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 ; Tue, 28 Nov 89 01:26:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 28 Nov 89 01:26:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #280 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 280 Today's Topics: Problems with D module launched to USSR's Mir space station Re: Blood analyser flown on Mir please unsubscribe me from the list Re: Problems with D module launched to USSR's Mir space station Re: Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars Water damage to shuttle Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars Station "Freedom" renamed "License" (was Re: Problems with D module) Re: Carbon in Asteroids (was Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks?) RE:Shuttle Mission Payload Status for 11/27/89 (Forwarded) Re: Reasons for Mars mission ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 26 Nov 89 20:20:49 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Problems with D module launched to USSR's Mir space station The Soviets have just announced that the D expansion module for the Mir space station has developed a problem. Launched earlier today (Nov. 26) on a Proton booster, all systems seemed to be going according to plan at about 2 hours after launch. However the evening Radio Moscow news carried a report that one of the two solar planes for the module had failed to deploy. The ground control was investigating the problem at this point. Each solar panel has 26.7 square meters (287 sq. ft.) and delivers about 3 kilowatts of power. It is probably true that the module can be docked to the station with this lower power level (typically support systems require only about 40% of space station's power supply). This may mean that shortly after docking the cosmonauts will need to do a space walk to try and repair the damage. If true this will mean that again a major expansion of the station has required man to save the day with repairs. Skylab had both panels fail to deploy and men saved that. Salyut 7 suffered an major propellent failure; cosmonauts repaired that (it is still up there and under ground control). The Kvant module failed to dock with Mir initially and a space walk was needed to remove a plastic back that had gotten stuck on the docking mechanism. It appears that if we want to build something as big and complex as space stations then you need to have humans there to repair them. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 27 Nov 89 15:29:23 GMT From: vax5!myk@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu Subject: Re: Blood analyser flown on Mir There was a conference for science writers held here at Cornell a few weeks ago. I happened to pass through the lobby, and there was an exhibit of a blood analyzer that Kodak was certifying for Space Station Freedom under a NASA contract. They would even demonstrate the thing for you. It looked entirely off-the-shelf to me; they would have to change the power supply, of course. There was nobody around at the time, so I lifted it a bit to see how much it weighed. Fifty pounds if it was an ounce; that would be at least 22 kg. Of course, I'm lousy at estimating weights. (Kodak has to do with blood analyzers because they work spectrally, by means of light) ------------------------------ Date: 27 Nov 89 14:38:00 EST From: James (J.G.) Borynec Subject: please unsubscribe me from the list Sender: James (J.G.) Borynec Unsub space-request+ Hi, I seem to be having trouble unsubscribing from the space list. I have sent messages to the various list servers but I seem to be doing something wrong. I hope you can help. cheers .. James Borynec ------------------------------ Date: 28 Nov 89 02:00:27 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!kcarroll@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Kieran A. Carroll) Subject: Re: Problems with D module launched to USSR's Mir space station tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: > (Glen Chapman writes:) > > The Soviets have just announced that the D expansion module for > >the Mir space station has developed a problem. ... one of the two > >solar planes for the module had failed to deploy. ... This may mean that > >shortly after docking the cosmonauts will need to do a space walk to > >try and repair the damage. If true this will mean that again a major > >expansion of the station has required man to save the day with repairs. > > Oh puleez... if you're building a MANNED station to begin with, what > does it prove that you need manned missions to fix it. Without the > manned program, there would be no deployment failure in the first place. > ... If you didn't need to man rate everything it wouldn't > be so big, fragile and complex in the first place. Not that a research > station isn't a good thing for someone to have up there, but leave us > not pat ourselves on the back overmuch simply for being able to patch up > problems our presence itself created. Tell it to the owners of TVSat. Their communications satellite didn't suffer the slings and arrows of man-rating, and yet somehow still managed to develop a deployment problem... While having men in space does cause a host of design problems, which tend to raise design costs, the >benefits< of having men in space should not be down-played. One of the greatest of these is the number of design problems that it >simplifies<. Having men in space, in proximity to any sort of complicated hardware (for the purposes of spacecraft design, by the way, a hinge is considered a complicated piece of hardware!), can considerably simplify design for redundancy. Design for redundancy (i.e. >assuring< >>prior to launch<<, that >>>no<<< single-point failure can cause the mission to fail) is probably the greatest factor driving the current high cost of space hardware. To illustrate, can you imagine what your car would have cost you, if (a) it had been essentially a one-off design, and (b) it had to meet this reliability requirement (i.e. no one allowed to open the hood after you drive it off the lot)? My point is that having a manned space station doesn't >cause< problems like failed solar-array deployment, which is what your posting implied, Tom (except for the trivial argument that if you weren't launching a manned space station, then you also wouldn't launch its solar arrays -- voila! the problem is solved!). Any >unmanned< satellite designed to accomplish the same objectives as Mir would undoubtedly have been at least as complex as Mir, and would have had the same chance of suffering from crippling failures ... and no one would have been there to fix them. Space development causes the "problems", >not< just >manned< spaceflight. -- Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 27 Nov 89 21:51:09 GMT From: groucho!steve@handies.