SPACE Digest Vol. 10 #500 [Being an amalgamation of articles posted while the Digest was down.] --------------------------------------- From: willner@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Steve Willner, OIR) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Subject: Re: Cosmic Dark Matter Date: 22 Jan 90 16:51:35 GMT Sender: news@cfa.HARVARD.EDU Followup-To: sci.astro Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:16947 sci.astro:6496 From article <4738@utastro.UUCP>, by terry@utastro.UUCP (Terry Hancock): [on the question of there being sufficient dark matter to close the Universe:] > Well, there is ONE sort of evidence that I've seen -- the redshift > curve (i.e. the curve relating distance to redshift) has a different > shape for the open, flat, and closed models. Unfortunately, this is a > difficult measurement, since it requires an alternate form of distance > measurement -- AND the difference between the curves is only significant > towards extreme distances. The only distance method I have heard of > being applied to this problem involves the measurement of relative > brightness and the assumption of statistically homogenous galaxy-brightness ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > both over space and over the history of the universe. Needless to > say this is a risky assumption. This type of observation certainly has the potential of detecting (or refuting) the "missing mass," but I don't think it has yet provided much sound evidence one way or the other. The underlined assumption is not only risky, but likely completely wrong, since the evidence for galaxy evolution seems pretty firm. (In other words, galaxies were lots brighter long ago.) Attempts have been made to correct for the greater brightness, but I think they are still highly uncertain. Perhaps this discussion should continue in sci.astro, not sci.space. I've directed followups there. (Maybe! Please check or change.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu --------------------------------------- From: dant@mrloog.WR.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Space Station Freedom to run UNIX Keywords: a "real-time" unix system: LynxOS Date: 23 Jan 90 02:28:25 GMT Sender: nobody@wrgate.WR.TEK.COM Reply-To: dant@mrloog.WR.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) Organization: Scalp Tonic Interdiction Agency seldon@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Seldon) writes: > HEH...can you imagine if they had RN on this system... New message when following up: This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire solar system... --- Dan Tilque -- dant@mrloog.WR.TEK.COM --------------------------------------- From: rasmus@watcsc.waterloo.edu (Rasmus Lerdorf) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Temperature of Space? Keywords: superconductors space Date: 23 Jan 90 17:55:15 GMT Reply-To: rasmus@watcsc.waterloo.edu (Rasmus Lerdorf) Organization: University of Waterloo How hot is space, or more appropriate, how cold is space? What are the temperature ranges in a shielded and non-shielded environment? I am asking because I am interested in the feasibility of superconductors in space. We have the technology for low-temperature superconductors and if the temperature in space is down below 50K in a shielded environment, there would be a possibility of using existing superconductor technology in space. I would appreciate any comments on superconductor usage in space as well. -- Rasmus Lerdorf {uunet|clyde|utai}!watmath!watcsc!rasmus 2A Systems Design Eng --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Long Duration Exposure Facility shows few surprises (Forwarded) Date: 24 Jan 90 20:09:30 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA Mary Sandy Headquarters, Washington, D.C. January 24, 1990 Jean Clough Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va. RELEASE: 90-11 LONG DURATION EXPOSURE FACILITY SHOWS FEW SURPRISES Television views, astronaut commentary and post-retrieval photos of the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) from the STS-32 Shuttle mission suggest that the condition of LDEF is about as NASA officials expected. The objective of LDEF, which orbited Earth for nearly 6 years, was to measure the effects of atomic oxygen, space radiation, micrometeoroids, man-made debris, vacuum and other space-related phenomena on more than 10,000 test specimens. Some of those effects were immediately observable on LDEF during in- flight recovery operations. Some thin film test specimens appeared to be degraded or completely eroded. Some thin film balloon material test specimens were broken away at one end. These are expected results that will be fully analyzed when the principal investigators have access to their LDEF experiments. The Kapton thermal covers on two Heavy Ions in Space experiment trays were partially peeled back "like a sardine can" in the words of one astronaut. In addition, the thermal cover strips around the detectors of a space plasma high voltage drainage experiment appear to have eroded away. Impact on these experiments will not be known until researchers can examine them. At least one of the thermal covers of an ultra-heavy cosmic ray nuclei experiment, located adjacent to LDEF's leading edge, exhibited more apparent debris or meteoroid impacts than anticipated but there probably was no effect on the cosmic ray data obtained. Investigators will pay particular attention to this area during post-flight examination of the satellite to determine the nature of the deterioration. LDEF program officials also noted discoloration around the high voltage leads of an interstellar gas experiment. Just what this means will be studied in the data analyses that are the next step in the LDEF program. Space Shuttle orbiter Columbia and LDEF are expected to arrive at Kennedy Space Center on January 26. The orbiter will be de-mated from the Boeing 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft and towed to the Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF) shortly thereafter. Current plans call for the removal of LDEF from Columbia's payload bay about January 29. LDEF will be transferred to the Operation & Checkout (O&C) Building about January 30 and loaded onto a special transporter. Around January 31, the satellite will be moved to the Spacecraft Assembly and Encapsulation Facilty II (SAEF II) where researchers will inspect and photograph its structure and experiment trays from February 5 through 17. Program officials estimate that removal of the experiment trays will begin around February 22. A meeting of the LDEF Investigator Working Group will take place at Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va., this summer on a date to be announced later. A press release summarizing the preliminary results will follow the meeting. LDEF contains 57 science and technology experiments representing more than 200 investigators, 33 private companies, 21 universities, seven NASA centers, nine Department of Defense laboratories and eight foreign countries. Experiment analysis is expected to provide invaluable data for the design of future spacecraft as well as insight into Earth's cosmic origins. - end - Photographs are available to illustrate this release by calling NASA Headquarters Audio Visual Branch at XXX/YYY-ZZZZ: Color: 90-HC-41 B&W: 90-H-41 90-HC-42 90-H-42 90-HC-43 90-H-43 90-HC-44 90-H-44 NOTE TO EDITORS: Media representatives will have an opportunity to view LDEF's removal from Columbia about January 29 and may participate in an informal news briefing with LDEF Chief Scientist Bill Kinard at that time. Approximately 8 days later, there will another photo opportunity and a media briefing to discuss results of the initial LDEF inspections. The press conference will be carried live on NASA Select television. Media representatives wishing to participate in these events should contact the KSC Public Information Office, XXX/YYY-ZZZZ. --------------------------------------- From: jlo@elan.elan.com (Jeff Lo) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: SR-71 BLACKBIRD Date: 24 Jan 90 21:25:55 GMT Reply-To: jlo@elan.elan.com (Jeff Lo) Organization: Elan Computer Group, Inc., Mountain View, CA In article <15114@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >It's risky to assume that Blackbird is sandbagging but that Foxbat has >shown us everything it's got. But the Foxbat has shown us everything it's got, inside and out. We have had our hands on a Foxbat, taken it apart, and talked honestly about the plane with one of it's pilots, Belenko. This should give the U.S. a pretty good idea of what the true capabilities are of the Foxbat. Then again, our Air Force may not be telling *us* everything it's got on the MiG-25... -- Jeff Lo - Pilot In Training: 25.0 hours and climbing Elan Computer Group, Inc. jlo@elan.com, ..!{ames,uunet}!elan!jlo 888 Villa Street, Third Floor, Mountain View, CA 94041, 415-964-2200 --------------------------------------- From: smith@aerospace.aero.org (Thomas F. Smith) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: U.S. Space Policy/NOV 89 Part 1 of 2 (LONG) Date: 16 Jan 90 19:31:41 GMT Reply-To: smith@aero.UUCP (Thomas F. Smith) Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release November 16, 1989 FACT SHEET U.S. National Space Policy On November 2, 1989, the President approved a national space policy that updates and reaffirms U.S. goals and activities in space. The updated policy is the result of a review undertaken by the National Space Council. The revisions clarify, strengthen, and streamline selected aspects of the policy. Areas affected include civil and commercial remote sensing, space transportation, space debris, federal subsidies of commercial space activities, and Space Station Freedom. Overall, the President's newly-issued national space policy revalidates the ongoing direction of U.S. space efforts and provides a broad policy framework to guide future U.S. space activities. The policy reaffirms the nation's commitment to the exploration and use of space in support of our national well being. United States leadership in space continues to be a fundamental objective guiding U.S. space activities. The policy recognizes that leadership requires United States preeminence in key areas of space activity critical to achieving our national security, scientific, technical, economic, and foreign policy goals. The policy also retains the long-term goal of expanding human presence and activity beyond Earth orbit into the Solar System. This goal,provides the overall policy framework for the President s human space exploration initiative, announced July 20, 1989, in which the President called for completing Space Station Freedom, returning permanently to the Moon, and exploration of the planet Mars. These and other aspects of U.S. national space policy are contained in the attached document entitled "National Space Policy." Attachment November 2, 1989 NATIONAL SPACE POLICY This document contains national policy, guidelines, and implementing actions with respect to the conduct of United States space programs and related activities. United States space activities are conducted by three separate and distinct sectors: two strongly interacting governmental sectors (Civil and National Security) and a separate, ncn- governmental Commercial Sector. Close coordination, cooperation, and technology and information exchange will be maintained among these sectors to avoid unnecessary duplication and promote attainment of United States space goals. GOALS AND PRINCIPLES A fundamental objective guiding United States space activities has been, and continues to be, space leadership. Leadership in an increasingly competitive international environment, does not require United States preeminence in all areas and disciplines of space enterprise. It does require United States preeminence in the key areas of space activity critical to achieving our national security, scientific, technical, economic, and foreign policy goals. The overall goals of United States space activities are: (1) to strengthen the security of the United States; (2) to obtain scientific, technological and economic benefits for the general population and to improve the quality of life on Earth through space-related activities; (3) to encourage continuing United States private-sector investment in space and related activities; (4) to promote international cooperative activities taking into account United States national security, foreign policy, scientific, and economic interests; (5) to cooperate with other nations in maintaining the freedom of space for all activities that enhance the security and welfare of mankind; and, as a long-range goal, (6) to expand human presence and activity beyond Earth orbit into the solar system. United States space activities shall be conducted in accordance with the following principles: -- The United States is committed to the exploration and use of outer space by all nations for peaceful purposes and for the benefit of all mankind. "Peaceful purposes" allow for activities in pursuit of national security goals. -- The United States will pursue activities in space in support of its inherent right of self-defense and its defense commitments to its allies. 2 -- The United States rejects any claims to sovereignty by any nation over outer space or celestial bodies, or any portion thereof, and rejects any limitations on the fundamental right of sovereign nations to acquire data from space. -- The United States considers the space systems of any nation to be national property with the right of passage through and operations in space without interference. Purposeful interference with space systems shall be viewed as an infringement on sovereign rights. -- The United States shall encourage and not preclude the commercial use and exploitation of space technologies and systems for national economic benefit. These commercial activities must be consistent with national security interests, and international and domestic legal obligations. -- The United States will, as a matter of policy, pursue its commercial space objectives without the use of direct Federal subsidies. The United States shall encourage other countries to engage in free and fair trade in commercial space goods and services. -- The United States will conduct international cooperative space-related activities that are expected to achieve sufficient scientific, political, economic, or national security benefits for the nation. The United States will seek mutually beneficial international participation in space and space-related programs. CIVIL SPACE POLICY The United States civil space sector activities shall contribute significantly to enhancing the Nation's science, technology, economy, pride, sense of well-being and direction, as well as United States world prestige and leadership. Civil sector activities shall comprise a balanced strategy of research, development, operations, and technology for science, exploration, and appropriate applications. The objectives of the United States civil space activities shall be (1) to expand knowledge of the Earth, its environment, the solar system, and the universe; (2) to create new opportunities for use of the space environment through the conduct of appropriate research and experimentation in advanced technology and systems; (3) to develop space technology for civil applications and, wherever appropriate, make such technology available to the commercial sector; (4) to preserve the United States preeminence in critical aspects of space science, 3 applications, technology, and manned space flight; (5) to establish a permanently manned presence in space; and (6) to engage in international cooperative efforts that further United States overall space goals. The United States government shall not preclude or deter the continuing development of a separate non-governmental Commercial Space Sector. Expanding private sector investment in space by the market-driven Commercial Sector generates economic benefits for the Nation and supports governmental Space Sectors with an increasing range of space goods and services. Governmental Space Sectors shall purchase commercially available space goods and services to the fullest extent feasible and shall not conduct activities with potential commercial applications that preclude or deter Commercial Sector space activities except for national security or public safety reasons. Commercial Sector space activities shall be supervised or regulated only to the extent required by law, national security, international obligations, and public safety. NATIONAL SECURITY SPACE POLICY The United States will conduct those activities in space that are necessary to national defense. Space activities will contribute to national security objectives by (1) determine, or if necessary, defending against enemy attack; (2) assuring that forces cf hostile nations cannot prevent our own use of space; (3) negating, if necessary, hostile space systems; and (4) enhancing operations of United States and Allied forces. Consistent with treaty obligations, the national security space program shall support such functions as command and control, communications, navigation, environmental monitoring, warning, surveillance, and force application (including research and development programs which support these functions). INTER-SECTOR POLICIES This section contains policies applicable to, and binding on, the national security and civil space sectors. The United States Government will maintain and coordinate separate national security and civil operational space systems where differing needs of the sectors dictate. Survivability and endurance of national security space systems, including all necessary system elements, will be pursued commensurate with the planned use in crisis and conflict, with the threat, and with the availability of other assets to perform the mission. 4 Government sectors shall encourage to the maximum extent feasible, the development and use of United States private sector space capabilities. A continuing capability to remotely sense the Earth from space is important to the achievement of United States space goals. Tc ensure that the necessary capability exists, the United States government will: (a) ensure the continuity of LANDSAT-type remote sensing data; (b) discuss remote sensing issues and activities with foreign governments operating or regulating the private operation of remote sensing systems; (c) continue government research and development for future advanced remote sensing technologies or systems; and (d) encourage the development of commercial systems, which image the Earth from space, competitive with, or superior to, foreign-operated civil or commercial systems. Assured access to space, sufficient to achieve all United States space goals, is a key element of national space policy. United States space transportation systems must provide a balanced, robust, and flexible capability with sufficient resiliency to allow continued operations despite failures in any single system. The United States government will continue research and development on component technologies in support of future transportation systems. The goals of United States space transportation policy are: (1) to achieve and maintain safe and reliable access to, transportation in, and return from, space; (2) to explicit the unique attributes of manned and unmanned launch and recovery systems; (3) to encourage to the maximum extent feasible. the development and use of United States private sector space transportation capabilities; and (4) to reduce the costs of space transportation and related services. Communications advancements are critical to all United States space sectors. To ensure necessary capabilities exist, the United States government will continue research and development efforts for future advanced space communications technologies. The United States will consider and, as appropriate, formulate policy positions on arms control measures governing activities in space, and will conclude agreements on such measures only if they are equitable, effectively verifiable, and enhance the security of the United States and our allies. All space sectors will seek to minimize the creation of space debris. Design and operations of space tests, experiments and systems will strive to minimize or reduce accumulation of space debris consistent with mission requirements and cost effectiveness. The United States government will encourage other space faring nations to adapt policies and practices aimed at debris minimization. 5 INTER-AGENCY PROCEDURES Normal interagency procedures will be employed wherever possible to coordinate the policies enunciated in this directive. Executive Order No. 12675 established the National Space Council to provide a coordinated process for developing a national space policy and strategy and for monitoring its implementation. The Vice President serves as the Chairman of the Council, and as the President's principal advisor on national space policy and strategy. Other members of the Council are the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Commerce, and Transportation; the Chief of Staff to the President, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, the Director of Central Intelligence, and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Chairman, from time to time, invites the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the heads of executive agencies and other senior officials to participate in meetings of the Council. * * * * POLICY GUIDELINES AND IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS The following Policy Guidelines and Implementing Actions provide a framework through which the policies in this directive shall be carried out. Agencies will use these sections as guidance on priorities, including preparation, review, and execution cf budgets for space activities, within the overall resource and policy guidance provided by the President. Affected Government agencies shall ensure that their current policies are consistent with this directive and, where necessary, shall establish policies to implement these practices. CIVIL SPACE SECTOR GUIDELINES Introduction. In conjunction with other agencies: NASA will continue the lead role within the Federal Government for advancing space science, exploration, and appropriate applications through the conduct of activities for research, technology, development and related operations; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will gather data,, conduct research, and make predictions about the Earth s environment; DOT will license and promote commercial launch operations which support civil sector operations. 6 Space Science. NASA, with the collaboration of other appropriate agencies, will conduct a balanced program to support scientific research, exploration, and experimentation to expand understanding of: (1) astrophysical phenomena and the origin and evolution of the universe; (2) the Earth, its environment and its dynamic relationship with the Sun; (3) the origin and evolution of the solar system; (4) fundamental physical, chemical, and biological processes; (5) the effects of the space environment on human beings; and (6) the factors governing the origin and spread of life in the universe. Space Exploration. In order to investigate phenomena and objects both within and beyond the solar system, NASA will conduct a balanced program of manned and unmanned exploration. -- Human Exploration. To implement the long-range goal of expanding human presence and activity beyond Earth orbit into the solar system, NASA will continue the systematic development of technologies necessary to enable and support a range of future manned missions. This technology program (Pathfinder) will be oriented toward a Presidential decision on a focused program of manned exploration of the solar system. -- Unmanned Exploration. NASA will continue to pursue a program of unmanned exploration where such exploration can most efficiently and effectively satisfy national space objectives by among other things: achieving scientific objectives where human presence is undesirable or unnecessary; exploring realms where the risks or costs of life support are unacceptable; and providing data vital to support future manned missions. Permanent Manned Presence. NASA will develop the Space Station to achieve permanently manned operational capability by the mid-1990s. Space Station Freedom will: (1) Contribute to United States preeminence in critical aspects of manned spaceflight; (2) provide support and stability to scientific and technological investigations; (3) provide early benefits, particularly in the materials and life sciences; (4) promote private sector experimentation preparatory to independent commercial activity; (5) allow evolution in keeping with the needs of Station users and the long-term goals of the United States; (6) provide opportunities for commercial sector participation; and (7) contribute to the longer term goal of expanding human presence and activity beyond Earth orbit into the solar system. Manned Spaceflight Preeminence. Approved programs such as efforts to improve and safely operate the Space Transportation System (STS) and to develop, deploy, and use the Space Station, are intended to ensure United States preeminence in critical aspects of manned spaceflight. -- This space reserved. Space Not Reserved. Space Commercialization Office, Space Systems Division, Los Angeles AFB, CA. --------------------------------------- From: mnr@daisy.learning.cs.cmu.edu (Marc Ringuette) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: The dope on the Space-tech list Date: 28 Jan 90 00:45:36 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI In response to the recent queries: The space-tech mailing list has been operational for a year and a half, and has about 200 participants. We discuss technology for space exploration and development, emphasizing physics and engineering ideas. We're not leery of far-out concepts - solar sails, launch loops - but also have had some discussion on amateur satellite efforts and other technology efforts that are relevant right now. Everyone is welcome to join, but we ask that you be willing to put in a little leg-work now and then - look up some references, or do some calculations. We've found that a little extra effort gives a big payoff in quality. We particularly welcome people who have areas of interest or expertise they'd like to discuss. Several of the people who started up the list have exhausted their pet ideas, so let's get some new blood! To join or ask for more info, send mail to: space-tech-request@cs.cmu.edu (Internet) Include your name, net address, and any areas of interest you might want to point out. Traffic on the list varies from 0 to 10 messages per week. I send out a digest every 5-10 messages for those who prefer that format, and I archive the back issues. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\ Marc Ringuette \\\ Carnegie Mellon University, Comp. Sci. Dept. \\\ \\\ mnr@cs.cmu.edu \\\ Pittsburgh, PA 15213. Phone 412-268-3728(w) \\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ --------------------------------------- From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: booster pollution Date: 29 Jan 90 01:14:32 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <6834@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) writes: >: >Also, I heard someone mention a local problem >: >of heat pollution adversely affecting the ecology >: >of Cape Canaveral... >: >Where are the LOX and LH made, and how many calories does one put into the >environment to make them? How efficient is the process? I could well >imagine it warming up a stream or bay somewhat, somewhere... Turns out to be surprisingly hard to get an answer on this; the usual references don't discuss propellant production in detail. The lack of facilities for it on KSC/Cape maps indicates that production is done elsewhere, which would be my guess anyway since NASA doesn't use that much by industrial standards. Almost certainly the propellants come in by barge, which is how most NASA heavy transport is done. Liquid oxygen is made by fractional distillation of liquid air. Liquid hydrogen is usually made by reacting hydrocarbons with high-temperature steam, although electrolysis of water is sometimes used. None of these processes is spectacularly efficient, but again most of their output will probably be going to industrial applications (particularly in the case of LOX) and the space program isn't likely to be a major contributor to local environmental problems. -- 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 --------------------------------------- From: mjt@mcnc.org (Michael Tighe) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Blackbird Keywords: SR-71 Blackbird Date: 30 Jan 90 13:42:13 GMT Reply-To: mjt@mcnc.org.UUCP (Michael Tighe) Organization: North Carolina Supercomputing Center In article <1599@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US> stick@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US (Stickster) writes: > The published service ceiling of the Blackbird is nowhere near what >the airplane is capable of. Even Jane's can't say what it is, they don't >know, and probably never will. The AF won't say. How do you know this? About the only information I have seen about the ceiling of the plane is what Belenko has said, which was that it could fly "much higher" than 27,000(?) meters. -- Michael Tighe, mjt@ncsc.org --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: NASA announces Payload Specialists for Spacelab IML-1 mission (Forwarded) Date: 20 Jan 90 02:10:31 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA Charles Redmond Headquarters, Washington, D.C. January 19, 1990 Debra Rahn Headquarters, Washington, D.C. RELEASE: 90-9 NASA ANNOUNCES PAYLOAD SPECIALISTS FOR SPACELAB IML-1 MISSION NASA today announced, after consultation with the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) and the European Space Agency (ESA), that Dr. Ulf D. Merbold, ESA, and Dr. Roberta L. Bondar, CSA, have been designated as the prime flight payload specialists for the first International Microgravity Laboratory mission (IML-1) aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia currently scheduled for launch in December 1990. Dr. Kenneth E. Money, CSA, and Dr. Roger K. Crouch, NASA Headquarters, have been selected as the backup payload specialists. Dr. Money and Dr. Crouch will be principle communicators with the laboratory during the mission from the Payload Operations Control Center at the Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. They also will train for the payload mission such that they could substitute for Dr. Bondar and Dr. Merbold should they be unable to fly the mission. These Payload Specialist designations were made based on recommendations of the IML-1 Investigators Working Group. IML-1 is the first of a series of microgravity investigations using the Spacelab module. An international team consisting of over 200 investigators from more than a dozen countries will focus on materials and life sciences, two disciplines needing crew participation and access to reduced gravity. IML-1 will use the Spacelab long module and is a dedicated microgravity mission. The investigations will use four life sciences experiment facilities, designed for multiple experiments, including biorack, gravitational plant physiology facility, microgravity vestibular investigations and space physiology experiments. Six materials experiment facilities also will be used, including fluid experiment system, vapor crystal growth system, mercury-iodide crystal growth system, organic crystal growth facility, the critical point facility and protein crystal growth facilities. These multi-experiment facilities have been built by the U.S., European, Canadian and Japanese investigators and organizations. In addition to the experiments which require these multiuser facilities, two other life science and three other materials science experiments with unique hardware will fly aboard IML-1. Columbia will fly in a 165 nautical mile-high, 28.5 degree orbit. Mission duration is planned for 9 days. A 10th day will be flown if flight resources allow. The orbiter will fly in a "gravity gradient" attitude (tail toward Earth) thereby producing the least gravitational disturbances on the Spacelab during the mission flight duration. The crew will consist of the two payload specialists and two payload-oriented mission specialists, Dr. Mary L. Cleave and Dr. Norman E. Thagard; Mission Commander, Colonel Ronald J. Grabe, USAF; Pilot, Stephan S. Oswald; and a 3rd general mission specialist, William F. Readdy. The IML series is intended as an ongoing international research program in materials and life sciences in a microgravity environment. The program is managed by NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications' Flight Systems Division, Washington, D.C. Wayne Richie is the IML-1 Program Manager and Dr. Ronald White, Life Sciences Division, is the Program Scientist. The IML-1 Mission Manager is Robert McBrayer and the Mission Scientist is Dr. Robert Snyder, both from the Marshall Space Flight Center. --------------------------------------- From: pezely@cis.udel.edu (102SMI) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Space Station Freedom to run UNIX Keywords: a "real-time" unix system: LynxOS Date: 20 Jan 90 17:22:13 GMT Sender: usenet@udel.EDU Reply-To: pezely@cis.udel.edu (Daniel Pezely) Followup-To: sci.space Organization: University of Delaware The Jan 15th issue of Digital Review had an artical about NASA choosing LynxOS for Space Station Freedom. This article was in the Business & Industry section. LynxOS is a real-time implementation of Unix. (Some Unix systems people would argue that real-time Unix is not true UNIX. Followup to comp.unix.* ) LynxOS was chosen by IBM, which is the systems subcontractor under the primary contractor, McDonnell Douglas Space Systems. I wouldn't mind being the system administrator on a space station... ...that would be one way to get to space. :-) -Daniel Daniel Pezely (NSFnet) 728 Bent Ln, Newark, DE 19711 USA Comp Sci Lab, 102 Smith Hall, Univ of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716 302/451-6339 --------------------------------------- From: jon@cs.washington.edu (Jon Jacky) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Defective Software? Keywords: Bugs, Errors, software, Space Shuttle, Mariner, Phobos, Voyager Date: 22 Jan 90 02:41:03 GMT Organization: U of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle Henry Melton (henry@hutto.UUCP) asks, > in the course materials (for a software training course) there is a table > ... of how costly minor software errors can be. ... the demonstration > sounds cooked. Can someone enlighten me ... ? Most of these are garbled versions of real incidents, so your intuition is correct. Here is what I know about these incidents, with references: > 1981 Shuttle launch postponed two days; cause - miscoded delay factor Mostly right. The problem was a synchronization error in the software that was supposed to synchronize the several redundant shuttle processors. I can't recall whether the synchronization problem reduced to a delay or something more complicated. This is a very interesting incident, turned out the system had a 1 in 67 chance of coming up in an unsynchronized state that the software couldn't deal with, which is why NASA hadn't found it in thousands of hours of testing and simulation. Also, the error derived from a programmer's failure to understand the consequences of a fix he made to code that was itself a fix installed years earlier (It's things like this that make people say the SDI software effort is doomed). The incident is described in two very good papers by NASA people: Jack R. Garman, "The Bug Heard Round the World", ACM Software Engineering Notes, vol 6 no 5 Oct. 1981. Communications of the ACM, vol 27 no. 9, Sept. 1984. This is a special issue on computing aboard the Space Shuttle. One of the articles is an interview with several of the software people and that is the article where the bug is discussed. > 70's - US launched satellite towards Sun rather than Mars. Cause - > missing semi-colon I've never heard or seen any reference to this. Probably a garbled version of the Mariner I story (see below). Incidentally, it was true that the Russians lost contact with one of their Phobos probes to Mars recently when ground controllers uploaded bad instructions to an onboard controller. I don't have the reference at hand but it was widely reported in the news, and I did save the clipping. I recall that was a single-character error. Alternatively, this could be a garbled version of what happened to one of the Voyager landers on the surface of Mars. Contact was finally lost when an erroneous command was sent from Earth which caused Voyager's antenna to be pointed away from Earth (thereby preventing any further communications from occuring). I don't have the reference at hand but I have the clipping somewhere; it was a full page story in AVIATION WEEK in about 1981. > 70's - simultaneous destruction of several weather satellites. Cause - > missing parenthesis In the account I have, a single French meteorogical satellite was supposed to issue a "read" instruction to some high altitude weather balloons but instead ordered an "emergency self-destruct". 72 out of 141 balloons were destroyed. This account appears in Nancy Leveson, "Software Safety: Why, What and How," ACM Computing Surveys, vol 18, no 2, pps. 126-163 (this story on p. 130). Leveson cites "Blown Balloons" (no author) AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY, Sept. 20 1971, p. 17. Nothing about missing parentheses in Leveson's paper, haven't seen the AV WEEK story. > 1962 - Mariner I mission to Venus launch rocket off course. Cause - missing > hyphen This very commonly retold story is also not quite right. Turns out that it was a missing *bar* from the guidance equations, where the bar indicated that a particular signal was supposed to be averaged, or smoothed. Somewhere in the process the bar was left off the handwritten guidance equations and the control program was coded to use the raw, unsmoothed data - which turned out not to work on that particular mission only, because of another hardware fault. In fairness to many sources that tell the "missing hyphen" version, that is what appeared in the NEW YORK TIMES story the day after Mariner I was blown up by range safety officers. The real story appears in the book, BEYOND THE LIMITS: FLIGHT ENTERS THE COMPUTER AGE, by Paul E. Ceruzzi, MIT Press, 1989. This story appears on pages 202 - 203. Ceruzzi also discusses a version of the story that is very widespread - it appears in some textbooks - and is apparently totally bogus, where replacement of a comma with a period in a FORTRAN DO-loop statement caused the accident. > Source: Frank Tatom, A Model for Estimating the Cost of Typographical > Errors in Software Development, IEEE COMPSAC 86 Just goes to show that stuff you see in the scientific literature isn't always correct. It would be interesting to see if Tatom cites any references or says these are just commonly heard tales. There are certainly a lot of real bug stories in aerospace and in the world at large, but they do tend to get very garbled. It would be a good thing if people made some attempt to track down original sources and get things right, rather than just repeating what they've heard. All the sources I've mentioned in this message are very good and would be interesting in their own right to many readers of this digest. Another source of bug stories, many of them correct, is Peter Neumann's RISKS digest (comp.risks on Usenet) which is summarized in print in Peter's column in ACM SOFTWARE ENGINEERING NOTES. Another recent source on space computing, which I haven't yet read but which looks good, is Myron Kayton, "Avionics for Manned Spacecraft", IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS, vol 25 no 6, NOv. 1989, pages 786 - 827. It covers every manned spacecraft from the X-15 through the space station and includes a four-page annotated bibliography. - Jon Jacky, University of Washington, jon@gaffer.rad.washington.edu --------------------------------------- From: dant@mrloog.WR.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Salyut 7 Date: 23 Jan 90 02:39:39 GMT Sender: nobody@wrgate.WR.TEK.COM Reply-To: dant@mrloog.WR.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) Organization: Scalp Tonic Interdiction Agency hasara@GN.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Andrew J Hasara) writes: > The station will reenter on it's own within 3-4years, but the Soviets are >expecting to use a Progress or Soyuz to deorbit the station into the ocean, >lest it come down on some poor Aussie's head :-). No. Australia is reserved for dumping American space junk. The Soviets dump theirs on Canada. I'm not sure where everyone else [ESA, Chinese, Japanese, etc] dump their stuff. --- Dan Tilque -- dant@mrloog.WR.TEK.COM --------------------------------------- From: gwh@sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: LDEF Data Date: 23 Jan 90 09:46:54 GMT Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44) Reply-To: gwh@ocf.