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 ; Wed, 10 Jan 90 01:28:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 01:28:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #403 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 403 Today's Topics: NASA Prediction Bulletins: Space Shuttle Soviet Mir Crew update: Space Walk Jan 8th Payload Status for 01/08/90 (Forwarded) Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space DUMBO vs NERVA? Ariane, Spot, Microsat launch delayed NASA and Japan sign GEOTAIL agreement (Forwarded) Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Jan 90 23:06:21 GMT From: ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@lll-winken.llnl.gov (TS Kelso) Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins: Space Shuttle The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times weekly. Documentation and tracking software are also available on this system. As a service to the satellite user community, the most current elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below. The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. STS 32 1 20409U 90002 A 90 9.70320456 -.00080196 00000-0 -35592-3 0 29 2 20409 28.5036 139.8918 0048305 45.5590 314.7076 15.81699374 21 -- Dr TS Kelso Asst Professor of Space Operations tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil Air Force Institute of Technology ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 17:26:34 EST From: Glenn Chapman To: biro%hydra.enet.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com, isg@bfmny0.uu.net, klaes%wrksys.dec@decwrl.dec.com, lepage%vostok.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com, space-editors-new@andrew.cmu.edu, yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu Subject: Soviet Mir Crew update: Space Walk Jan 8th On board the Mir space station on Dec. 25th Alexander Viktorenko and Alexander Serebrov activated the Protein crystal growth experiments for Payload Systems, which will continue for the 56 days. This commercial experiment was brought up on the Progress M-2 cargo capsule on Dec. 22. In the west Protein crystal growth experimental results have been announced from work done on the Sept. 1988 shuttle flight. Comparing growths done on the ground by the best equipment with that done in orbit showed in many cases the zero G samples were had less defects, and were larger. The importance of such crystal growth lies in the ability to determine the structure of unusual proteins, which are required by pharmaceutical companies to better produce the compounds. (New Scientist Dec 18, Science Dec., Radio Moscow Dec. 24, and Payload Systems press release) On New Year's Eve they had a day of celebration complete with a plastic fir tree, canned sturgeon, fruit sticks, black current juice, and fresh lemons (but not the traditional champagne: that is prohibited in orbit). Both crew and mission control, along with the crew's family, exchanged greeting at the stroke of midnight. On Jan. 6th the crew finished one set of extremely pure crystal growth experiments which took 150 hours to run. They also began preparations for their first space walk, which was announced for Jan. 8th. (Our mailer was down for this posting which was to go out on Friday, but a quick update: the space walk will begin at 20:24 Moscow Time, about 12:24 EST) This will probably test out the new airlock on the Kvant 2 module. Viktorenko and Serebrov have now been up there for 123 days. (Radio Moscow Dec. 25, Jan. 1-6, TASS press Jan 1) More details have been released about the next module addition to Mir. Called the Technology module (possibly Kvant 3) it will be launched in March or April of this year, for the use of the Soyuz TM-9 crew that will arrive in February. Massing 19.5 tonnes, its length is 12 meters (39 ft.) and adds 20 Kilowatts of power to Mir. If correct the stated power addition is the same as all of the present supplies of Mir, Kvant 2 and the space mounted tower erected in June '87 and would require almost twice the solar panel area of Mir's initial 76 sq. meters (817 sq. ft.). In addition the front end of the module contains a ball shaped multiple docking port similar to that on Mir itself. This will be used to dock their shuttle Buran to Mir in the early 1990's. The main experimental equipment on board will be large furnaces for semiconductor processing (almost pilot line production levels are planned), a KFA-1000 camera system for earth observations, a greenhouse and large 100 liter (3.5 cu. ft.). The high power capacity is required to run all the processing equipment. (AW&ST Jan 1) Extensive agreements for cooperation in space medicine and biology were arranged in December between the US and USSR. These cover the creation of compatible data bases for the manned medical information (Soviet long term data is being traded for US short term mission results). There has been a problem in comparing biological experimental results of the two programs for years, and the aim of this is to eliminate the difficulties. Bone density measurements have been one area of conflict and uniform methods will be created there. Also NASA will supply heart monitoring equipment to be used on an upcoming Mir mission. (AW&ST Jan 1) Sojuzkarta has a contract with the British firm Sigma to market earth observation pictures from the Soviet film return style satellites. The important selling point of these photos is their 5 meter (16 ft.) resolution, compared with the 10 meter capability of the French Spot, and 30 meter resolution of the current Landsat. (New Scientist Dec. 16) So the Russians have begun using Mir for commercial processing purposes. Now they must see if the Kvant 2 air lock is up to specs. