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 ; Thu, 30 Nov 89 01:31:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 30 Nov 89 01:31:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #289 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 289 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE Digest V10 #281 Re: Asteroid strikes and warning times Re: Solar Max disassembly/striking earth Re: Reasons for Mars mission Re: NASA Headline News for 11/27/89 (Fo Re: Reasons for Mars mission Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars Re: Kvant 2 expansion preceeding to Mir though with problems Re: Building a space station--how big and how-to? Payload Status for 11/29/89 (Forwarded) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Nov 89 14:25:08 GMT From: bbn.com!ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V10 #281 In article LABBEY@GTRI01.BITNET (Leonard Abbey) writes: >I understand that Sky & Telescope will be marketing a Mars globe in >the near future. Price, as yet, unannounced. For those who can't wait... The US Geological Survey also publishes Mars map (about 3 ft square). Price, as I recall about $8. I can supply order numbers if anyone is interested (i.e. it's in my office; I don't have them here at home). NICHAEL ------------------------------ Date: 28 Nov 89 08:12:19 GMT From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!psueea!parsely!bucket!leonard@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Asteroid strikes and warning times dant@mrloog.WR.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes: , henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <1989Nov28.093938.5308@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> hogg@db.toronto.edu (John Hogg) writes: >>Does anybody know why the controllers have removed various components >>before re-entry? > > Mostly because it seemed worth testing the removal systems, given that > the bird was going to die anyway. As far as I know, control (or rather > lack thereof) of reentry didn't enter the picture. The systems for > jettisoning things like the solar arrays were a hedge against possible > shuttle retrieval and return to Earth: to make the thing fit in the > cargo bay, you have to either fold the arrays or get rid of them, and > those arrays weren't designed to re-fold after launch. The jettison > hardware has never had a full-scale test in space. So, why not try it > out just before reentry? > >>... left with a compact, predictable bird that they can drop into a >>convenient ocean using attitude thrusters---assuming (again!) that >>there *are* any on board. > > Solar Max has no propulsion system of its own; its reentry is essentially > uncontrolled. > -- So Australia and Africa once more become the dumping ground of American space junk. First it was SpaceLab now the Solar Max. I wonder why we keep getting this rubbish thrown at us. Isn't it about time NASA was required to put some form of explosive device on board which could be detonated just before re-entry? It would break the offending piece of useless space junk up so that the remaining smaller pieces would burn up. I know it would calm a lot of people in far Western & Central Australia (over whom the orbital tracks tend to pass if they knew there was no likelihood of a large enough fragment to hurt anybody would reach earth. I know it would make me more willing to once more support the US space effort. B.R. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 89 23:29:12 GMT From: rochester!yamauchi@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Brian Yamauchi) Subject: Re: Reasons for Mars mission In article <2986@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: >In article <24561@cup.portal.com>, phorgan@cup.portal.com (Patrick John Horgan) writes: >> >> ... But I know that there >> are a lot of people just like me ... >> who want us in space because it's >> a place for us to go. I know that doesn't sound real logical...but >> dreams seldom are. > >Well then, you must find going to the ocean floor equally appealing... >after all, it's a place for us to go, too. Seriously, if I was a >frustrated space cadet I would try to make a living somewhere out in >the relatively unexplored 70% of our planet's surface. You have all >the important analogies with space...it's hostile, expensive, >difficult, a place where Men can be Men, and so on. At least until the Christic Institute and affiliated technophobes decide that they don't want their pristine seaweed contaminated with technology, machines, and (worst of all) people. Imagine actually wanting to *utilize* undersea resources -- Rifkin and friends would have apoplectic fits. (All the more reason to go ahead and do it :-). _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 89 17:39:55 GMT From: usc!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!scott@ucsd.edu Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 11/27/89 (Fo yee (NASA Headline News): >The demise of the Solar Maximum scientific satellite is near. >Spacecraft controllers at Goddard Space Flight Center fired >explosive bolts friday to jettison the solar panels. That seems strange. Why did they do that? Why is that capability even on the satellite? Jay Scott scott@cs.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 89 20:28:46 GMT From: uceng!dmocsny@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (daniel mocsny) Subject: Re: Reasons for Mars mission In article <24561@cup.portal.com>, phorgan@cup.portal.com (Patrick John Horgan) writes: > > When I was a kid in the fifties and sixties, I assumed that by > this time there would be viable long-term colonies on the moon, and > the beginning of colonization on Mars. We all made our childhood errors. :-) > ... But I know that there > are a lot of people just like me ... > who want us in space because it's > a place for us to go. I know that doesn't sound real logical...but > dreams seldom are. Well then, you must find going to the ocean floor equally appealing... after all, it's a place for us to go, too. Seriously, if I was a frustrated space cadet I would try to make a living somewhere out in the relatively unexplored 70% of our planet's surface. You have all the important analogies with space...it's hostile, expensive, difficult, a place where Men can be Men, and so on. Perhaps the SciFi propagandists haven't put as many lumps in our throats about diving into the drink as they have about sailing into the vacuum, but the ocean is certainly a far more realistic target to the contemporary adventurer. Heck, even *private industry* operates *manned* hardware there! But the Men of Action had better get into action pretty quickly, because those awful corporations that don't know how to have any proper fun are moving to undersea telebots at a truly alarming rate. Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 89 18:36:42 GMT From: mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Brian or James) Subject: Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars There is an analog to the current American administration's attitude about the importance of scientific research in space. When the NW passage was being explored by the British, several of the expeditions were told -not- to engage in research unless their circumstances precluded other activity (like getting caught in the ice and immobilised.). This was after it had become apparent that the NW passage was not going to be the autobaun to the orient as originallyhoped. (research still got done, although some of it was fatal to the explorers, like the groundbreaking research into sustained lead exposure.) As far as I am aware, the Canadian North is still largely undeveloped, although boatloads of stray Americans tourists seem to show up from time to time, due to poorly developed mapping techniques south of the border :) (On a tangent, I've wondered if the boomer fleets of the USA and USSR are in a position to gather nonmilitary information during their cruises. I suspect such research couldn't be published without disclosing information about the subs routes the the superpowers would prefer to remain secret. If you know what marine lifeforms the subs encounter are, you can guess where they were when they encountered it. More a subject for alt.military, I suspect...) ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 89 21:06:16 GMT From: frooz!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: Kvant 2 expansion preceeding to Mir though with problems From article <11179@csli.Stanford.EDU>, by jkl@csli.Stanford.EDU (John Kallen): > I've been reading the news about mir on sci.space with great interest. > I often wonder exactly how is Mir configured at the moment? I.e. does > anybody have schematics or diagrams of what the station looks like Here goes: SP1 || ________ ______________ || DP3 Soyuz TM-8 | \ | \________ _____ Progress-M |\_____ _ ___ __| \ / \/ \ ___ _____/| | | \| ||KP2 Kvant || Mir core DP5 || |/\| | | _____|_/|___||__ KP1||DP2 DP1||___|\/|_____ | |/ | / \ ________/\_____/ \| --------/ |_____________/ || || DP4 SP2 SP1,SP2: Solar panels (SP3 out of page) DP1 to DP6: Mir core module docking ports (DP6 is on other side of docking node from DP5) KP1,KP2: Kvant module docking ports. These designations are purely my own and are in no way official. Soyuz TM-8 is docked to the Kvant rear port KP2. Progress M is docked to the Mir front port DP1; it will undock really soon and be replaced by the Kvant-2 module: SP1 SP || || ________ ______________ || DP3 || Soyuz TM-8 | \ | \________ _____ /\________ |\_____ _ ___ __| \ / \/ \ / \_ | | \| ||KP2 Kvant || Mir core DP5 || Kvant-2 | | _____|_/|___||__ KP1||DP2 DP1|| _| |/ | / \ ________/\_____/ \ ________/ --------/ |_____________/ || \/ || || DP4 \\ SP2 // SP - which will then rotate round to a side port like DP3 after the bent SP is fixed,leaving DP1 free to receive Progress M-2. (Possibly, Soyuz TM-8 will be moved to DP1 and Pr M-2 will go to KP2.) Clear? Jonathan .----------------------------------------------------------------. | 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: 29 Nov 89 15:49:01 GMT From: frooz!cfa.HARVARD.EDU@husc6.harvard.edu (Bill Wyatt) Subject: Re: Building a space station--how big and how-to? > If the goals of this space station are to: [...] > > b) give a stable base for research efforts If you mean as a base for astronomical telescopes, no. Most types of telescopes (definitely IR, possible UV and optical) suffer from the inevitable near-space contamination of a manned object (exhaust gases, leaks, particles flaking off, etc.). Also, all types of telescopes would be affected by the inevitable vibrations and attitude control changes a manned craft or station undergo. The shuttle, for example, is not a good space science platform (unless it's the only one you've got, of course). The recommendations bby space scientists to NASA have always been for free-flyers, and there's still some tension because NASA inevitably wants to attach such items to the station as extra justification for its existence. However, science (this sort, anyway) is NOT a reason for the space station to exist. Bill Wyatt, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (Cambridge, MA, USA) UUCP : {husc6,cmcl2,mit-eddie}!harvard!cfa!wyatt ARPA: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu SPAN: cfa::wyatt BITNET: wyatt@cfa ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 89 22:35:16 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Payload Status for 11/29/89 (Forwarded) Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 11-29-89 - STS-31R HST (at VPF) - The GST-8 test is running with no reported problems. ECS support, facility monitoring, and environmental monitoring support is on going. Cite MUE installation and test cell configuration were worked in the VPF yesterday. - STS-32R SYNCOM (at Pad A) - SYNCOM battery charging and launch readiness test were completed yesterday. A payload element inspection was performed and contamimation was noted on the forward spun barrier and horizontal surfaces. Access was installed and cleaning was performed. SYNCOM installation into the orbiter will be tomorrow. - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at O&C) - Design of the PGSA/PGSM rewire has been determined to use as is. Additional IPR troubleshooting was performed last night and repairs were completed. Plan to finish with the harness checks this morning and continue with the inertial motion test. - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) - Rack mods on rack 12 is complete. Rack mods continue on rack 8 and 10. Condensate water servicing GSE prep and validations are on going. Pyrell foam replacement did not work yesterday, but will pick up again this morning. - STS-42 IML (at O&C) - FSS upper line assembly removal was completed yesterday. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #289 *******************