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Summary:Anyone got any inside lines? Does anyone ahve any data form the preliminary inspections of LDEF yet? I'm really interested [and not alone] in how the various materials fared. Post it if you find it... Thanks, george william herbert --------------------------------------- From: spudcrl@wpi.wpi.edu (A man and his sword) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Temperature of Space? Keywords: superconductors space Date: 23 Jan 90 21:33:23 GMT Reply-To: spudcrl@wpi.wpi.edu (A man and his sword) Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester ,MA In article <1990Jan23.175515.3801@watcsc.waterloo.edu> rasmus@watcsc.waterloo.edu (Rasmus Lerdorf) writes: >How hot is space, or more appropriate, how cold is space? What are the >temperature ranges in a shielded and non-shielded environment? > >I am asking because I am interested in the feasibility of superconductors in >space. We have the technology for low-temperature superconductors and if >the temperature in space is down below 50K in a shielded environment, there >would be a possibility of using existing superconductor technology in space. >I would appreciate any comments on superconductor usage in space as well. > >-- >Rasmus Lerdorf {uunet|clyde|utai}!watmath!watcsc!rasmus 2A Systems Design Eng Space is essentialy a vaccum. What that means is that there is nothing to transmit heat from a hot part of space to a cold part of space. Temperatures range so much in a vaccum it is incredible. The two main factors that I can see in what temperature a region of space is are how close the region is to the nearest star (for simplicity's sake, I'll confine this discussion to our system), and if anything is in the way between said region and the sun. Mercury, the closest planet, is usually, if memory serves, around 2000 degrees Celcius on the surface. Pluto, on the other hand, is not only about 3 billion miles away, but at various times has the other eight planets in the way, offering very little heat. Even the different sides of the moon vary in vast degrees of temperature. Mind you, all this knowledge is gleaned from space books designed for the minds of 8 year olds, which was how old I remember being. There is bound to be more supported data from some science facility with a unix link-up incoming, and I would welcome it as much as you would. Hope this helped. --Curt ******************************************************************************* * spudcrl@wpi.wpi.edu * on IRC * This space * * Curt R Lindmark * Defender * intentionally * * Born to be strange * A man and his sword * left blank * ******************************************************************************* * Worcester Pyschiatric .... er, Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA * * Engineered like no other students in the world * ******************************************************************************* --------------------------------------- From: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: RTG on the Galileo, is it really dangerous ? Date: 24 Jan 90 01:12:32 GMT Sender: news@moondance.cs.uq.oz.au Reply-To: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au Distribution: sci This might have been mention already, but I just came across an article in "The Institute" which is a IEEE publication. The particular article I am referring was published in Dec 1989 (Vol 13 No 12) and was written by Trudy E. Bell. In the article Bell stated that the fuel for the RTG on the Galileo was plutonium 238 which only emits alpha particles, further more the plutonium dioxide is insoluble in ground water and designed not to break up into particles small enough to be inhaled. If that's the case what have the anti-plutonium-fueled RTGs groups got to complain about ? -- Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (Alias Time Lord Doctor) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:+(61)-7-371-2651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au +(61)-7-377-4139 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia --------------------------------------- From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Manned Lunar Mission In 1959 ??? Date: 23 Jan 90 06:07:16 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) Light reading around the Thorson house is THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE REPORT ON THE BALLISTIC MISSILE (1958), and I found some rather astonishing quotes in transcripts of testimony before Congress in December 1957 and January 1958: MAJOR GENERAL BERNARD A. SCHRIEVER: There is no manned satellite program authorized at this time. I would prefer not to say anything more about the program that has been under discussion, which Mr. Horner covered, because of its classification. MR. WEISL: I think the Senator is talking about the X-15 which was discussed. GENERAL SCHRIEVER: Oh, this is not a satellite. This is a rocket-propelled experimental airplane. SENATOR BARRETT: Yes, I understand that, General, but I was thinking about an extension of the X-15, and it would be perfectly agreeable to wait for executive session. GENERAL SHRIEVER: Well, I think I can say something about certain things that appear possible in the not too distant future with the hardware that is now in the ballistic missile programs. SENATOR BARRETT: That is what I had in mind. GENERAL SCHRIEVER: You can take the Thor, the Jupiter, the Atlas, and the Titan, and they all make perfect boosters, some of them better than others, and there is existing hardware for second stages available today that would put into orbit considerably greater weights than we are talking about in our current satellite programs. And these could then be followed by experimental recovery flights initially. You could even get to the moon by 1959. And: GENERAL SCHRIEVER: The Titan booster when developed plus high-energy second and third stages could put much greater weights into orbit and could provide extended manned satellite missions. This vehicle could provide manned flight around the moon and back to the earth. Many far-reaching potential capabilities are apparent as we look more into the future and develop the possibilities of thermonuclear propulsion and payloads up to hundreds of tons. These few specific examples of capabilities now at hand and their times of realization, however, strongly emphasize the requirement for initiating these projects immediately if we are to have any chance of leading in space technology in the 1965-1970 time period. --------------------------------------- From: pjt@yin.cpac.washington.edu (Larry Setlow) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics Subject: Final Flight of a Blackbird (Re: SR-71 BLACKBIRD) Date: 24 Jan 90 06:07:58 GMT Sender: news@milton.acs.washington.edu Followup-To: sci.aeronautics Organization: Center for Process Analytical Chemistry, U of Wash, Seattle Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:16981 sci.aeronautics:432 In-reply-to: henry@utzoo.uucp's message of 20 Jan 90 03:02:29 GMT In article <1990Jan20.030229.9662@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: The Blackbird's altitude capability is pretty definitely much higher than the records it has actually set, and almost certainly considerably exceeds that of the Foxbat. From the 22 Jan AvWeek: "The flight test [SR-71] aircraft (tail number 17972) currently holds the world's absolute speed and sustained ceiling records, and is scheduled to be delivered to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in late February. The museum has requested that this be a record-setting flight." Maybe -- just maybe -- we'll see what the plane can really do. --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: STS-32 post-flight crew press conference (Forwarded) Date: 24 Jan 90 20:15:12 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA Ed Campion Headquarters, Washington, D.C. January 24, 1990 Jeffrey Carr Johnson Space Center, Houston N90-6 NOTE TO EDITORS: STS-32 POST-FLIGHT CREW PRESS CONFERENCE The astronaut crew of Shuttle mission STS-32 will meet with news media next week to discuss their recent flight which featured the deployment of a SYNCOM-IV satellite and the retrieval of the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF). The news conference will be held at 2 p.m. EST, Tuesday, January 30, at the Johnson Space Center and will be broadcast live on NASA Select television. Accredited media who wish to participate may do so in the building 2 briefing room at JSC, or via support audio from other NASA field centers. NASA Select programming is carried on RCA SATCOM F2R, transponder 13, located 72 degrees West Longitude. --------------------------------------- From: mjhammel@Kepler.dell.com (Michael J. Hammel) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Japanese craft to the moon Date: 24 Jan 90 23:21:39 GMT Sender: news@dell.dell.com Reply-To: mjhammel@Kepler.dell.com (Michael J. Hammel) Organization: Dell Computer Corp. Posted: Wed Jan 24 17:21:39 1990 In article <1359@maytag.waterloo.edu>, ckirie@aries5.uucp (Chris Irie) writes: > > The CBC reported this morning that there are two probes aboard that will go into lunar orbit. They also said that this happens in MARCH. I could have sworn that the moon was closer than that. > On CompuServe's Space Forum I believe someone mentioned that the two probes are in one package that is actually in an highly elliptical earth orbit that will actually pass by the moon. At that point one of the probes will be dropped off to orbit the moon while the other continues the somewhat strange earth orbit. Take that with a grain of salt. I'm the last person to call an expert on this stuff. :-) Michael J. Hammel | internet:mjhammel@Kepler.dell.com Dell Computer Corp. | Also: ...!dell!mikeh or 73377.3467@compuserve.com "I know engineers, they looooove to change things" L. McCoy Disclaimer equ standard --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Science payload commanders named; Carter replaces Cleave on IML-1 Date: 25 Jan 90 22:05:15 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA Mark Hess Headquarters, Washington, D.C. January 25, 1990 Jeffrey Carr Johnson Space Center, Houston RELEASE: 90-13 SCIENCE PAYLOAD COMMANDERS NAMED; CARTER REPLACES CLEAVE ON IML-1 In a move to provide long range leadership in the development and planning of payload crew science activities, four Space Shuttle mission specialists currently assigned to STS missions have been designated as payload commanders. The payload commanders will have overall crew responsibility for the planning, integration and on-orbit coordination ofpayload/Space Shuttle activities on their mission. The crew commander will retain overall responsibility for mission success and safety of flight. Named as payload commander for STS-42, the first flight of the International Microgravity Laboratory (IML-01) set for late 1990, is mission specialist Norman E. Thagard, M.D. In addition, Navy Capt. Manley L. "Sonny" Carter, M.D., has been named as a mission specialist on the IML crew, replacing Mary L. Cleave, Ph.D., who has resigned her flight assignment for personal reasons. Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D., will serve as payload commander for STS-45, the first flight of the Atmospheric Laboratory for Applications and Science (ATLAS-01), slated for launch in 1991. Payload commander for STS-46 is Jeffrey A. Hoffman, Ph.D. The STS-46 mission, set for 1991, will feature the first flights of the European Retrievable Carrier (EURECA), developed by the European Space Agency, and the Tethered Satellite System, a joint project between NASA and the Italian space agency, Agenzia Spaziale Italiana. Air Force Lt. Col. Mark Lee will be the payload commander on mission STS-47 for Spacelab-J, a joint science venture between NASA and the Japanese National Space Development Agency, NASDA, also in 1991. Future assignments of payload commanders normally will be made in advance of the remainder of the flight crew in order to help identify and resolve training issues and operational constraints prior to crew training. The role of the payload commander also is expected to serve as a foundation for the development of a space station mission commander concept. --------------------------------------- From: jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: booster pollution Date: 21 Jan 90 21:39:54 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Dale M. Greer writes: >damage. Ice crystals act as an adsorptive surface for the CFC's which >somehow makes them even more active in destroying ozone. The Antarctic >ozone hole closes up during southern hemisphere summer when the high >altitude ice clouds are not present. In a recent Science article "Evidence of the mid-latitude impact of Antarctic ozone depletion" (27 July 89, p 290) the abstract states: "The 1987 Antarctic Airborne Ozone Expedition established that the springtime depletion of Antarctic ozone is due to photochemical destruction following a preconditioning phase involving heterogeneous reactions on polar stratospheric clouds. Ozone destruction is concentrated in the cold Antarctic stratospheric vortex of winter and early spring, where these clouds occur." --- Typical RESEARCH grant: $ Typical DEVELOPMENT contract: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ --------------------------------------- From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Subject: Re: Temperature of Space? Summary: Cryogenic IR telescopes in space Date: 28 Jan 90 04:16:16 GMT Reply-To: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Organization: University of Rochester Computer Science Department Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:17065 sci.astro:6565 In article <1990Jan28.004605.18605@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >A large part of IRAS's launch weight was a great big tank of liquid helium. >When that boiled dry, ten months or so later, IRAS died. I don't recall >the solar wind being a significant issue; a sunshade kept solar radiation >at bay and internal insulation avoided too much trouble with heat conduction >from electronics (etc.) at more normal temperatures. An important source of heat for low orbit cryogenic telescopes is the Earth. Plans for one of the four "great observatories", the Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF), were last year revamped so the scope would be in a 100,000 km orbit (to be deployed there by a Titan), rather than in low orbit. The resulting decrease in thermal input reduced the mass of SIRTF quite a bit, to a bit over a ton. The liquid helium is projected to last five years, at which point the telescope stops working, but the useful science will be greater because the scope could be used essentially all the time. In LEO telescopes are hampered by the rapidity with which targets fall beneath the horizon (HST will be useful maybe 1/3 of the time). It's interesting how what started as the Shuttle Infrared Telescope Facility has mutated into something entirely independent of manned spaceflight. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu --------------------------------------- From: willner@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Steve Willner, OIR) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Subject: SIRTF (was Temperature of Space?) Date: 29 Jan 90 19:27:08 GMT Sender: news@cfa.HARVARD.EDU Followup-To: sci.space Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:17079 sci.astro:6585 From article <1990Jan28.041616.22725@cs.rochester.edu>, by dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz): > An important source of heat for low orbit cryogenic telescopes is the > Earth. Plans for one of the four "great observatories", the Space > Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF), were last year revamped so the > scope would be in a 100,000 km orbit (to be deployed there by a > Titan), rather than in low orbit. The resulting decrease in thermal > input reduced the mass of SIRTF quite a bit, to a bit over a ton. The > liquid helium is projected to last five years The lifetime (without refilling the helium tank) was about 1.5 years in LEO. The difference in HEO is that the Earth will be an almost insignificant heat source. However, the SIRTF mass was essentially unchanged by the new orbit. The mass is pretty closely coupled to the telescope size, which is still 85 cm. (I can't find the actual mass right now, but I'll dig it out if there's interest. Memory says about 6 tons. The current mass is OK, but the project team is worried because there's no margin for increase.) > In LEO > telescopes are hampered by the rapidity with which targets fall > beneath the horizon (HST will be useful maybe 1/3 of the time). Not to mention the difficulty in defining a "safe" pointing direction that satisfies all the constraints! Efficiency in HEO should be 2-3 times as great as in LEO; this factor is in addition to the longer lifetime. (And perhaps best of all, the comm link goes through DSN instead of TDRSS.) > It's interesting how what started as the Shuttle Infrared Telescope > Facility has mutated into something entirely independent of manned > spaceflight. Actually, this is the fourth orbit for SIRTF. The first three were: 1976: shuttle attached, "sortie mode" early 1984: free flyer, sun-synchronous orbit (like IRAS and COBE) late 1984: free flyer, 28.5 degree inclination orbit, 900 km altitude (A variant of the third would be attachment to the space station or to the "co-orbiting platform," but that was never officially included in the mission plans.) And I think Earth-Sun L2 is still under consideration. (It allows an even smaller "exclusion zone" for selecting targets, but the comm antenna and maybe solar arrays have to be steerable.) In other SIRTF news, project management responsibility was just transferred from NASA Ames to JPL. (This was done just before Ames released the RFP for Phase B studies.) Officially SIRTF is still on schedule for an FY '93 new start (1998 launch), but my personal opinion is that it will be delayed at least a year. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu --------------------------------------- From: sfn20715@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: SR-71 BLACKBIRD FLIES LAST MISSION Date: 22 Jan 90 10:50:00 GMT Nf-ID: #R:<9001191543.AA08665@stdc.jhuapl.:-36:uxa.cso.uiuc.edu:110700013:000:1492 Nf-From: uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!sfn20715 Jan 21 23:15:00 1990 /* Written 9:02 pm Jan 19, 1990 by henry@utzoo.uucp in uxa.cso.uiuc.edu:sci.space */ In article <1518.25b8070a@vaxa.uwa.oz> g_ahrendt@vaxa.uwa.oz (Gunter Ahrendt) writes: >Please the Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird is not the fastest/highest flying plane, >the MiG-25 E.226 Foxbat can fly approx. 30% higher and the North American >X-15A-2 300% higher and 100% faster. Even though take-off is not achieved under >it's own power this does not make it any less remarkable. The Blackbird's altitude capability is pretty definitely much higher than the records it has actually set, and almost certainly considerably exceeds that of the Foxbat. (We're talking sustained altitude here, not zoom climbs.) If one allows craft that drop pieces on the way up (in the way that the X-15s dropped a B-52 :-) and the X-15A-2 dropped external tanks), then the X-15A-2 is nowhere near the record holder for either speed or altitude. The Apollo spacecraft holds the record, with Gemini second and the shuttle orbiter third. (Before you complain that Apollo and Gemini were not aircraft, they were in fact lifting bodies at hypersonic speed, and used their lift to fly fairly complicated reentry trajectories.) International rules for aircraft records forbid dropping anything except human waste. -- 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 text from uxa.cso.uiuc.edu:sci.space */ --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: NASA Headline News for 01/22/90 (Forwarded) Date: 22 Jan 90 18:58:36 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Monday, January 22, 1990 Audio: 202/755-1788 ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is NASA Headline News for Monday, January 22...... The space shuttle Columbia is being readied for its return trip to Kennedy Space Center...after its landing at Edwards Air Force Base Saturday morning, completing an 11-day flight...the longest in shuttle history. If processing remains on schedule, the orbiter will begin a two-day flight aboard the 747-carrier aircraft, on Thursday morning. Once Columbia arrives back at the Cape, techincians will remove the Long Duration Exposure Facility from its cargo bay. At Kennedy Space Center...technicians will remove the right solid rocket booster from the mobile launch platform tomorrow, and replace it with a new one which was shipped from Thiokol's factory in Utah last Friday. Engineers decided to change the segment and nozzle because they could not verify that a critical joint in the SRB nozzle had been properly leak checked at the factory. As a result, launch of the STS-31 mission to deploy the Hubble Space Telescope has been rescheduled for no earlier than April 19. Meanwhile...the orbiter Atlantis is scheduled to be rolled out to launch pad 39A on Thursday, January 25. It is scheduled to fly a classified Department of Defense mission next month. ********** ----------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA Select television. All times are Eastern. Wednesday, Jan. 24..... 5:55 P.M. Delta launch of a GPS satellite from Cape Canaveral AFS. Thursday, Jan. 25...... 8:00 A.M. Rollout of the orbiter atlantis to pad 39-A. 11:30 A.M. NASA Update will be transmitted. Monday, Jan. 29........ 1:00 P.M. FY '91 budget briefing from 6th floor auditorium, NASA HQ. All events and times are subject to change without notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------- These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon, Eastern time. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC) NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. --------------------------------------- From: stealth@caen.engin.umich.edu (Mike Peltier) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Space Station Freedom to run UNIX Keywords: a "real-time" unix system: LynxOS Date: 22 Jan 90 05:00:00 GMT Organization: University of Michigan Engineering: Ann Arbor, Michigan What would it's domain name be? Hmmm... freedom.nasa.gov? freedom.orbit.earth.sol? What about TCP connections? % ftp freedom.nasa.gov Sorry, freedom.nasa.gov is on the other side of the planet, try back in 45 minutes. % It could get it's newsfeeds from machines all over the world... But seriously... What kind of hardware will it be running? How does the performance of the space-worthy processors compare with earthbound ones? --------------------------------------- From: mac@idacrd.UUCP (Robert McGwier) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Anniversary of Australis OSCAR-5 Date: 23 Jan 90 18:02:45 GMT Organization: idacrd, princeton, nj From article <2352@stcns3.stc.oz.AU>, by dave@stcns3.stc.oz.AU (Dave Horsfall): > [ Perhaps someone can cross-post this to rec.ham-radio ] > > Tuesday 23rd January 1990 is the 20th anniversary of the launching of > Australis OSCAR-5, an Amateur radio satellite designed and built by a > team at Melbourne University, Australia, from 1965 to 1967. After some > setbacks, it was launched on January 23rd 1970, on a NASA rocket. This > was the first OSCAR to be launched by NASA; previous models were > launched by the US Air Force. > Two days before this, a fitting tribute to Australis-OSCAR 5 was the launch of UOS-OSCAR 14,15 and AMSAT-OSCAR 16,17,18,19 and the anniversary was prominently mentioned in our coverage of the launch. After AO-5 we have gone to other international partnerships. The customs problems have not gotten better, they have gotton worse. Now AMSAT is a registered munitions dealer because satellite technology is covered under munitions by the Department of Commerce in the states. You can imagine the headaches of this last launch with us working with Argentia, Brazil, France, and we are getting ready to help the AMSAT-Italy group build there own Microsat. I wish this could somehow be made easier! Bob -- ____________________________________________________________________________ My opinions are my own no matter | Robert W. McGwier, N4HY who I work for! ;-) | CCR, AMSAT, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: NASA Headline News for 01/24/90 (Forwarded) Date: 24 Jan 90 18:30:55 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, January 24, 1990 Audio: 202/755-1788 ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is NASA Headline News for Wednesday, January 24..... Four major aerospace firms say they will stop competing against each other for the federally-funded National Aerospace Plane program and cooperate in the development of the experimental X-30 research aircraft. General Dynamics, McDonnell Douglas, Rockwell International and United Technologies say the unusual joint effort will cut costs and increase the likelihood that the program will be successful. The program has been on shaky ground with Congress for several years. Congress has appropriated $254 million for fiscal 1990. The Wall Street Journal reports NASA and the Air Force are expected to okay the joint effort within the next few weeks. Rollout to the launch pad of the space shuttle orbiter Atlantis is targeted for 8:00 A.M., Eastern time, tomorrow. The terminal countdown demonstration test with the STS-36 flight crew is now scheduled for February 2 and 3. Meanwhile at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Facility at Edwards, California, ground crews are making final preparations for the ferry flight of the orbiter Columbia...carrying the Long Duration Exposure Facility in its payload bay...back to Kennedy Space Center. Columbia...atop the 747 carrier aircraft...is scheduled to depart Thursday morning and arrive at the Cape Friday afternoon. NASA's fiscal '91 budget will be revealed Monday, January 29. a briefing will be held at 1:00 P. M., Eastern time, at NASA Headquarters in Washington. It will be carried on NASA Select Tv. A McDonnell Douglas Delta booster is scheduled to launch a Global Positioning System satellite into orbit later today. Launch is scheduled for 5:55 P.M. from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. The Japanese Space Agency launched a scientific spacecraft toward the moon today. The launch was delayed yesterday when a motor nozzle control system malfunction was detected just 18 seconds before launch from the Uchinoura Launch Facility. * * * * ----------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA Select TV. All times are Eastern. Thursday, January 25...... 8:00 A.M. Rollout of Atlantis to pad 39A. 11:30 A.M. NASA Update will be transmitted. Monday, January 29.... 1:00 P.M. Fiscal 1991 budget briefing at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. All events and times are subject to change without notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------- These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon, Eastern time. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC), NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. --------------------------------------- From: bj@gvgspd.GVG.TEK.COM (Brion Johnson) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Name for Shuttle Carrying Aircraft Summary: Some names Keywords: SCA, Space Shuttle, Support equipment Date: 24 Jan 90 19:10:05 GMT Expires: 15 Feb 90 08:00:00 GMT Reply-To: bj@gvgspd.GVG.TEK.COM (Brion Johnson) Followup-To: Sender Distribution: all Organization: The Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA In article shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer (OFV)) writes: >Let the naming begin! YES! "America" because it is carrying the hopes of this country. (Sigh 8-) "Langley" after the first US Aircraft Carrier, commissioned in 1922. "Kanga" after the mommy element of the "Kanga" and "Roo" pair from Milne's "Winnie the Pooh" "Proxima Centuri" just to get our sights on the stars. "Prairie Schooner" after an affectionate name for old west wagons, and since it spends a lot of time crossing the prairie. "Karen" in memory of Karen Carpenter, and the song legacy she left us. "Prometheus" - Carrying the fire (burner). First installment... Brion --------------------------------------- From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Japanese lunar probe (Was: NASA Headline News for 01/25/90) Date: 28 Jan 90 00:30:36 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <8348@xenna.Xylogics.COM> barnes@Xylogics.COM (Jim Barnes) writes: >Can anyone explain why it will take nearly two months for the Japanese >lunar probe to reach the vicinity of the Moon? Because it's a tiny afterthought added on a magnetospheric-science mission that has its own job to do. That just happens to be the right timing for the lunar flyby that the main mission is using for an orbit change. -- 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 --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Payload Status for 01/29/90 (Forwarded) Date: 30 Jan 90 00:28:42 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 01-29-90 - STS-31 HST (at VPF) - Successfully completed the orbiter/HST end to end test over the weekend. - STS-32r SYNCOM (at Pad A) - Preparations for download of LDEF/SYNCOM ASE remain on schedule and the canister/transporter and strongback will be moved into position at OPF bay 1 this morning. - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at O&C) - Ordnance connection and safing, heat shrink verification, and hoist of rotation device & frame from CITE stand are completed. Saturday completed installation of the igloo cover. Leak check of igloo was completed. Repaired fire suppression cable on IPS. NSI installation was performed on Sunday. - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) - Module MLI installation, pyrell foam replacement, ECS water loop operations continue. Rack 3 and 4 mods continue and are expected to be completed today. On Saturday rack 9 bellows installation was completed. Rack 10 & 4 inlet weld repair was completed. A rack 3 bent L bracket on ECLS duct was repaired. A FSS electrical test was performed. - STS-42 IML (at O&C) - Removal of rack 7 from handling frame is complete. Rack transportation container lid installation is complete. Rack 9 structural mod work continues. On Saturday rack 3, 4, 5, 8 and 11 mod work was performed. - STS-45 Atlas-1 (at O&C) - Pallet trunnion removal/installation was worked. Installation of the connector brackets was accomplished for pallet 1. Trunnion removal has been started. --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Payload Status for 01/30/90 (Forwarded) Date: 30 Jan 90 20:54:21 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 01-30-90 - STS-31 HST (at VPF) - EGSE was moved to the pad, cleaned and staged into the PCR. Disconnect of the HST batteries is complete. Installation of the CU/SDF is complete. - STS-32R SYNCOM (at pad a) - Download operations are 4 hours behind schedule. Strongback and canister/transporter were moved into OPF bay 1 yesterday. Payload bay doors were opened at 0230 this morning. Payload removal is planned for early second shift and move to the O&C is tomorrow. - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at O&C) - UNWRAP of BBXRT is complete. Closed loop testing was worked and completed. Igloo belt and lug cover MLI installation is complete. - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) - Module MLI installation, pyrell replacement, ECS water loop operations continue. Modification of three EPDB's began yesterday. MLI closeout work and optical property work was picked up yesterday. Plan to mate rack 6 today. - STS-42 IML (at O&C) - Rack 3 & 5 structural mods were worked yesterday. - STS-45 Atlas-1 (at O&C) - Flight pallet trunnion installation is complete. --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Payload Status for 01/31/90 (Forwarded) Date: 31 Jan 90 21:58:20 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 01-31-90 - STS-31 HST (at VPF) - SI C&DH installation was completed yesterday. HST battery operations will continue today. The functional test (SI C&DH retest) will start on second shift today. - STS-32R SYNCOM/LDEF (at OPF) - Payload was transferred from the orbiter to the canister at 2300 yesterday and canister doors were closed at 0140 this morning. Canister arrived at the O&C this morning where LDEF/ SYNCOM cradle removal preps will continue today. - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at O&C) - Payload cleaning, soft cover installation, experiment closeout, and igloo rotation device rail removal operations were completed yesterday. Sharp edge and closeout inspections will be performed today. - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) - MLI closeout and inspection and rack 4 integration operations will continue today. Also, fire suppression bottles will be installed and electrically tested today. - STS-42 IML (at O&C) - Racks 5 and 8 structural mods will continue today. Rack 11 staging ops will also be worked today. - STS-45 Atlas-1 (at O&C) - Pallet 1 connector bracket installations complete. --------------------------------------- From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Temperature of Space? Date: 28 Jan 90 00:43:24 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <1990Jan23.175515.3801@watcsc.waterloo.edu> rasmus@watcsc.waterloo.edu (Rasmus Lerdorf) writes: >How hot is space, or more appropriate, how cold is space? What are the >temperature ranges in a shielded and non-shielded environment? Space itself has no temperature; temperature is a property of matter. There isn't enough matter around to have significant effects in the regions of space that we have easy access to. The intergalactic sky acts like a black body at about 2.7K due to the remnants of the Big Bang fireball. The Sun is a rather non-black body at some 6000-oddK. Those are the main factors in spacecraft temperature in open space. The thin fringes of the atmospheres of planets and the Sun have various temperatures, mostly hot, but are too thin to be important. A spacecraft near a planet will be influenced somewhat by the planet's temperature and by the possibility of being in its shadow. >I am asking because I am interested in the feasibility of superconductors in >space. We have the technology for low-temperature superconductors and if >the temperature in space is down below 50K in a shielded environment, there >would be a possibility of using existing superconductor technology in space. I don't have numbers on tap at the moment, but as I recall, 60-70K is a reasonable temperature for a well-shielded object in Earth orbit. Do remember that superconductor *technology*, as opposed to superconductor *science*, currently requires temperatures circa 4K. We don't have liquid- nitrogen superconductor hardware that can do anything useful yet. -- 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 --------------------------------------- From: martens@navajo.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Subject: Re: Wasps Sting Hubble Telescope Date: 31 Jan 90 03:36:33 GMT Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Reply-To: Jeff Martens Followup-To: sci.space Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:17115 sci.astro:6608 In article <2065@syma.sussex.ac.uk> andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews) writes: >From article <2653@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, by baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke): >> The clean room at Kennedy Space Flight Center in Florida is designed to >> keep even minute dust particles out. But the best high technology >> protections were apparently not enough to keep out nine wasps [...] [ ... ] >They should have asked my grandad for help. One time-honoured solution >is to half-fill a jar with a mixture of jam and beer (more beer than >jam). The wasps are attracted to this, leading to their death (by >drowning, if not alcoholic poisoning). No nasty spray residue left >behind; no nasty squashed wasps on the HST mirrors. Just throw away the >jar after a couple of days. [ ... ] This technique seems plausible for use in the UK, but do you think the wasps would be attracted to American beer? If they have taste, it'd be less effective. -=- -- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu) Sample dialog from "Tremors," **** "Burt, what the hell'd you put in that thing?" "Just common household chemicals in the proper proportions." --------------------------------------- From: moe@nuchat.UUCP (Norman C. Kluksdahl) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics Subject: private spaceplane Date: 31 Jan 90 04:10:51 GMT Reply-To: moe@nuchat.UUCP (Norman C. Kluksdahl) Organization: Houston Public Access Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:17116 sci.aeronautics:481 Greetings and felicitations, Some of you may recall a discussion starting about a year ago regarding private efforts to develop a small-scale shuttle/ spaceplane. After some initial confusion, I ended up being the designated coordinator of ideas, and began to have fun with the idea of a garage-scale EAA-type spaceplane project. At first, it began as a 'Gedanken Experiment', merely a mental excercise to see if such a project was within the realm of possibility. However, as events transpired, the project began to seem not only possible, but practical. Costs given for microgravity experiment time are in the hundreds of $$ per pound/minute for payloads. It looked as if such costs were beatable. And so, after moving from Arizona to Houston, being cut off from all vestiges of civilization (i.e. net access) for a period of four months, and finally finding access, I am again ready to find and coordinate ideas and interest in such a project. A few points must be made right up front: 1) so far, this is still a gedanken experiment, to see if such a project can be done, 2) I have learned a great deal, and I expect participants will learn also, about the factors of spacecraft design, 3) if (or when, take your pick) a workable design evolves, we will have to decide whether to proceed with it, and 4) anything within reason, in keeping with the KISS principle, is fair game for consideration. Still interested? drop me a note. (Mandatory apology for the use of net bandwidth for what some may consider as useless) ===================================================================== Norman Kluksdahl ...!nuchat!moe moe@nuchat.UUCP --------------------------------------- From: dsmith@hplabsb.HP.COM (David Smith) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Blackbird vs. Foxbat Date: 23 Jan 90 22:27:36 GMT Reply-To: dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) Organization: Hewlett-Packard Labs, Palo Alto, CA In article <1519.25b9732b@vaxa.uwa.oz> g_ahrendt@vaxa.uwa.oz (Gunter Ahrendt) writes: > The >Foxbat has a peak of 36km thus it's sustained altitude is appropriatly higher. You're going the wrong way. Sustained altitude is lower than peak. >Please don't take my coment so seriously, it was a small notice that the >Foxbat has a greater service ceiling than the Blackbird. Which was an incorrect comment. Viktor Belenko, who defected in 1976 with his MiG-25, wrote that SR-71s flew well above the Foxbats with impunity. The MiG-25/missile combination was considered effective up to 87,000 ft. (with the missile going above the plane), but the SR-71s were much higher. They were unable to come close to nailing an SR-71, although they tried. It was a source of continuing frustration. The official SR-71 speed record is about 2,200 mph. (Mach 3.4). The Foxbat is redlined at Mach 2.8. The SR-71 can cruise around over the Foxbat's head. I believe it's safe to conclude that a Blackbird zoom climb could easily break the Foxbat's zoom climb record of ~130,000 ft. if the necessary authorities authorized an official attempt. Since the Blackbird is on the verge of retirement, it would be nice to let it publicly show what it can do. David R. Smith, HP Labs dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (415) 857-7898 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |"Meanwhile Newton became as mad as a hatter: by 1692 he was suffering | |from depression, paranoia, insomnia and forgetfulness, and his hands | |shook. Poor Newton's scientific work was impaired but in that state | |he was judged fit for public office and went on to become Master of | |the Mint and a Member of Parliament." -- Nigel Calder | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Proposals sought for satellite servicer flight demonstration (Forwarded) Date: 24 Jan 90 20:11:46 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA Jim Cast Headquarters, Washington, D.C. January 24, 1990 Kari Fluegel Johnson Space Center, Houston RELEASE: 90-12 PROPOSALS SOUGHT FOR SATELLITE SERVICER FLIGHT DEMONSTRATION NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston, has issued a call for proposals for requirement definition studies and preliminary design for a Satellite Servicer System flight demonstration. The Satellite Servicer System flight demonstration will show the ability to maintain satellites in locations not readily accessible to humans (e.g., polar and high inclination orbits), to permit hazardous servicing, to reduce Space Transportation System extravehicular activity dependency and to improve cost efficiencies. The system will be used in a three-phase, on-orbit flight demonstration launched from the Space Shuttle orbiter. The demonstration will exercise autonomous rendezvous and docking, orbital replacement unit exchange and fluid transfer capabilities, and will use existing technologies, including the Orbital Manuevering Vehicle and elements of the Flight Telerobotic Servicer, to minimize costs and reduce technical risks. The flight demonstration Phase B studies, estimated at $1.3 million each, will include the design and definition of the servicer system, a target vehicle, and ground and on-orbit control stations. Two firm, fixed-price, Phase B contracts, with a 12-month period of performance, are expected to be awarded this summer. Responses to the request for proposals, released Jan. 19, are due March 5. Phase B project managment resides at JSC's New Initiatives Office, Satellite Servicing Project Office. --------------------------------------- From: larry@omews10.intel.com (Larry Smith) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Aviation Week's Farewell SR-71 Issue Date: 24 Jan 90 20:42:22 GMT Sender: news@omepd.UUCP Reply-To: larry@omews10.intel.com (Larry Smith) Distribution: usa Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon The latest Aviation Week 1/22/90 has a cover story on the SR-71. It also has interesting photos of D-21/A-12 production and test that have never before been published. The story brings up several interesting items. One is the story of how the SR-71 was killed by congress. Intertwined in all of this is a a brief mention of its possible successor (from an congressional appropriations standpoint). What hit me about this was that the same group (House of Reps) that saved the NASP, wanted to kill the SR-71 and promote its successor. However, the group that wanted to kill the NASP (Senate) wanted to keep the SR-71. They then got together and killed BOTH projects !! They then got together again and wrote a bill that provided money for both, but then someone killed the bill based on a point of order !! The poor SR then just floundered with nobody picking it up. No mention of the final fate of its successor was made. A SR-71 pilot also mentioned that contrary to the Air Force party line, there have been over 80 situations where the SR-71 was the only vehicle that could provide intelligence because satelites were either malpositioned, broken, or otherwise unable. The article also said that it takes the SR a day to prepare for its mission. Evidently also the SR's sonic boom is also very unique! The story also mentions that NASA will receive 3 SR-71s. These birds will be put into flyable storage, pending someone in NASA figuring out what they can be used for. Some of the more famous SRs will be going to museums. The Air and Space Museum will get tail number 17972. This bird holds the world's absolute speed and sustained ceiling records. SR 17972 is to be flown there in February. The Air and Space Museum has requested that this be a RECORD SETTING FLIGHT! Stay Tuned ... Those of you that don't have a Aviation Week perscription :) can order the issue directly from Aviation Week. They cost $5 per copy (check or MO). They take no phone credit card orders (I tried). Write to: Aviation Week and Space Technology Attn: Single Copy Desk 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, N.Y. 10020 Larry Smith --------------------------------------- From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 01/23/90 (Forwarded) Date: 25 Jan 90 18:51:58 GMT Reply-To: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Organization: University of Rochester Computer Science Department In article <1818@castle.ed.ac.uk> bob@castle.