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jan 90 23:22:25 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Payload Status for 01/08/90 (Forwarded) Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 01-08-90 - STS-31R HST (at VPF) - Aft shroud cleaning/inspection continues. MUE validation was worked over weekend and will continue today in preparation for the HST cite test on Thursday. - STS-32R SYNCOM (at Pad A) - Battery conditioning was completed yesterday in preparation of todays scheduled launch. Experiments have been installed and checked out. - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at O&C) - Cite testing continued over the weekend and will pick up again this morning. Broken backshell has been repaired. The fuse area was evaluated and the bad fuse on the SPDB was removed and replaced. During Saturday's testing the same fuse blew again. Today will work troubleshooting steps to evaluate the fuse. - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) - MVAK familiarization and training was completed on Saturday. Structural mods on rack 3, 7, 9, 11 and 12 continue. Pyrell foam replacement continues. - STS-42 IML (at O&C) - Rack 7, 9 and 11 structural mods continue. - STS-45 ATLAS-1 (at O&C) - On pallet 1 250 plug & inserts were installed. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jan 90 17:00:18 GMT From: tramp!serre@boulder.colorado.edu (SERRE GLENN) Subject: Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space First, a question: Henry (if I may be so familiar), why would one want to produce Pu-238 instead of Pu-239 in a breeder reactor? I thought the whole idea was to use the Pu-239 that is easy to generate from U-238 to power the reactor (this is in reference to reactors on the moon). Now, a couple of facts (I think): The original thrust :-) of this thread was using nuclear power for propulsion systems, so here are a few items: 1) Fuel for these proposed systems. A recent poster mentioned that nuclear and electo-arc rockets wanted hydrazine as a propellent. What he probably meant was that they want hydrogen, because of its low molecular/atomic weight. The extra energy you might get from breaking down the hydrazine isn't worth the effort when you have all that nuclear energy. 2) Nuclear power vs. solar concentrator systems for propulsion. The solar powered system referred to here probably involves focussing solar radiation on a small heating tube where the the propellent is heated to high temperatures (BTW, you can get 2-3 thousand degrees out of this system) and sent through a a nozzle. This produces high ISP (efficiency), but low thrust. It also requires a large mirror. Therein lie two problems. a) The low thrust means that interplanetary missions would be REALLY long.b)The LARGE mirrors that would be required for operation near Mars (because of the reduced solar radiation) would add lots of mass (there might also be some problems with control of the mirror.). Operation in the outer parts of the solar system would be out of the question. Nuclear powered systems have the advantages of high thrust with moderate ISP (which would allow for more reasonable mission times) and the capability to operate anywhere in space with the same performance characteristics. Also, the high power-to-weight ratios possible with nuclear reactors makes them ideal for electrical propulsion schemes. Sorry for the pontification, but I had to get it off my chest. Flames by e-mail. --Glenn Serre serre@tramp.colorado.edu ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 90 00:11:30 GMT From: snorkelwacker!mintaka!oliveb!pyramid!weitek!sci!daver@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Dave Rickel) Subject: DUMBO vs NERVA? I seem to remember that someone sometime last year was going to post a comparison of the DUMBO and NERVA programs. I don't remember seeing it; if i missed it, could someone send it to me? Thanks. david rickel decwrl!sci!daver ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jan 90 17:44:18 GMT From: idacrd!mac@princeton.edu (Robert McGwier) Subject: Ariane, Spot, Microsat launch delayed Due to a faulty tape recorder, the launch of the Spot-2, Microsat, UOSAT payloads on the Ariane 40 configuration (the first 40, no strap ons) has been delayed until at least January 26 at 0135 UTC. I will post new orbital elements on CI$ and AMSAT BBS's. The tape recorder was not on the small sats of course, it was on the multi-million dollar SPOT-2 earth imaging, earth resources satellite. This quite serious delay is pushing the already delayed launch schedule for ARIANE further into the future. Bob McGwier N4HY -- ____________________________________________________________________________ My opinions are my own no matter | Robert W. McGwier, N4HY who I work for! ;-) | CCR, AMSAT, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jan 90 18:39:46 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA and Japan sign GEOTAIL agreement (Forwarded) Debra J. Rahn Headquarters, Washington, D.C. January 8, 1990 RELEASE: 90-4 NASA AND JAPAN SIGN GEOTAIL AGREEMENT NASA and Japan have completed an agreement for the launch of Japan's GEOTAIL spacecraft on a Delta II launch vehicle, from the Kennedy Space Center, Fla., in July l992. Richard H. Truly, NASA Administrator, and Professor Jun Nishimura, Director- General of Japan's Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS), signed the agreement on behalf of the U.S. and Japanese agencies implementing this cooperative activity. The GEOTAIL spacecraft is a bilateral cooperative mission between NASA and ISAS which will investigate the