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, 9 Jan 90 15:50:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 15:49:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #399 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 399 Today's Topics: Space Digest Mailing List Truly makes key appointments (Forwarded) Re: who's out there? Re: Launching AUSSAT on Chinese rockets Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles Re: Japanese Lunar Mission Re: Scientific value of Apollo (was Re: Motives) Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space Re: Simpler space suits? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 21:45 MST From: GJose@SYSTEM-M.PHX.BULL.COM Subject: Space Digest Mailing List Reply-To: GJose.HisAust@PCO-MULTICS.HBI.HONEYWELL.COM I would like to request inclusion of the space digest mailing list. Thanks, Graham Jose GJose.HisAust at PCO-MULTICS.HBI.HONEYWELL.COM ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 90 03:38:19 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Truly makes key appointments (Forwarded) Mark Hess Headquarters, Washington, D.C. January 5, 1990 Dick Young Kennedy Space Center, Fla. RELEASE: 90-3 TRULY MAKES KEY APPOINTMENTS NASA Administrator Richard H. Truly today named Thomas E. Utsman as the Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Flight (Management) and James A. "Gene" Thomas as the Deputy Director of the John F. Kennedy Space Center, Fla. In his new capacity, Utsman will have overall responsibility for assisting William B. Lenoir, Associate Administrator for Space Flight, in the day-to-day oversight management of the Space Flight programs. Specific responsibilities will include overseeing procurement activities, assessing program management performance and conducting long-range operational planning. George Abbey continues in his capacity as Deputy Associate Administrator. Utsman was both Deputy Director of Kennedy Space Center, a post he held since August 1985, and Director of Space Transporta- tion System Mangement and Operations, with responsibility for the engineering management and technical direction of return-to- flight activities in the post-Challenger era, which he performed from December 1986 until March 1989. Utsman began his NASA career in 1963 as a facilities design engineer in the Apollo program. In 1971 he was named to head the Design Engineering Directorate's Project Engineering Office, which was assigned the task of converting old facilities and building new facilities for launching the Space Shuttle. He subsequently served as Deputy Director of Project Management; Associate Director of Design Engineering; Director, Operations Management; Deputy Director and Director of Technical Support; Director of Shuttle Operations; and Director of Shuttle Management and Operations. Born in Detroit, Michigan, Utsman was graduated from Fordson High School, Dearborn, in 1954. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Michigan in 1958 and a Master's Degree in Management from Florida State University in 1968. Utsman has been the recipient of numerous honors and awards, including the NASA Distinguished Service Medal and, most recently, the Presidential Rank of Meritorious Executive for his outstanding contributions to the Space Shuttle return-to-flight effort. Thomas, who will serve as Deputy Director under Forrest S. McCartney, has been the KSC Director of Safety, Reliability and Quality Assurance since January 1987. In that post he has been responsible for developing and implementing overall safety policy and procedures at KSC and activities relating to KSC progams at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. He joined NASA in 1962 and served as lead engineer for prelaunch testing and checkout of communications systems on the Apollo spacecraft. Thomas became active in Space Shuttle activities early in the progam, serving as the lead flight project engineer on the KSC engineering team which participated in Orbiter Vehicle 101 (Enterprise) Approach and Landing Tests conducted at Edwards AFB, Calif., in 1976 and 1977. From November 1977 until June 1983, Thomas was lead orbiter flight project engineer for the Space Shuttle orbiter Columbia, first vehicle in the fleet to begin space flight. He later be- came chief shuttle flight project engineer, Shuttle Engineering Directorate, with overall responsibility for integration of all testing and checkout of Shuttle orbiters, external tanks and solid rocket booster flight hardware. From September 1985 until December 1986, Thomas served as Acting Director and subsequently Director, of Shuttle Launch and Landing Operations. A native of Meridian, Miss., Thomas received his Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering from Mississippi State University in 1962. He was graduated from Florida State Univer- sity with a master's degree in technical management in 1973. His awards include the NASA Exceptional Service Medal in 1981 and the Outstanding Leadership Medal in 1989. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 90 05:37:18 GMT From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: who's out there? In article <95@mcc.UUCP> chris@mcc.pyrsyd.oz (Chris Robertson) writes: >Henry began in Saskatoon, and his interest in space was well >established by the time he was in a high school. Efforts to talk >to the teachers there have unfortunately been unsuccessful, as the school >doesn't seem to exist any more. (When I mentioned this to Henry, he >mailed something vague about being interested in chemistry at school, too.) >...building where he was first based doesn't seem to exist any more... >...since that building doesn't really exist any more -- it's been totally >gutted and renovated into Admin offices.) Chris has gotten the details a little mixed up here, alas, marring an otherwise interesting and entertaining bio. :-) Last time I saw it, the high school was still intact. (Yes, I was interested in chemistry, but a little hydrogen sulfide in the air system doesn't count as demolition...) It is true that I seem to leave a trail of devastation behind me, however. My main elementary school is gone completely, both the place where I studied and the place where I worked as an undergrad have been massively renovated, the building where I was first a grad student did mostly go up in a fire (the wing where I was located was largely saved, although post-fire renovations largely obliterated it), and the temporary quarters did get yet another drastic renovation job later. I've been at Zoology for a decade now, and am nervously anticipating the next disaster... after ten years of quiescence, it's going to be impressive... Rumors about my being difficult to physically locate are totally untrue; the problem is getting me to cooperate when you find me. :-) And these preposterous suggestions that I am really an AI program are completely and utterly without foundation foundation founda5ti@n f452$#*&n $#{};'- KERNEL BUS ERROR, REBOOTING HENRY.TORONTO.EDU Configuration... Filesystem checks... Saving temporaries... Restoring network connections... Sorry about that, my drink fell on the keyboard. Hope there isn't any irrelevant noise in this article as a result. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) -- 1972: Saturn V #15 flight-ready| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1990: birds nesting in engines | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 90 05:53:17 GMT From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Launching AUSSAT on Chinese rockets In article <1236.25a082a5@csc.anu.oz> bxr307@csc.anu.oz writes: > Henry if your going to condemn the Soviet Union for its actions in >Afghanistan and attempt to white wash the current regime in China simply >because it launches cheap rockets... Launching cheap rockets has little or nothing to do with it. And I'm not trying to do any sort of "white wash", just pointing out that the world is not black and white: it's all shades of gray, and there are a good many places with darker shades than those of China. Thinking of politics in terms of angels and devils, with nothing in between, leads to a lot of problems. More to the point, most everyone who has followed up either in public or in private has ignored my main point: trade policy should have some inertia built in, and should not be arbitrarily altered in an attempt to punish whoever this week's devils are. Retroactively disapproving a Long March launch that had been approved earlier has three consequences. First, it breaks a promise the US made to China. One may or may not consider this significant. Second, and more serious, it breaks a promise the US made to US companies: that they would be allowed to use Long March for those launches. Thirdly, and worst, it demonstrates (yet again) to the rest of the world that promises made by US companies are worthless, because the US government is willing to renege on its approval whenever it feels like it. As I said earlier, I have no quarrel with discouraging future use of Long March (although it would be better if this policy were developed together with the US's "allies", rather than being a unilateral decree, since otherwise it simply guarantees that those contracts will go to companies in France and elsewhere that are not restrained by US policy). But approvals already given -- promises already made to US companies and their customers -- should not be retroactively cancelled for any reason short of impending war. Otherwise, the US just reinforces its already unenviable reputation as an unreliable and untrustworthy partner which will break its solemn promises whenever they start to look inconvenient. "The test of principles is whether they apply even to those you dislike." -- 1972: Saturn V #15 flight-ready| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1990: birds nesting in engines | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 90 05:58:47 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles In article <1990Jan5.200226.12324@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >>I don't see >>what difference it makes that the reactor is not operational... >The halflife of U-235 is eight million times the halflife of Pu-238 >(the stuff used in RTGs), so, pound for pound, it is about 8 million >times less radioactive... More to the point, the dangerous part about a reactor is neither the uranium nor any plutonium that happens to be around, but the fission products, which are an ugly soup of highly radioactive and very dangerous isotopes. However, they don't come with the reactor -- they are created during operation. A reactor which has never gone critical simply doesn't have any. The Soviets have lost one or two radarsat reactors to launch accidents, at least one going into the ocean, with no dire results. Same reason: those reactors are never operated until they are in orbit. -- 1972: Saturn V #15 flight-ready| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1990: birds nesting in engines | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 90 06:05:23 GMT From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Japanese Lunar Mission In article <15069@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >Aviation Week is apparently reporting in Monday's edition that the >Japanese are set to launch a lunar mission, THIS month -- the first >since the Luna 24 sample return in 1976. Is there any American >participation on this? Not that I'm aware of. Note, however, that the "lunar mission" is largely symbolic -- a lunar flyby by a probe bound elsewhere, and a tiny subsatellite with zero payload going into