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes: >Twenty years from now there should be a lot of second hand >Japanese and Russian (and hopefully European) lunar ferries >coming onto the market. NASA should be able to force the >price down by making the right deals. >Only 1/2 :-> Even with half a smiley, the wishful thinking in that paragraph is overwhelming. The Soviets... I said last year I thought cuts in their program, perhaps even a termination of manned spaceflight, were possibilities. I think this is quite likely now. Gorbie is facing open armed revolt, Soviet oil production is declined despite heroic investment, and the economy continues to degenerate. The USSR is on the edge of the abyss. I would not be surprised if we saw a nuclear civil war there before 2000. The Japanese space program is pitiful compared to the other space powers. I don't see them having the ability to send anyone to the moon by 2010. They may be able to send people to LEO by then. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu --------------------------------------- From: jaa@cs.su.oz (James Ashton) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Galileo Update - 01/12/90 Date: 26 Jan 90 07:02:03 GMT Sender: news@cluster.cs.su.oz Reply-To: jaa@cluster.cs.su.oz (James Ashton) Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia In article <1990Jan24.094851.17323@axion.bt.co.uk> sjeyasin@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk writes: >BTW, can anyone explain why Magellan takes that much longer to reach Venus >than Galileo. I presume its due to the fact that the former has to orbit >Venus while the latter is doing a hyperbolic flyby (thus going faster, >thus requiring more fuel to slow down). >Do the different launch dates also impact this in any way. i.e if Galileo >had been launched at the same time as Magellan would it still have gotten >there quicker ? Actually both craft take a similar amount of time to do the trip between the Earth's orbit and Venus' orbit. The fact that they couldn't be launched at the same time but they both had the same target caused a problem. Venus launch window was too narrow to fit two shuttle launches. The solution was to have Magellan go first and fly in an elliptical orbit to Venus' orbit (but at a point well away from Venus), back to the Earth's orbit (but not near Earth) and finally back to Venus' orbit and this time Venus. Galileo made a direct trip to Venus while Magellan effectively went three times as far. James Ashton. --------------------------------------- From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Subject: Re: Temperature of Space? Date: 28 Jan 90 00:46:05 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:17062 sci.astro:6563 In article <9001240345.AA04704@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu> peterson@nu.cs.fsu.edu (Eric J Peterson) writes: >This poses an interesting question -- how was IRAS kept cold enough to >perform its observations? How long did its coolant last? What kind of >coolant did it use? And how was it protected from the solar wind? A large part of IRAS's launch weight was a great big tank of liquid helium. When that boiled dry, ten months or so later, IRAS died. I don't recall the solar wind being a significant issue; a sunshade kept solar radiation at bay and internal insulation avoided too much trouble with heat conduction from electronics (etc.) at more normal temperatures. The COsmic Background Explorer now in orbit uses a similar setup. -- 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 --------------------------------------- From: jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT Date: 30 Jan 90 02:28:14 GMT Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet OBJECTIVE Remove Scott Pace from the Department of Commerce's space office. METHOD Please write to Secretary of Commerce Robert A. Mosbacher and tell him you oppose the hiring of Scott Pace into the Department of Commerce's Office of Commercial Space. Robert A. Mosbacher Secretary of Commerce Department of Commerce 14th St. between Constitution Ave. & E. St., NW Washington, D. C. 20230 BACKGROUND When Secretary of Commerce Baldrige died in office, terminating his work toward space commercialization and replacement of the Houston's (Johnson Space Center) space station program in favor of a commercially developed and operated space facility, he was replaced by a Secretary of Commerce (Mosbacher) from Houston. Mosbacher, who it is said, takes no particular interest in space, has much more amicable relations with Johnson Space Center, at Houston. Mosbacher has now hired one, Scott Pace, into the Office of Commercial Space even though Mr. Pace: * As Chairman of the National Space Society's Legislative Committee, opposed endorsement of Baldrige's Commercially Developed Space Facility when support for that facility was most needed, thus leaving us with NO SPACE FACILITY until "Freedom" is built, IF EVER * Is considered by most activists as working against HR2674 * Has virtually no commercial experience * Is heavily affiliated with government space interests through his employment at the RAND Corporation and position of authority in the National Space Society and its political organizations * Is considered to be a two-faced suck-up supporting whatever the current power structure is doing while claiming to represent the grass-roots (ie: YOU) to YOUR Congressional representatives The funding for this new Office is being increased (supplying Mr. Pace's salary) only after the long, hard work of a bunch of activists who like myself want to empower the Department of Commerce in space activities. Since we were responsible for getting the funding raised for this Office, we can also turn funding for it off, if Mr. Pace isn't removed. We want that Office to be real, effective and funded and thus hope Mr. Pace is removed so we won't be forced to lobby for its termination. Help us keep the Office alive and healthy. --- Typical RESEARCH grant: $ Typical DEVELOPMENT contract: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ --------------------------------------- From: stick@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US (Stickster) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Blackbird vs. Foxbat Date: 30 Jan 90 02:43:53 GMT Organization: Enterprise Information System, Marquette, MI g_ahrendt@vaxa.uwa.oz (Gunter Ahrendt) writes: >>The Blackbird's altitude capability is pretty definitely much higher than >>the records it has actually set, and almost certainly considerably exceeds >>that of the Foxbat. (We're talking sustained altitude here, not zoom climbs.) >I disagree, a sustained altitude of 24km with a peak of 30km are the >Blackbird's excellent figures, i see no reason why it should not have exceeded >it's record figures during test & record flights as that is their point. The >Foxbat has a peak of 36km thus it's sustained altitude is appropriatly higher. >Please don't take my coment so seriously, it was a small notice that the Foxbat >has a greater service ceiling than the Blackbird. The published service ceiling of the Blackbird is nowhere near what the airplane is capable of. Even Jane's can't say what it is, they don't know, and probably never will. The AF won't say. If the Blackbird performed a climb profile similar to the Streak Eagle, it very well could go through 200,000 feet before running out of energy. -- ============================================================================== | Steve Langner-Stickster-Commodore SIGOp | rutgers!sharkey!clmqt!slangner | | Enterprise Info. System, Mqt. MI, USA, Terra, Sol | slangner@clmqt.UUCP | =================> "It's dead Jim, but not as we know it." <================== --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: International Space Year education conf. to be held in France (Forwarded) Date: 30 Jan 90 18:06:02 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA Debra J. Rahn Headquarters, Washington, D.C. January 30, 1990 RELEASE: 90-16 INTERNATIONAL SPACE YEAR EDUCATION CONF. TO BE HELD IN FRANCE The Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES), the French space agency will host an International Space Year (ISY) Education and Applications conference in Deauville, France, Feb. 12-15. The conference was organized in cooperation with NASA. More than 120 education and training experts from around the world will attend the conference, which is being organized under the umbrella of the Space Agency Forum on ISY (SAFISY). Twenty- five national space agencies or equivalent bodies belong to SAFISY. SAFISY was established at a conference hosted by NASA in l988, following a proposal by Congress for an International Space Year in l992 and its endorsement by the White House. Deauville conference delegates will develop proposals for projects for the ISY in 1992 in the areas of education and applications. These proposals will be discussed at a SAFISY senior officials meeting in Japan next spring. The Deauville conference also will establish an Education and Applications panel of experts that will advise SAFISY on a regular basis. Professor Jacques-Louis Lions, President of CNES, will serve as Chairman of the Deauville conference. The conference will have two major programmatic themes: --"Remote Sensing Training Applications" theme will focus on training projects of interest for developing nations in the areas of vegetation resources, natural hazards and urban and environmental planning. --"Space and Education" theme will focus on educational initiatives in the areas of Earth observation, space science and space communications. Earlier this year, SAFISY adopted 10 "mission to planet Earth" projects recommended by an Earth Science and Technology panel of experts established at a conference hosted by the British National Space Center. Those projects address the greenhouse effect, ozone depletion, deforestation and related environmental issues, as well as development of a Gobal Change Encyclopedia. A third SAFISY experts panel, for space science, is being organized by the Committee on Space Research of the International Council of Scientific Unions. - end - (This news story is being simultaneously released with CNES) --------------------------------------- From: odlin@reed.UUCP (Iain Odlin) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: furlongs per fortnight in space Date: 31 Jan 90 21:50:56 GMT Reply-To: odlin@reed.UUCP (Iain Odlin) Organization: Mr. McGregor's Garden In article <1990Jan30.185833.8384@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >From personal experience, it's simply a matter of getting used to the >sensible units. It doesn't take long. And as for temperatures, the C >degree is just right -- a temperature change of 1 degree C is enough to >make a small difference, which isn't true for the F degree. Generally, I agree with Mr Spenser, but this time I beg to differ... I fail to see how a system with only 100 marks between the freezing and boiling points of water can "make a small difference" with a temperature change of one degree while a system with 180 marks between freezing and boiling cannot. Would you please elaborate? -- ----------------------------------Iain Odlin----------------------------------- Box 142, Reed College, Portland OR, 97202 odlin@reed -or- {ogccse,tektronix}!reed!odlin "Creatures of the night: SHUT UP!!!" --------------------------------------- From: gaston@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Gaston Groisman) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Image processing ideas sought Date: 1 Feb 90 03:00:36 GMT Sender: news@calgary.UUCP Reply-To: gaston@cs-sun-fsd.UUCP (Gaston Groisman) Organization: U. of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada Hi. This will make more sense if I explain my situation. I'm a graduate student taking an image processing course here at the University of Calgary. I have a copy of the NASA "Space Science Sampler Compact Disk Vol. 2". It has (among lots of other things) Voyager 1 and 2 images of Saturn and Jupiter (moons, rings atmosphere) and Viking images of Mars and Phobos. I would like to do a project in this class using some of these images, that is choose one object and work on those images. To do that I would welcome: 1) References to papers that have dealt with the type of image processing that usually goes into this images. (ie. what kind of work went into locating the volcanoes on Io, the ones on the edge of the planet are easy to see but what about the rest?). 2) References to the imaging systems on board these probes that were used to obtain the said images. (here I would like to know more about what artifacts these instruments introduce and how can they be removed) 3) Needles to say, ideas about a project will be more than welcome. Though this is a class project I happen to be a student in search of a thesis research topic, and will listen to anything that get thrown my way. Thank you all very much. Gaston Groisman gaston@cpsc.Ucalgary.CA or groisman@uncamult.bitnet --------------------------------------- From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: SR-71 BLACKBIRD Date: 20 Jan 90 03:02:29 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <1518.25b8070a@vaxa.uwa.oz> g_ahrendt@vaxa.uwa.oz (Gunter Ahrendt) writes: >Please the Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird is not the fastest/highest flying plane, >the MiG-25 E.226 Foxbat can fly approx. 30% higher and the North American >X-15A-2 300% higher and 100% faster. Even though take-off is not achieved under >it's own power this does not make it any less remarkable. The Blackbird's altitude capability is pretty definitely much higher than the records it has actually set, and almost certainly considerably exceeds that of the Foxbat. (We're talking sustained altitude here, not zoom climbs.) If one allows craft that drop pieces on the way up (in the way that the X-15s dropped a B-52 :-) and the X-15A-2 dropped external tanks), then the X-15A-2 is nowhere near the record holder for either speed or altitude. The Apollo spacecraft holds the record, with Gemini second and the shuttle orbiter third. (Before you complain that Apollo and Gemini were not aircraft, they were in fact lifting bodies at hypersonic speed, and used their lift to fly fairly complicated reentry trajectories.) International rules for aircraft records forbid dropping anything except human waste. -- 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 --------------------------------------- From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: NASA Headline News - 01/18/90 (Forwarded) Date: 22 Jan 90 23:00:36 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article gnb@bby.oz.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes: > ...Thomas Sega, the husband of Bonnie > Dunbar...now in space aboard the Columbia...was selected as a > mission specialist. > >Hmm. Now we have a morally-acceptable way to answer that ages old >space question.... Nope. NASA is very image-conscious and very prudish. This is not the first pair of married astronauts... they *don't* get assigned to the same flight. -- 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 --------------------------------------- From: shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer (OFV)) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 01/22/90 (Forwarded) Date: 23 Jan 90 20:04:20 GMT Sender: shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal. In-reply-to: alan@dtg.nsc.com's message of 22 Jan 90 20:10:21 GMT In article <556@hurricane.nsc.com> alan@dtg.nsc.com (Alan Hepburn) writes: Has anyone thought about naming the 747-carrier? It seems that it would be a lot more "romantic" (for want of a better term) to see "Columbia will begin a two-day flight aboard ". Maybe we need to start a campaign similar to naming "Enterprise". Well, we all call it the SCA, for Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, or 905, because the tail number is N905NA. Neither of these have a lot of class, I agree. Let the naming begin! -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov or ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA --------------------------------------- From: peterson@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu (Eric J Peterson) Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space Subject: Re: Temperature of Space? Date: 24 Jan 90 03:44:33 GMT Reply-To: peterson@nu.cs.fsu.edu (Eric J Peterson) Followup-To: sci.astro Organization: Florida State University Computer Science Department Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.astro:6517 sci.space:16978 In article <7137@wpi.wpi.edu>, spudcrl@wpi.wpi.edu (A man and his sword) writes: | In article <1990Jan23.175515.3801@watcsc.waterloo.edu> rasmus@watcsc.waterloo.edu (Rasmus Lerdorf) writes: | >How hot is space, or more appropriate, how cold is space? What are the | >temperature ranges in a shielded and non-shielded environment? | | Space is essentialy a vaccum. What that means is that there is nothing | to transmit heat from a hot part of space to a cold part of space. Actually, space is not totally a vacuum. Apart from the odd atom every cc or so, space is filled with photons left over from the Big Bang. This radiation has a temperature corresponding to the frequency of the radiation, which is about 2.7 K. This radiation is uniform to one part in 10,000 in all directions of the sky. | Temperatures range so much in a vaccum it is incredible. The two main | factors that I can see in what temperature a region of space is are | how close the region is to the nearest star (for simplicity's sake, | I'll confine this discussion to our system), This is another source of temperature in space. Solar wind contributes a comparatively large flux of energy to the vacuum of space, as summarized in a recent but unrelated posting. I believe that this should also raise the temperature of the vacuum, but to what extent I don't know. | and if anything is in | the way between said region and the sun. Mercury, the closest planet, | is usually, if memory serves, around 2000 degrees Celcius on the surface. | Pluto, on the other hand, is not only about 3 billion miles away, but at | various times has the other eight planets in the way, offering very little | heat. I seriously doubt that transits of planets block a significant amount of the solar wind from Pluto. Consider the size of the sun with the size of the planets and Pluto's eccentric orbit. But still, the surfaces of Mercury and Pluto are not vacuums -- if they were, they wouldn't be very formidable planets :-) | Even the different sides of the moon vary in vast degrees of | temperature. True, but consider that any given point on the moon is exposed to the full force of the solar wind (forgetting, for the moment, the magnetosphere of the Earth) for half a month, then has its back to the sun for half a month. And, as with Pluto and Mercury, the surface of the Moon is hopefully not a vacuum. | Mind you, all this knowledge is gleaned from space books | designed for the minds of 8 year olds, which was how old I remember | being. Perhaps someone out there could recommend a better book on the subject? To answer the original question, the lower limit on the temperature of the vacuum should presumably be the temperature of the Universe -- 2.7 K. The solar wind should govern the upper limit, although I don't have figures for the temperature of the wind. It sounds like the real problem would be maintaining shielding from the solar wind at the temperatures you need. After sitting in space, absorbing p+ and e- from the wind, the temperature of the system should slowly increase. Again, I'm at a loss for figures right now as to the exact rate of the heating. This poses an interesting question -- how was IRAS kept cold enough to perform its observations? How long did its coolant last? What kind of coolant did it use? And how was it protected from the solar wind? Since this is more astronomical in nature, this has been crossposted to sci.astro, and followups are directed there. Eric -- Eric Peterson <> peterson@nu.cs.fsu.edu <> uunet!nu.cs.fsu.edu!peterson Florida State Univ CS Dept Technician, Room 011 Love Bldg, Phone 904/644-2296 echo "This is not a pipe." | lpr -P laserjet2 --------------------------------------- From: jokim@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (John H. Kim) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Blackbird vs. Foxbat Keywords: Shuttle, Airplanes, Air Date: 24 Jan 90 18:16:47 GMT Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711 In article <2399@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP> rossd@acs-sun-fsf.UUCP (David Ross) writes: >In article <1519.25b9732b@vaxa.uwa.oz> g_ahrendt@vaxa.uwa.oz (Gunter Ahrendt) writes: >>[aircraft fly through air, spacecraft go through space] > >[space shuttle is still in air while in orbit (albeit thin air)] How about this: Aircraft=craft which uses the air to gain altitude. The shuttle uses rockets to push itself up. An airplane uses lift from the wings going through air (although not in a vertical climb). Therefore shuttle is not an airplane. I think the crucial thing here is that the requirements for designing something that can generate lift from the air and the requirements for something that can stand the stress of going up at 3+ g's are very different. -- John H. Kim | (This space to be filled when I jokim@jarthur.Claremont.EDU | think of something very clever uunet!muddcs!jarthur!jokim | to use as a disclaimer) --------------------------------------- From: jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Two Dead Men Date: 25 Jan 90 21:03:56 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet It sure is a tragedy that the two most influential pro-space individuals of the last decade, both died at the height of their power: Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary of Commerce until his untimely death in 1987. Mr. Baldrige was responsible for the impetus toward a Commercially Developed Space Facility among other things that provided the current momentum toward the commercialization of space and was an outspoken critic of NASA's monopoly and arrogance. George Koopman, President of American Rocket Company until his untimely death in 1989. Mr. Koopman was the driving force behind the privately financed and developed hybrid rocket launch system, in spite of repeated attacks from NASA on his suppliers and intimidation of investors and was a leading figure in the grassroots space movement criticizing NASA's role. These two individuals attacked, in a very real and effective way, the two lynch-pins of NASA's gold-plated welfare program: The Space Station and The Space Transportation System, respectively. But don't worry. Those of us who lack real influence can get away with being as pro-space as we want! All we have to do is watch ourselves to make sure we never do anything REALLY important with space. --- Typical RESEARCH grant: $ Typical DEVELOPMENT contract: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ --------------------------------------- From: serre@boulder.Colorado.EDU (SERRE GLENN) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Question about Nuclear Propulsion projects Summary: Anyone have info about present or past ones? Date: 26 Jan 90 15:58:40 GMT Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU Reply-To: serre@boulder.Colorado.EDU (SERRE GLENN) Distribution: usa Organization: University of Colorado, boulder Does anyone out there know of any organization that is currently working on nuclear propulsion? Also, which organizations did work on nuclear rockets (NERVA, etc.) in the '60s? Thanks in advance. --Glenn Serre serre@tramp.colorado.edu --------------------------------------- From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: F-1 Engine Date: 28 Jan 90 00:49:41 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <2040@syma.sussex.ac.uk> andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews) writes: >How does the thrust of one of the Shuttle SRB motors compare with that >of one of the good old Saturn V's F1 engines? Numbers aren't handy, but I was interested in this at one point and compared. An SRB is something like 1.5 F-1s. You couldn't replace it with a single F-1, but two would be dandy and should increase payload quite a bit. >Was any kind of F1 >configuration ever considered in the design of the Shuttle booster >stage? Not after the basic booster configuration (two big solids) was decided, on cost grounds. Before that, a winged recoverable variant of the Saturn V first stage (five F-1s) was a leading candidate to be the shuttle booster. It cost a little too much. -- 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 --------------------------------------- From: stick@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US (Stickster) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: SR-71 BLACKBIRD Date: 28 Jan 90 06:04:03 GMT Organization: Enterprise Information System, Marquette, MI g_ahrendt@vaxa.uwa.oz (Gunter Ahrendt) writes: >Please the Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird is not the fastest/highest flying plane, >the MiG-25 E.226 Foxbat can fly approx. 30% higher and the North American >X-15A-2 300% higher and 100% faster. Even though take-off is not achieved under >it's own power this does not make it any less remarkable. The Blackbird IS the fastest and highest flying AIR breathing aircraft in the world. The Air Force has not allowed it to set an altitude record (as the result of a zoom, as the modified Foxbat and Streak Eagle did.) However, nothing else can maintain its altitudes for hours on end. Oh, yeah. The SE and E-266 altitudes were TIME TO CLIMB, not sustained altitudes. Both aircraft were practically out of control, and flames out at their flight peaks. -- ============================================================================== | Steve Langner-Stickster-Commodore SIGOp | rutgers!sharkey!clmqt!slangner | | Enterprise Info. System, Mqt. MI, USA, Terra, Sol | slangner@clmqt.UUCP | =================> "It's dead Jim, but not as we know it." <================== --------------------------------------- From: bob@castle.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 01/23/90 (Forwarded) Date: 29 Jan 90 18:15:14 GMT Reply-To: bob@castle.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) Organization: Edinburgh Concurrent Supercomputer Project In article <1990Jan25.185158.11277@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >In article <1818@castle.ed.ac.uk> bob@castle.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes: > >>Twenty years from now there should be a lot of second hand >>Japanese and Russian (and hopefully European) lunar ferries >>coming onto the market. NASA should be able to force the >>price down by making the right deals. > >>Only 1/2 :-> > >Even with half a smiley, the wishful thinking in that paragraph >is overwhelming. Absolutely! Completley overwhelming. But does anyone find another scenario any more believable. Twenty years after the first Moon landing, which happened less that ten years after the first manned spaceflight, NASA estimates it will take another 20 years before they are able to go back. >The Soviets... I said last year I thought cuts in their program, >perhaps even a termination of manned spaceflight, were possibilities. A cutback has already happened, but I think it is unlikely that it would be terminated. Partly because it brings in hard currency, and partly out of national prestiege. Let me present another scenario. The Soviets re-structure themselves into a federation, keep their space exploration going at present and cease to be so much of a military threat. The aerospace contractors, badly hit by the loss of a large part of their income when military spending is cut, lobby for extra spending on space exploration. The reason given is that as resources are becoming scarce, new supplies of raw materials have to be found. The only untapped resources are Antartica, the seabed, or Space. There are very loud voices arguing against exploitation of the first two for environmental reasons. Bob. --------------------------------------- From: stan@hanauma (Stan Ruppert) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: List of Acronymns (long) Keywords: acronymns, glossary of terms, references Date: 31 Jan 90 08:15:12 GMT Sender: news@lindy.Stanford.EDU (News Service) Reply-To: stan@hanauma (Stan Ruppert) Distribution: na Organization: Stanford University, Dept. of Geophysics The following list of acronymns is from: The Voyager Neptune Travel Guide by Voyager Mission Planning Office Staff Charles Kohlhase - Editor NASA-JPL-CIT June 1, 1989 JPL Publication 89-24 This is a fantastic publication which covers planning for the Voyager Neptune Encounter in addition to being a great treatise on mission personnel, spacecraft engineering, and science experiments. The Guide also covers what science is planned during the Voyager Interstellar Cruise portion of the mission. Also discussed are the basics of how NASA communicates with far ranging spacecraft, how flight trajectories are planned to use various planets to 'sling-shot' the spacecraft along their way, and how the Voyager team dealt with the various hardware problems that came up on the spacecraft during the mission. At the end of the Guide is a bibliography listing both technical and introductory references for further reading. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- For a more detailed definition of terms included in the list of acronymns below please refer to the Voyager Neptune Travel Guide. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Voyager 1 reference AACS Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem AAI All Axes Inertial AD anno Domini AIAA American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics AM Amplitude Modulation ASFULL PRA investigation of Neptune's magnetosphere AU Astronomical Unit (approx. 150 million km) Az Azimuth B Voyager 2 reference BML Backup Mission Load bps bits per second C/A Closest Approach C^3 Command, Communications, and Control cc cubic centimeter CCS Computer Command Subsystem CCSL Computer Command Subsystem Load CDSCC Canberra Deep Space Communications Complex (Australia) CDT Capability Demonstration Test CDU Command Detector Unit cm centimeter CM Command Moratorium CMC Complex Monitor Control CR Cosmic Rays CRS Cosmic Ray SUbsystem CRSMVR Cruise Manuever CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (Australia) CST Canopus Star Tracker d day DACS Data Capture and Staging deg degree DRS Data Records Subsystem DSCC Deep Space Communications Complex DSN Deep Space Network (NASA) DSS Data Storage Subsystem, or Deep Space Station DTR Digital Tape Recorder EDR experiment Data Record El Elevation ENC-REL Encounter-Relative (time) EUV Extreme Ultraviolet EUVE Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer F&P Fields and Particles FDS Flight Data Subsystem FE Far Encounter Phase FM Frequency Modulation FOO FLight Operations Office FOV Field of View FPA Fault Protection Algorithm FSO Flight Science Office FSTEP LECP observation to detect rapid variations in Neptune's radiation field ft foot FUV Far Ultraviolet GCF Ground COmmunications Facility GDS Ground Data System GDSCC Goldstone Deep Space Communicaions COmplex (California) Ghz GigaHertz (one billion cycles per second) gm gram GMT Greenwich Mean Time GS&E General Science and Engineering GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center H Hydrogen h or hr hour He Helium HGA High Gain Antenna ICE International Comet Explorer IDC Image data compression IMC Image MOtion Compensation INTA National Institute for Aerospace Techniques (Spain) IPM Interplanetary Medium IR Infrared IRIS Infrared Interferometer Spectrometer and Radiometer Subsystem ISAS Institute of Astronautical Science (Japan) ISM Interstellar Medium ISS Imaging Science Subsystem IUE International Ultraviolet Explorer JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory kbps kilo(1000) bits per second kg kilogram km kilometer LAN Local Area Network lb pound LECP Low Energy Charged Particles Subsystem LEMPA Low Energy Magnetospheric Particle Analyzer (in LECP) LEPT Low Energy Particle Telescope (LECP) LETS Low Energy Telescope System (CRS) LEU Late Ephemeris Update LMC Link Monitor Control LSU Late Stored Update m meter (also minute) MAG Magnetometer Subsystem MAGROLL Spacecraft roll maneuver MCCC Mission Control and Computing Center MCT Mission Control Team MHz MegaHertz (one million cycles per second) mi mile MIMC Maneuverless Image Motion Compensation MIPS Multimission Image Processing Subsystem MJS77 Mariner Jupiter/Saturn 1977 mm millimeter mph miles per hour MPO Mission Planning Office NA Narrow Angle (imaging) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASCOM NASA Communications Network NAV Navigation Team NE Near Encounter Phase NEC Near Encounter Contingency NET Near Encounter Test NIMC Nodding Image Motion Compensation NMB Neptune Movable Block NRAO National Radio Astronomy Observatory OAO Orbiting Astronomical Observatory OB Observatory Phase OCC Occultation OPNAV Optical Navigation ORT Operational Readiness Test (radio science) OWLT One-Way LIght Time PDT Pacific Daylight TIme PE Post-Encounter PHase PEO Public Education Office (JPL) PIO Public Information Office (JPL) PLS Plasma Subsystem POT Potentiometer PPS Photopolarimeter Subsystem PPVPHOT Photometeric observation of Neptune's atmosphere PRA Planetary Radio Astronomy Subsystem PWS Plasma Wave Subsystem R-axis The R-S-T axes refer to an orthogonal targeting coordinate system, where S points in the same direction as the target-relative approach hyperbolic excess velocity, T is parallel to the ecliptic plane, and R is 'down' rads 100 ergs per gram of irradiated material RFA Request for Action RFS Radio Frequency Subsystem RODAN Radio Occultaion Data Analysis RPDISK IRIS observation of Neptune's disk rpm revolutions per minute RPOCCPT IRIS observation of radio science occultation point in Neptune's atmosphere RS Reed-Solomon; Radio Science RSS Radio Science SUbsystem RTG Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator RTMAPIN IRIS map of lit side of Triton RTMAPOUT IRIS map of dark side of Triton S/C 31 Voyager 1 reference S/C 32 Voyager 2 reference SC Scan Converter SCET Spacecraft Event Time SCT Spacecraft Team (sometimes Spacecraft TIme) SDT Science Data Team sec, s second SEDR Supplementary Experiment Data Record SEQ Sequence Team SIS Science Investigation Support Team SNR Signal-to-Noise ratio SOC Science OPerations Coordinator SPC Signal Processing Center SSG Science Steering Group SWG Science Working Group T-axis refer to R-axis TBD To Be Determined TC Thermal Cycle TCM Trajectory Correction Maneuver TET Electron Telescope (CRS) TMB Triton Movable Block TMT Torque Margin Test TTS Test and Telemetry Subsystem TV Television U/L Uplink UPCORONA UVS observations of Nepturne's corona UPDKPOL UVS ovservations of Neptunes' dark pole USO Ultra Stable Oscillator UTCDRFT UVS ovservation of co-rotation plasma near Triton UTGLOW UVS observations of airglow emissions from Triton's atmosphere UTHOCC UVS ovservation of Triton's outer atmosphere during occultaion UTPLASMA UVS ovservation of co-rotation plasma near Triton UV Ultraviolet UVS Ultraviolet Spectrometer Subsystem VCR Video Cassette Recorder VGR Voyager VIM Voyager Interstellar Mission VISA Voyager IMaging Support Activity VLA Very Large Array VMB Vernier Movable BLock VNBEST Highest resolution picture of Nereid VNESSA Voyager Neptune Encounter Science Support ACtivity VRARCMOV1 Narow-angle images of possible ring arcs VRDETECT Narrow-angle mosaics to search for possible ring arcs VRHIPHAS Images of possible ring arcs as sunlight is scattered through them VRMOS1,2 Narrow-angle images to observe possible ring arcs or shepherding satellites VRRET1 Retargettable images of a possible newly discovered ring-arc (acronym subsequently changed to VRRETINX) VRRETINX See VRRET1;x=0,1,2,3, for specific application of VRRET1 VRXING2 Imaging ovservations during outbound ring plane crossing VTCOLOR Highest resolution color images of Triton VTERM Highest resolution images of Triton VTLON Periodic Imaging of Triton as it orbits Neptune VTMAP Images to map Triton's surface WA Wide Angle (imaging) WPOLE PWS observations of plasma wave signals near Nepturne's north pole WS Work Station WSFULL PWS observation of plasma wave signals in Neptune's inner magnetosphere WSHORT05 5-second PWS observations of plasma wave signals in Neptune's inner magnetosphere WSHORT10 10-second PWS observations of plasma wave signals in Neptune's inner magnetosphere WWII World War II XROCC Radio science observations of ring during occultaion XPOCC Radio science observations of Neptune's atmosphere during occultaions XSGRAV Radio Science observations of gravity fields of Neptune and Triton XTOCC Radio science observations of Triton's atmossphere during occultation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ============================================================================= Stan Ruppert Dept of Geophysics Stanford University, CA 94305 Email Addr: (Internet) stan@erebus.stanford.edu ============================================================================= --------------------------------------- From: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Subject: Galileo Update - 01/31/90 Date: 1 Feb 90 02:06:12 GMT Sender: news@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov Reply-To: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:17126 sci.astro:6617 GALILEO MISSION STATUS January 31, 1990 The Galileo spacecraft is almost 25 million miles from Earth today, with a round-trip light time of almost 4+ minutes; distance to Venus is down to 3 million miles. The length of the journey since launch has reached 167 million miles, and the velocity relative to the Sun is up to 80,525 miles per hour. General health of the spacecraft continues to be very good, with a nominal power margin and all temperatures in the acceptable range. It continues in a all-spin configuration (2.89 rpm, Sun-pointed within 1/2 degree), sending telemetry over low-gain antenna 2 at 1200 bits per second. Galileo continues to operate in a caretaker mode, automatically maintaining sunpoint. In addition to the dust detector, Galileo's magnetometer, heavy ion counter, and ultraviolet instruments have been turned on. A star scanner spin rate estimate failed once during a S-thruster flushing activity. Preliminary analysis indicates that the scanner may have "seen" several stars of near equal intensity, therefore "seeing too many stars" in the field-of-view. The flight team has developed the sequence which will control Galileo through the Venus flyby (actually, through the period February 7-18). In addition, work is well underway on the first post-Venus cruise sequence. 