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) Subject: Re: Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars kcarroll@utzoo.uucp (Kieran A. Carroll) writes: >... If this attitude [neglect of non-scientific motivations] had prevailed >500 years ago, the "exploration" of the >Americas by the Europeans would have amounted to sending a few botanical >sample-collecting mission across the Atlantic; then, once the main features of >American plant life had been classified, funding could have been diverted back >into more productive activities. I might be mistaken, but wasn't the exploration and development of the New World funded primarily by commercial interests? (With the possible exception of the Spanish -- but even that seems to have been for profit). Thus, the analogy would appear to be false -- or at least streched. Our exploration of space is currently being funded, almost exclusively, by the national government at the taxpayers expense. In my opinion, it doesn't appear to have a clear profit motive (except for the aerospace industries ;-) and seems to have a rather weak scientific motive as well. Seems rather normal, actually ;-). ----- Steve Emmerson steve@unidata.ucar.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Nov 89 20:48:00 EST From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Water damage to shuttle >Date: 26 Nov 89 22:33:57 GMT >From: cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) >Subject: space news from Oct 2 AW&ST >... >NASA assesses water damage to Columbia after accidental activation Sept 24 >of a fire-extinguisher water-deluge system. [Eventually assessed as >not serious.] The payload bay doors, and most other doors, were closed >at the time, and the orbiter was powered down. It has been powered up >without incident, although there is some remaining worry about wet >connectors that might short. In what way could the water-deluge system be more harmful to a shuttle than the heavy rain and wind of a thunderstorm? (Incidentally, how much weight does the shuttle gain from the buildup of frost if it sits on the pad filled with cryogenic fuels for an extended period?) John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 28 Nov 89 02:09:01 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!ists!yunexus!utzoo!kcarroll@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Kieran A. Carroll) Subject: Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars goldader@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Jeff Goldader) writes: > >Space exploration was meant for geo-political muscle-flexing from > >the start. "Science" was just tacked on to make the launching of rockets > >more palatable from a propaganda point of view (and more acceptable to a > >peace-loving public). > > Well, I've gotten many replies to this effect. I guess that was just the > last of my youthful idealism being washed down the drain. Yes, Jeff, but you've also gotten replies to the effect that "there's more to human endeavor than just science, so maybe there should be more to space than jsut science". Is that such a bad thing to contemplate? While I'm a great fan of science, and believe it to be one of the fundamentally most important of human activities, I don't let it drive all others out of consideration. Hell, even >politics< has its place in the scheme of things...even "geo-political muscle-flexing" :-) -- Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 27 Nov 89 22:40:36 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Station "Freedom" renamed "License" (was Re: Problems with D module) In article <1989Nov27.173722.21387@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <14958@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >>Again, circular. If you didn't need to man rate everything it wouldn't >>be so big, fragile and complex in the first place... > >It wouldn't *start out* so big, fragile, and complex. It would get there >eventually. Of course small, simple unmanned missions don't have such >problems, but that's because they're small and simple, not because they're >unmanned. Make them big and complex, like say a multi-launch unmanned >Mars sample return, and they *will* have to worry about such things. With manned *visits* you can build big and complex things without wasting billions man-rating the primary platform. The lesson of the Shuttle is that there is plenty to do up there when you can send people AND EQUIPMENT up frequently. The lesson of Mir is that permanent manned presence in space is still a ruinously expensive luxury (primarily useful for national prestige grandstanding and scary militarization) which should -- if undertaken anyway -- use the "dumbest," most reliable technology at hand. My own feeling is that those pie-eyed science fiction lovers who just want people "up there," no questions asked, are being exploited by the aerospace industry which cynically views even an UNSUCCESSFUL Space Station program as a goodie basket to end all goodie baskets. After all, this approach worked for SDI. Program stretchouts and compromises which insultingly diminish