lunar orbit. As far as I know, nobody has even approved funding for a follow-on. -- 1972: Saturn V #15 flight-ready| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1990: birds nesting in engines | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 90 06:14:46 GMT From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Scientific value of Apollo (was Re: Motives) In article <15044@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >Oh yes there are people today who say "On to Mars!", no doubt about it. >The question is, exactly who USED to say Apollo was ridiculously >inefficient but NOW says it was thorough and that THAT'S why we should >go on to Mars. I have never seen such a person... I repeat my previous answer: most of the big shots in the soi-disant Planetary Society. It is a matter of record that they were generally opposed to Apollo in its early days. It is also a matter of record that they are now opposed to further lunar exploration, on the grounds that: "Humans have been to the Moon six times themselves, and more often with robotic vehicles. It is not a place crying out for further exploration..." [Louis Friedman, AW&ST 15 June 1987, page 394.] -- 1972: Saturn V #15 flight-ready| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1990: birds nesting in engines | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 90 21:54:48 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space In article <1990Jan7.131121.10944@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> neufeld@physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes: > We all hear of the famous lunar base to be built some day. Would it be >unreasonable for a uranium powered breeder reactor to be built there >eventually? [as a plutonium source for RTGs] There has been some consideration of using a reactor to power a lunar base, since the 14-day lunar night creates problems for solar power. (There has likewise been such discussion for a Mars outpost; Mars has short nights but also has dust storms that cut off most sunlight for several weeks.) I don't recall seeing any discussion of using it to get around the Christics, though. I think the biggest problem would be that you need a fair-sized chemical plant to get the desired isotope, and only the desired isotope, out of the nasty mess that the reactor produces. I'm not sure exactly how Pu238 is made, although I know it's trickier than Pu239 (the "main" plutonium isotope, used in bombs and of interest as reactor fuel), and Pu239 extraction is not simple. -- 1972: Saturn V #15 flight-ready| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1990: birds nesting in engines | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 90 23:14:00 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Simpler space suits? In article <641@halley.UUCP> watson@halley.UUCP (William Watson) writes: >3) Maintain a "suitable" air pressure over the entire body of the > wearer. (Is this actually required, in that cells exposed to vacuum > burst, or die in some other way?) This requirement forces the > design to be quite complex... Maintaining pressure on the body surface is unfortunately necessary. Exposure to vacuum does not (contrary to folklore) have any immediate disastrous effect, as skin really is pretty tough stuff. However, the loss of pressure causes gas to be generated internally, which causes swelling to start after a few seconds. Initial swelling is reversible with no ill effects, but later stages undoubtedly do permanent harm. Eventually the major body fluids will boil. A significant side issue is that pressures inside the lung and outside the chest must balance fairly well, else breathing will be impossible (and lung damage is possible). It is possible to maintain *pressure* without *air pressure*, however, using what are essentially very tight and strong leotards. The skin is exposed to vacuum, but swelling and other ill effects are prevented by mechanical pressure. This concept works; it has been tried in vacuum chambers. Problems remain, and more work would be needed to produce a viable spacesuit based on it, but it appears likely that a much less restricting spacesuit could be built along those lines. The early work was funded by NASA; no work is currently being done on it. >5) Protect the wearer from exposure to intense solar radiation. > (First cut approximation: assume near-Earth use - UV induced > melanoma seems to be a concern... So is sunburn. Naked skin exposed to raw near-Earth sunlight will start to burn in something like 30 seconds, as I recall. >6) Protect the wearer from micro-meteors. (Is the flux of high-speed > sand significant? Does the current design really provide any > effective protection?) The current designs provide considerable protection, with a substantial outer suit that is basically thermal insulation plus armor. My guess, made without checking the numbers, is that natural debris is not much of a concern, but in low orbit the man-made junk is a real issue. >7) Be comfortable enough that the wearer can stay in the suit for > extended periods of time. Extended wear also implies methods > for feeding and relieving the wearer. Such means are currently rather primitive, actually. Today's suits do have minimal provisions for water and food, but "relief" is basically via a high-tech diaper. Well, the male astronauts have a relief-tube arrangement for urine, but that doesn't work for the females, and there just ain't no graceful way to deal with crapping in a suit. "Extended periods" currently means 4-6 hours at most. The diaper is mostly for female urine and, uh, sudden emergencies. -- 1972: Saturn V #15 flight-ready| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1990: birds nesting in engines | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #399 *******************