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 | --------------------------------------- From: usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space Summary: Risk? Keywords: Sez who? Date: 20 Jan 90 03:44:11 GMT Reply-To: conklin@frith.UUCP (Terry Conklin) Organization: Engineering, Michigan State University, E. Lansing Define "explosion prone launch vehicles." One shuttle has gone up in how many launches? That's funny, no one told me when I missed a question or two one a test that I was "error prone" or "prone to making mistakes." Considering a recent comment about English-speakers, I'd appreciate proper use of the lanugage myself. It's always distressing to see a zero-risk type decide what is acceptable risk for all of us. Primarily, it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the risks inherent in travel by auto (my dad's an engineer in accident analysis. Better yet, ask your insurance agent) and more importantly it smacks of Yet-Another-Overly-Vocal-Minority. Unforunately, it is unlikely that people will stand up for their right to take a one-in-a-billion risk for the near-certain benefits of advanced spaceflight. And of course, no one is that unreasonable. We are all entirely welcome to take up a course that will take decades and cost _enormous_ sums of everyone's money - fissionables on the moon, since that doesn't inconvenience anyone with "undue risks." I'd bet you have a higher risk BREATHING and contracting cancer that you would of contracting it from the highly effective carcinogen, shuttle- powdered plutonium Terry Conklin conklin@egr.msu.edu uunet!frith!conklin --------------------------------------- From: seldon@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Seldon) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Space Station Freedom to run UNIX Keywords: a "real-time" unix system: LynxOS Date: 20 Jan 90 23:41:18 GMT Sender: news@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU Organization: The Launch Pad In article <8833@nigel.udel.EDU> pezely@cis.udel.edu (Daniel Pezely) writes: >I wouldn't mind being the system administrator on a space station... >...that would be one way to get to space. :-) > HEH...can you imagine if they had RN on this system...then we'd start seeing postings with address like: crippen@freedom.nasa.gov Oh well.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- seldon@eleazar.dartmouth.edu -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- seldon@eleazar.dartmouth.edu "The sky was the color of television tuned to a dead channel..." -William Gibson --------------------------------------- From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Space Station Freedom to run UNIX Date: 22 Jan 90 22:59:02 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <8833@nigel.udel.EDU> pezely@cis.udel.edu (Daniel Pezely) writes: >I wouldn't mind being the system administrator on a space station... >...that would be one way to get to space. :-) No such luck... the sysadmin of the space station will be located on the ground. Unless costs come down spectacularly, absolutely everything that can be done from the ground, will be. The fraction of sysadmin jobs that require physical access to the hardware, given careful hardware design (e.g. ability to trigger a reboot remotely), is just about zero. -- 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 --------------------------------------- From: izahi@portia.Stanford.EDU (Raul Izahi Lopez Hernandez) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Space Station Freedom to run UNIX Keywords: a "real-time" unix system: LynxOS Date: 23 Jan 90 21:29:37 GMT Sender: USENET News System Reply-To: izahi@portia.Stanford.EDU (Raul Izahi Lopez Hernandez) In article <4832fb8b.1766d@june.engin.umich.edu>, stealth@caen.engin.umich.edu (Mike Peltier) writes: > But seriously... > What kind of hardware will it be running? How does the performance > of the space-worthy processors compare with earthbound ones? The Space Station freedom will use a nice distributed system as opposed to the centralized one that the Space Shuttle uses. This approach has many benefits, one of them being that it is possible for suppliers all over the world to work on 'their' share and even try it with nice emulator kits that NASA provides. I have a reference for this but I don't have it around, I can dig that out for you guys if anybody is interested. RAUL IZAHI --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: NASA Headline News for 01/23/90 (Forwarded) Date: 24 Jan 90 18:21:38 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tuesday, January 23, 1990 Audio: 202/755-1788 ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is NASA Headline News for Tuesday, January 23rd...... The weekly publication "Space News" reports that NASA Administrator Richard Truly last week asked Vice President Quayle to recommend to the President that he set 2010 as the date for the U.S. to return to the moon. The publication reports that during a meeting last Thursday of the National Space Council, other members present said they were not in favor of setting a specific date. The paper says Quayle listened to arguements on both sides, asked many questions, and then ended the meeting without comment. The space shuttle Columbia and the Long Duration Exposure Facility, stored in its payload bay, are being prepared for Thursday morning's start of a two-day ferry flight to Kennedy Space Center. The flight to KSC includes a refueling stop at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, an overnight stop at Kelly AFB, Texas, and a second refueling stop at Eglin AFB, Florida. LDEF will be removed from the payload bay at KSC sometime next week for inspection by research teams. Removal of the 57 experiments will begin around mid-February. Final checkouts of the orbiter Atlantis are continuing today in the Vehicle Assembly Building. Rollout to launch pad 39-A is targeted for 8 A.M. Thursday. The terminal countdown demonstra- tion test with the STS-36 flight crew is scheduled for next week. Atlantis and its five man crew will fly a classified Department of Defense mission next month. An Ariane 4 rocket on Sunday, successfully launched a French- built Spot 2 Earth observation satellite into orbit. The launch was the first this year for the European Space Agency. The spot 2 is the second in a series of high-tech photo observation satellites built for the French space agency. Images from the satellite are available commercially. ********** ----------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA Select television. All times are Eastern. Wednesday, Jan. 24..... 5:55 P.M. Delta launch of a GPS satellite from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Thursday, Jan. 25...... 8:00 A.M. Rollout of Atlantis to pad 39-A. 11:30 A.M. NASA Update will be transmitted. Monday, Jan. 29........ 1:00 P.M. FY '91 budget briefing from 6th floor auditorium, NASA HQ. All events and times are subject to change without notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------- These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon, Eastern time. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC), NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. --------------------------------------- From: tcourtoi@jarthur.claremont.edu (Todd Courtois) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Cosmic rays....**URGENT!!** Date: 25 Jan 90 01:40:46 GMT Sender: tcourtoi@jarthur.Claremont.EDU Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711 Keywords:Cosmic Rays, Mars, Lunar Radiation Levels ****************************** * URGENT!!! * ****************************** I am looking for data on the content/level of cosmic radiation. Specifically, I would like to know the various particle percentages and energy levels in these locations: Martian surface (I don't know if this data exists) Lunar surface Various altitudes in our atmosphere Earth orbit/ low earth orbit I am doing basic research on an energy source which could potentially be used for space propulsion, depending on these data. Thank you very much for your help. E-mail preferred. --Todd Courtois tcourtoi@jarthur.claremont.edu or ccourtois@hmcvax.claremont.edu --------------------------------------- From: andrew@tvcent.uucp (Andrew Cowie) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Heavy Water (was Re: How do they commercially produce Pu238) Summary: CANDU Reactor Date: 21 Jan 90 23:34:16 GMT Reply-To: andrew@tvcent.UUCP (Andrew Cowie) Organization: TVC Enterprises In a recent article hasara@GN.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Andrew J Hasara) wrote: > Because breeder reactors are heavy-water reactors, the US gov. regulates >heavy water (deuterium oxide) and has some heavy restrictions on heavy-water >reactors, and I think (with a lot of uncertainty) that there are no commercial >heavy water nuclear power stations in the US. I do not know a great deal about the regulatory policies of the US Government, but you may find it interesting that the only type of commercial reactor used in Canada is of type CANDU (CANada Deuterium Uranium) which uses unenriched uranium, for reasons ranging from political (95% enrichment being bomb grade - the Canadian Government doesn't want it getting around - we sell a fair number of CANDU reactors) to practical. (Why process it if you don't need to) CANDU uses Deuterium Oxide (D2O, Heavy water) as its moderator in the reactor vessel, and for the primary heat transfer circuit. This passes to a secondary water system from which steam is generated, which drives the turbines. Enough of this. I am sure there is a talk or soc group that would just love this discussion. :-) [ Please note that I have no connection whatsoever with the Canadian Government, and that I do not speak for them, nor am I supporting or detracting from their possition on nuclear energy. ] -- Andrew F. Cowie at TVC Enterprises, Toronto, Canada. uunet!mnetor!lethe!tvcent!andrew andrew@tvcent.uucp --------------------------------------- From: martens@navajo.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: A Letter to NASA-Apologist Press Date: 26 Jan 90 15:41:34 GMT Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Reply-To: Jeff Martens Distribution: usa Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science In article <9001181937.AA06079@trout.nosc.mil> jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) writes: [ ... ] >Despite receiving, by far, the largest amount of money for research >and development of any civilian agency, NASA spends the least on >science. [ ... ] Ok, you lost me here. I'm not going to claim that NASA does a good job with the money it's given -- I don't know of any government agency that would be true of -- but surely there are civilian agencies that spend less on science, either by percentage of budget or by total dollars. HUD comes to mind; they don't put a lot of money into science. -=- -- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu) What's the difference between a Unix group and a group of eunichs? --------------------------------------- From: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Subject: Voyager Update - 01/26/90 Date: 26 Jan 90 22:54:15 GMT Sender: news@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov Reply-To: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) Distribution: usa Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:17048 sci.astro:6547 Voyager Mission Status Report January 26, 1990 Voyager 1 The spacecraft continue to collect routine cruise science data throughout this period. The A001 sequence began execution nominally on January 15 and one frame of high-rate PWS data was recorded. Real-time command traffic was limited to January 17 and entailed transmission of a dummy CC and enablement of the day 024 Cruise Maneuver. On January 11 and 12, Playback #8, containing Neptune Photometry images 15 through 36, Magnetometer Autocal Data, and PWS data, was executed. The data were not received because there was no DSN 70-meter support available. On January 17, the IRIS Flash Off Heater and Replacement Heater were turned off because no further activity is planned for the IRIS instrument. Also on January 17, the AACS A and B Gyros were turned on, the APPW Patch was delinked and a CCSTIM test was executed by the spacecraft. None of these activities was observed due to loss of telemetry at DSS-15. The station was experiencing heavy snowfall and, consequently, high System Noise Temperatures (SNT). Spacecraft performance for all the sequenced activity during this report period has been nominal. Voyager 2 The spacecraft continue to collect routine cruise science data throughout this period. High-rate UVS observations of HR 1679 were performed on January 13 and 15. Only short periods of coverage could be provided for these observations due to severe contentions with other users for 70-meter support. On January 15, a CCS A memory checksum and memory read-out sequence was executed as a precursor to the scheduled CCS A memory refresh. Real-time commands were then transmitted to perform the memory refresh and downlink the post refresh checksums and memory read- out. However, due to a Galileo spacecraft emergency, our scheduled DSS-43 pass was pre-empted and there was no station available for the downlink of the CCS A refresh telemetry. When a DSN pass was available on January 16, the spacecraft state was nominal for a successful completion of the refresh sequence. On January 17, the X-band TWT was commanded to the high-power mode and the Bay 1 heater was turned off. Also on January 17, Playback #1, containing the B001 Torque Margin Test, PWS data and Neptune Photometry Images 1 through 24, was performed. Only the last three hours of the seven-hour fifty-minute playback was received due to the lack of sufficient DSN 70-meter support. 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 | --------------------------------------- From: mason@habs11.dec.com (Gary Mason) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: A sad anniversery Date: 27 Jan 90 00:22:06 GMT Sender: newsdaemon@shlump.nac.dec.com Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation In article <1990Jan26.111041.8481@csuf3b.CSUFresno.EDU>, jackh@csuf3b.CSUFresno.EDU (Jack Hart) writes... > >I'd just like to point out that Saturday, January 27 is the 23rd anniversery >of the Apollo/Saturn 204 accident, in which Gus Grissom, Edward H. White II, >and Roger B. Chafee died of asphyxiation in a capsule fire during a ground >test of their Apollo block 1 spacecraft. This date doesn't escape us all. I was employed at NASA (GSFC) at that time, and an avid follower of the space program, manned and otherwise. I was to be married the next day, and was having a small get-together with members of the wedding party when we saw the news that evening. I shall remember it always. mason@habs11.enet.dec.com --------------------------------------- From: stick@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US (Stickster) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: SR-71 aka "Blackbird" Date: 30 Jan 90 02:46:13 GMT Organization: Enterprise Information System, Marquette, MI g7ahn@cc.ic.ac.uk (K. Krallis) writes: >In article 0C109@AECLCR.BITNET (Donald Simmons) writes: >> >> Hate to say this, but I am not sure what the SR-71 project was all about. I >>know that it was some sort of experimental aircraft, but there my knowledge en >>Can someone send me a run-down on the project and its history? >> > Briefly, SR-71 is a high altitude high speed strategic reconnaissance >aircraft. >Costas Krallis >Imperial College >London UK >g7ahn@cc.ic.ac.uk The SR-71 is the end product of the YF-12A extremely high altitude and speed interceptor program. Both types of aircraft are used to this day for experimental purposes. -- ============================================================================== | Steve Langner-Stickster-Commodore SIGOp | rutgers!sharkey!clmqt!slangner | | Enterprise Info. System, Mqt. MI, USA, Terra, Sol | slangner@clmqt.UUCP | =================> "It's dead Jim, but not as we know it." <================== --------------------------------------- From: jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Letter to the Editor Date: 30 Jan 90 16:45:55 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Send this letter into your local newspaper and copy your congressman. To the Editor: In declaring a budget increase for NASA of 24%, without imposing appropriate reforms on that agency, President Bush betrays the principles and letter of his own space policy: " -- Utilize commercially available goods and services to the fullest extent feasible, and avoid actions that may preclude or deter commercial space sector activities except as required by national security or public safety. A space good or service is "commercially available" if it is currently offered commercially, or if it could be supplied commercially in response to a government service procurement request. "Feasible" means that such goods or services meet mission requirements in a cost- effective manner." The expenditure of every major portion of NASA's budget could be reformed to rely on commercial services, rather than civil servants and closely associated contractors. Most of the mission requirements of Space Station could be fulfilled by a Commercially Developed Space Facility at a small fraction of the cost of Space Station and at a much earlier date. Mission to Planet Earth could be accomplished by an array of privately developed, launched and operated earth observation satellites much less sophisticated than the current generation of commercial communcations satellites. Likewise, unmanned moon and Mars exploration could be accomplished by private companies, given appropriate incentives. Most of the projected payloads for the Shuttle could be launched by commercial space carriers such as General Dynamics. Until President Bush ceases his hypocritical support of Texas pork-barrel and adheres to the principles of his own space policy, Congress should feel no obligation to increase NASA's budget and, indeed, should consider termination of funding for those portions of the space agency which run counter to President's stated policies. --- Typical RESEARCH grant: $ Typical DEVELOPMENT contract: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ --------------------------------------- From: nickw@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Nick Watkins) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 01/23/90 (Forwarded) Date: 30 Jan 90 18:33:12 GMT Reply-To: nickw@syma.susx.ac.uk (Nick Watkins) Organization: University of Sussex In article <1818@castle.ed.ac.uk> bob@castle.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes: >Twenty years from now there should be a lot of second hand >Japanese and Russian (and hopefully European) lunar ferries The Russians appear to have a spare LEM now. It was built 20 years ago. Ask yourself why it is still surplus. Japan on the other hand, is another story. Meanwhile fans of the "lunar mine by '89" school of space development should check out the last AW&ST, where (Jan 22, p.84) the Livermore plans are described in some detail. I hadn't realised Lowell Wood and Rod Hyde were leading lights in all this. Nick -- Nick Watkins, Space & Plasma Physics Group, School of Mathematical & Physical Sciences, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton, E.Sussex, BN1 9QH, ENGLAND JANET: nickw@syma.sussex.ac.uk BITNET: nickw%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: NASA Headline News for 02/01/90 (Forwarded) Date: 1 Feb 90 19:52:17 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Thursday, February 1, 1990 Audio: 202/755-1788 ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is NASA Headline News for Wednesday, February 1...... Galileo is scheduled to arrive at Venus at 1:00am, Saturday, February 10. According to Jet Propulsion Laboratory engineers, the actual computer sequence to control Galileo through the eleven-day fly-by has been developed. It is now in final review and will be sent to the spacecraft on February 6. The spacecraft is travelling at almost 81 thousand miles per hour relative to the sun and currently 25.4 million miles from Earth and 2.9 million miles from Venus. University of Alabama scientists report good news. The photographic survey shows 60% of the collection produced crystals in zero gravity on the recent STS-32 Space Shuttle flight. DuPont researchers say preliminary studies reveal the largest crystals and the best data ever received. One enzyme to treat agriculture fungicides could possibly provide a breakthrough in studies against serious crop diseases. The STS-36 flight crew arrives this afternoon at Kennedy Space Center to participate in the coutdown demonstration test. While at KSC, they will practice safety drills and they will be on the Atlantis flight deck for the final portion of the exercise on Saturday morning. Scientists now believe gravity may have had more influence on the 'Big Bang' phenomena than originally expected. It appears the fluctuation in the development of small particles, like a pearl in an oyster, started the build-up of a gravity power house -- getting a head-start on the construction job of the universe. The Washington Post today reports that the findings about the universe built on gravity will be published in this issue of the British Journal monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The LDEF is now hoisted to the canister for transfer to the clean room tomorrow. The la times front page yesterday featured a four-column color foto of the LDEF showing a scene of the crew as 'it was lifted from the cargo bay after retrieval from six years in space.' USAF Lieutenant General, Samuel C. Phillips, died yesterday. In 1964, he served NASA as Director of the Apollo lunar landing program. Administer Truly said, "Sam Phillips spent a lifetime in service to his country. I speak for everyone at NASA when I say we shall miss him as a leader and as a friend." ###### ----------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events for this week on NASA Select TV. All times are Eastern: Saturday, February 2...... 8:00 AM - 11:00 AM Countdown Demonstration Test with the STS-36 flight crew. All events and times are subject to change without notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------- These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon, Eastern time. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A service of the Internal Communications Branch, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. --------------------------------------- From: rossd@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (David Ross) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: NASA Funding Summary: Coke in space? Date: 19 Jan 90 19:47:13 GMT Sender: news@calgary.UUCP Reply-To: rossd@acs-sun-fse.UUCP (David Ross) Organization: U. of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada In article <5A0110121F340076-MTABWIDENER*DXANDY@widener> DXANDY@WIDENER.BITNET writes: > > Please excuse me if this topic has been discussed previously, or it falls >into the catagory of "too stupid to consider". 'Sallright... Most of the stuff we read in the news already falls into that category. > If NASA were to enter the >world of advertising, if only in a small way, surely it would be able to >bring in several millions of dollars. For example, if the ET were to act as >huge billboard, I am sure that a company such as Coca Cola would pay massive >amounts to have it painted like a giant Coke can. A while back, the Soviets, who were desparately seeking cash, announced that they would be selling advertising space on their launch vehicles and cosmonauts, and would be willing to sell footage of products being used in space. -D David C. Ross | "If I spill soapy water on the floor, U of Calgary | is it dirty, or is it clean?" --------------------------------------- From: gnb@bby.oz.au (Gregory N. Bond) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: NASA Headline News - 01/18/90 (Forwarded) Date: 22 Jan 90 01:20:13 GMT Sender: news@melba.bby.oz.au Organization: Burdett, Buckeridge and Young Ltd. In-Reply-To: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov's message of 19 Jan 90 02:46:09 GMT In article <2608@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: ...Thomas Sega, the husband of Bonnie Dunbar...now in space aboard the Columbia...was selected as a mission specialist. Hmm. Now we have a morally-acceptable way to answer that ages old space question.... -- Gregory Bond, Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Internet: gnb@melba.bby.oz.au non-MX: gnb%melba.bby.oz@uunet.uu.net Uucp: {uunet,pyramid,ubc-cs,ukc,mcvax,prlb2,nttlab...}!munnari!melba.bby.oz!gnb --------------------------------------- From: rich@inmet.inmet.com Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Japanese craft to the moon Date: 23 Jan 90 17:23:00 GMT Nf-ID: #N:inmet:18500001:000:134 Nf-From: inmet.inmet.com!rich Jan 23 12:23:00 1990 In today's (Jan. 23) Boston Globe, it mentions that Japan is launching a craft to the moon. Can anyone provide more details on this? --------------------------------------- From: sjeyasin@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk (swaraj jeyasingh) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Galileo Update - 01/12/90 Date: 24 Jan 90 09:48:51 GMT Sender: news@axion.bt.co.uk Reply-To: sjeyasin@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk Organization: British Telecom Research Labs From article <331@mtndew.UUCP>, by friedl@mtndew.UUCP (Steve Friedl): > I asked if it would be possible to bring Galileo back if some > problem developed, and the answers weren't what I was looking > for. I understand that RTGs and cost questions and all that are > relevant, but my intent is strictly one of orbital mechanics. > Could Galileo be put in orbit around the Earth? Is it going too > fast? Mine is a hypothetical question only. > According to the NASA press kit for STS34, Earth 1 flyby ( about 600 mi)I*Dec. 8, 1990 Earth 2 flyby (200 mi)I*Dec. 8, 1992 From these figures it should be possible to work out velocities ? Actually, the second figure looks too damn close! Atmospheric drag etc BTW, can anyone explain why Magellan takes that much longer to reach Venus than Galileo. I presume its due to the fact that the former has to orbit Venus while the latter is doing a hyperbolic flyby (thus going faster, thus requiring more fuel to slow down). Do the different launch dates also impact this in any way. i.e if Galileo had been launched at the same time as Magellan would it still have gotten there quicker ? Swaraj Jeyasingh sjeyasingh@axion.bt.co.uk British Telecom Research Labs Martlesham Heath, IPSWICH UK --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Management of polar platform to change (Forwarded) Date: 24 Jan 90 19:52:13 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA Mark Hess Headquarters, Washington, D.C. January 24, 1990 Paula Cleggett-Haleim Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Mike Braukus Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. RELEASE: 90-10 MANAGEMENT OF POLAR PLATFORM TO CHANGE NASA Administrator Richard H. Truly has approved a plan to transfer the management of the polar orbiting platform, currently under development by the Office of Space Flight as part of the Space Station Freedom program, to the Office of Space Science and Applications which has responsibility for the proposed Earth Observing System (EOS) program. President Bush has made preservation of the environment a top priority. NASA's EOS is a key element of the overall Mission to Planet Earth initiative, the purpose of which is to produce the understanding needed to predict changes in the Earth's environment. EOS will observe the Earth from polar orbit to understand the processes that control the global environment. EOS is planned to be a major new effort within NASA, and the unmanned polar platform will be the first piece of hardware to be built for this program. "This gives the responsibility for managing the EOS platform to the office responsible for carrying out the EOS mission," said Dr. William B. Lenoir, Associate Administrator for Space Flight. "In a management sense, it puts the development and operation of the platform closer to the users of the platform." Plans for EOS observations have been developed in coordination with NASA's international partners. "This transition plan was discussed with our international partners and we have assured them that agreements between us will be honored in all regards," said Lenoir. The role of the Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., which manages the EOS program and the polar platform, has not been altered by this decision. Goddard will continue to play a vital role in the Freedom program as the NASA center responsible for developing the Flight Telerobotic Servicer, a space robot that will be used in the assembly and maintenance of the manned base. Goddard will retain its management responsibility for developing the platform with General Electric Astro Space, Princeton, N.J., as the prime contractor. Current plans call for the U.S. platform to be launched in 1998 on a Titan IV rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. The platform will have an orbital lifetime of at least 5 years. Transition of management of the polar platform will be conducted during the 1990 fiscal year. Beginning in FY 1991, complete responsibility for the polar platform will be transferred to the Office of Space Science and Applications. --------------------------------------- From: gwh@earthquake.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: SR-71 BLACKBIRD Date: 25 Jan 90 09:55:55 GMT Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44) Reply-To: gwh@ocf.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) Organization: ucb Summary:FoxClone? In article <15120@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >In article <689@elan.elan.com> jlo@elan.elan.com (Jeff Lo) writes: >>But the Foxbat has shown us everything it's got, inside and out. > >When Aviation Week takes one for a checkride, I'll believe it. Remember >this is a SENSITIVE area. Even if you assume that US and Soviet defense >intelligence communities each know the other power's high altitude >capabilities, that doesn't mean we want, say, Chile to know. (The >American taxpayer ranks somewhere behind Luxembourg in the right-to-know >pecking order, of course.) Rumor went around a while ago that after we dissasembled one Viktor Belenko's Foxbat, and took things like exact parts specifications down [the origional had to be returned] the USAF had a couple built. and was not impressed... --------------------------------------- From: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Subject: Magellan Update - 01/25/90 Date: 26 Jan 90 00:01:06 GMT Sender: news@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov Reply-To: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:17027 sci.astro:6536 MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT Jan. 25, 1990 Today, the Magellan spacecraft is 113,712,818 miles from Earth, traveling at a speed of 62,258 miles per hour relative to the sun. One way light time is 10 minutes and 11 seconds. The spacecraft resumed operations in the standard cruise mode again on Jan. 18, as planned, with the beginning of cruise computer sequence 17. The spacecraft had invoked its fault protection software on Dec. 31 when it detected a memory error in the high-level privileged memory. The fault protection put the spacecraft into a safety mode and shut off the prime-A command and data subsystem and went to its backup system. The spacecraft also automatically switched from the high- gain antenna to the medium-gain antenna and reduced the downlink telemetry from 1,200 bits per second to 40 bps. Successful reaction wheel desaturations and star calibrations were performed by ground commands. The spacecraft's health and routine operations were confirmed today by Magellan operations. SPACECRAFT Distance from Earth (mi) 113,712,818 Velocity Heliocentric 62,258 mph One-way light time 10 mins, 11 sec 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 | --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle Subject: Global Outpost, Inc., to study uses of shuttle external tanks (Forwarded) Date: 26 Jan 90 20:18:45 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Followup-To: sci.space Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:17045 sci.space.shuttle:4652 Ed Campion Headquarters, Washington, D.C. January 26, 1990 RELEASE: 90-14 GLOBAL OUTPOST, INC., TO STUDY USES OF SHUTTLE EXTERNAL TANKS The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Global Outpost, Inc., Alexandria, Va., today signed an agreement under which NASA will support Global Outpost's exploration of the feasibility of using Shuttle external tanks as research, storage or manufacturing facilities in low-Earth orbit. Under the agreement, Global Outpost has the main responsibility to address the issues associated with their planned orbital use of external tanks. NASA's support of Global's efforts is on a direct cost, reimbursable basis. The external tank is a structure (154-feet long, 28.6 feet in diameter) used to carry the 500,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen and oxygen used by the Space Shuttle main engines during launch and initial orbit insertion. The agreement follows an announcement of opportunity NASA published in June 1988 which asked the private sector for expressions of interest in commercial and academic approaches for use of expended tanks. This activity is part of NASA's effort to seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space. --------------------------------------- From: ingoldsb@ctycal.UUCP (Terry Ingoldsby) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Subject: Re: Magellan Update - 01/17/90 Summary: Metric, anyone? Date: 27 Jan 90 02:32:40 GMT Organization: The City of Calgary, Ab Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:17052 sci.astro:6555 In article <1990Jan18.212423.20561@phri.nyu.edu>, roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > In <2595@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > > Today, the Magellan spacecraft is 113,471,037 miles from Earth > Arghh! Why do they give the distances to 9 significant figures? My complaint is that they give the distance in miles. Surely NASA/JPL et al are metric. I've talked to layman who *firmly* believe that NASA does all their work in imperial because that's how they do their press releases. Still, I guess we should be happy for the updates - in whatever form. -- Terry Ingoldsby ctycal!ingoldsb@calgary.UUCP Land Information Systems or The City of Calgary ...{alberta,ubc-cs,utai}!calgary!ctycal!ingoldsb --------------------------------------- From: elturner@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edwin L Turner) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Yen for Space, not Amenities Date: 29 Jan 90 20:23:25 GMT Organization: Princeton University, NJ Lunar Probes Launched in Japan by Colin Nickerson (Boston Globe) Jan 25, 1990 Uchinoura, Japan - Japan's first lunar-bound space probe lifted off yesterday, a jet of orange flame propelling it into the atmosphere. ... the first lunar exploration mounted by any nation since the Soviet Union's Luna 24 vehicle landed on the moon in August 1976. ... The thin, 93-foot rocket lifted its 420-pound payload, ... ... ISAS is the smaller of Japan's two rival space agencies, and its ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ projects have been characterized as space exploration on a shoe-string budget. Operating on a $143-million annual budget, the Muses-A program has so far launched 20 missions without a failure. The tight budgetary constraints of the ISAS program were evident to reporters covering the Muses-A launching. The unheated, plywood observation "bunker" was about as sturdily constructed as a duck blind. Illuminated by a single flourescent tube, its sole piece of communications equipment was a telephone. There was no countdown clock, much less a television monitor. --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: NASA Fleet Manifest [Short Version] (Forwarded) Date: 30 Jan 90 00:31:10 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA TO: NASA PAO OFFICES SUBJECT: MIXED FLEET MANIFEST IN ORDER TO SPEED UP THE RELEASE OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE NEW MANIFEST BEING RELEASED BY NASA TODAY (1/29/90), A SHORT VERSION CONTAINING ONLY FUTURE SHUTTLE AND ELV FLIGHTS WILL BE SENT SHORTLY ON NASAMAIL. LATER TODAY OR EARLY TOMORROW THE COMPLETE MANIFEST WHICH INCLUDES INFORMATION ABOUT PREVIOUS FLIGHTS, REQUESTED PAYLOADS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ASSIGNED A SPECIFIC FLIGHT AND THE PAYLOAD ACRONYM LIST WILL BE SENT ON NASAMAIL. ATTENTION!!!! IN ORDER TO PROPERLY FORMAT BOTH VERSIONS OF THE MANIFEST YOU WILL NEED TO SET UP YOUR DOCUMENT IN LANDSCAPE FORMAT WITH THE WIDEST MARGINS POSSIBLE. TOTAL CHARACTERS PER LINE IS APPROXIMATELY 120 AND NUMBER OF LINES PER PAGE IS APPROXIMATELY 40. ============================================================================= PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS NASA MIXED FLEET JANUARY 1990 SUBMITTED BY ROBERT L. TUCKER, JR. ACTING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES OFFICE APPROVED BY WILLIAM B. LENOIR ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR SPACE FLIGHT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGES 1 MIXED FLEET MANIFEST NOTES AND SUMMARY 1.1-1.3 2 SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS 2.1-2.13 3 ELV PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS 3.1-3.3 4 PREVIOUS FLIGHTS 4.1-4.12 5 PAYLOAD REQUESTS 5.1-5.14 6 PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST 6.1-6.41 SECTION 1 MIXED FLEET MANIFEST NOTES AND SUMMARY MIXED FLEET MANIFEST NOTES O THIS MANIFEST INCLUDES PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE SPACE SHUTTLE AND NASA EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE (ELV) MISSIONS THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 1996. O THE MANIFEST SERVES AS A BASELINE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES. PRIMARY AND COMPLEX SECONDARY SPACE SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENT CONFIRMATION IS MADE APPROXIMATELY 19 MONTHS PRIOR TO LAUNCH. NON-COMPLEX SECONDARY PAYLOAD ASSIGNMENTS ARE MADE 12 TO 5 MONTHS PRIOR TO LAUNCH. O FOR SPACE SHUTTLE FLIGHTS, PRIMARY AND COMPLEX SECONDARY PAYLOAD ASSIGNMENTS ARE SHOWN THROUGH FY96. NON-COMPLEX SECONDARY PAYLOADS ARE SHOWN ONLY ON FLIGHTS WHICH ARE 12 MONTHS OR LESS FROM LAUNCH. O THROUGHOUT THIS DOCUMENT, PENDING REQUIREMENTS ARE NOTED "FOR NASA PLANNING PURPOSES." O SPACE SHUTTLE PAYLOAD AND FLIGHT OPPORTUNITIES ARE IDENTIFIED IN THIS MANIFEST. USE OF THESE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PAYLOAD AND/OR SPACE SHUTTLE DELAYS WILL MINIMIZE MAJOR MANIFEST REVISIONS, RESULTING IN GREATER OVERALL SCHEDULE STABILITY. O UPDATES TO THIS MANIFEST WILL NORMALLY BE ISSUED ON A SEMI-ANNUAL BASIS. O FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: TRANSPORTATION SERVICES OFFICE MAIL CODE MC NASA HEADQUARTERS WASHINGTON, DC 20546 -- USA TELEPHONE: (202) 453-2347 TELEX: 497-9843 NASA WSH FAX: (202) 426-6285 SUMMARY By Fiscal Year YEAR FY 1990* FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994FY 1995FY 1996TOTAL EQUIVALENT SHUTTLE FLIGHTS PAYLOADS NASA 4.65 7.35 8.27 9.57 10.30 11.19 10.3561.68 DOD 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 ALL OTHER 0.35 .65 1.73 1.43 1.70 0.81 1.65 8.32 TOTAL 8.00 10.00 11.00 11.00 12.00 12.00 12.0076.00 EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE (ELV) FLIGHTS VEHICLE CLASS SMALL 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 11 MEDIUM 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 17 INTERMEDIATE 1 1 2 1 0 2 0 7 LARGE 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 TOTAL 6 4 5 5 4 7 6 37 *Total Flights, Planned and Flown SUMMARY By Calendar Year YEAR CY 1990* CY 1991 CY 1992 CY 1993 CY 1994CY 1995CY 1996**TOTAL EQUIVALENT SHUTTLE FLIGHTS PAYLOADS NASA 7.00 5.34 9.07 11.35 8.92 11.00 10.3563.03 DOD 2.