - at least twice per year - without any special pointing of the satellite or sensors (other than the "fixed" orientation, that is). In an equatorial orbit however, the sensors would have to be deliberately pointed to scan the whole sky - and great care would have to be taken to avoid the Earth and the sun in the process! Also, a low orbit would result in the satellite experiencing relatively long sun occultation periods, which would increase the satellite's mass because of the addition of additional solar cells and batteries - but this might be worth it as an equatorial orbit allows for a heavier payload...but more complexity... NASA doesn't want COBE to bang into any coms satellites, either :-) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM | Pretentious? Moi? -------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 89 14:53:18 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Atomic weapon/power demographics In article <891108184628.00001B8F0C1@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: >It occurred to me (in a blazing flash of light...) just now that the >number of lives saved by the invention of atomic power must be much >greater than the number of lives taken by atomic weapons ... (A) Not every life saved using atomic technology is unsavable otherwise (B) The ready expansion potential is entirely in the other direction (C) We could easily have invented one without the other (D) This is not a sci.space topic -- "We plan absentee ownership. I'll stick to `o' Tom Neff building ships." -- George Steinbrenner, 1973 o"o tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 89 15:20:00 GMT From: vax5!pc3y@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu Subject: RE: Space Digest To whom it may concern: Please add me to the Space Digest mailing list. Thank you. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 89 20:47:16 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Atomic weapon/power demographics In article <891108184628.00001B8F0C1@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: >It occurred to me (in a blazing flash of light...) just now that the >number of lives saved by the invention of atomic power must be much >greater than the number of lives taken by atomic weapons... This would make >a heck of a bargaining point the next time one of us has to debate one >of them to garner support for something like Galileo... You're assuming these people are rational. This appears to be an unsound assumption. In any case, their most probable reply would be "so what?", since the issue at hand is not whether we should ban anything containing the word "nuclear". -- A bit of tolerance is worth a | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology megabyte of flaming. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 89 19:53:11 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: KSC Space Shuttle Report (Forwarded) KSC SPACE SHUTTLE PROCESSING REPORT - THURSDAY, NOV. 9, 1989 STS-33 - DISCOVERY (OV 103) - PAD 39-B As planned, a flight readiness test of the three main engines was completed early this morning. Closeouts of the aft compartment for flight have started along with checks of the regulators for the forward reaction control system. Installation of the extravehicular mobility units, or spacesuits, is scheduled for Friday. Activities scheduled this weekend include a hot fire of the solid rocket booster hydraulic power units, final ordnance operations, pressurizing the orbital maneuvering system and reaction control system tanks for flight and loading storage tanks on the launch tower with liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen propellants. Launch of mission STS-33 is scheduled for Monday, Nov. 20 during a four-hour launch period that begins at 6:30 p.m. EST. STS-36 - ATLANTIS (0V 104) - OPF BAY 1 Sniff checks of the fuel motor valves in the orbital maneuvering system were completed and checks of the oxidizer valves are planned today. Heat shields and engine domes are being removed in preparation for engine removals scheduled for this weekend and early next week. A functional test of the startracker is planned today and an inspection of the 17-inch flapper valve is scheduled. STS-32 - COLUMBIA (OV 102) - OPF BAY 2 Final cleaning of the payload bay began early this morning and closure of the doors is planned for later today. Closeouts of the vehicle for the move to the Vehicle Assembly Building are underway. The landing gears are being prepared for flight. The orbiter transporter will be used to transfer the orbiter from the OPF to the Vehicle Assembly Building at 12:01 a.m. November 16. STS-32 SOLID ROCKET BOOSTERS/EXTERNAL TANK - VAB Installation of ordnance devices is planned for Friday. Connections between the external tank and solid rocket boosters are continuing. The orbiter is scheduled to be mated next week. STS-36 SOLID ROCKET BOOSTERS - RPSF Yesterday, the left aft center segment was transferred to the VAB and stacking preparations are underway. Next week, the left forward center segment will be transferred to the VAB and stacked. Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov Jet Propulsion Lab M/S 301-355 | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov 4800 Oak Grove Dr. | Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 89 09:57:31 PST From: mordor!lll-tis!oodis01!riacs!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: More Info on NASP Larry Smith writes: >DAMN IT JIM !! I'M A SPACE NERD, NOT AN ACTIVIST !!! Well, I'm glad we clarified THAT! :-) >Anyway, being a supporter of X-30, the current program >is the only game in town that I have !! It is the only game in town quite by design. Rather than picking up on the necessary hypersonics research which they abandoned with the X-15 program, NASA shouted "WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY" claiming that if Congress would just fork over a real whole lot of money right now, the US could just build an operational vehicle right away. This was a lie, as is evidenced by the redefinition of NASP as a research program at this stage. However, it DID ensure that all funding for hypersonics would be funneled through NASA's NASP manager, who could then use that funding to buy political support for himself from scientists who want to do hypersonics research. Now, do I think it is a Bad Thing that NASA is finally doing some hypersonics research after 20 years of doing basically nothing? No. Do I think it is a Bad Thing that there is only one source of funding for hypersonics research and it is going through a bureaucracy that is managed by individuals who have demonstrated little real technical capability and who have lied to Congress in order to get their funding? Yes. Research is fragile -- it needs a measured lack of direction, redundancy, intellectual competition and replication of results. The aeronautics office of NASA, the Air Force, perhaps a special "NASP" office in DARPA and maybe even a government subsidized industry RESEARCH center, should ALL be dividing up the funding for hypersonics research and acting pretty independently to ensure we don't lock ourselves into one good ole boys net -- or one development line when there are lots of good ideas and good young people that have cropped up during the last 20 years that need to be given a chance! (eg: The basic system design based on the SCRAM engine has been around since 1964.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Bowery PHONE: 619/295-8868 BE A SPACE ACTIVIST PO Box 1981 GET OFF THE NET AND SET UP AN APPOINTMENT WITH YOUR La Jolla, CA 92038 CONGRESSMAN! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 89 15:02:11 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: More Info on NASP It's great that the NASP/X-30 development funding has driven these areas of research. (What Larry's too shy to tell, AvWeek will fill in for you.) However producing and flying the plane is another story. Bowery's probably right, in this budget climate I can't see Congress letting NASP launch. All these fascinating and rewarding research spinoffs will do nothing but convince committee members that the program's yielded its primary benefits WITHOUT the huge expense of actually building and flying a plane. Which is probably just as well, because if we let NASA and Congress dance around a production schedule for a few years, it'll probably end up as a coal-burning plane with "reduced viewports" and non reusable wings. :-) -- "The country couldn't run without Prohibition. ][ Tom Neff That is the industrial fact." -- Henry Ford, 1929 ][ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #230 *******************