the facility's usefulness and chances of doing anything this century, end up costing the US more as is frequently pointed out. But "costs us more" means "makes the industry more" as well! so why should these guys care if the program is agonizingly emasculated by degrees. When I first saw the plans for the station DISHWASHER and SODA POP VENDING MACHINE years ago, I knew in my gut it would never fly. Let's hope some heads roll and they try something simple and stupid like this Kevlar inflatable. If they want industrial research, perhaps the ISF could be coupled with a Kevlar shed for periodic maintenance. -- "We must never forget that if the war in Vietnam \ $ Tom Neff is lost... the right of free speech will be X tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET extinguished throughout the world." -- RN 10/27/65 $ \ uunet!bfmny0!tneff ------------------------------ Date: 27 Nov 89 01:53:49 GMT From: rochester!dietz@louie.udel.edu (Paul Dietz) Subject: Re: Carbon in Asteroids (was Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks?) In article <811@wrgate.WR.TEK.COM> dant@mrloog.WR.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes: >There is one slight hitch: the C-class tend to inhabit the outer part >of the asteroid belt. The inner part is mainly stony, stony-irons and >iron class asteroids. There are exceptions of course, this is only a >general rule. > >What this means is that C-class have a average semi-major axis of about >2.8 A.U. and the others about 2.3. This would make it somewhat more >expensive to reach the average C-class asteroid. > >I don't know what the typical composition of Earth-crossing (i.e. nearby) >asteroids is although I suspect it's the same as the inner asteroid belt. I don't know if this last is true. Some earth-approachers are probably dead short period comets (Shoemaker estimates 60% are), which should contain much organic crud. Also, if resonances with Jupiter pump meteorites into earth-crossing orbits, then nearness to the resonance orbits, rather than nearness to the inner solar system, would be the important property -- assuming asteroids from the main belt that become EAA's are moved into earth-crossing orbits in the same way as meteorites. I understand there are some class-C EAA's. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 27 Nov 89 03:54:28 GMT From: epiwrl!boom!mike@uunet.uu.net (Mike Peyton) Subject: RE:Shuttle Mission Since I haven't seen it posted to this newsgroup (it has been on rec.ham-radio) I will let you folks know that the shuttle isn't in the 57 degree orbit predicted by Aviation Leak but rather the standard 28.5 degree orbit. This does appear to be a geosync satelite that they are orbiting. I'm not going to post the Keplerian Elements since this won't make the round till just before the shuuttke lands. If you have more the rest of the net and I would love to hear it. -=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+ Mike Peyton USENET: ...!uunet!epiwrl!boom!mike 4209 Tulare Dr. MCIMail: M Peyton Wheaton, MD 20906 w 703-749-7381 h 301-933-2273 -=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+-=+ ------------------------------ Date: 28 Nov 89 01:45:10 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Payload Status for 11/27/89 (Forwarded) Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 11-27-89 - STS-31R HST (at VPF) - Functional testing did not occur over the weekend. Plan to bring up ECS this morning for HST testing. Facility monitoring and environmental monitoring support is on going. - STS-32R SYNCOM (at Pad A) - SYNCOM is being monitored at the pad. The canister has been lowered to the transporter this morning and is going to be moved to the VAB. No payload activity planned for today. SYNCOM launch readiness test and battery charging are planned for tomorrow. - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at O&C) - Astro is powered up for IPS functional retest today. Planned for today will be a RAU coupler check out and inertial motion test. - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) - Rack 10 structural mod work continued on Friday. Water servicing GSE and pyrell foam replacement continues today. - STS-42 IML (at O&C) - Shipping container mods were worked on Friday. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Nov 89 20:35:22 EST From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Re: Reasons for Mars mission >From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!ists!yunexus!utzoo!kcarroll@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Kieran A. Carroll) >Subject: Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars >> goldader@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Jeff Goldader) writes: >> >> Am I the only one who nearly became physically ill after reading this? >> Is this truly what our space program has become, a bunch of administrators >> who are no longer aware that space exploration is meant for science? >This question strikes a strong chord in my mind, but not for the reason >that you would expect, Jeff. I, for one, am concerned with the perception >(obviously shared by many people) that science is the only reason for exploring >space. I disagree strongly! Planetary science *should* be only a minor motivation for a manned expedition to Mars, because it can be done much more cheaply using remote-controlled devices (i.e. Viking, Mars rover). As Kieran explains, there is an entirely different set of arguments to justify human presence in space in the near-term, including a possible Mars mission. Being interested in maintaining a human presence in space is not necessarily a sure sign that a space program is doomed (otherwise, the Soviet space program would be far more "doomed" than ours. :-) The question of what the relative expenditures should be for the various aspects of the space program is, of course, open to debate. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #280 *******************