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 ALL OTHER 0 .66 1.93 1.65 2.08 0.00 1.65 7.97 TOTAL 9.00 8.00 12.00 13.00 11.00 11.00 12.0076.00 EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE (ELV) FLIGHTS VEHICLE CLASS SMALL 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 11 MEDIUM 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 16 INTERMEDIATE 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 7 LARGE 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 TOTAL 5 4 6 5 3 8 5 36 *Total Flights, Planned and Flown **Includes flights projected for fourth quarter SECTION 2 SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 36 | 90 2 22 | XX | 5 |DOD | | C:JOHN O. CREIGHTON | | |ATLANTIS | X | X | | | P:JOHN H. CASPER | | | | | | | | MS:DAVID C. HILMERS | | | | | | | | MS:RICHARD M. MULLANE | | | | | | | | MS:PIERRE J. THUOT | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 31 | 90 4 18 |28.5| 5 |HST N/A |SE-82-16 | C:LOREN J. SHRIVER | | |DISCOVERY | 310| 5 |IMAX-04 ICBC+MD |RME III-01 | P:CHARLES F. BOLDEN | | | | X | | |AMOS-05 | MS:STEVEN A. HAWLEY | | | | 330| | |IPMP-01 | MS:BRUCE MCCANDLESS II | | | | | | |PCG-III-03 | MS:KATHRYN D. SULLIVAN | | | | | | |APM-01 | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 35 | 90 5 9 |28.5| 7 |ASTRO-01 IG+2 PALL|SAREX II-01| C:VANCE D. BRAND | | |COLUMBIA | 190| 9 |BBXRT-01 TAPS |AMOS-06 | P:GUY S. GARDNER | | | | | | | | MS:JOHN M. LOUNGE | | | | | | | | MS:JEFFREY A. HOFFMAN | | | | | | | | MS:ROBERT A. R. PARKER | | | | | | | | PS:RONALD A. PARISE | | | | | | | | PS:SAMUEL T. DURRANCE | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 38 | 90 7 9 | XX | 5 |DOD | | C:RICHARD O. COVEY | | |ATLANTIS | X | X | | | P:FRANK L. CULBERTSON | | | | | | | | MS:ROBERT C. SPRINGER | | | | | | | | MS:CARL J. MEADE | | | | | | | | MS:CHARLES D. GEMAR | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ NOTE: IN THE MISSION INTEGRATION PROCESS, EFFICIENCY AND INTEGRITY ARE ENHANCED IF FLIGHT NUMBERS ARE MAINTAINED AFTER ASSIGNMENT AT 19 MONTHS BEFORE LAUNCH. WITH MANIFEST CHANGES, NUMERICAL SEQUENCE OF EARLY FLIGHTS IS NOT MAINTAINED. * PLANS TO EXTEND TO 10 DAYS **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 40 | 90 8 29 |39.0| 7 |SLS-01 LM |GAS BRIDGE | C:BRYAN D. O'CONNOR | | |COLUMBIA | 150| 9 | | | P:SIDNEY M. GUTIERREZ | | | | | | | | MS:TAMARA E. JERNIGAN | | | | | | | | MS:M. RHEA SEDDON | | | | | | | | MS:JAMES P. BAGIAN | | | | | | | | PS:F. DREW GAFFNEY | | | | | | | | PS:MILLIE HUGHES-FULFORD | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 41 | 90 10 5 |28.5| 5 |ULYSSES IUS/PAM |SSCE-01 | C:RICHARD N. RICHARDS | | |DISCOVERY | 160| 4 | |CHROMEX-02 | P:ROBERT D. CABANA | | | | | | |VC-CCTV | MS:WILLIAM M. SHEPHERD | | | | | | |OCTW-01 | MS:BRUCE E. MELNICK | | | | | | |SE-81-09 | MS:THOMAS D. AKERS | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 37 | 90 11 1 |28.5| 5 |GRO N/A |SSBUV-02 | C:STEVEN R. NAGEL | | |ATLANTIS | 243| 5 | |CETA | P:KENNETH D. CAMERON | | | | | | |PCG-III-04 | MS:JERRY L. ROSS | | | | | | |RME III-02 | MS:JAY APT | | | | | | |SAREX II-02| MS:LINDA M. GODWIN | | | | | | |AMOS-07 | | | | | | | |APM-02 | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 42 | 90 12 12 |28.5| 7 |IML-01 LM |GAS BRIDGE | C:RONALD J. GRABE | | |COLUMBIA | 165| 9 |IMAX-05 N/A | | P:STEPHEN S. OSWALD | | | | | | | | MS:MANLEY L. CARTER | | | | | | | | MS:NORMAN E. THAGARD | | | | | | | | MS:WILLIAM F. READDY | | | | | | | | PS:ULF MERBOLD | | | | | | | | PS:ROBERTA L. BONDAR | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ NOTE: IN THE MISSION INTEGRATION PROCESS, EFFICIENCY AND INTEGRITY ARE ENHANCED IF FLIGHT NUMBERS ARE MAINTAINED AFTER ASSIGNMENT AT 19 MONTHS BEFORE LAUNCH. WITH MANIFEST CHANGES, NUMERICAL SEQUENCE OF EARLY FLIGHTS IS NOT MAINTAINED. **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 43 | 91 1 31 |28.5| 5 |TDRS-E IUS |SHARE II | | | |DISCOVERY | 160| 5 | |CVTE-01 | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 44 | 91 3 4 | XX | 5 |DOD | | | | |ATLANTIS | X | X | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 45 | 91 4 4 |57.0| 7 |ATLAS-01 IG+2 PALL| | C:TBD | | |COLUMBIA | 160| 9*| | | P:TBD | | | | | | | | MS:KATHRYN D. SULLIVAN | | | | | | | | MS:C. MICHAEL FOALE | | | | | | | | MS:TBD | | | | | | | | PS:BYRON K. LICHTENBERG | | | | | | | | PS:MICHAEL L. LAMPTON | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 46 | 91 5 16 |28.5| 7 |TSS-01 MPESS+1 P|EOIM-III | C:ROBERT L. GIBSON | | |DISCOVERY | 230| 7 |EURECA-1L EURECA-A |/TEMP2A-03 | P:TBD | | | | | |IMAX-06 ICBC | | MS:JEFFREY A. HOFFMAN | | | | | | | | MS:FRANKLIN R. CHANG-DIAZ | | | | | | | | MS:ALAUDE NICOLLIER | | | | | | | | MS:TBD | | | | | | | | PS:TBD | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ * PLANS TO EXTEND TO 10 DAYS **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 47 | 91 6 17 |57.0| 7 |SL-J LM |GAS BRIDGE | C:TBD | | |ATLANTIS | 160| 7 | | | P:TBD | | | | | | | | MS:MARK C. LEE | | | | | | | | MS:N. JAN DAVIS | | | | | | | | MS:MAE C. JEMISON | | | | | | | | MS:TBD | | | | | | | | PS:TBD | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 48 | 91 8 22 |57.0| 5 |UARS N/A | | | | |DISCOVERY | 291| 5 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 49 | 91 9 30 |33.4| 7 |STARLAB LM+1 PALL| | | | |ATLANTIS | 175| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 50 | 91 12 5 |28.5| 5 |LAGEOS II IRIS |FTS-DTF-01 | | | |DISCOVERY | 160| 7 | |SPTN-02 | | | | | | | |ASP | | | | | | | |DXS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 51 | 92 1 23 |57.0| 7 |AFP-675 PALLET |STP-01 | | | |ATLANTIS | 140| 8 |IBSS SPAS |MPEC | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 52 | 92 2 13 |28.5| 5 |GEOSTAR-01 PAM-D2 |CVTE-02 | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 9 |EURECA-1R EURECA-A | | | | | | | |USMP-01 MSL+MPESS| | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 53 | 92 3 5 |28.5| 7 |USML-01 LM+EDO | | | | |COLUMBIA | 140|13*| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ * DEPENDENT ON PRIOR LONG DURATION FLIGHT EXPERIENCE **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 54 | 92 4 23 |28.5| 6 |ACTS TOS |CANEX-02 | | | |ATLANTIS | 160| 7 | |WSF-01 | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 55 | 92 5 28 |28.5| 7 |SL-D2 LM + USS | | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 9 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 56 | 92 6 18 |57.0| 7 |ATLAS-02 IG+1 PALL|SSBUV-03 | | | |COLUMBIA | 160| 9 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 57 | 92 7 16 |57.0| 5 |SRL-01 PALL+MPES| | | | |DISCOVERY | 130| 9 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 58 | 92 8 6 | TBD|TBD|FLT OPPTY | | | | |ATLANTIS | TBD|TBD| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 59 | 92 9 3 |28.5| 5 |SPACEHAB-01 SPACEHAB |SHOOT | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 7 |SPAS-ORFEUS SPAS | | | | | | | |GEOSTAR-02 PAM-D2 | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 60 | 92 9 30 |28.5| 7 |SLS-02 LM+EDO | | | | |COLUMBIA | 140|13*| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 61 | 92 10 29 |28.5| 7 |INMARSAT-01 PAM-D2 |SRAD/TPITS | | | |DISCOVERY | 160| 8 | |DEE | | | | | | | |ISEM-01 | | | | | | | |IEH | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ * DEPENDENT ON PRIOR LONG DURATION FLIGHT EXPERIENCE **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 62 | 92 12 10 |28.5| 5 |TDRS-F IUS |CAPL | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 5 | |CVTE-03 | | | | | | | |SHARE III | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 63 | 93 1 28 |28.5| 7 |IML-02 LM+EDO | | | | |COLUMBIA | 140|13*| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 64 | 93 2 25 |28.5| 5 |SPACEHAB-02 SPACEHAB |CXH-03 | | | |DISCOVERY | 160| 7 |GEOSTAR-03 PAM-D2 | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 65 | 93 3 18 |28.5| 5 |USMP-02 MSL+MPESS|ISEM-02 | | | |ATLANTIS | 160| 7 |INMARSAT-02 PAM-D2 |HPE | | | | | | | |IFCE/CTM | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 66 | 93 4 15 |57.0| 7 |ATLAS-03 IG+1 PALL|SSBUV-04 | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 9 |SPAS-CRISTA SPAS | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 67 | 93 5 6 |28.5| 5 |EURECA-2L EURECA-A |CMG-04 | | | |COLUMBIA | 160| 7 | |LITE | | | | | | | |CXM-01 | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 68 | 93 6 10 |28.5| 5 |HST REV-01 PALL+FSS | | | | |DISCOVERY | TBD| 5 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 69 | 93 7 1 | TBD|TBD|FLT OPPTY | | | | |ATLANTIS | TBD|TBD| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 70 | 93 7 22 |28.5| 5 |SPACEHAB-03 SPACEHAB |OAST-02 | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 7 | |EOIM-IV | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ * DEPENDENT ON PRIOR LONG DURATION FLIGHT EXPERIENCE **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 71 | 93 9 2 | TBD|TBD|FLT OPPTY | | | | |COLUMBIA | TBD|TBD| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 72 | 93 10 1 | TBD|TBD|FLT OPPTY | | | | |DISCOVERY | TBD|TBD| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 73 | 93 10 22 |28.5| 5 |SPACEHAB-04 SPACEHAB |FTS-DTF-02 | | | |ATLANTIS | 160| 7 |PL OPPTY |CMG-05 | | | | | | | |CXP-01 | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 74 | 93 11 12 |28.5| 5 |EURECA-2R EURECA-A |WSF-02 | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 9 |USMP-03 MSL+MPESS| | | | | | | |SATCOM PAM-D2 | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 75 | 93 12 9 |57.0| 5 |SRL-02 PALL+MPES| | | | |COLUMBIA | 130| 9 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 76 | 94 2 3 |28.5| 7 |ISF-01 FM+DS | | | | |DISCOVERY | 160| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 77 | 94 2 24 |28.5| 5 |XTE/EUVE RETR FSS |REFLEX | | | |ATLANTIS | 160| 7 |PL OPPTY |CXM-02 | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 78 | 94 3 17 |57.0| 9 |ATLAS-04 IG+1 PALL|SSBUV-05 | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 79 | 94 4 7 |28.5| 7 |USML-02 LM+EDO | | | | |COLUMBIA | 140|16*| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ * DEPENDENT ON PRIOR LONG DURATION FLIGHT EXPERIENCE **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 80 | 94 5 12 |28.5| 5 |SPACEHAB-05 SPACEHAB |CXM-03 | | | |DISCOVERY | 160| 7 |PL OPPTY | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 81 | 94 6 2 |28.5| 5 |SFU-RETR N/A |FR-01 | | | |ATLANTIS | 160| 7 |USMP-04 MSL+MPESS|CXH-06 | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 82 | 94 8 4 |28.5| 7 |SL-D3 LM + USS | | | | |COLUMBIA | 160| 9 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 83 | 94 8 25 |28.5| 5 |AAFE UNIQUE | | | | |DISCOVERY | 160| 7 |PL OPPTY | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 84 | 94 10 6 |28.5| 5 |SPACEHAB-06 SPACEHAB |SSBUV-06 | | | |ATLANTIS | 160| 7 |PL OPPTY |NTE-02 | | | | | | | |CTM | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 85 | 94 10 27 |28.5| 7 |ISF-02 AM+DS | | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 9 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 86 | 94 12 8 | TBD|TBD|FLT OPPTY | | | | |DISCOVERY | TBD|TBD| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 87 | 95 1 19 |57.0| 5 |OMV N/A |SSS | | | |ATLANTIS | 160| 7 |WISP OMV+PALL | | | | | | | |SPTN-T MPESS | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 88 | 95 2 15 |28.5| 7 |SLS-03 LM+EDO | | | | |COLUMBIA | 140|16*| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ * DEPENDENT ON PRIOR LONG DURATION FLIGHT EXPERIENCE **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 89 | 95 3 9 |28.5| 7 |SSF/MB-01(FEL) UNIQUE | | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 220| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 90 | 95 4 27 |28.5| 5 |TDRS-G IUS | | | | |ATLANTIS | 160| 5 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 91 | 95 6 1 |28.5| 7 |IML-03 LM+EDO | | | | |COLUMBIA | 140|16*| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 92 | 95 6 22 |28.5| 7 |SSF/MB-02 UNIQUE | | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 220| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 93 | 95 8 10 |28.5| 7 |SSF/MB-03 UNIQUE | | | | |DISCOVERY | 220| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 94 | 95 9 7 |57.0| 7 |ATLAS-05 IG+1 PALL|SSBUV-07 | | | |COLUMBIA | 160| 9 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 95 | 95 9 28 |28.5| 5 |TDRS-H IUS | | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 5 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 96 | 95 11 16 |28.5| 7 |SSF/MB-04 UNIQUE | | | | |DISCOVERY | 220| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 97 | 95 12 7 |57.0| 5 |SRL-03 PALL+MPES| | | | |ATLANTIS | 130| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ * DEPENDENT ON PRIOR LONG DURATION FLIGHT EXPERIENCE **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 98 | 96 1 11 |28.5| 5 |SPACEHAB-07 SPACEHAB |CXH-07 | | | |COLUMBIA | 160| 7 |EURECA-3L EURECA-A |SSBUV-08 | | | | | | | |DCWS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 99 | 96 2 8 |28.5| 7 |SSF/MB-05 UNIQUE | | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 220| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 100 | 96 2 29 |28.5| 5 |HST REV-02 PALL+FSS | | | | |DISCOVERY | TBD| 5 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 101 | 96 3 28 |28.5| 7 |SSF/MB-06 UNIQUE | | | | |ATLANTIS | 190| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 102 | 96 5 9 |28.5| 7 |USML-03 LM+EDO | | | | |COLUMBIA | 140|16*| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 103 | 96 5 30 |28.5| 7 |ISF-03 FM+DS | | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 9 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 104 | 96 6 20 |28.5| 7 |SSF/MB-07(MTC) UNIQUE | | | | |DISCOVERY | 190| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 105 | 96 7 18 |28.5| 5 |EURECA-3R EURECA-A |CXH-08 | | | |ATLANTIS | 160| 7 |USMP-05 MSL+MPESS|FR-02 | | | | | | |PL OPPTY | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 106 | 96 8 15 |57.0| 7 |ATLAS-06 IG+1 PALL|SSBUV-09 | | | |COLUMBIA | 160| 9 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ * DEPENDENT ON PRIOR LONG DURATION FLIGHT EXPERIENCE **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 107 | 96 9 19 |28.5| 7 |SSF/OF-01 UNIQUE | | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 190| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ SECTION 3 ELV PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** ELV PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 _------------_---------------_-----------------------------_-------_--------_-------------------_ | DATE | CLASS | L A U N C H V E H I C L E |PAYLOAD| LAUNCH | PAYLOAD | | YR MO | | TYPE INCL | ORBIT | SITE | | |------------|---------------|-----------------------_-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 90 04 | SMALL | SCOUT |90.0 | LEO | WSMC | MACSAT(NAVY) | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 90 05 | MEDIUM | ATLAS 50E |98.7 | SS | WSMC | NOAA-D | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 90 05 | MEDIUM | DELTA |57.0 | LEO | ESMC | ROSAT | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 90 06 | INTERMEDIATE | ATLAS I |18.0 | GTO | ESMC | CRRES | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 90 06 | SMALL | SCOUT |108 | LEO | WSMC | SALT(NAVY) | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 91 01 | SMALL | SCOUT |TBD | TBD | TBD | PROFILE(NAVY) | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 91 05 | MEDIUM | ATLAS 34E |98.7 | SS | WSMC | NOAA-I | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 91 06 | INTERMEDIATE | ATLAS I |28.5 | GSO | ESMC | GOES-I | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 91 08 | MEDIUM | DELTA |28.5 | LEO | ESMC | EUVE | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 92 02 | INTERMEDIATE | ATLAS I |28.5 | GSO | ESMC | GOES-J | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 92 06 | SMALL | SCOUT |TBD | TBD | WSMC | SAMPEX | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 92 07 | MEDIUM | DELTA II |28.7 | HE | ESMC | GEOTAIL | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 92 09 | MEDIUM | ATLAS 11E |98.7 | SS | WSMC | NOAA-J | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 92 09 | INTERMEDIATE | TITAN III |28.5 | EO | ESMC | MARS OBSERVER | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 92 12 | MEDIUM | DELTA II |28.7 | HE | ESMC | WIND | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| 3.1 **** ELV PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 _------------_---------------_-----------------------------_-------_--------_-------------------_ | DATE | CLASS | L A U N C H V E H I C L E |PAYLOAD| LAUNCH | PAYLOAD | | YR MO | | TYPE INCL | ORBIT | SITE | | |------------|---------------|-----------------------_-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 93 06 | MEDIUM | DELTA II |90.0 | HE | WSMC | POLAR | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 93 06 | SMALL | SCOUT |TBD | LEO | WSMC | TOMS | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 93 06 | SMALL | TBD |TBD | LEO | WSMC | SWAS | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 93 10 | INTERMEDIATE | TBD |28.7 | GSO | ESMC | MSAT | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 93 12 | SMALL | SCOUT |TBD | LEO | TBD | FAST | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 93 12 | MEDIUM | TITAN II |98.7 | SS | WSMC | NOAA-K | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 94 06 | MEDIUM | DELTA II |98.6 | LEO | WSMC | RADARSAT | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 94 09 | SMALL | TBD |TBD | TBD | TBD | SMEX-04 | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 94 12 | MEDIUM | DELTA II |TBD | TBD | ESMC | LIFESAT-01 | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 95 03 | INTERMEDIATE | TBD |28.5 | HE | ESMC | SOHO | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 95 04 | MEDIUM | TITAN II |98.7 | SS | WSMC | NOAA-L | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 95 06 | SMALL | TBD |TBD | TBD | TBD | SMEX-05 | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 95 06 | MEDIUM | DELTA II |TBD | TBD | ESMC | LIFESAT-02 | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 95 07 | INTERMEDIATE | ATLAS I |28.5 | GSO | ESMC | GOES-K | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 95 08 | LARGE | TITAN IV /CENTAUR |TBD | PLAN | ESMC | CRAF | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| 3.2 **** ELV PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 _------------_---------------_-----------------------------_-------_--------_-------------------_ | DATE | CLASS | L A U N C H V E H I C L E |PAYLOAD| LAUNCH | PAYLOAD | | YR MO | | TYPE INCL | ORBIT | SITE | | |------------|---------------|-----------------------_-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 95 12 | SMALL | TBD |TBD | TBD | TBD | SMEX-06 | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 95 12 | MEDIUM | DELTA II |TBD | TBD | ESMC | LIFESAT-03 | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 96 04 | LARGE | TITAN IV /CENTAUR |TBD | PLAN | ESMC | CASSINI | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 96 06 | SMALL | TBD |TBD | TBD | TBD | SMEX-07 | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 96 06 | MEDIUM | DELTA II |TBD | TBD | ESMC | LIFESAT-04 | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 96 07 | MEDIUM | TITAN II |98.7 | SS | WSMC | NOAA-M | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| 3.3 END OF SHORT VERSION OF JAN. 1990 MANIFEST --------------------------------------- From: alan@dtg.nsc.com (Alan Hepburn) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 01/22/90 (Forwarded) Date: 22 Jan 90 20:10:21 GMT Reply-To: alan@blenheim.nsc.com (Alan Hepburn) Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara In article <41080@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: > >If processing remains on schedule, the orbiter will begin a >two-day flight aboard the 747-carrier aircraft, on Thursday >morning. Once Columbia arrives back at the Cape, techincians >will remove the Long Duration Exposure Facility from its cargo >bay. Has anyone thought about naming the 747-carrier? It seems that it would be a lot more "romantic" (for want of a better term) to see "Columbia will begin a two-day flight aboard ". Maybe we need to start a campaign similar to naming "Enterprise". -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Hepburn Omne ignotum pro magnifico mail: alan@blenheim.nsc.com My opinions are just that: opinions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- From: dant@mrloog.WR.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: booster pollution Date: 23 Jan 90 03:03:23 GMT Sender: nobody@wrgate.WR.TEK.COM Reply-To: dant@mrloog.WR.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) Distribution: na Organization: Scalp Tonic Interdiction Agency feg@moss.ATT.COM (Forrest Gehrke) writes: > >On a somewhat different tack---possibly asked before---if CFC's >are responsible for the Anarctic ozone hole, since most CFC must >be released in the Northern Hemisphere, why isn't there a >hole (and even larger) over the North polar region in winter? A hole (or at least a serious thining) has been observed in the Arctic regions. It is much smaller that the Antarctic one. Current theories are that differences in weather patterns are responsible for the different sized holes. My impression is that the weather patterns in the southern hemisphere isolate the air over Antarctica which concentrates the CFC's. The weather pattern is thought to be caused by the geography: more or less round continent centered on the pole, completely ice-covered, well separated by seas from other continents. This is a faily simple geography and leads to relatively simple weather patterns. The geography in the north is more diverse, leading to more diverse weather. Note that this reflects the latest ideas printed in Science News. Tomorrow, someone may come along with a better theory. --- Dan Tilque -- dant@mrloog.WR.TEK.COM --------------------------------------- From: pezely@cis.udel.edu (102SMI) Newsgroups: sci.space,comp.unix.wizards,comp.realtime Subject: Space Station Freedom to run UNIX Summary: entire article Date: 23 Jan 90 17:58:26 GMT Sender: usenet@udel.EDU Reply-To: pezely@cis.udel.edu (Daniel Pezely) Followup-To: sci.space Organization: University of Delaware lab rats Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:16964 comp.unix.wizards:21254 comp.realtime:396 (Double check the newsgroup if you follow-up.) DIGITAL REVIEW -- Business & Industry article: "NASA Chooses LynxOS For Space Station System" Selection of Unix-Based, Real-time Operating system Could Launch Trend of Acceptance, Market Growth CAMPBELL, Calif. --- In what may be the first use of a Unix-based, real-time operating system by the U.S. government, NASA has selected LynxOS from Lynx Real-Time Systems for use on the space station Freedom. To be launched into orbit by 1996, the station will carry as many as 40 Intel-based microcomputers, all running LynxOS and linked over an FDDI network, according to Lynx President Inder Singh. The selection of LynxOS represents a major coup for the small Silicon Valley software company and could signal a trend toward greater acceptance of real-time operating systems that are compatible with AT&T's Unix, according to Rikki Kirzner, and industry analyst for the San Jose, Calif.-based market research company Dataquest. Traditionally, the market for a real-time Unix system has been small. LynxOS was chosen by IBM, which is the systems subcontractor with Freedom's primary contaractor, McDonnell Douglas Space Systems. Under the contract with IBM, Lynx will customize its software by adding a real-time Ada [yuk] interface as well as real-time extensions dictated by the IEEE's Posix standard's committee. LynxOS has already passed a government test suite for Posix compatibility, according to Singh. [What about BSD? :-)] Freedom's on-board computer systems running LynxOS will be used to regulate the space station's flight control operations, life support systems, communications, and tracking as well as experimental and operational applications. LynxOS will also be used to run off-the-shelf commercial software applications, such as an Informix database and a Q-Calc spreadsheet applications. [No mention of any games: moria, hack, TinyMUD, etc, nor any mention of Morris's security `utility'.] LynxOS' ability to be used with existing Unix applications may give the company a chance to be more competitive with other, more established real-time operating system vendors, Kirzner said. The main market for real-time operating system software lies with manufactures of self-contained computer systems, which do their work without human intervention and have little need to interact with existing applications, Kirzner said. However, the growing trend toward Unix applications in markets such as factory-floor management could give Lynx and its Unix-based competitors a leg up, according to Kirzner. -- From Jan 15, 1990 issue of DIGITAL REVIEW (vol 7, no. 2) Article reprinted WITHOUT premission, of course. Daniel Pezely (NSFnet) Home: 728 Bent Ln, Newark, DE 19711 Comp Sci Lab, 102 Smith Hall, U of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716 USA 302/451-6339 --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Payload Summary for 01/24/90 (Forwarded) Date: 24 Jan 90 22:05:17 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA [For those of you who wondered what CITE stands for, here is the answer. My apologies for not capitalizing it in my previous payload status postings -- I didn't know what it meant either. -PEY] Payload Status Report Hubble Space Telescope January 24, 1990 George H. Diller NASA PA-PIB Kennedy Space Center The prelaunch testing of the Hubble Space Telescope in the Vertical Processing Facility at KSC continues to run on schedule with only minor problems. The telescope was powered up after the holidays to resume tests on Jan. 11th. The first test using the Cargo Integrated Test Equipment, or the beginning of CITE testing, was accomplished on Jan. 12 with the successful completion of the Interface Verification Test (IVT). During this exercise, electrical and data interfaces to be used with the orbiter were tested. Only two minor problems involving software were found. The second CITE test was held yesterday, Jan. 23, the first of two End-to-End tests. This test verifies the ability of the Johnson Space Center in Houston and the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. to later receive data from the telescope using the communications systems of the orbiter. There was only one problem encountered during the test which was associated with the 1 megabit data uplink from KSC. This was traced to ground support equipment and did not invlove the telescope. The final End-to-End test is scheduled for Jan. 27. Functional testing of HST is also continuing. The powered up operation of the Wide Field Planetary Camera (WFPC) was successfully demonstrated last week. The WFPC was installed into the telescope by the test team just before Christmas. During aft compartment closeout operations, a short in the single point grounding wire located within Bay 4 of the telescope was detected. This was seen once previously while the telescope was in Sunnvyvale. The test team has traced the problem to a pinching of the grounding wire by an adjacent bolthead when the access door of Bay 4 is closed. The wire was repaired and relocated to preclude further interference. Partial component reinstallation and testing of the Science Instrument Control and Data Handler has been successfully accomplished. A second set of partial components will be reinstalled and tested this week. This unit is an interface computer between the main computer and the science experiments. A revised processing schedule is currently under development in view of the revised forecasted launch date of Apr. 19. The most likely effect will be to reschedule remaining work based on a five-day work week instead of the current six-day week. If this plan is adopted, HST will be installed into the payload canister on Mar. 30, moved to the launch pad on Apr. 2, and installed into the payload bay of Discovery on Apr 5. --------------------------------------- From: shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer (OFV)) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Aviation Week's Farewell SR-71 Issue Date: 25 Jan 90 16:17:59 GMT Sender: shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov Distribution: usa Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal. In-reply-to: larry@omews10.intel.com's message of 24 Jan 90 20:42:22 GMT In article <5464@omepd.UUCP> larry@omews10.intel.com (Larry Smith) writes: > The story also mentions that NASA will receive 3 SR-71s. These > birds will be put into flyable storage, pending someone in NASA > figuring out what they can be used for. Not just any part of NASA, but Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility (check the .sig if you wonder why this is so important), which flew two YF-12s (935 and 937) for many years. We already know what they can be used for, but if I tell you, then I have to kill you (imminent death of the net predicted!). Actually, I believe that a program is being advocated and it's probably not going to be highly classified, but I've always wanted to say that. We didn't just ask to have these so that we might have a program some day, we really have a plan. -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov or ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA --------------------------------------- From: a752@mindlink.UUCP (Bruce Dunn) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: booster pollution Date: 28 Jan 90 11:09:26 GMT Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada Henry Spencer writes that LOX and LH2 production are largely industrial, and that production for space uses is unlikely to be a major environmental problem. In any largish city, you may be able to find a simple example of how commonplace LOX is - try your local hospital. Look around the building for a large tank, next to a heat exchanger covered with ice. The tank is full of LOX, which is run through the heat exchanger to produce gaseous oxygen for the hospital oxygen piping system going to each room. If you are really lucky, you may see a tanker truck drive up and fill the tank. It isn't particularly sophisticated - a hose is run from the insulated tanker to the hospital tank, and a pump run by an auxiliary engine pumps the LOX through the hose. The tanker I watched used an old VW Beetle engine to run the pump. As the LOX is pumped, some of the LOX in the tanker is circulated through a LOX/air heat exchanger on the tanker to provide gaseous oxygen for the increasing headspace over the remaining LOX in the tanker. - Bruce --------------------------------------- From: ma299ai@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (Jan Bielawski) Newsgroups: rec.video,sci.space Subject: Re: NASA Laserdiscs Date: 30 Jan 90 06:39:41 GMT Followup-To: rec.video Distribution: na Organization: University of California, San Diego Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu rec.video:11066 sci.space:17094 In article <2887@oakhill.UUCP> hunter@oakhill.UUCP (Hunter Scales) writes: < < A few years ago, I heard of a Laserdisc that NASA had produced that < had thousands of still video pictures on it. I think they were < of Voyarger, but I can't be sure. Does anyone know if NASA still < does this and where I can get information on these discs? It's called "Space Disc" (mostly white cover) and it also contains some breathtaking time-lapse photography: the moons of Saturn and the rings circling the planet, etc. It came with some relevant Hypercard software or something like that. I believe it's out of print. :-( Jan Bielawski Internet: jbielawski@ucsd.edu Bitnet: jbielawski@ucsd.bitnet Dept. of Math UUCP: jbielawski@ucsd.uucp UCSD ( {ucsd,sdcsvax}!{igrad1,sdcc6}!ma299ai ) --------------------------------------- From: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Subject: Re: Magellan Update - 01/17/90 Date: 30 Jan 90 02:44:25 GMT Reply-To: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) Followup-To: sci.space Organization: *IX Public Access UNIX, Schenectady NY Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:17089 sci.astro:6595 In article <1990Jan29.030900.10392@calvin.spp.cornell.edu> johns@calvin.spp.cornell.edu.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: | From the Flight Requirements Plan from a recent NASA sounding rocket | campaign (2 Black Brants), the rocket and payload dimensions are | specified in inches, the "gravimetrics" in pounds, and other units | such as the slug-ft^2 appear as well. Not a meter or kilogram in | sight. I postulate that a majority of the taxpayers think in Imperial units, the engineers were brought up in them, etc. I don't have any strong feelings about having stuff in metric one way or the other, but having grown up in Imperial, most units get converted mentally before I really have a good feel for how big, heavy, fast, etc, they are. That goes double for temperature of human habitat, where the C degree is too big. -- bill davidsen - sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX davidsen@sixhub.uucp ...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen "Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: NASA Mixed Fleet Manifest for 01/90 [Part 5 of 7] (Forwarded) Date: 30 Jan 90 17:44:48 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA ASTROC Astroculture-1 Evaluates liquid nutrient management in a non-saturated matrix in a microgravity environment. ATDRS Advanced Tracking and Data Next generation of NASA tracking, data and Relay Satellite communications satellites. ATLAS Atmospheric Laboratory for Measures long term variability in the total energy Applications and Science radiated by the sun and determines the variability in the solar spectrum. 6.3 **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM NAME DESCRIPTION ATLAS I/II Commercial intermediate class expendable launch vehicle. AUSSAT Australian Communication Direct broadcast communication satellite which Satellite provides services to continental Australia and offshore territories. AXAF Advanced X-Ray Astronomy A major free flying X-Ray observatory using a high Facility resolution telescope. Designed to operate in orbit for 15 years. B/U Back-up BBXRT Broad Band X-Ray Telescope Provides high resolution x-ray spectra for both point and extended sources, including stellar coronae, x-ray, binaries, active agalactic nuclei, and clusters of galaxies. BCD Bone Cell Development Measures development of various bone cells in microgravity for life sciences. BGBA Bioserve Generic Evaluates self assembly and directed assembly of Bioprocessing Apparatus macro-molecules BIMDA Bioserve ITA Materials A wide range of tests focused on the assembly of Dispersion Apparatus macromolecules. Uses a middeck thermal enclosure. BIOPLATFORM Biological Platform A recoverable free-flyer platform used to conduct life science experiments. BMLM Amelioration of Bone-Mass Studies the effect of bone mass loss in Loss in Microgravity experimental animals. 6.4 **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM NAME DESCRIPTION BPC Battelle Polymer Composites Study catalytic curing of several liquid polymers in microgravity. C Commander Member of the Shuttle flight crew in command of the flight. C360 Cinema 360 35mm motion picture camera for the purpose of photographing crew and mission activities. CANEX Canadian Experiment Group of Canadian experiments conducted by a Canadian Payload Specialist. CAP Complex Autonomous Payload A secondary payload using Getaway Special hardware but with operational or support requirements that cannot be accommodated in the GAS program. CAPL Capillary Pump Loop Experiment to quantify behavior of a full-scale Experiment capillary pumped loop heat transfer system in microgravity. CASSINI Saturn Orbiter/Titan Probe complements CRAF mission by the study of physically and chemically primitive objects. Includes a rendevous with Saturn. CB Cell Biology Life science experiments to study the effects of weightlessness on cells of life forms. CBDE Carbonated Beverage Pepsico, Inc. experiment to evaluate packaging and Dispenser Evaluation dispensing techniques for space flight consumption of carbonated beverages. 6.5 **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM NAME DESCRIPTION CETA Crew and Equipment Multi-purpose crew system that provides rapid Transaction Aid return to the Shuttle airlock in case of emergency, allows efficient translation, and carries equipment. CFES Continuous Flow Demonstrates the technology of pharmaceutical Electrophoresis System processing in space. CGAS Commercialization GAS An Office of Commercial Programs payload using GAS hardware. CHAMP Comet Halley Active Observes Comet Halley on STS flights. Monitoring Program CHROMEX Chromosomes Experiment Investigation of the effects of space flight on plant tissue growth. CLOUDS Cloud Logic to Optimize Use Hand-held 35 mm photography for observations of of Defense Systems cloud formation, dissipation, and opaqueness. CM-X Commercial Middeck Payload Commercial development middeck payload (X denotes approximate number of lockers) CMG Commercial Middeck-Galley Commercial development middeck "galley replacement" payload (e.g., use of the middeck accommodations rack or equivalent). 6.6 **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM NAME DESCRIPTION CMSE/E Candidate Materials Space Evaluation of candidate composite materials for Exposure (CMSE) Evaluation space structures for degradation due to exposure in Of Oxygen Interaction With low earth orbit with EOIM-III for baseline data Materials-III (EOIM-03) correlation. CNCR Characterization of Microgravity effects on circadian rhythms of Neurospora Circadian neurospora. Rhythms in Space COBE Cosmic Background Explorer Determines the spectrum anistropy of cosmic microwave background. COLDSAT Cyrogenic On Orbit Liquid Zero-g cryogenic fluids transfer experiment. Depot-Storage and Transfer COMSTAR Communications satellite for COMSAT. CONCAP2 Investigate materials surface reactions to exposure to atomic oxygen flow in earth orbit for high temperature super-conducting films and for materials degradation/reaction samples. CRAF Comet Rendevous Asteroid Explores two primitive bodies to gather new Fly-by information on the origin and evolution of the solar system, prebiotic chemical evolution and the orgin of life, and astrophysical plasma dynamics and processes. CREAM Cosmic Radiation Effects Uses an active cosmic ray monitor and seven passive and Activation Monitor packages to record on-orbit cosmic ray environments. 6.7 **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM NAME DESCRIPTION CRRES Combined Release and Satellite involving Active Plasma Experiments and Radiation Effects Satellite the study of radiation effects of various spacecraft components. CRUX Cosmic Rays Upset Studies on-orbit cosmic ray environments and Experiment monitors upsets on microcircuit devices. CRW Crew The Shuttle flight crew for a particular mission. CSA Canadian Space Agency CSI/CASES Controls Structure Experiments which are part of the OAST Control of Interaction/Controls Flexible Structures program. Project to deploy a Astrophysics and Structures structure with an occulter plane assembly in a Experiment in Space micro-gravity environment from the Shuttle. CTM Collapsible Tube Mast Foreign Reimbursable Hitchhiker-G payload. CVTE Crystals By Vapor Transport Investigate application of chemical vapor transport Experiment crystal growth process to materials of practical value in semiconductor and electo-optical devices. CXH Commercial Cross-bay Commercial development cross-cargo bay payload Carrier using "Hitchhiker-M" class systems or equivalents for more complex requirements. CXM Commercial Cross-bay Commercial development cross-cargo bay payload Carrier (MSL) using Materials Science Laboratory (MSL) class systems or equivalents. CXP Commercial Cross-bay Commercial development cross-cargo bay payload Carrier (Spacelab Pallet) using Spacelab pallet class systems. 