stored energy in the geomagnetic tail of the Earth. GEOTAIL will use a double lunar-swingby orbit to take measurements in the region from 8 to 220 Earth radii (Re). These data will be compared with other NASA missions in the Global Geospace Science (GGS) Program. GGS will investigate cause and effect relationships in the global flow of energy in the Earth's magnetosphere. Following the geomagnetic tail investigation, GEOTAIL will move to an 8 by 32 Re orbit to conduct studies in the equatorial magnetosphere. NASA will contract for the launch services for Geotail. NASA recently competitively awarded the McDonnell Douglas Corp. a contract to provide medium performance class launch services for a series of its missions on their commercial Delta II launch vehicle. Geotail will be the first mission in the series of launch services. ISAS will provide some of the science instruments in addition to the spacecraft. NASA also will provide science instruments and tracking via the Deep Space Network. The science data from GEOTAIL will be shared among all the participants in the GGS program. GEOTAIL is the largest NASA/Japan international cooperative space science mission to date. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jan 90 18:52:43 GMT From: ecsvax.uncecs.edu!dgary@mcnc.org (D Gary Grady) Subject: Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space In article <9537@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >Those interested in the subject should be sure to read the November 20 >editorial in "The Nation" documenting the fact that NASA's own studies >have shown that concentrated solar array technology would have worked >as well as nuclear reactor technology, as well as the followup in the >letters column in the current (January 8/15) issue. The problems with getting solar panels to work at Jupiter -- a solar constant less than 4 percent that in Earth orbit and an extremely hostile environment -- are potentially solvable but have not yet been solved, despite NASA's continuing work on improved solar power for spacecraft. I urge you to seek more technically reliable sources than The Nation and to take political polemics with a grain of salt. More specifically: Grossman and Long, authors of the material you quote, are out to push a conspiracy theory and are disinclined to let facts get in their way. When JPL's John Casani raised important technical points in his letter (published in the January 8/15 issue), the best response they could manage was, "He obviously wishes to perpetuate the plutonium con." >However, projections in 1981 were that it could >have been developed within two or three years from that date. Even Grossman and Long managed to get this right. Reread your source. That report was in 1986 (not 81) and projected that it MIGHT be possible to get CSA power working for Galileo in two or three years, given "unlimited funding" (!!!). The 1981 report said that "the severe environmental constraints and the embryonic state of CSA development indicate that a CSA will not displace the RTG on the Galileo mission." Another important point, which Grossman and Long deal with by ignoring, is that a concentrated solar array would probably have weighed more than an RTG source and hence might well have made the mission a practical impossibility. (The 1981 study saying it could work -- given that the CSA technology could be perfected -- assumed a launch using a Centaur, something NASA now refuses to fly in the Shuttle.) >But then the military wouldn't have any excuse to go testing >RTG's in space, and this vital component of SDI technology would >languish. Radioisotope thermoelectric generators appeared before anybody had heard of SDI. They have powered every spacecraft the U.S. has sent beyond the orbit of Mars and quite a few others besides, not to mention plenty of stations on Earth. Saying that NASA is testing RTGs for military purposes is like saying that NASA employees come to work in cars so the military can study motorized personnel transport. Moreover, RTGs are not useful for the power levels required by SDI; for that you need a nuclear reactor. And, in case you're unaware of it, RTG research is essentially irrelevant to nuclear reactors in space. >Nuclear power in space is done for military reasons, not technical >reasons. Flatly not true. RTGs are safe. Not perfectly safe, but safer than allowing airplanes to fly or power companies to distribute electricity to your home. Disclaimer: I have no relation with the U.S. government or any NASA contractor, and my only connection with The Nation is as a subscriber. -- D Gary Grady (919) 286-4296 USENET: ...!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary BITNET: dgary@ecsvax.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jan 90 18:16:43 GMT From: jfcl.dec.com!imokay.dec.com!borsom@decvax.dec.com (Doug Borsom) Subject: Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles In article <1990Jan5.105624.15513@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> hogg@db.toronto.edu (John Hogg) writes: >No treaty in existence bans space-based >reactors, and the Soviets are the only ones operating them at present. I thought that one of the objections to several of the SDI proposals was that they would require orbiting nuclear reactors to power them and such stuff was prohibited by the ABM treaty (which, of course, the US never ratified, but which we pretty much observe). Perhaps the ABM treaty applied only to nuclear reactors used in conjunction with weapons systems. Anyone have better information or a better memory on this? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #403 *******************