6.8 **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM NAME DESCRIPTION DAD Dual Air Density Measures global density of upper atmosphere and lower exosphere. DCWS Debris Collision Warning Provides the capability for sensing space debris in System the 1 to 10 mm size and determines albedo and spectral characteristics of a large sample of low earth orbit debris. DDEL Drug Delivery Investigate methods to apply drugs to reduce bone loss DEE Dexterous End Effector Demonstrates a sensor for the Shuttle RMS which will allow for more precise crew control. DFI PLT Development Flight A pallet used to accommodate the DFI used on the Instrumentation Pallet first four Shuttle flights. DLR Deutsche Forschungsanstalt Federal German aerospace research establishment. fur Luft-und Raumfahrt DMOS Diffusive Mixing of Organic Grow crystals of organic compounds for research Solutions programs for the 3M Corporation's Science Research Laboratory. DNLOS Doped Non-Linear Optic Determine the effect of microgravity on non-linear Substrates optic properties of polymeric materials. DOD Department of Defense DOD M88-01 Department of Defense Evaluates the capability of man in space to enhance M88-01 air, naval, and ground force operations and assesses the feasibility of observations of space debris while in orbit. 6.9 **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM NAME DESCRIPTION DPA Dual Photon Bone Develop means of non-invasion monitoring loss of Densitometer bone density. Miniaturization DS Docking System Docking system for use in assembly and servicing of the ISF. DUR Duration Mission duration of each Shuttle flight. DXS Diffuse X-ray Spectrometer Shuttle experiment to make spectral observations of the diffuse galactic soft x-ray background to determine the ionic, elemental abundances and the plasma temperature of the hot phase of the interstellar medium. EASE/ACCESS Experimental Assembly of Obtains human factors data during assembly of Structures in EVA/Assembly structures in space during Extra Vehicular Concept for Construction of Activity. Erectable Space Structures EDO Extended Duration Orbiter Kit added to Orbiter to extend energy resources to support mission duration up to sixteen days. EEVT Electrophoresis Equipment Technology demonstration of apparatus to evaluate Verification Test the effects of electrophoresis on biological cells in 0-g. EISG Experiment to Investigate An experiment to study and evaluate the effects of Spacecraft temperature on the glow characteristics of materials exposed to high velocity atomic elements. 6.10 **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM NAME DESCRIPTION ELRAD Earth-Limb Radiance Obtain measurements of earth-limb radiance for Equipment various positions of the sun from near limb up to 9 degrees below earth horizon. ELV Expendable Launch Vehicle EO Escape Orbit EOIM Evaluation of Oxygen Determines effects of atomic oxygen degradation on Interaction with Materials 1100 candidate materials. EOS Earth Observing System A complement of polar orbiting satellites conducting Earth science observations. ERBS Earth Radiation Budget Collects global earth radiation budget data. Satellite ESA European Space Agency ESMC Eastern Space and Missile USAF organization headquartered at Patrick AFB, Center Florida. EURECA European Retrievable Platform placed in orbit for six months offering Carrier conventional services to experimenters. EUVE Extreme Ultraviolet Produces definitive sky map and catalog of extreme Explorer ultraviolet portion of electromagnetic spectrum 100-1000 angstroms). 6.11 **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM NAME DESCRIPTION EXOSAT ESA X-Ray Satellite Provides continuous observations of x-ray sources. FAST Fast Auroral Snapshot An investigation of the processes operating within Explorer the auroral region. FDE Fluid Dynamics Experiment A package of six experiments flown in the middeck that involve simulating the behavior of liquid propellants in low gravity. FDS Fluid Dynamics Studies Investigate methods of fluids management in microgravity. FEA Fluids Experiment Assembly Investigate floating zone crystal growth processing investigations on selected semi-conductor materials. FEE French Echocardiograph Obtains on-orbit cardiovascular system data. Equipment FEL First Element Launch Initial launch of components for the Space Station Freedom manned base (SSF/MB). FLT Flight The flight sequence number for Shuttle missions. FLT OPPTY Flight Opportunity A planned Shuttle flight without assigned payloads. FLTSATCOM Fleet Communication U.S. Navy communications satellite. Satellite FM Facility Module A man-tended module in support of ISF providing space for middeck locker inserts and common racks for payload accommodations. 6.12 **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM NAME DESCRIPTION FPE French Postural Experiment Studies sensory-motor adaptations in weightlessness. FR Foreign Reimbursable Foreign reimbursable Hitchhiker-G type payload. FSC Fleet Satellite U.S. Navy communications satellite (same as Communications FLTSATCOM). FSS Flight Support System Support system used for revisit missions. FTS-DTF Flight Telerobotic Servicer Flight test of a telerobotic concept for Space Demonstration Test Flight Station attached payload assembly and maintenance, platform and satellite servicing, space station and maintenance assembly inspection. FUELCELL Fuel Cell Investigate Advanced Fuel Cell Systems FUSE Far Ultraviolet Astronomy Ultraviolet Satellite Spectroscopy Explorer GALAXY Hughes communications satellite. GALILEO Investigates the chemical composition and physical state of Jupiter's atmosphere and satellites. GAS Get Away Special Alternate name for the Small Self-contained Payload (SSCP) program, providing standard canisters to accommodate low-cost space experimentation. GAS BRIDGE Getaway Special Bridge Structure in the payload bay that can hold up to twelve GAS canisters. 6.13 **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM NAME DESCRIPTION GAS TEST Test instrumentation to verify ability of the GAS hardware to function properly in flight. GBA Generic Bioprocessing Develop advanced systems for, and investigations Apparatus in, bioprocessing of materials GE General Electric GEOSTAR Interactive radiodetermination satellite. GEOTAIL Explore Geotail of the Earth Plasma Physics. GHCD Growth Hormone Microgravity effects on growth hormone distribution Concentration & of various plant life. Distribution in Plants GLOMR Global Low Orbit Message Packet data relay satellite. Relay GLOW Atmospheric luminosities investigation. GOES Geostationary Operational NOAA weather satellites. Environmental Satellite GOSAMR Gelation of Sols: Applied Investigate gelation of multicomponent colloidal Microgravity Research solutions and suspensions (SOL). GP Gravity Probe Scientific probe to test Einstein's Theory of Relativity. GRO Gamma Ray Observatory Investigates extraterrestrial gamma-ray sources. 6.14 **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM NAME DESCRIPTION GSO Geosynchronous Orbit GTO Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit HC-XX Hughes Communications Series of commercial communications satellites. HCMM Heat Capacity Mapping Produces thermal maps for discrimination of rock Mission types, mineral resources, plant temperatures, soil moisture, snow fields, and water runoff. HE High Eccentricity Orbit HEAO High Energy Astronomical Satellite to study energetic radiation from space. Observatory HEATPIPE Micro Heat Pipe Evaluation Evaluate efficacy of micro heat pipes in microgravity. HELIO Heliocentric HH-G1 Hitchhiker-Goddard Demonstration flight of Hitchhiker-G hardware. HILAT High Latitude Evaluate propagation effects of disturbed plasmas on radar and communications systems. HITCHHIKER-G Hitchhiker-Goddard Shuttle cargo bay sidewall mounted carrier for small experiments. HITCHHIKER-M Hitchhiker-Marshall Shuttle cargo bay across-bay carrier for small experiments. 6.15 **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM NAME DESCRIPTION HME Handheld Microgravity Provides for middeck experiments of limited scope Experiment in order to allow for low-cost, timely testing of concepts or procedures, or the early acquisition of data. HMF Health Maintenance Facility Evaluates techniques and equipment proposed for Space Station health maintenance, such as surgery, blood chemistry, etc. HPCG Handheld Protein Crystal Develops techniques to produce in low-g protein Growth crystals of sufficient size and quality to permit molecular analysis by diffraction techniques. HPE Heat Pipe Experiment Foreign Reimbursable Hitchhiker-G payload. HPP Heat Pipe Performance & Environment experiment to study the microgravity Working Fluid Behavior in effects of working fluids used in heat pipes. Micro-gravity HPTE High Precision Tracking Demonstrates ability to propagate a low power laser Experiment beam through the atmosphere. HRSGS-A High Resolution Shuttle Obtains high resolution spectra, in the visible and --------------------------------------- From: rossd@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (David Ross) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 01/23/90 (Forwarded) Date: 30 Jan 90 02:16:02 GMT Sender: news@calgary.UUCP Reply-To: rossd@acs-sun-fsf.UUCP (David Ross) Organization: U. of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada In article <1990Jan25.185158.11277@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: [Stuff deleted] >Even with half a smiley, the wishful thinking in that paragraph >is overwhelming. > >The Soviets... I said last year I thought cuts in their program, >perhaps even a termination of manned spaceflight, were possibilities. [...] >The Japanese space program is pitiful compared to the other space >powers. I don't see them having the ability to send anyone to the >moon by 2010. They may be able to send people to LEO by then. While we're on the subject, does anyone out there want to bash on the European and Chinese space programs? Specifically, what are they up to, and do they have any plans besides making money, and getting something to work, respectively? -D --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: NASA Headline News for 01/30/90 (Forwarded) Date: 30 Jan 90 19:13:24 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tuesday, January 30, 1990 Audio: 202/755-1788 ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is NASA Headline News for Tuesday, January 30........ NASA Administrator, Admiral Richard Truly, reviewed the highlights of NASA's FY '91 budget request during yesterday's press conference. He said, "the proposed budget of $15.12 billion is an increase of $2.8 billion over the current year's appropriation demonstrating the administration's continued strong support for NASA and the civil space program. He also said, "it reflects the President's belief that investment in space yields substantial benefits." The President's budget claimed space a priority among three of the most exciting frontiers in America's future now being explored. NASA released a new flight manifest yesterday calling for 64 Space Shuttle missions through 1995. The new schedule includes 13 flights in 1993, 12 in 1992, 8 for 1991 and 9 this year. Retrieval of the Long Duration Exposure Facility, and initially planned for last December, put the just completed Columbia flight forward to this year. This moved a Strategic Defense Initiative payload to the 1992 manifest. Columbia and Discovery each will fly 16 missions. Atlantis will fly 17 times and the first flight of the orbiter, Endeavour, will be February, 1992. A new schedule for Ulysses will launch the solar probe this October aboard the Space Shuttle, Discovery. The joint European Space Agency and NASA mission to send a spacecraft around the sun's poles will be launched during a 19-day launch window that opens October 5, 1990 to avoid waiting 13 months before another launch opportunity opens. Kennedy Space Center ground crews finished loading the Atlantis oxidizer tanks yesterday. Today, they will be loading fuel on board the orbiter. A helium signature test revealed there are no leaks in the main propulsion system or main engine. The terminal coundtown demonstration test with the STS-36 flight crew participating from the flight deck is on schedule. The count begins at 8:00 AM on Friday, February 2, and concludes at 11:00 AM, Saturday, February 3. Overnight preparations went smoothly at the Kennedy Space Center as the Columbia's payload doors opened early this morning. The Long Duration Exposure Facility is scheduled to be removed at 4:00 PM today. A replay of the ten minute preparation video shown on NASA Select TV and live on CNN is scheduled for tomorrow at 8:00 AM ######## ----------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA Select TV. All times are Eastern: Tuesday, January 30...... 2:00 PM STS-32 post flight news conference from Johnson Space Center. Wednesday, January 31..... 8:00 AM Preparation for LDEF unloading from Columbia at Kennedy Space Center. Thursday, February 1...... 11:30 AM NASA Update will be transmitted. Saturday, February 2...... 8:00 AM - 11:00 AM Countdown demonstration test with the STS-36 flight crew. All events and times are subject to change without notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------- These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon, Eastern time. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A service of the Internal Communications Branch, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Payload Status for 01/17/90 (Forwarded) Date: 20 Jan 90 02:08:01 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 01-17-90 - STS-31R HST (at VPF) - SI/C&DH installation was completed. This was followed by IPCU interface power troubleshooting prior to the start of HST functional testing which began on second shift last night. Functional testing is to run continuously through to Friday. ECS system is up and running in support of HST testing. - STS-32R SYNCOM (at Pad A) - Final planning for download of LDEF and SYNCOM ASE continues. - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at O&C) - IPR work off and T-O signal testing were accomplished yesterday. Plan to pick back up with power up interface verification testing today. - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) - MVAC familiarization and training began yesterday and will continue throughout this week. Pyrell foam replacement continues. Rack 4 ICRS reconfiguration was completed. - STS-42 IML (at O&C) - Rack 9 & 11 clevis drilling and reinforcement was completed. Rack 3 & 4 to be worked today. --------------------------------------- From: rossd@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (David Ross) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Blackbird vs. Foxbat Summary: While we're getting picky... Keywords: Shuttle, Airplanes, Air Date: 23 Jan 90 20:42:23 GMT Sender: news@calgary.UUCP Reply-To: rossd@acs-sun-fsf.UUCP (David Ross) Organization: U. of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada In article <1519.25b9732b@vaxa.uwa.oz> g_ahrendt@vaxa.uwa.oz (Gunter Ahrendt) writes: [A whole lot of stuff deleted] >Oh please, lets not draw thin lines around definitions of Space & Aircraft! >Even though the X-15 is fixed wing and rocket powered it is nevertheless an >aircraft flying through AIR (thin at that height but still air >-}, whereas the >Shuttle et al are spacecraft which travel through SPACE, sure they travel >through air to get get their & back again, but this does not make them >aircraft! Really? You certainly don't seem to mind drawing thin lines around 'Air' and 'Space', now do you? I don't believe that the Shuttle ever has completely left the Earth's atmosphere. As I heard someone once say, it's "Thin at that height but still air". You may want to take a look at what happens to the Shuttle while orbiting: It has to fly through 'Air'. I guess that would make it, by your definition, an aircraft, no? -D --------------------------------------- From: g_ahrendt@vaxa.uwa.oz (Gunter Ahrendt) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: re: Blackbird vs. Foxbat Date: 24 Jan 90 11:56:40 GMT Organization: University of Western Australia >You're going the wrong way. Sustained altitude is lower than peak. My syntax may have been confusing but that is what i implied i.e. The Foxbat's top altitude is approx. 6km higher than the Blackbird's thus it's sustained altitude would be appropriatly higher (than the Blackbird's). >Which was an incorrect comment. Viktor Belenko, who defected in 1976 >with his MiG-25, wrote that SR-71s flew well above the Foxbats with >impunity. The MiG-25/missile combination was considered effective up >to 87,000 ft. (with the missile going above the plane), but the SR-71s >were much higher. They were unable to come close to nailing an SR-71, >although they tried. It was a source of continuing frustration. Aleksandr Fedotov's 25-JUL-1973 flight was an all out record attempt achieving 118,897ft in a Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 E.226 Foxbat. You cannot compare a 'record attempt' with a 'mission flight', where Foxbat's would be flying a great deal lower. >The official SR-71 speed record is about 2,200 mph. (Mach 3.4). >The Foxbat is redlined at Mach 2.8. The SR-71 can cruise around >over the Foxbat's head. I believe it's safe to conclude that a >Blackbird zoom climb could easily break the Foxbat's zoom climb record >of ~130,000 ft. if the necessary authorities authorized an official attempt. 130,00ft! that is an incorrect figure that would put it above the Bell X-2 which flew around 115,000ft. Capt. Eldon Joersz's 28-JUL-1982 record flight achieved 2,193.21mph on a 9.3mile straight course in a Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird. The Foxbat is capable of Mach 3.2 i.e. 2,110mph. The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird is 'said' to be capable of an altitude of <100,000ft. The USAF requirment in 1958 called for 106,000ft. Maj. James V Sullivan & Maj. Noel F Widdifield's 01-SEP-1974 Trans-Atlantic flight was completed at 85,000ft in a Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird. The Foxbat is much more manoeuvrable but has far less range. The Blackbird's utilize Pratt&Whitney JT11D-20B turbojets producing 65,000 lbs of thrust together. The Foxbat utilizes Tumansky R-29B turbojets producing 48,500 lbs of thrust together. >Since the Blackbird is on the verge of retirement, it would be nice >to let it publicly show what it can do. I fully agree this would be a great idea --------------------------------------- From: larry@omews10.intel.com (Larry Smith) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: SSX Date: 25 Jan 90 01:16:08 GMT Sender: news@omepd.UUCP Reply-To: larry@omews10.intel.com (Larry Smith) Distribution: usa Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon Thanks to bpistr@cgch.UUCP. I enjoyed the info on SSX. I have been trying to find out more information on it for about a year. There was a article in Defense Week last year (89) about SSX. I have a copy of the article but not the date it was published. Anyway, according to Defense Week, SSX is a Maxwell Hunter 'crusade'. Max Hunter, according to the article, is the rocket engineer responsible for the design of the large expendable fuel tanks on the Space Shuttle. Max is quoted as saying that SSX does have some support in the Pentagon and the SDI office, but that on the whole, there is little interest because the nation is committed to the space shuttle program. Max said this at a SSX presentation at a conference sponsored last year by the High Frontier. High Frontier is a Washington based pro-SDI group according to Defense Week. The article also quotes him as saying: "There is always an uphill battle for something new, and I am good at walking uphill. This has been my life." At the point of the conference, he had been trying to sell SSX to the government for two years. I am a very pro-NASP type of person, and I support efforts like SSX, or vehicles like SSX. I agree with the posting that the vehicles don't conflict one another. Based on the advanced propulsion technical papers that I read, and if NASP type vehicles are developed, I expect that SSX types of vehicles, as well as NASP types of vehicles, will develop out of NASP research (unless SSX happens first). Some of the NASP concepts look just like the SSX blunt cone. However they are powered by a ring of rocket based combined cycle engines, most of which are some form of duct based ejector (or rocket). I have seen propulsion concepts where there is a turbofan in the duct along with the diffuser (inlet), ejector, and nozzle. Such a design allows efficient low speed (turbofan powered) as well as high speed (ramjet to pure rocket powered) capability (the turbofan gets out of the way during the high speed cycle). All components can even be used together during certain speed regimes (its then called a supercharged ejector ramjet). So I see an exciting future for new types of booster vehicles (if we don't drop the ball). Larry Smith --------------------------------------- From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: SR-71 BLACKBIRD Date: 25 Jan 90 04:09:06 GMT Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) In article <689@elan.elan.com> jlo@elan.elan.com (Jeff Lo) writes: >But the Foxbat has shown us everything it's got, inside and out. When Aviation Week takes one for a checkride, I'll believe it. Remember this is a SENSITIVE area. Even if you assume that US and Soviet defense intelligence communities each know the other power's high altitude capabilities, that doesn't mean we want, say, Chile to know. (The American taxpayer ranks somewhere behind Luxembourg in the right-to-know pecking order, of course.) --------------------------------------- From: gvg@hpislx.HP.COM (Greg Goebel) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: "Military" Shuttle? Date: 24 Jan 90 14:52:38 GMT Organization: Measurement Systems Operation - Loveland, CO Some ... person ... sent a letter to NPR which they read, and which objected to NPR's coverage of Shuttle Missions because they were promoting a "primarily military program". My first thoughts in response to such a remark should probably not be placed in print. What percentage of Shuttle missions are military in nature? It was my understanding that the military is bending heaven and earth to move all their launches to expendables. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Greg Goebel NET: gvg@hpislx | | Hewlett-Packard HP DESK: GREG GOEBEL / HP0900 / EM | | MSO Marketing PHONE: Telnet/303 679-3424 | | POB 301 / MS-CU312 / Loveland CO 80539 FAX: Telnet/303 679-5957 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ --------------------------------------- From: dsmith@hplabsb.HP.COM (David Smith) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Blackbird vs. Foxbat Date: 26 Jan 90 17:19:25 GMT Reply-To: dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) Organization: Hewlett-Packard Labs, Palo Alto, CA In article <1525.25be0878@vaxa.uwa.oz> g_ahrendt@vaxa.uwa.oz (Gunter Ahrendt) writes: >My syntax may have been confusing but that is what i implied i.e. The Foxbat's >top altitude is approx. 6km higher than the Blackbird's thus it's sustained >altitude would be appropriatly higher (than the Blackbird's). I don't see that this contention is supported by the other, interesting, information you contributed. >Aleksandr Fedotov's 25-JUL-1973 flight was an all out record attempt achieving >118,897ft in a Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 E.226 Foxbat. >You cannot compare a 'record attempt' with a 'mission flight', where Foxbat's >would be flying a great deal lower. Exactly. So let's let the wraps off the SR-71. >130,00ft! that is an incorrect figure that would put it above the Bell X-2 >which flew around 115,000ft. Incorrect it may be, but your figure still puts it above the X-2. The X-2 is irrelevant, anyway. A couple of years ago, the answer to a radio station trivia question was that the Foxbat record was about 126,000 ft. I rounded that up. I am happy to acknowledge your Foxbat zoom climb record of 118,000 ft., which strengthens my case anyway. >Capt. Eldon Joersz's 28-JUL-1982 record flight achieved 2,193.21mph on a >9.3mile straight course in a Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird. > >The Foxbat is capable of Mach 3.2 i.e. 2,110mph. It depends on what you mean by "capable." Western intelligence had assigned M3.2 to the Foxbat, as it was observed to do that once passing over Israel. Western intelligence also knew that the engines were ruined, and had to be replaced after that particular flight. Belenko informed us that engine ruination was inevitable any time the plane went that fast, which was the reason for the M2.8 redline. What speed was the F8U-3 Super Crusader "capable" of in the late '50s? It was still accelerating smartly at 1,650 mph, but was then held back to avoid weakening the canopy with heat. Who knows what the SR-71's redline is? >The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird is 'said' to be capable of an altitude of ><100,000ft. The USAF requirment in 1958 called for 106,000ft. And Navy submarines are "said" to be capable of a speed of 20 knots. Doesn't mean they can't do more. >Maj. James V Sullivan & Maj. Noel F Widdifield's 01-SEP-1974 Trans-Atlantic >flight was completed at 85,000ft in a Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird. And they averaged 1,800 mph (~Foxbat redline) New York to London, in spite of the time spent at slower speeds for inflight refueling. The SR-71 is known to be able to cruise at >1,800 mph at 85,000 ft. If we give it no more than that, it should be able to break the Foxbat's zoom-climb record. If it could pull up and convert its horizontal speed to vertical with perfect efficiency, ignoring drag and thrust, it would be good for another 109,000 feet above the 85,000 it started with. Now, it could be in trouble if it did that, due to lack of reaction thrusters or heat or g loads coming down, but it would be "capable" of it. Well, perfect efficiency and zero drag won't be achieved, but I'd have to believe 118,000 ft. could be exceeded. -- David R. Smith, HP Labs dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (415) 857-7898 --------------------------------------- From: steve@nuchat.UUCP (Steve Nuchia) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Subject: Re: Magellan Update - 01/17/90 Date: 28 Jan 90 06:20:46 GMT Reply-To: steve@nuchat.UUCP (Steve Nuchia) Organization: Houston Public Access Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:17069 sci.astro:6567 In article <320@ctycal.UUCP> ingoldsb@ctycal.UUCP (Terry Ingoldsby) writes: >> > Today, the Magellan spacecraft is 113,471,037 miles from Earth >> Arghh! Why do they give the distances to 9 significant figures? >My complaint is that they give the distance in miles. Surely NASA/JPL et al >are metric. I've talked to layman who *firmly* believe that NASA does all Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the attempt to get the space station designed in "hard" metric failed. Pretty much all the metric dimensions on NASA hardware have lots of decimal places, which turn out to be multiples of 1/16 inch as often as not. Disgusting, but true. It is a source of some disgruntlement among the civilized nations attempting joint development with NASA too. -- Steve Nuchia South Coast Computing Services (713) 964-2462 "If the conjecture `You would rather I had not disturbed you by sending you this.' is correct, you may add it to the list of uncomfortable truths." - Edsgar Dijkstra --------------------------------------- From: PLS@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: SR-71 BLACKBIRD Date: 24 Jan 90 03:28:48 GMT Organization: The Portal System (TM) >The Blackbird's altitude capability ... higher than the records it has set. As it it's speed capability. Now that they are going out of service, I wish the Air Force would do one all-out honest for-the-record run to get the real capabilities of the bird into the record books. ++PLS --------------------------------------- From: jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: One Dead Woman Date: 30 Jan 90 02:30:29 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet In the February 1986 issue of "New Woman" magazine, an article entitled "The Right Stuff: How an ordinary teacher, wife and mother became the first private citizen in space", documents Christa McAuliffe's selection and training as an astronaut. In that article, Terrance McGuire, M.D. and psychiatric consultant to NASA responsible for screening astronaut candidates is quoted on the subject of tolerance to high level stress. The kind of situation for which a candidate must be prepared: "...a real emergency, everything is going fine and then suppose well, A SEAL BREAKS (emphasis JB), and suddenly you're in big trouble. In a situation like that you need clarity of mind and the ability to move now." --- Typical RESEARCH grant: $ Typical DEVELOPMENT contract: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: NASA Mixed Fleet Manifest for 01/90 [Part 1 of 7] (Forwarded) Date: 30 Jan 90 16:33:10 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA [As usual, this manifest looks best on 120 columns. The manifest is split into seven parts, at no particular paper boundary. Cat the separate parts together to form the whole. -PEY] PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS NASA MIXED FLEET JANUARY 1990 SUBMITTED BY ROBERT L. TUCKER, JR. ACTING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES OFFICE APPROVED BY WILLIAM B. LENOIR ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR SPACE FLIGHT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGES 1 MIXED FLEET MANIFEST NOTES AND SUMMARY 1.1-1.3 2 SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS 2.1-2.13 3 ELV PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS 3.1-3.3 4 PREVIOUS FLIGHTS 4.1-4.12 5 PAYLOAD REQUESTS 5.1-5.14 6 PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST 6.1-6.41 SECTION 1 MIXED FLEET MANIFEST NOTES AND SUMMARY MIXED FLEET MANIFEST NOTES O THIS MANIFEST INCLUDES PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE SPACE SHUTTLE AND NASA EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE (ELV) MISSIONS THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 1996. O THE MANIFEST SERVES AS A BASELINE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES. PRIMARY AND COMPLEX SECONDARY SPACE SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENT CONFIRMATION IS MADE APPROXIMATELY 19 MONTHS PRIOR TO LAUNCH. NON-COMPLEX SECONDARY PAYLOAD ASSIGNMENTS ARE MADE 12 TO 5 MONTHS PRIOR TO LAUNCH. O FOR SPACE SHUTTLE FLIGHTS, PRIMARY AND COMPLEX SECONDARY PAYLOAD ASSIGNMENTS ARE SHOWN THROUGH FY96. NON-COMPLEX SECONDARY PAYLOADS ARE SHOWN ONLY ON FLIGHTS WHICH ARE 12 MONTHS OR LESS FROM LAUNCH. O THROUGHOUT THIS DOCUMENT, PENDING REQUIREMENTS ARE NOTED "FOR NASA PLANNING PURPOSES." O SPACE SHUTTLE PAYLOAD AND FLIGHT OPPORTUNITIES ARE IDENTIFIED IN THIS MANIFEST. USE OF THESE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PAYLOAD AND/OR SPACE SHUTTLE DELAYS WILL MINIMIZE MAJOR MANIFEST REVISIONS, RESULTING IN GREATER OVERALL SCHEDULE STABILITY. O UPDATES TO THIS MANIFEST WILL NORMALLY BE ISSUED ON A SEMI-ANNUAL BASIS. O FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: TRANSPORTATION SERVICES OFFICE MAIL CODE MC NASA HEADQUARTERS WASHINGTON, DC 20546 -- USA TELEPHONE: (202) 453-2347 TELEX: 497-9843 NASA WSH FAX: (202) 426-6285 SUMMARY By Fiscal Year YEAR FY 1990* FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994FY 1995FY 1996TOTAL EQUIVALENT SHUTTLE FLIGHTS PAYLOADS NASA 4.65 7.35 8.27 9.57 10.30 11.19 10.3561.68 DOD 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 ALL OTHER 0.35 .65 1.73 1.43 1.70 0.81 1.65 8.32 TOTAL 8.00 10.00 11.00 11.00 12.00 12.00 12.0076.00 EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE (ELV) FLIGHTS VEHICLE CLASS SMALL 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 11 MEDIUM 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 17 INTERMEDIATE 1 1 2 1 0 2 0 7 LARGE 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 TOTAL 6 4 5 5 4 7 6 37 *Total Flights, Planned and Flown SUMMARY By Calendar Year YEAR CY 1990* CY 1991 CY 1992 CY 1993 CY 1994CY 1995CY 1996**TOTAL EQUIVALENT SHUTTLE FLIGHTS PAYLOADS NASA 7.00 5.34 9.07 11.35 8.92 11.00 10.3563.03 DOD 2.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 ALL OTHER 0 .66 1.93 1.65 2.08 0.00 1.65 7.97 TOTAL 9.00 8.00 12.00 13.00 11.00 11.00 12.0076.00 EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE (ELV) FLIGHTS VEHICLE CLASS SMALL 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 11 MEDIUM 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 16 INTERMEDIATE 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 7 LARGE 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 TOTAL 5 4 6 5 3 8 5 36 *Total Flights, Planned and Flown **Includes flights projected for fourth quarter SECTION 2 SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 36 | 90 2 22 | XX | 5 |DOD | | C:JOHN O. CREIGHTON | | |ATLANTIS | X | X | | | P:JOHN H. CASPER | | | | | | | | MS:DAVID C. HILMERS | | | | | | | | MS:RICHARD M. MULLANE | | | | | | | | MS:PIERRE J. THUOT | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 31 | 90 4 18 |28.5| 5 |HST N/A |SE-82-16 | C:LOREN J. SHRIVER | | |DISCOVERY | 310| 5 |IMAX-04 ICBC+MD |RME III-01 | P:CHARLES F. BOLDEN | | | | X | | |AMOS-05 | MS:STEVEN A. HAWLEY | | | | 330| | |IPMP-01 | MS:BRUCE MCCANDLESS II | | | | | | |PCG-III-03 | MS:KATHRYN D. SULLIVAN | | | | | | |APM-01 | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 35 | 90 5 9 |28.5| 7 |ASTRO-01 IG+2 PALL|SAREX II-01| C:VANCE D. BRAND | | |COLUMBIA | 190| 9 |BBXRT-01 TAPS |AMOS-06 | P:GUY S. GARDNER | | | | | | | | MS:JOHN M. LOUNGE | | | | | | | | MS:JEFFREY A. HOFFMAN | | | | | | | | MS:ROBERT A. R. PARKER | | | | | | | | PS:RONALD A. PARISE | | | | | | | | PS:SAMUEL T. DURRANCE | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 38 | 90 7 9 | XX | 5 |DOD | | C:RICHARD O. COVEY | | |ATLANTIS | X | X | | | P:FRANK L. CULBERTSON | | | | | | | | MS:ROBERT C. SPRINGER | | | | | | | | MS:CARL J. MEADE | | | | | | | | MS:CHARLES D. GEMAR | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ NOTE: IN THE MISSION INTEGRATION PROCESS, EFFICIENCY AND INTEGRITY ARE ENHANCED IF FLIGHT NUMBERS ARE MAINTAINED AFTER ASSIGNMENT AT 19 MONTHS BEFORE LAUNCH. WITH MANIFEST CHANGES, NUMERICAL SEQUENCE OF EARLY FLIGHTS IS NOT MAINTAINED. * PLANS TO EXTEND TO 10 DAYS **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 40 | 90 8 29 |39.0| 7 |SLS-01 LM |GAS BRIDGE | C:BRYAN D. O'CONNOR | | |COLUMBIA | 150| 9 | | | P:SIDNEY M. GUTIERREZ | | | | | | | | MS:TAMARA E. JERNIGAN | | | | | | | | MS:M. RHEA SEDDON | | | | | | | | MS:JAMES P. BAGIAN | | | | | | | | PS:F. DREW GAFFNEY | | | | | | | | PS:MILLIE HUGHES-FULFORD | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 41 | 90 10 5 |28.5| 5 |ULYSSES IUS/PAM |SSCE-01 | C:RICHARD N. RICHARDS | | |DISCOVERY | 160| 4 | |CHROMEX-02 | P:ROBERT D. CABANA | | | | | | |VC-CCTV | MS:WILLIAM M. SHEPHERD | | | | | | |OCTW-01 | MS:BRUCE E. MELNICK | | | | | | |SE-81-09 | MS:THOMAS D. AKERS | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 37 | 90 11 1 |28.5| 5 |GRO N/A |SSBUV-02 | C:STEVEN R. NAGEL | | |ATLANTIS | 243| 5 | |CETA | P:KENNETH D. CAMERON | | | | | | |PCG-III-04 | MS:JERRY L. ROSS | | | | | | |RME III-02 | MS:JAY APT | | | | | | |SAREX II-02| MS:LINDA M. GODWIN | | | | | | |AMOS-07 | | | | | | | |APM-02 | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 42 | 90 12 12 |28.5| 7 |IML-01 LM |GAS BRIDGE | C:RONALD J. GRABE | | |COLUMBIA | 165| 9 |IMAX-05 N/A | | P:STEPHEN S. OSWALD | | | | | | | | MS:MANLEY L. CARTER | | | | | | | | MS:NORMAN E. THAGARD | | | | | | | | MS:WILLIAM F. READDY | | | | | | | | PS:ULF MERBOLD | | | | | | | | PS:ROBERTA L. BONDAR | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ NOTE: IN THE MISSION INTEGRATION PROCESS, EFFICIENCY AND INTEGRITY ARE ENHANCED IF FLIGHT NUMBERS ARE MAINTAINED AFTER ASSIGNMENT AT 19 MONTHS BEFORE LAUNCH. WITH MANIFEST CHANGES, NUMERICAL SEQUENCE OF EARLY FLIGHTS IS NOT MAINTAINED. **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 43 | 91 1 31 |28.5| 5 |TDRS-E IUS |SHARE II | | | |DISCOVERY | 160| 5 | |CVTE-01 | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 44 | 91 3 4 | XX | 5 |DOD | | | | |ATLANTIS | X | X | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 45 | 91 4 4 |57.0| 7 |ATLAS-01 IG+2 PALL| | C:TBD | | |COLUMBIA | 160| 9*| | | P:TBD | | | | | | | | MS:KATHRYN D. SULLIVAN | | | | | | | | MS:C. MICHAEL FOALE | | | | | | | | MS:TBD | | | | | | | | PS:BYRON K. LICHTENBERG | | | | | | | | PS:MICHAEL L. LAMPTON | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 46 | 91 5 16 |28.5| 7 |TSS-01 MPESS+1 P|EOIM-III | C:ROBERT L. GIBSON | | |DISCOVERY | 230| 7 |EURECA-1L EURECA-A |/TEMP2A-03 | P:TBD | | | | | |IMAX-06 ICBC | | MS:JEFFREY A. HOFFMAN | | | | | | | | MS:FRANKLIN R. CHANG-DIAZ | | | | | | | | MS:ALAUDE NICOLLIER | | | | | | | | MS:TBD | | | | | | | | PS:TBD | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ * PLANS TO EXTEND TO 10 DAYS **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 47 | 91 6 17 |57.0| 7 |SL-J LM |GAS BRIDGE | C:TBD | | |ATLANTIS | 160| 7 | | | P:TBD | | | | | | | | MS:MARK C. LEE | | | | | | | | MS:N. JAN DAVIS | | | | | | | | MS:MAE C. JEMISON | | | | | | | | MS:TBD | | | | | | | | PS:TBD | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 48 | 91 8 22 |57.0| 5 |UARS N/A | | | | |DISCOVERY | 291| 5 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 49 | 91 9 30 |33.4| 7 |STARLAB LM+1 PALL| | | | |ATLANTIS | 175| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 50 | 91 12 5 |28.5| 5 |LAGEOS II IRIS |FTS-DTF-01 | | | |DISCOVERY | 160| 7 | |SPTN-02 | | | | | | | |ASP | | | | | | | |DXS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 51 | 92 1 23 |57.0| 7 |AFP-675 PALLET |STP-01 | | | |ATLANTIS | 140| 8 |IBSS SPAS |MPEC | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 52 | 92 2 13 |28.5| 5 |GEOSTAR-01 PAM-D2 |CVTE-02 | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 9 |EURECA-1R EURECA-A | | | | | | | |USMP-01 MSL+MPESS| | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 53 | 92 3 5 |28.5| 7 |USML-01 LM+EDO | | | | |COLUMBIA | 140|13*| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ * DEPENDENT ON PRIOR LONG DURATION FLIGHT EXPERIENCE **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 54 | 92 4 23 |28.5| 6 |ACTS TOS |CANEX-02 | | | |ATLANTIS | 160| 7 | |WSF-01 | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 55 | 92 5 28 |28.5| 7 |SL-D2 LM + USS | | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 9 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 56 | 92 6 18 |57.0| 7 |ATLAS-02 IG+1 PALL|SSBUV-03 | | | |COLUMBIA | 160| 9 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 57 | 92 7 16 |57.0| 5 |SRL-01 PALL+MPES| | | | |DISCOVERY | 130| 9 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 58 | 92 8 6 | TBD|TBD|FLT OPPTY | | | | |ATLANTIS | TBD|TBD| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 59 | 92 9 3 |28.5| 5 |SPACEHAB-01 SPACEHAB |SHOOT | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 7 |SPAS-ORFEUS SPAS | | | | | | | |GEOSTAR-02 PAM-D2 | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 60 | 92 9 30 |28.5| 7 |SLS-02 LM+EDO | | | | |COLUMBIA | 140|13*| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 61 | 92 10 29 |28.5| 7 |INMARSAT-01 PAM-D2 |SRAD/TPITS | | | |DISCOVERY | 160| 8 | |DEE | | | | | | | |ISEM-01 | | | | | | | |IEH | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ * DEPENDENT ON PRIOR LONG DURATION FLIGHT EXPERIENCE **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 62 | 92 12 10 |28.5| 5 |TDRS-F IUS |CAPL | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 5 | |CVTE-03 | | | | | | | |SHARE III | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 63 | 93 1 28 |28.5| 7 |IML-02 LM+EDO | | | | |COLUMBIA | 140|13*| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 64 | 93 2 25 |28.5| 5 |SPACEHAB-02 SPACEHAB |CXH-03 | | | |DISCOVERY | 160| 7 |GEOSTAR-03 PAM-D2 | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 65 | 93 3 18 |28.5| 5 |USMP-02 MSL+MPESS|ISEM-02 | | | |ATLANTIS | 160| 7 |INMARSAT-02 PAM-D2 |HPE | | | | | | | |IFCE/CTM | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 66 | 93 4 15 |57.0| 7 |ATLAS-03 IG+1 PALL|SSBUV-04 | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 9 |SPAS-CRISTA SPAS | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 67 | 93 5 6 |28.5| 5 |EURECA-2L EURECA-A |CMG-04 | | | |COLUMBIA | 160| 7 | |LITE | | | | | | | |CXM-01 | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 68 | 93 6 10 |28.5| 5 |HST REV-01 PALL+FSS | | | | |DISCOVERY | TBD| 5 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 69 | 93 7 1 | TBD|TBD|FLT OPPTY | | | | |ATLANTIS | TBD|TBD| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 70 | 93 7 22 |28.5| 5 |SPACEHAB-03 SPACEHAB |OAST-02 | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 7 | |EOIM-IV | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ * DEPENDENT ON PRIOR LONG DURATION FLIGHT EXPERIENCE **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 71 | 93 9 2 | TBD|TBD|FLT OPPTY | | | | |COLUMBIA | TBD|TBD| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 72 | 93 10 1 | TBD|TBD|FLT OPPTY | | | | |DISCOVERY | TBD|TBD| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 73 | 93 10 22 |28.5| 5 |SPACEHAB-04 SPACEHAB |FTS-DTF-02 | | | |ATLANTIS | 160| 7 |PL OPPTY |CMG-05 | | | | | | | |CXP-01 | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 74 | 93 11 12 |28.5| 5 |EURECA-2R EURECA-A |WSF-02 | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 9 |USMP-03 MSL+MPESS| | | | | | | |SATCOM PAM-D2 | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 75 | 93 12 9 |57.0| 5 |SRL-02 PALL+MPES| | | | |COLUMBIA | 130| 9 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 76 | 94 2 3 |28.5| 7 |ISF-01 FM+DS | | | | |DISCOVERY | 160| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 77 | 94 2 24 |28.5| 5 |XTE/EUVE RETR FSS |REFLEX | | | |ATLANTIS | 160| 7 |PL OPPTY |CXM-02 | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 78 | 94 3 17 |57.0| 9 |ATLAS-04 IG+1 PALL|SSBUV-05 | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 79 | 94 4 7 |28.5| 7 |USML-02 LM+EDO | | | | |COLUMBIA | 140|16*| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ * DEPENDENT ON PRIOR LONG DURATION FLIGHT EXPERIENCE **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 80 | 94 5 12 |28.5| 5 |SPACEHAB-05 SPACEHAB |CXM-03 | | | |DISCOVERY | 160| 7 |PL OPPTY | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 81 | 94 6 2 |28.5| 5 |SFU-RETR N/A |FR-01 | | | |ATLANTIS | 160| 7 |USMP-04 MSL+MPESS|CXH-06 | | --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: NASA Mixed Fleet Manifest for 01/90 [Part 2 of 7] (Forwarded) Date: 30 Jan 90 16:35:34 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 82 | 94 8 4 |28.5| 7 |SL-D3 LM + USS | | | | |COLUMBIA | 160| 9 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 83 | 94 8 25 |28.5| 5 |AAFE UNIQUE | | | | |DISCOVERY | 160| 7 |PL OPPTY | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 84 | 94 10 6 |28.5| 5 |SPACEHAB-06 SPACEHAB |SSBUV-06 | | | |ATLANTIS | 160| 7 |PL OPPTY |NTE-02 | | | | | | | |CTM | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 85 | 94 10 27 |28.5| 7 |ISF-02 AM+DS | | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 9 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 86 | 94 12 8 | TBD|TBD|FLT OPPTY | | | | |DISCOVERY | TBD|TBD| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 87 | 95 1 19 |57.0| 5 |OMV N/A |SSS | | | |ATLANTIS | 160| 7 |WISP OMV+PALL | | | | | | | |SPTN-T MPESS | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 88 | 95 2 15 |28.5| 7 |SLS-03 LM+EDO | | | | |COLUMBIA | 140|16*| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ * DEPENDENT ON PRIOR LONG DURATION FLIGHT EXPERIENCE **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 89 | 95 3 9 |28.5| 7 |SSF/MB-01(FEL) UNIQUE | | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 220| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 90 | 95 4 27 |28.5| 5 |TDRS-G IUS | | | | |ATLANTIS | 160| 5 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 91 | 95 6 1 |28.5| 7 |IML-03 LM+EDO | | | | |COLUMBIA | 140|16*| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 92 | 95 6 22 |28.5| 7 |SSF/MB-02 UNIQUE | | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 220| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 93 | 95 8 10 |28.5| 7 |SSF/MB-03 UNIQUE | | | | |DISCOVERY | 220| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 94 | 95 9 7 |57.0| 7 |ATLAS-05 IG+1 PALL|SSBUV-07 | | | |COLUMBIA | 160| 9 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 95 | 95 9 28 |28.5| 5 |TDRS-H IUS | | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 5 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 96 | 95 11 16 |28.5| 7 |SSF/MB-04 UNIQUE | | | | |DISCOVERY | 220| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 97 | 95 12 7 |57.0| 5 |SRL-03 PALL+MPES| | | | |ATLANTIS | 130| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ * DEPENDENT ON PRIOR LONG DURATION FLIGHT EXPERIENCE **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 98 | 96 1 11 |28.5| 5 |SPACEHAB-07 SPACEHAB |CXH-07 | | | |COLUMBIA | 160| 7 |EURECA-3L EURECA-A |SSBUV-08 | | | | | | | |DCWS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 99 | 96 2 8 |28.5| 7 |SSF/MB-05 UNIQUE | | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 220| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 100 | 96 2 29 |28.5| 5 |HST REV-02 PALL+FSS | | | | |DISCOVERY | TBD| 5 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 101 | 96 3 28 |28.5| 7 |SSF/MB-06 UNIQUE | | | | |ATLANTIS | 190| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 102 | 96 5 9 |28.5| 7 |USML-03 LM+EDO | | | | |COLUMBIA | 140|16*| | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 103 | 96 5 30 |28.5| 7 |ISF-03 FM+DS | | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 160| 9 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 104 | 96 6 20 |28.5| 7 |SSF/MB-07(MTC) UNIQUE | | | | |DISCOVERY | 190| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 105 | 96 7 18 |28.5| 5 |EURECA-3R EURECA-A |CXH-08 | | | |ATLANTIS | 160| 7 |USMP-05 MSL+MPESS|FR-02 | | | | | | |PL OPPTY | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 106 | 96 8 15 |57.0| 7 |ATLAS-06 IG+1 PALL|SSBUV-09 | | | |COLUMBIA | 160| 9 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ * DEPENDENT ON PRIOR LONG DURATION FLIGHT EXPERIENCE **** SHUTTLE PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | 107 | 96 9 19 |28.5| 7 |SSF/OF-01 UNIQUE | | | | |ENDEAVOUR | 190| 7 | | | | +-----+----------+----+---+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ SECTION 3 ELV PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** ELV PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 _------------_---------------_-----------------------------_-------_--------_-------------------_ | DATE | CLASS | L A U N C H V E H I C L E |PAYLOAD| LAUNCH | PAYLOAD | | YR MO | | TYPE INCL | ORBIT | SITE | | |------------|---------------|-----------------------_-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 90 04 | SMALL | SCOUT |90.0 | LEO | WSMC | MACSAT(NAVY) | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 90 05 | MEDIUM | ATLAS 50E |98.7 | SS | WSMC | NOAA-D | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 90 05 | MEDIUM | DELTA |57.0 | LEO | ESMC | ROSAT | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 90 06 | INTERMEDIATE | ATLAS I |18.0 | GTO | ESMC | CRRES | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 90 06 | SMALL | SCOUT |108 | LEO | WSMC | SALT(NAVY) | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 91 01 | SMALL | SCOUT |TBD | TBD | TBD | PROFILE(NAVY) | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 91 05 | MEDIUM | ATLAS 34E |98.7 | SS | WSMC | NOAA-I | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 91 06 | INTERMEDIATE | ATLAS I |28.5 | GSO | ESMC | GOES-I | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 91 08 | MEDIUM | DELTA |28.5 | LEO | ESMC | EUVE | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 92 02 | INTERMEDIATE | ATLAS I |28.5 | GSO | ESMC | GOES-J | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 92 06 | SMALL | SCOUT |TBD | TBD | WSMC | SAMPEX | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 92 07 | MEDIUM | DELTA II |28.7 | HE | ESMC | GEOTAIL | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 92 09 | MEDIUM | ATLAS 11E |98.7 | SS | WSMC | NOAA-J | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 92 09 | INTERMEDIATE | TITAN III |28.5 | EO | ESMC | MARS OBSERVER | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 92 12 | MEDIUM | DELTA II |28.7 | HE | ESMC | WIND | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| 3.1 **** ELV PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 _------------_---------------_-----------------------------_-------_--------_-------------------_ | DATE | CLASS | L A U N C H V E H I C L E |PAYLOAD| LAUNCH | PAYLOAD | | YR MO | | TYPE INCL | ORBIT | SITE | | |------------|---------------|-----------------------_-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 93 06 | MEDIUM | DELTA II |90.0 | HE | WSMC | POLAR | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 93 06 | SMALL | SCOUT |TBD | LEO | WSMC | TOMS | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 93 06 | SMALL | TBD |TBD | LEO | WSMC | SWAS | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 93 10 | INTERMEDIATE | TBD |28.7 | GSO | ESMC | MSAT | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 93 12 | SMALL | SCOUT |TBD | LEO | TBD | FAST | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 93 12 | MEDIUM | TITAN II |98.7 | SS | WSMC | NOAA-K | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 94 06 | MEDIUM | DELTA II |98.6 | LEO | WSMC | RADARSAT | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 94 09 | SMALL | TBD |TBD | TBD | TBD | SMEX-04 | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 94 12 | MEDIUM | DELTA II |TBD | TBD | ESMC | LIFESAT-01 | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 95 03 | INTERMEDIATE | TBD |28.5 | HE | ESMC | SOHO | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 95 04 | MEDIUM | TITAN II |98.7 | SS | WSMC | NOAA-L | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 95 06 | SMALL | TBD |TBD | TBD | TBD | SMEX-05 | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 95 06 | MEDIUM | DELTA II |TBD | TBD | ESMC | LIFESAT-02 | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 95 07 | INTERMEDIATE | ATLAS I |28.5 | GSO | ESMC | GOES-K | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 95 08 | LARGE | TITAN IV /CENTAUR |TBD | PLAN | ESMC | CRAF | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| 3.2 **** ELV PAYLOAD FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS **** JANUARY 1990 _------------_---------------_-----------------------------_-------_--------_-------------------_ | DATE | CLASS | L A U N C H V E H I C L E |PAYLOAD| LAUNCH | PAYLOAD | | YR MO | | TYPE INCL | ORBIT | SITE | | |------------|---------------|-----------------------_-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 95 12 | SMALL | TBD |TBD | TBD | TBD | SMEX-06 | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 95 12 | MEDIUM | DELTA II |TBD | TBD | ESMC | LIFESAT-03 | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 96 04 | LARGE | TITAN IV /CENTAUR |TBD | PLAN | ESMC | CASSINI | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 96 06 | SMALL | TBD |TBD | TBD | TBD | SMEX-07 | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 96 06 | MEDIUM | DELTA II |TBD | TBD | ESMC | LIFESAT-04 | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| | 96 07 | MEDIUM | TITAN II |98.7 | SS | WSMC | NOAA-M | |------------|---------------|-----------------------|-----|-------|--------|-------------------| 3.3 SECTION 4 PREVIOUS FLIGHTS 3.4 **** PREVIOUS SHUTTLE FLIGHTS **** _-----_----------_----_---_-----------------------------_-----------_-----------------------------------_ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 1 | 81 4 12 |40.3| 2 |DFI DFI PLT |OEX | C:JOHN W. YOUNG | | |COLUMBIA | 172| 2 | | | P:ROBERT L. CRIPPEN | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 2 | 81 11 12 |38.0| 2 |OSTA-1 PALLET |OEX | C:JOE H. ENGLE | | |COLUMBIA | 140| 2 |DFI DFI PLT |IECM | P:RICHARD H. TRULY | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 3 | 82 3 22 |38.0| 2 |OSS-1 PALLET |IECM | C:JACK R. LOUSMA | | |COLUMBIA | 130| 8 |DFI DFI PLT |OEX | P:C. GORDON FULLERTON | | | | | | |SSIP(1) | | | | | | | |GAS TEST | | | | | | | |MLR | | | | | | | |EEVT | | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 4 | 82 6 27 |28.5| 2 |DOD 82-1 |OEX | C:THOMAS K. MATTINGLY | | |COLUMBIA | 162| 7 |DFI DFI PLT |IECM | P:HENRY W. HARTSFIELD | | | | | | |MLR | | | | | | | |CFES | | | | | | | |NOSL | | | | | | | |SSIP(2) | | | | | | | |GAS(1) | | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 5 | 82 11 11 |28.5| 4 |SBS-C PAM-D |GLOW | C:VANCE D. BRAND | | |COLUMBIA | 160| 5 |TELESAT-E PAM-D |SSIP(3) | P:ROBERT F. OVERMYER | | | | | | |GAS(1) | MS:JOSEPH P. ALLEN | | | | | | | | MS:WILLIAM B. LENOIR | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| 4.1 **** PREVIOUS SHUTTLE FLIGHTS **** _-----_----------_----_---_-----------------------------_-----------_-----------------------------------_ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 6 | 83 4 4 |28.5| 4 |TDRS-A IUS |CFES | C:PAUL J. WEITZ | | |CHALLENGER| 150| 5 | |MLR,NOSL | P:KAROL J. BOBKO | | | | | | |GAS(3) | MS:DONALD H. PETERSON | | | | | | | | MS:F. STORY MUSGRAVE | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 7 | 83 6 18 |28.5| 5 |SPAS-01 |CFES | C:ROBERT L. CRIPPEN | | |CHALLENGER| 160| 6 |OSTA-2 MPESS |MLR | P:FREDERICK H. HAUCK | | | | | |TELESAT-F PAM-D |GAS(7) | MS:JOHN M. FABIAN | | | | | |PALAPA-B1 PAM-D | | MS:SALLY K. RIDE | | | | | | | | MS:NORMAN E. THAGARD | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 8 | 83 8 30 |28.5| 5 |PDRS/PFTA |CFES | C:RICHARD H. TRULY | | |CHALLENGER| 160| 6 |OIM |RME | P:DANIEL C. BRANDENSTEIN | | | | | |INSAT 1-B PAM-D |GAS(4) | MS:DALE A. GARDNER | | | | | | |SSIP(1) | MS:GUION S. BLUFORD, JR. | | | | | | | | MS:WILLIAM E. THORNTON | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 9 | 83 11 28 |57.0| 6 |SPACELAB 1 LM+1P | | C:JOHN W. YOUNG | | |COLUMBIA | 135|10 | | | P:BREWSTER H. SHAW, JR. | | | | | | | | MS:OWEN K. GARRIOTT | | | | | | | | MS:ROBERT A. R. PARKER | | | | | | | | PS:ULF MERBOLD | | | | | | | | PS:BYRON K. LICHTENBERG | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| 4.2 **** PREVIOUS SHUTTLE FLIGHTS **** _-----_----------_----_---_-----------------------------_-----------_-----------------------------------_ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 10 | 84 2 3 |28.5| 5 |SPAS-01A |ACES,IEF | C:VANCE D. BRAND | | 41-B|CHALLENGER| 165| 8 |PALAPA B-2 PAM-D |C-360b | P:ROBERT L. GIBSON | | | | | |WESTAR-6 PAM-D |C-360c | MS:BRUCE MCCANDLESS II | | | | | | |RME,MLR | MS:ROBERT L. STEWART | | | | | | |GAS(5) | MS:RONALD E. MCNAIR | | | | | | |SSIP(1) | | | | | | | |IRT | | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 11 | 84 4 6 |28.5| 5 |LDEF-1 |RME,IMAX | C:ROBERT L. CRIPPEN | | 41-C|CHALLENGER| 250| 7 |SMM REPAIR FSS |C-360b | P:FRANCIS R. SCOBEE | | | | | | |SSIP(1) | MS:GEORGE D. NELSON | | | | | | | | MS:TERRY J. HART | | | | | | | | MS:JAMES D. VAN HOFTEN | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 12 | 84 8 30 |28.5| 6 |OAST-1 MPESS |CFES | C:HENRY W. HARTSFIELD | | 41-D|DISCOVERY | 160| 6 |SBS-D PAM-D |IMAX | P:MICHAEL L. COATS | | | | | |TELSTAR 3-C PAM-D |RME | MS:RICHARD M. MULLANE | | | | | |SYNCOM IV-2 |SSIP(1) | MS:STEVEN A. HAWLEY | | | | | | |CLOUDS | MS:JUDITH A. RESNIK | | | | | | | | PS:CHARLES WALKER | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 13 | 84 10 5 |57.0| 7 |OSTA-3 PALLET |IMAX | C:ROBERT L. CRIPPEN | | 41-G|CHALLENGER| 190| 8 |ERBS |RME | P:JON A. MCBRIDE | | | | | |LFC/ORS MPESS |GAS(8) | MS:KATHRYN D. SULLIVAN | | | | | | |TLD | MS:SALLY K. RIDE | | | | | | |APE | MS:DAVID C. LEESTMA | | | | | | |CANEX | PS:MARC GARNEAU | | | | | | | | PS:PAUL D. SCULLY-POWER | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| 4.3 **** PREVIOUS SHUTTLE FLIGHTS **** _-----_----------_----_---_-----------------------------_-----------_-----------------------------------_ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 14 | 84 11 8 |28.5| 5 |HS-376 RETV(2) 2 PALLET |DMOS | C:FREDERICK H. HAUCK | | 51-A|DISCOVERY | 160| 8 |TELESAT-H PAM-D |RME | P:DAVID M. WALKER | | | | | |SYNCOM IV-1 | | MS:ANNA L. FISHER | | | | | | | | MS:DALE A. GARDNER | | | | | | | | MS:JOSEPH P. ALLEN | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 15 | 85 1 24 | XX | 5 |DOD | | C:THOMAS K. MATTINGLY | | 51-C|DISCOVERY | X | 3 | | | P:LOREN J. SHRIVER | | | | | | | | MS:JAMES F. BUCHLI | | | | | | | | MS:ELLISON S. ONIZUKA | | | | | | | | MS:GARY E. PAYTON | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 16 | 85 4 12 |28.5| 7 |TELESAT-I PAM-D |CFES | C:KAROL J. BOBKO | | 51-D|DISCOVERY | 250| 7 |SYNCOM IV-3 |AFE | P:DONALD E. WILLIAMS | | | | | | |PPE/SAS | MS:M. RHEA SEDDON | | | | | | |SSIP(2) | MS:JEFFREY A. HOFFMAN | | | | | | |GAS(2) | MS:S. DAVID GRIGGS | | | | | | | | PS:CHARLES WALKER | | | | | | | | PS:E. JAKE GARN | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 17 | 85 4 29 |57.0| 7 |SPACELAB 3 LM+MPESS |GAS(2) | C:ROBERT F. OVERMYER | | 51-B|CHALLENGER| 190| 7 | | | P:FREDERICK D. GREGORY | | | | | | | | MS:DON L. LIND | | | | | | | | MS:NORMAN E. THAGARD | | | | | | | | MS:WILLIAM E. THORNTON | | | | | | | | PS:LODWIJK VAN DEN BERG | | | | | | | | PS:TAYLOR G. WANG | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| 4.4 **** PREVIOUS SHUTTLE FLIGHTS **** _-----_----------_----_---_-----------------------------_-----------_-----------------------------------_ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 18 | 85 6 17 |28.5| 7 |SPTN-1 MPESS |FEE | C:DANIEL C. BRANDENSTEIN | | 51-G|DISCOVERY | 190| 7 |MORELOS-A PAM-D |FPE | P:JOHN O. CREIGHTON | | | | | |ARABSAT-1B PAM-D |ADSF | MS:SHANNON W. LUCID | | | | | |TELSTAR 3-D PAM-D |HPTE | MS:STEVEN R. NAGEL | | | | | | |GAS(6) | MS:JOHN M. FABIAN | | | | | | | | PS:SULTAN S. AL-SAUD | | | | | | | | PS:PATRICK BAUDRY | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 19 | 85 7 29 |50.0| 7 |SPACELAB 2 IG+3P |SAREX | C:C. GORDON FULLERTON | | 51-F|CHALLENGER| 174| 8 | |STTP | P:ROY D. BRIDGES | | | | | | |CBDE | MS:F. STORY MUSGRAVE | | | | | | | | MS:ANTHONY W. ENGLAND | | | | | | | | MS:KARL G. HENIZE | | | | | | | | PS:LOREN W. ACTON | | | | | | | | PS:JOHN-DAVID F. BARTOE | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 20 | 85 8 27 |28.5| 5 |AUSSAT-1 PAM-D |PVTOS | C:JOE H. ENGLE | | 51-I|DISCOVERY | 190| 7 |ASC-1 PAM-D | | P:RICHARD O. COVEY | | | | | |SYNCOM IV-4 | | MS:JAMES D. VAN HOFTEN | | | | | |SYNCOM-SALVAGE | | MS:JOHN M. LOUNGE | | | | | | | | MS:WILLIAM F. FISHER | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 21 | 85 10 3 | XX | 5 |DOD | | C:KAROL J. BOBKO | | 51-J|ATLANTIS | X | 4 | | | P:RONALD J. GRABE | | | | | | | | MS:ROBERT L. STEWART | | | | | | | | MS:DAVID C. HILMERS | | | | | | | | PS:WILLIAM A. PAILES | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| 4.5 **** PREVIOUS SHUTTLE FLIGHTS **** _-----_----------_----_---_-----------------------------_-----------_-----------------------------------_ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| --------------------------------------- From: elturner@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edwin L Turner) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Japanese Space Program (was Re: NASA Headline News ...) Date: 31 Jan 90 15:36:09 GMT Reply-To: elturner@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edwin L Turner) Organization: Princeton University, NJ In article <1990Jan25.185158.11277@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >The Japanese space program is pitiful compared to the other space >powers. I don't see them having the ability to send anyone to the >moon by 2010. They may be able to send people to LEO by then. I would not have any great confidence in such projections of Japanese efforts/abilities in space in view of their recent history with respect to high tech endeavors. Their pattern has been to 'investigate' various possible areas with very modest, almost invisible efforts, and then to quite suddenly undertake very ambitious, lavishly funded, and carefully planned programs designed to give them world class status, if not outright leadership. Needless to say, this approach has often (but not always) been quite successful for them. Of course, not every area they 'investigate' ends up getting this treatment, and I would not claim that space will, just that it might. Ed Turner "Itsu nukera phoenix!elturner soko tomo shirazu oke no tsuki." or elturner@phoenix.Princeton.EDU - Mabutsu 1874 --------------------------------------- From: anderson@ESTHER.LA.ASU.EDU (Don Anderson) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Job Announcement Date: 31 Jan 90 21:25:25 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Scientific programmer(s)/postdoc(s) wanted for NASA space flight projects. Must have knowledge of VMS and Unix at the programming and system administration level, and be fluent in FORTRAN and C languages. Background in the sciences (geology, geophysics, astrophysics) and experience in image processing/remote sensing techniques are desirable. Knowledge of image processing hardware is a plus. Salary open. please send resume to: anderson@esther.la.asu.edu --------------------------------------- From: KEN@ORION.BITNET (Kenneth Ng) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: radiation hazard from retrieving gallieo Date: 20 Jan 90 22:44:53 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet :Remember that the entire time, the astronauts will be exposed to the :radiation from the RTG's -- a fair amount. In order to stow or :detatch the RTG booms, they would have to get close to the RTG's :themselves. The fuel for the RTG's is Pu238. Pu238 releases 72% of its energy as alpha particles, 28% as beta, and 0.09% as gamma. Alpha you can stop with a piece of paper, beta with aluminium foil, gamma, well that's a pain in the butt. It decays into Np236, significant half life 22 hours. Beta emmission transforms it to Pu236. Again alpha emission, half life 2.7 years, to NP234. NP234 half life 4.4 days decays into U234 with a beta emission, I think. U234 half life 2.48E5 years (I think it'll stay here for a long time :-)), decays alpha particle to Pa232. I'm not typing the rest of the chain since it'll remain U234 for the significant future. The point of all this? The radiation from the RTG's should not be significant to the astronauts should they try to retrieve Galileo. I think they'll have a higher radiation hazard from being outside the Shuttle than from the RTG. Source: Trilinear Chart of Nuclides, January 1957 (yeah I know its ancient, but it was also free). --------------------------------------- From: g_ahrendt@vaxa.uwa.oz (Gunter Ahrendt) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Blackbird vs. Foxbat Date: 21 Jan 90 00:30:35 GMT Organization: University of Western Australia >The Blackbird's altitude capability is pretty definitely much higher than >the records it has actually set, and almost certainly considerably exceeds >that of the Foxbat. (We're talking sustained altitude here, not zoom climbs.) I disagree, a sustained altitude of 24km with a peak of 30km are the Blackbird's excellent figures, i see no reason why it should not have exceeded it's record figures during test & record flights as that is their point. The Foxbat has a peak of 36km thus it's sustained altitude is appropriatly higher. Being developed in response to the RS-70 project, which was the father of the Blackbird. >If one allows craft that drop pieces on the way up (in the way that the >X-15s dropped a B-52 :-) and the X-15A-2 dropped external tanks), then >the X-15A-2 is nowhere near the record holder for either speed or altitude. >The Apollo spacecraft holds the record, with Gemini second and the shuttle >orbiter third. (Before you complain that Apollo and Gemini were not >aircraft, they were in fact lifting bodies at hypersonic speed, and used >their lift to fly fairly complicated reentry trajectories.) International >rules for aircraft records forbid dropping anything except human waste. Oh please, lets not draw thin lines around definitions of Space & Aircraft! Even though the X-15 is fixed wing and rocket powered it is nevertheless an aircraft flying through AIR (thin at that height but still air >-}, whereas the Shuttle et al are spacecraft which travel through SPACE, sure they travel through air to get get their & back again, but this does not make them aircraft! Or does a planes taking off constitute it as an automobile? Please don't take my coment so seriously, it was a small notice that the Foxbat has a greater service ceiling than the Blackbird. --------------------------------------- From: dave@stcns3.stc.oz.AU (Dave Horsfall) Newsgroups: sci.space,aus.radio Subject: Anniversary of Australis OSCAR-5 Date: 22 Jan 90 04:06:07 GMT Reply-To: dave@stcns3.stc.oz.AU (Dave Horsfall) Followup-To: sci.space Organization: Alcatel STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:16948 [ Perhaps someone can cross-post this to rec.ham-radio ] Tuesday 23rd January 1990 is the 20th anniversary of the launching of Australis OSCAR-5, an Amateur radio satellite designed and built by a team at Melbourne University, Australia, from 1965 to 1967. After some setbacks, it was launched on January 23rd 1970, on a NASA rocket. This was the first OSCAR to be launched by NASA; previous models were launched by the US Air Force. The satellite itself was unusual in that it carried no transponder, nor solar cells. The objectives were: 1) evaluate the suitability of the 10m band for a downlink on future transponders; 2) test a passive magnetic attitude stabilisation scheme; and 3) demonstrate the feasibility of controlling an amateur spacecraft via uplink commands. It is worth noting that as with previous models, the antenna elements were steel carpenter's rule. The craft carried telemetry beacons on 144.050 MHz (50mW) and 29.450 MHz (250mW at launch), a command receiver and decoder, a seven-channel analog telemetry system, and a simple manganese alkaline battery power system (no solar cells). Although the technical aspects went smoothly, administrative concerns were a nightmare. A part costing 50 cents air-posted to Australia from USA would cost $10, and pages of paperwork to get it through customs. As a result of delayed launches, AMSAT (Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation) was formed as an East-coast version of Project OSCAR, and its first task was to arrange for the launch of OSCAR-5. The satellite performed almost flawlessly after the launch, with one small glitch preventing telemetry data from being sent over the 29 MHz beacon. However, the same data was present on the 2m beacon. The magnetic stabiliser worked perfectly, decreasing the spin rate by a factor of 40 - from 4 rpm to 0.1 rpm - over the first two weeks. A network of ground stations periodically transmitted commands to the satellite, turning the 29 MHz beacon on and off. Allowing the beacon to operate only on weekends helped to conserve limited battery power. The first successful command of an amateur satellite took place on orbit 61, on January 28, 1970, when the 29 MHz beacon was turned off. The demonstration of command capabilities was to prove very important in obtaining FCC licences for future missions. Performance measurements of the 29 MHz beacon confirmed hopes that this band would prove suitable for transponder downlinks on future low- altitude spacecraft, and led to its use on OSCAR 6, 7 and 8 etc. As the battery became depleted, the transmitters shut down, with the 2m beacon turning off 23 days into the mission, and the 10m beacon (operating at reduced power) was usable until day 46. Sources: The Satellite Experimenter's Handbook (ARRL 1984). VK2WI Broadcast, Sunday 21st January, 1990. -- Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU), Alcatel STC Australia, dave@stcns3.stc.oz.AU dave%stcns3.stc.oz.AU@uunet.UU.NET, ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave --------------------------------------- From: hasara@GN.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Andrew J Hasara) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Salyut 7 Date: 22 Jan 90 22:17:40 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU It appears that Mir will soon be alone in the skys. According to the latest issue of "Spaceflight", the Soviet Space station Salyut 7 is out of correction fuel, and is spinning with one end (according to an included diagram it is the "back" end where the Progress tankers dock) pointing down. The station will reenter on it's own within 3-4years, but the Soviets are expecting to use a Progress or Soyuz to deorbit the station into the ocean, lest it come down on some poor Aussie's head :-). I guess that buggers my vacation plans, after all, I couldn't get up for at least 2 years, and by that time, they'll have tried to land it in Lake Michigan for me :-) (-: BTW, could someone send me the address for Space Systems Ind. in Texas. You know, the ones who sell space stuff to the US. No, seriously, I mean it! A. Hasara aka. hasara@gn.ecn.purdue.edu President, Andy's Space Salvage and Privateering --------------------------------------- From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Ozone layer (booster pollution) Date: 23 Jan 90 18:15:20 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards >Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 09:28:06 PST >From: greer%utd201.dnet%utadnx@utspan.span.nasa.gov >Subject: Re: booster pollution >According to somebody (one of the main figures in this line of >research, whose name nevertheless escapes me) who gave a talk here some >months ago on the subject, high altitude ice clouds play a major role >in the formation of the ozone hole. Briefly, CFC's destroy ozone in a >catalytic manner, so it doesn't take much of the stuff to do a lot of >damage. Ice crystals act as an adsorptive surface for the CFC's which >somehow makes them even more active in destroying ozone. The Antarctic >ozone hole closes up during southern hemisphere summer when the high >altitude ice clouds are not present. The CFCs themselves are not considered much of a threat to the ozone. The problem arises when the CFCs are eventually broken down (gradually, over the course of decades) to release chlorine atoms. The chlorine atoms act as a catalyst to break down the ozone. Since ozone is continually being produced, a higher concentration of chlorine tends to reduce the equilibrium concentration of ozone at the level in which the chlorine is active. Chlorine is continually "washed out" of the upper atmosphere and returned to the troposphere, so it may be said that a given chlorine atom is "expected" to break down a certain number of ozone molecules during its stay (I think about 50000). I believe the result of these factors is that if a harmful level of ozone depletion were detected (which has not yet happened) and production of CFCs and other ozone-catalyst products immediately halted, the problem would persist for 50-100 years, but to a gradually decreasing extent. Much of the world's supply of upper-atmosphere ozone is produced in the tropics, where the sunlight is most intense, from which it spreads out over the rest of the planet. The Antarctic hole is thought to be a result of wind patterns that block the influx of fresh ozone at certain times of the year, leaving the remainder to gradually break down. This breakdown *may* be accelerated by the chlorine and other catalysts already present, as well as the extremely low temperatures over the south polar region. I haven't heard what influence ice crystals may have on this process. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Firing 'old' shuttle rocket motors has benefits for future (Forwarded) Date: 24 Jan 90 18:27:24 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA [Can't remember if Ron posted this one while I was away. So here it is again. -PEY] Mark Hess Headquarters, Washington, D.C. January 17, 1990 Jerry Berg Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. RELEASE: 90-6 FIRING 'OLD' SHUTTLE ROCKET MOTORS HAS BENEFITS FOR FUTURE Key design changes in the Space Shuttle's solid rocket motors, made following the Challenger accident in 1986, have long since been completed and certified flightworthy by extensive testing. The redesigned rockets have successfully boosted the Shuttle into orbit eight times since September 1988. So why is NASA conducting ground firings of Shuttle solid rocket motors of the pre-Challenger design? Because static firings in the Technical Evaluation Motor series are yielding a variety of benefits for the agency's solid rocket motor program, managed by the Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. The primary reason for conducting the firings is to reclaim millions of dollars worth of solid rocket motor casings and associated hardware for future reuse. The casings are specially forged, 12-foot-in-diameter cylindrical metal segments in which propellant is poured and cast, creating the four massive elements from which each 126-foot-long motor is assembled. Casings are refurbished and reused as many as 20 times. In normal operations, the expended motors are recovered from the ocean following the Shuttle's ascent, then disassembled and inspected, after which the casings and other components are recycled. At the time of the Challenger accident, 11 solid rocket motors had been produced but not used. With minor rework, the reusable components of these motors are interchangeable with those on the current-design motor. But, since there is no practical, safe way to scrape or wash the highly flammable propellant out of the segments, the motors have to be fired to reclaim the hardware. "The Shuttle program has accelerated to a launch rate near that which was under way at the time of the Challenger accident," said Royce Mitchell, manager of the Redesigned Solid Rocket Motor Project at the Marshall Center. "The use of these reclaimed motor segments is vital to supporting our flight manifest and represents several million dollars in cost savings to the Shuttle program," Mitchell added. Three of the Technical Evaluation Motor firings -- those scheduled for the fall of 1990 through the spring of 1991 -- will serve another purpose equally vital to maintaining the Shuttle's future flight schedule. NASA is currently in the process of qualifying a new supplier for a type of rayon yarn used in nozzle components of the solid rocket motor. The quality and characteristics of the rayon can be only partially assessed with laboratory tests. To fully certify that the material meets specifications for flight, it must be used to fabricate actual nozzle components, which then must be subjected to full-duration motor firings. The technical evaluation motors provide a low-cost opportunity to do this, since the pre-Challenger motors contain the same 1.1 million pounds of propellant as in the current design, producing the same environments and demands on the nozzle as a current flight motor. As an added benefit, the firings provide an opportunity for engineers to obtain new data that will expand their knowledge about motor performance in general. "For instance, the effects of aging and storage are important to understand. The last of these motors will be several years old when fired, so the data will be very valuable for technical assessment," Mitchell explained. The test series is being conducted by Thiokol Corp., NASA's prime contractor for the solid rocket motor program, at the company's northern Utah test facility. The firings began in November 1988, with four motors fired thus far. Tests are scheduled to continue through late 1991. --------------------------------------- From: mpk9172@ultb.isc.rit.edu (M.P. Kirby) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Space Station Freedom to run UNIX Date: 24 Jan 90 20:50:35 GMT Reply-To: mpk9172@ultb.isc.rit.edu (M.P. Kirby) Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York In article <8992@nigel.udel.EDU> pezely@cis.udel.edu (Daniel Pezely) writes: >CAMPBELL, Calif. --- In what may be the first use of a Unix-based, >real-time operating system by the U.S. government, NASA has selected >LynxOS from Lynx Real-Time Systems for use on the space station >Freedom. >Freedom's on-board computer systems running LynxOS will be used to >regulate the space station's flight control operations, life support >systems, communications, and tracking as well as experimental and >operational applications. Life support? flight control??? I take it that this version of unix is more stable then the version that we have running here. Does the software need to be man rated? later, mike mpk9172@ritvax.bitnet mpk9172@ultb.isc.rit.edu --------------------------------------- From: leech@cassatt.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Blackbird vs. Foxbat Date: 24 Jan 90 16:46:53 GMT Sender: news@thorin.cs.unc.edu Reply-To: leech@cassatt.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: In article <5559@hplabsb.HP.COM> dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes: >The Foxbat is redlined at Mach 2.8. The SR-71 can cruise around >over the Foxbat's head. I believe it's safe to conclude that a >Blackbird zoom climb could easily break the Foxbat's zoom climb record >of ~130,000 ft. if the necessary authorities authorized an official attempt. The exact opposite was claimed in an article in the 1/22 Aviation Week. Apparently the SR-71 is difficult to control at altitude, making such a climb unlikely. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ "We were driving along, minding our own business, when there was a sudden flash of blue light which blotted out the stars. I thought it was a nuclear bomb going off and despaired for my career." - Keith Hughes --------------------------------------- From: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Subject: Galileo Update - 01/26/90 Date: 26 Jan 90 23:44:52 GMT Sender: news@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov Reply-To: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) Distribution: usa Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:17049 sci.astro:6548 GALILEO MISSION STATUS REPORT JANUARY 26, 1990 As of Friday, January 26, 1990, the Galileo Spacecraft is 22,009,750 miles from the Earth, 5,065,800 miles from Venus (.769 AU) and was travelling at a Heliocentric velocity of 78,960 miles per hour. Round trip light time is 3 minutes 58 seconds. The spacecraft remains in a "safed" condition and has successfully performed more than 20 automatic sun acquisitions (every 12 hours) since execution of the spacecraft safing algorithms on January 15. The second and last RTG temperature measurement, mounted on the +x RTG, made an abrupt change on January 22 indicating an open circuit somewhere between the temperature transducer and the CDS input. Other measurements routed into this CDS tree-switch were monitored for any anomalous/unexpected readings; none have been detected. The loss of these two temperature measurements does not pose a threat to the RTG or the spacecraft since power performance parameters (V, I) are measured separately. It is pointed out that each RTG measurement is separately dedicated and routed to each half of the CDS. As a continuing part of the spacecraft recovery process, a series of commands were sent on January 26 to power-off selected engineering and science heaters and to power on the UVS, HIC, MAG and EUV instruments consistent with the expected spacecraft state at the end of EV-5. The replacement and checkout of the DSS-63 failed elevation bearing has been completed. The 70-meter tracking station in Spain completed its repairs and checkout this week and successfully performed a Galileo telemetry and tracking pass on Thursday, January 25, 1990. SPECIAL TOPIC The Bus Imbalance Tiger Team continued its effort to develop a feasibility model which could support a supposition that spin bearing slip ring debris may be the cause of the observed bus imbalance. Using debris collected during slip ring module life tests, preliminary electrical tests in air showed that it is possible for small currents (hundreds of microamperes) to flow when debris is configured to form a conductive path between a 30 VDC power supply and chassis ground. Currents greater than about 300 microamperes were large enough to "open" the circuit and stop current flow. Further test will be conducted this week under vacuum conditions to determine whether higher currents are possible and can they be sustained. It is pointed out that for this debris model to be the cause, it is necessary that roughly 30 times more debris would have to be generated by the flight slip rings in the SBA than the levels observed during the life test. Another model was presented which postulated that a single capacitor failure in the PPS electronics could cause both the AC and DC anomalous readings. The basic idea is that stray currents caused by electrical noise created by the on/off switching in the 2.4 KHz inverter is being sensed by both bus imbalance detectors. Preliminary computer modeling performed showed that simulated sensor readings may exhibit the erratic behavior observed in flight. Further work on this electrical model will continue to better understand the circuit parameters, their correlation with actual physical layouts and the failure modes of the capacitor. 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 | --------------------------------------- From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: A sad anniversery Date: 28 Jan 90 00:59:27 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <1990Jan26.111041.8481@csuf3b.CSUFresno.EDU> jackh@csuf3b.CSUFresno.EDU (Jack Hart) writes: >I for one am always amazed that no one realized the >danger of an oxygen atmosphere in the presense of electrical wiring... At 3 psi, the in-space pressure, there is nothing very dangerous about it. The problem was jacking up the pressure to 15 psi for ground tests without realizing that this changed the rules. >An aside:Most people refer to Apollo/Saturn 204 as "Apollo 1". The missio >never received this designation, but the name sticks. There is even a bogus >Apollo 1 mission patch... We had a long battle about this a year or two ago, finally settled by a bunch of references from the NASA History books. Apollo numbering was complicated and confused. AS-204 was the official mission designation, but it was also known as SA-204, Apollo 1, and Apollo 4. NASA HQ had not assigned an official "Apollo N" designation at the time of the fire. The crew were calling it Apollo 1, however, and the badge they designed, with that name on it, had been approved. After the fire, the Apollo 1 designation was made 100%, really, truly official in memory of the dead crew. Retroactive though it be, that's its proper name now. (To head off further questions... The first post-fire unmanned test was officially Apollo 4, since there had been three unmanned tests earlier. Nobody noticed until too late that this clashed with making Apollo 1 an official name. The conflict was resolved by officially refusing to give "Apollo N" names to the three earlier tests. There never was an Apollo 2 or Apollo 3; the tests were AS-201, -202, and -203. Apollos 4-6 were unmanned tests preceding the manned flights that started with 7.) References on request. -- 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 --------------------------------------- From: nickw@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Nick Watkins) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: SR-71 BLACKBIRD Date: 21 Jan 90 17:53:43 GMT Reply-To: nickw@syma.susx.ac.uk (Nick Watkins) Organization: University of Sussex In article <1990Jan20.030229.9662@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1518.25b8070a@vaxa.uwa.oz> g_ahrendt@vaxa.uwa.oz (Gunter Ahrendt) writes: >>Please the Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird is not the fastest/highest flying plane, >>the MiG-25 E.226 Foxbat can fly approx. 30% higher and the North American >>X-15A-2 300% higher and 100% faster. Even though take-off is not achieved under >>it's own power this does not make it any less remarkable. > >The Blackbird's altitude capability is pretty definitely much higher than >the records it has actually set, and almost certainly considerably exceeds >that of the Foxbat. (We're talking sustained altitude here, not zoom climbs.) Two further pieces of evidence are 1) No Foxbat ever shot an SR-71 down and, 2) more seriously, the letter in the last issue of AW&ST urging that the SR 71 be allowed to set the speed and altitude records that it is *really* capable of (before it retires). The Blackbirds based in the UK are flying home to the US btw (front page item in "The Guardian" this week). Nick -- Nick Watkins, Space & Plasma Physics Group, School of Mathematical & Physical Sciences, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton, E.Sussex, BN1 9QH, ENGLAND JANET: nickw@syma.sussex.ac.uk BITNET: nickw%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac --------------------------------------- From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Blackbird vs. Foxbat Date: 24 Jan 90 18:00:20 GMT Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) In article <5559@hplabsb.HP.COM> dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes: >I believe it's safe to conclude that a >Blackbird zoom climb could easily break the Foxbat's zoom climb record >of ~130,000 ft. if the necessary authorities authorized an official attempt. The current AvWeek says that the SR-71's comparatively sluggish handling at lower altitudes render it unlikely to beat the zoom climb record. I think the Blackbird forte is sustained altitude and speed. SR-71 freaks will love this issue, it's loaded with pictures. -- "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 --------------------------------------- From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Question about Nuclear Propulsion projects Date: 28 Jan 90 00:32:15 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article <16224@boulder.Colorado.EDU> serre@boulder.Colorado.EDU (SERRE GLENN) writes: >Does anyone out there know of any organization that is currently working on >nuclear propulsion? With the possible exception of the Soviets, nobody, unless you count tiny paper studies with negligible funding. >Also, which organizations did work on nuclear rockets (NERVA, etc.) > in the '60s? That was a NASA-AEC joint effort. -- 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 --------------------------------------- From: nickw@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Nick Watkins) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: A sad anniversery Date: 30 Jan 90 18:41:46 GMT Reply-To: nickw@syma.susx.ac.uk (Nick Watkins) Organization: University of Sussex In article <1990Jan26.111041.8481@csuf3b.CSUFresno.EDU> jackh@csuf3b.CSUFresno.EDU (Jack Hart) writes: > >foulups caused by poor planning and weak design. There are those who say >North American had no business building spacecraft, including Frank Borman >in his book Countdown. Grissom apparently bitched repeatedly about all For an interesting account of the politics behind the North American contract award, see "Journey to Tranquillity", by Hugo Young, Brian Silcock and Peter Dunn (1970). They were Sunday Times journalists, and while not the best source on technical details (pace the Apollo 6 bugs) their analysis of the political realities of space is very convincing, imho. Nick -- Nick Watkins, Space & Plasma Physics Group, School of Mathematical & Physical Sciences, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton, E.Sussex, BN1 9QH, ENGLAND JANET: nickw@syma.sussex.ac.uk BITNET: nickw%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac --------------------------------------- From: eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Information sources for frequent space questions (1 of n) Date: 1 Feb 90 12:00:58 GMT Reply-To: eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA Many space activies center around large Government or International Bureaucracies. In this country that means NASA. If you have basic information requests: (e.g., general PR info, research grants, data, limited tours, and ESPECIALLY SUMMER EMPLOYMENT (typically resumes should be ready by Jan. 1), etc.), consider contacting the nearest NASA Center to answer your questions. EMail typically will not get you any where, computers are used by investigators, not PR people. The typical volume of mail per Center is a multiple of 10,000 letters a day. Seek the Public Information Office at one of the below, this is their job: NASA Headquarters (NASA HQ) Washington DC 20546 NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) Moffett Field, CA 94035 [Mountain View, CA, near San Francisco Bay, you know Silicon Valley 8-) ] Ames Research Center Dryden Flight Research Facility [DFRF] P. O. Box 273 Edwards, CA 93523 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Greenbelt, MD 20771 [Outside of Washington DC] NASA Lewis Research Center (LeRC) 21000 Brookpark Rd. Cleveland, OH 44135 NASA Johnson Manned Space Center (JSC) Houston, TX 77058 NASA Kennedy Space Flight Center (KSC) Titusville, FL 32899 NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSC) Huntsville, AL35812 NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) Hampton, VA 23665 [Near Newport News, VA] Not a NASA Center, but close enough: Jet Propulsion Laboratory [JPL/CIT] California Institute of Technology 4800 Oak Grove Dr. Pasadena, CA 91109 There are other small facilities, but the above major Centers are set up to handle public information requests. They can send you tons of information. Specific requests for software must go thru COSMIC at the Univ. of Georgia, NASA's contracted software redistribution service. You can reach them at cosmic@uga.bitnet. If this gives you problems, tell me. NOTE: Foreign nationals requesting information must go through their Embassies in Washington DC. These are facilities of the US Government and are regarded with some degree of economic sensitivity. Centers cannot directly return information without high Center approval. Allow at least 1 month for clearance. This includes COSMIC. EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY (O) 202/488-4158 955 L'Enfant Plaza S.W., Washington, D.C. 20024 Arianespace Headquarters Boulevard de l'Europe B.P. 177 91006 Evry Cedex France ARIANESPACE, INC. (O) 202/728-9075 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 875, Washington, DC 20006 SPOT IMAGE CORPORATION (FAX) 703/648-1813 (O) 703/620-2200 1857 Preston White Drive, Reston, VA 22091 National Space Development Agency (NASDA), 4-1 Hamamatsu-Cho, 2 Chome Minato-Ku, Tokyo 105, Japan SOYUZKARTA 45 Vologradsij Pr., Moscow 109125, USSR SPACE COMMERCE CORPORATION (U.S. agent for Soviet launch services) 504 Pluto Drive, Colorado Springs, CO 80906 (O) 719/578-5490 69th flr, Texas Commerce Tower, Houston, TX 77002 (O) 713/227-9000 --------------------------------------- From: g7ahn@cc.ic.ac.uk (K. Krallis) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: SR-71 aka "Blackbird" Date: 18 Jan 90 10:52:42 GMT Reply-To: g7ahn@cc.ic.ac.uk (Costas Krallis G7AHN) Organization: Imperial College Computer Centre, London, UK In article 0C109@AECLCR.BITNET (Donald Simmons) writes: > > Hate to say this, but I am not sure what the SR-71 project was all about. I >know that it was some sort of experimental aircraft, but there my knowledge en >Can someone send me a run-down on the project and its history? > Briefly, SR-71 is a high altitude high speed strategic reconnaissance aircraft. Costas Krallis Imperial College London UK g7ahn@cc.ic.ac.uk --------------------------------------- From: feg@moss.ATT.COM (Forrest Gehrke,2C-119,7239,ATTBL) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: booster pollution Date: 22 Jan 90 18:12:31 GMT Sender: nntp@cbnewsl.ATT.COM Reply-To: feg@moss.ATT.COM (Forrest Gehrke) Distribution: na Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <9001191728.AA26908@gemini.arc.nasa.gov> greer%utd201.dnet%utadnx@utspan.span.nasa.gov writes: > >According to somebody (one of the main figures in this line of >research, whose name nevertheless escapes me) who gave a talk here some >months ago on the subject, high altitude ice clouds play a major role >in the formation of the ozone hole. Briefly, CFC's destroy ozone in a >catalytic manner, so it doesn't take much of the stuff to do a lot of >damage. Ice crystals act as an adsorptive surface for the CFC's which >somehow makes them even more active in destroying ozone. The Antarctic >ozone hole closes up during southern hemisphere summer when the high >altitude ice clouds are not present. On a somewhat different tack---possibly asked before---if CFC's are responsible for the Anarctic ozone hole, since most CFC must be released in the Northern Hemisphere, why isn't there a hole (and even larger) over the North polar region in winter? Forrest Gehrke feg@clyde.ATT.COM --------------------------------------- From: kauel@mentor.com (Kendall Auel) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Shuttle fuel reserves Keywords: shuttle Date: 18 Jan 90 23:43:21 GMT Reply-To: kauel@mntgfx.UUCP (Kendall Auel) Distribution: na Organization: /etc/organization Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:16963 sci.space.shuttle:4624 In article <1990Jan17.233050.3044@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> neufeld@physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes: > > I was quite surprised to read on clari.tw.space that one of the >shuttle's forward thrusters fired accidentally last night. You'd think this >sort of thing would require pushing a few buttons, not just a passing whim >in an on-board computer (if that's what it was). This is probably old news, but they mentioned on NASA Select last night that the thrusters continued firing while the shuttle was LOS. At first they thought it rotated no more than 100 degrees but now admit that it went through several complete rotations in pitch and yaw. This was all in response to invalid data uploaded to the shuttle computers. The shuttle thought it had gotten out of the proper orientation and was trying to correct by tracking a ground point. The astronauts slept through the firings, and had to be awakened upon acquisition of signal to realign the shuttle. -- Kendall Auel | Mentor Graphics Corporation ...!mntgfx!kauel | I.C. Layout Division --------------------------------------- From: jand@kuling.UUCP (Jan Dj{rv) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Launch dates wanted Date: 20 Jan 90 14:12:11 GMT Reply-To: jand@kuling.UUCP (Jan Dj{rv) Organization: Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden Hi, I'm going to Florida in April/May and wonder if there are any launches scheduled during that time. Please e-mail any responses as I don't regulary read this newsgroup. Jan D E-Mail: jhd@irfu.se --------------------------------------- From: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle Subject: New Shuttle Launch Dates Date: 23 Jan 90 22:06:55 GMT Sender: news@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov Reply-To: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:16972 sci.space.shuttle:4628 NEW LAUNCH DATES BASED ON THE JANUARY 19, 1990 LANUCH SCHEDULE: STS-36 (DOD) FEB 22 STS-31 (HST) APR 19 STS-35 (ASTRO) MAY 10 STS-38 (DOD) AUG 7 STS-40 (SLS-1) AUG 30 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 | --------------------------------------- From: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Subject: Wasps Sting Hubble Telescope Date: 24 Jan 90 02:00:35 GMT Sender: news@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov Reply-To: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:16977 sci.astro:6514 Article from "Space News", January 15-21, 1990 Hubble Trouble Leaves a Sting The clean room at Kennedy Space Flight Center in Florida is designed to keep even minute dust particles out. But the best high technology protections were apparently not enough to keep out nine wasps from setting up house in the air-tight special chamber where NASA is preparing the Hubble Space Telescope for a schedule April launch. The invasion of the insects posed a tricky problem for worker who did not want to risk damage to the telescope's highly polished mirrors in trying to kill the unwanted guests. James Carlock, Lockheed's program manager for the Hubble project, said wasp spray was out of the question because of the risk that the propellant might penetrate the telescope's protective covering. Eventually, five wasps were caught, while the others were found dead in the room. Recurrences of the problem were prevented just before Christmas when NASA personnel patched a hole in a conduit on the roof that apparently served as point of entry for the wasps. The problem is not a new one at this tropical south-Florida site. Kennedy spokesman George Diller said the Galileo mission was plagued by mosquitoes and the Magellan project by ants. At one point, frustated NASA officials employed the services of an entomologist who was asked to calculate the life span of a wasp unable to find food. The answer was 48 to 72 hours. 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 | --------------------------------------- From: jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: A Letter to NASA-Apologist Press Date: 18 Jan 90 19:30:26 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet When you see a member of the press being a NASA apologist in the mass media, send the responsible press establishment the following letter (appropriately modified): ____________________________________________________________________ Dear , Your glowing report on the recent shuttle mission was an unfortunate and all-too-typical failure of journalistic responsibility. NASA is primarily a political entity. It depends on public complacency created by an uncritical press in order to continue the monumental waste, abysmal performance and suppression of more viable space activities in the private sector, that have characterized the agency since Apollo, 2 decades ago. Despite receiving, by far, the largest amount of money for research and development of any civilian agency, NASA spends the least on science. Its only true excellence is in political activism combined with suppression of private space enterprise to maintain its monopoly on space operations and patentable technology. If we had allowed Langley, with government support, to keep the Wright Brothers from being successful, we would probably be flying a few, very expensive airplanes in a "National Air Transportation System". The Soviet Union's state-run airline would look efficient by contrast, just as their space program does today. Where are your reports of those few space-age Wright Brothers, along with the usual assortment of kooks, putting their fortunes on the line to open up space for us? Such courageous people do exist. They deserve your exposure and glowing praise far more than a monopolistic government bureauracy wasting many billions of our dollars annually. Go out and find them! A few for starts: AMROC, E'Prime, & SSI. I appreciate the because of its first ammendment support of basic American values. Preeminent among those values are a critical press and free enterprise. If you can't be critical of NASA's bureaucratic tyranny, at least ignore it and reserve your praise and air-time for those few who really do deserve it. Please do your job, folks. We need your help more than NASA's if we are to truly pioneer the space frontier. Sincerely, _________________________________________________________________________ --- Typical RESEARCH grant: $ Typical DEVELOPMENT contract: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ --------------------------------------- From: MRW104@psuvm.psu.edu Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Question about Nuclear Propulsion projects Date: 27 Jan 90 22:00:37 GMT Distribution: usa Organization: Penn State University In article <16224@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, serre@boulder.Colorado.EDU (SERRE GLENN) says: > >Does anyone out there know of any organization that is currently working on >nuclear propulsion? > >Also, which organizations did work on nuclear rockets (NERVA, etc.) > in the '60s? I know that Edward Taylor worked on the ORION project in the '60s, possibly in the employ of Los Alamos Laboratory. Check out "The Curve of Binding Energy" for a great book about building your own nukes, and an incidental biography for Taylor. Some stuff pretains to his work on ORION. *********************************************************************** Mike Williams mrw104@psuvm.bitnet --------------------------------------- From: rtn20538@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Question about Nuclear Propulsion p Date: 28 Jan 90 10:42:38 GMT Nf-ID: #R:boulder.Colorado.EDU:16224:uxa.cso.uiuc.edu:110700014:000:454 Nf-From: uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!rtn20538 Jan 27 22:40:00 1990 /* Written 9:58 am Jan 26, 1990 by serre@boulder.Colorado.EDU in uxa.cso.uiuc.edu:sci.space */ /* ---------- "Question about Nuclear Propulsion p" ---------- */ Does anyone out there know of any organization that is currently working on nuclear propulsion? Also, which organizations did work on nuclear rockets (NERVA, etc.) in the '60s? Thanks in advance. --Glenn Serre serre@tramp.colorado.edu /* End of text from uxa.cso.uiuc.edu:sci.space */ --------------------------------------- From: gwh@earthquake.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: SR-71 BLACKBIRD Date: 29 Jan 90 08:36:47 GMT Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44) Reply-To: gwh@ocf.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) Organization: ucb In article <26243@cup.portal.com> PLS@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) writes: > >As it it's speed capability. Now that they are going out of service, I wish It can't go TOO much faster...if it does it will have it's nose shock wave impinge upon the intakes and then an engine will flame out and [fwoom] I don't know if it has the power to go this fast or not [about mach 3.8 or 4 if i remember the calcs i did a long time ago...] -george william herbert gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu --------------------------------------- From: mhuang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU ( * * * Hunter * * * ) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: SR-71 BLACKBIRD Summary: SR-71 holds records Date: 21 Jan 90 03:58:58 GMT Sender: mhuang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU Reply-To: mhuang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU ( * * * Hunter * * * ) Followup-To: mhuang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU Organization: California State Polytechnic U., San Luis Obispo, California In article <1518.25b8070a@vaxa.uwa.oz> g_ahrendt@vaxa.uwa.oz (Gunter Ahrendt) writes: >Please the Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird is not the fastest/highest flying plane, >the MiG-25 E.226 Foxbat can fly approx. 30% higher and the North American >X-15A-2 300% higher and 100% faster. Even though take-off is not achieved under >it's own power this does not make it any less remarkable. In regards to the actual record, much data concerning the SR-71 Blackbird still remains classified, including the maximum speed and altitude. However, the DoD has acknowledged that the SR-71 is a Mach 3+ capable aircraft and the maximum attainable altitude is over 80,000+ feet. #==============================================================================# |\_/| {O o} Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack! Pfft! ( " ) (Bill the Cat lives.) U Admiral Michael "Hunter" Huang +---------------------------------------------+ mhuang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU | * * * * * * S T A R T R E K * * * * * * | USS Ticonderoga | * * * * * * L I V E S ! ! ! * * * * * * | NCC-1736 +---------------------------------------------+ #==============================================================================# --------------------------------------- From: has@ukc.ac.uk (H.A.Shaw) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: NASA Funding Date: 20 Jan 90 13:41:17 GMT Reply-To: has@ukc.ac.uk (H.A.Shaw) Organization: Physics Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK. You might be interested in the UK / USSR combined Mir mission called JUNO. A competition was run to find a British person to fly on Mir in 1991. Anybody could enter, and the 13000 contestants were given various tests to bring the number down to 4 who went into the Soviet Cosomanaut program. Two were chosen some time ago, and one of those will fly. TV has been involved all the way along, and one of the people on the Astronaut selection board was an advertising manager, lokking for people who would look good in adverts. 16 Million (or so) Pounds of advertising is available, and the idea of painting the Soviet rocket as a Coke can / Chocolate bar / Cigarette packet has been seriously considered. Certainly ad space is being sold to pay for the launch. --------------------------------------- From: hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: radiation hazard from retrieving ga Date: 22 Jan 90 19:31:00 GMT Organization: Indiana University CSCI, Bloomington Nf-ID: #R: friedl@mtndew.UUCP (Steve Friedl) writes: >I asked if it would be possible to bring Galileo back if some >Could Galileo be put in orbit around the Earth? Is it going too >fast? Mine is a hypothetical question only. > Way too fast for conventional capture -- and how do you reduce to LEO, even if you could get it captured? Anyway, it's going to be a CLOSE flyby as it is. I don't think they could get much closer. The only way I can think of to capture it, would be to alter its orbit so that it gets pumped back down to near- circular solar orbit near the Earth, thus arranging a slower flyby (and potential capture) at Earth. However, that would take years, and be a masterpiece of celestial navigation, if possible at all. > >-- >Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / Software Consultant / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy >+1 714 544 6561 voice / friedl@vsi.com / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl > **************************** Terry Hancock terry@astro.as.utexas.edu **************************** --------------------------------------- From: louie@sayshell.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Salyut 7 Date: 23 Jan 90 18:59:11 GMT Sender: usenet@haven.umd.edu (USENET News Posting) Organization: The University of Maryland, College Park There's a very interesting article in this month's issue of "Air & Space" magazine, published by the Smithsonian Instutition. It describes the "rescue" of the Salyut 7 space station after it suddenly ceased operation (no telemetry or navaigational beacons). Pick up a copy today.. louie --------------------------------------- From: smith@aerospace.aero.org (Thomas F. Smith) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: U.S. Space Policy/NOV 89 Part 2 of 2 (LONG) Date: 16 Jan 90 19:35:16 GMT Reply-To: smith@aero.UUCP (Thomas F. Smith) Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA US SPACE POLICY NOVEMBER 1989 PART TWO OF TWO PAGES 7 - 14 7 Space Applications. NASA and other agencies will pursue the identification and development of appropriate applications flowing from their activities. Agencies will seek tc promote private sector development and implementation of applications. -- Such applications will create new capabilities, or improve the quality or efficiency of continuing activities, including long-term scientific observations. -- NASA will seek to ensure its capability to conduct selected critical missions through an appropriate mix of assured access to space, on-orbit sparing, advanced automation techniques, redundancy, and other suitable measures. -- Agencies may enter cooperative research and development agreements on space applications with firms seeking to advance the relevant state-of-the-art consistent with United States Government space objectives. -- Management of Federal civil operational remote sensing is the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. The Department of Commerce will: (a) consolidate Federal needs for civil operational remote sensing products to be met either by the private sector or the Federal government; (b) identify needed civil operational system research and development objectives; and (c) in coordination with other departments or agencies, provide for the regulation of private sector operational remote sensing systems. Civil Government Space Transportation. The unique Space Transportation System (STS) capability to provide manned access to space will be exploited in those areas that offer the greatest national return, including contributing to United States preeminence in critical aspects, of manned spaceflight. The STS fleet will maintain the Nation's capability and will be used to support critical programs requiring manned presence and other unique STS capabilities. In support of national space transportation goals, NASA will establish sustainable STS flight rates to provide for planning and budgeting of Government space programs. NASA will pursue appropriate enhancements to STS operational capabilities, upper stages, and systems for deploying, servicing, and retrieving spacecraft as national and user requirements are defined. International Cooperation. The United States will foster increased international cooperation in civil space activities by seeking mutually beneficial international participation in civil space and space-related programs. The National Space Council shall be responsible for oversight of civil space cooperation with the Soviet Union. No such 8 cooperative activity shall be initiated until an appropriate interagency review has been completed. United States cooperation in international civil space activities will: -- United States participation in international space ventures, whether public or private, must be consistent with United States technology transfer laws, regulations, Executive Orders and presidential directives. -- Support the public, nondiscriminatory direct readout of data from Federal civil systems to foreign ground stations and the provision of data to foreign users under specified conditions. -- Be conducted in such a way as to protect the commercial value of intellectual property developed with Federal support. Such cooperation will not preclude or deter commercial space activities by the United States private sector, except as required by national security or public safety. COMMERCIAL SPACE SECTOR GUIDELINES NASA, and the Departments of Commerce, Defense, and Transportation will work cooperatively to develop and implement specific measures to foster the growth of private sector commercial use of space. A high-level focus for commercial space issues has been created through establishment of the National Space Council. To stimulate private sector investment, ownership, and operation of space assets, the United States Government will facilitate private sector access to appropriate U.S. space- related hardware and facilities, and encourage the private sector to undertake commercial space ventures. Governmental Space Sectors shall: -- Utilize commercially available goods and services to the fullest extent feasible, and avoid actions that may preclude or deter commercial space sector activities except as required by national security or public safety. A space good or service is "commercially available" if it is currently offered commercially, or if it could be supplied commercially in response to a government service procurement request. "Feasible" means that such goods or services meet mission requirements in a cost- effective manner. -- Enter into appropriate cooperative agreements to encourage and advance private sector basic research, development, and operations while protecting the commercial value of the intellectual property developed; 9 -- Provide for the use of appropriate Government facilities on a reimbursable basis; -- Identify, and eliminate or propose for elimination, applicable portions of United States laws and regulations that unnecessarily impede commercial space sector activities; -- Encourage free and fair trade in commercial space activities. Consistent with the goals, principles, and policies set forth in this directive, the United States Trade Representative will consult, or, as appropriate, negotiate with other countries to encourage free and fair trade in commercial space activities. In entering into space-related technology development and transfer agreements with other countries, Executive Departments and agencies will take into consideration whether such countries practice and encourage free and fair trade in commercial space activities. -- Provide for the timely transfer of Government- developed space technology to the private sector in such a manner as to protect its commercial value, consistent with national security. -- Price Government-provided goods and services consistent with OMB Circular A-25. NATIONAL SECURITY SPACE SECTOR GUIDELINES General: -- The Department of Defense (DOD) will develop, operate, and maintain an assured mission capability through an appropriate mix of robust satellite control, assured access to space, on-orbit sparing. proliferation, reconstitution or other means. -- The national security space program, including dissemination of data, shall be conducted in accordance with Executive Orders and applicable directives for the protection of national security information and commensurate with both the missions performed and the security measures necessary to protect related space activities. -- DOD will ensure that the national security space program incorporates the support requirements of the Strategic Defense Initiative. Space Support: -- The national security space sector may use both manned and unmanned launch systems as determined by specific 10 mission requirements. Payloads will be distributed among launch systems and launch sites to minimize the impact of loss of any single launch system or launch site on mission performance. The DOD will procure unmanned launch vehicles or services and maintain launch capability on both the East and West coasts. DOD will also continue to enhance the robustness of its satellite control capability through an appropriate mix of satellite autonomy and survivable command and control, processing, and data dissemination systems. -- DOD will study concepts and technologies which would support future contingency launch capabilities. Force Enhancement: -- The national security space sector will develop, operate, and maintain space systems and develop plans and architectures to meet the requirements of operational land, sea, and air forces through all levels of conflict commensurate with their intended use. Space Control: -- The DOD will develop, operate, and maintain enduring space systems to ensure its freedom of action in space. This requires an integrated combination of antisatellite, survivability, and surveillance capabilities. -- Antisatellite (ASAT) Capability. The United States will develop and deploy a comprehensive capability with programs as required and with initial operations capability at the earliest possible date. -- DOD space programs will pursue a survivability enhancement program with long-term planning for future requirements. The DOD must provide for the survivability of selected, critical national security space assets (including associated terrestrial components) to a degree commensurate with the value and utility of the support they provide to national- level decision functions, and military operational forces across the spectrum of conflict. -- The United States will develop and maintain an integrated attack warning, notification, verification, and contingency reaction capability which can effectively detect and react to threats to United States space systems. Force Application. The DOD will, consistent with treaty obligations, conduct research, development, and planning to be prepared to acquire and deploy space systems should national security conditions dictate. 11 INTER-SECTOR GUIDELINES The following paragraphs identify selected, high priority cross- sector efforts and responsibilities to implement plans supporting major United States space policy objectives: Space Transportation Guidelines. The United States national space transportation capability will be based on a mix of vehicles, consisting of the Space Transportation System (STS), unmanned launch vehicles (ULVs), and in-space transportation systems. The elements of this mix will be defined to support the mission needs of national security and civil government sectors of United States space activities in the most cost effective manner. -- As determined by specific mission requirements, national security space sector will use the STS and ULVs,. In coordination with NASA, the DOD will assure the Shuttle s utility to national defense and will integrate missions into the Shuttle system. Launch priority will be provided for national security missions as implemented by NASA-DOD agreements. Launches necessary to preserve and protect human life in space shall have the highest priority except in times of national security emergency. -- The STS will continue to be managed and operated in an institutional arrangement consistent with the current NASA/DOD Memorandum of Understanding. Responsibility will remain in NASA for operational control of the STS for civil missions, and in the DOD for operational control of the STS for national security missions. Mission management is the responsibilitY of the mission agencY. -- United States commercial launch operations are an integral element cf a robust national space launch capability. NASA will not maintain an expendable launch vehicle (ELV) adjunct to the STS. NASA will provide launch services for commercial and foreign payloads only where those payloads must be man-tended, require the unique capabilities of the STS, or it is determined that launching the payloads on the STS is important for national security or foreign policy purposes. Commercial and foreign payloads will not be launched on government owned or operated ELV systems except for national security or foreign policy reasons. -- Civil Government agencies will encourage, to the maximum extent feasible, a domestic commercial launch industry by contracting for necessary ELV launch services directly from the private sector or with DOD. -- NASA and the DOD will continue to cooperate in the development and use of military and civil space transportation 12 systems and avoid unnecessary duplication of activities. They will pursue new launch and launch support concepts aimed at improving cost-effectiveness, responsiveness, capability, reliability, availability, maintainability, and flexibility. Such cooperation between the national security and civil sectors will ensure efficient and effective use of national resources. Guidelines for the Federal Encouragement of Commercial Unmanned Launch Vehicles (ULVs): -- The United States Government fully endorses and will facilitate the commercialization of United States unmanned launch vehicles (ULVs). -- The Department of Transportation (DOT) is the lead agency within the Federal Government for developing, coordinating, and articulating Federal policy and regulatory guidance pertaining to United States commercial launch activities in consultation with DOD, State, NASA, and other concerned agencies. All Executive departments and agencies shall assist the DOT in carrying out its responsibilities, as set forth in the Commercial Space Launch Act and Executive Order 12465. -- The United States Government encourages the use of its launch and launch-related facilities for United States commercial launch operations. -- The United States Government will have priority use of government facilities and support services to meet national security and critical mission requirements. The United States Government will make all reasonable efforts to minimize impacts on commercial operations. The United States Government will not subsidize the commercialization of ULVs, but will price the use of its facilities, equipment, and services with the goal of encouraging viable commercial ULV activities in accordance with the Commercial Space Launch Act. The United States Government will encourage free market competition within the United States private sector. The United States Government will provide equitable treatment for all commercial launch operators for the sale or lease of Government equipment and facilities consistent with its economic, foreign policy, and national security interests. NASA and DOD, for those unclassified and releasable capabilities for which they have responsibility, shall, to the maximum extent feasible: --- Use best efforts to provide commercial launch firms with access, on a reimbursable basis, to national launch 13 and launch-related facilities, equipment, tooling, and services to support commercial launch operations; --- Develop, in consultation with the DOT, contractual arrangements covering access by commercial launch firms to national launch and launch-related property and services they request in support of their operations; --- Provide technical advice and assistance to commercial launch firms on a reimbursable basis, consistent with the pricing guidelines herein; and --- Conduct, in coordination with DOT, appropriate environmental analyses necessary to ensure that commercial launch operations conducted at Federal launch facilities are in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Government ULV Pricing Guidelines. The price charged for the use of United States Government facilities, equipment, and service, will be based on the following principles: -- Price all services (including those associated with production and launch of commercial ULVs) based on the direct costs incurred by the United States Government. Reimbursement shall be credited to the appropriation from which the cost of providing such property or service was paid. The United States Government will not seek to recover ULV design and development costs or investments associated with any existing facilities or new facilities required to meet United States Government needs to which the U.S. Government retains title; -- Tooling, equipment, and residual ULV hardware, on hand at the completion of the United States Government s program will be priced on a basis that is in the best overall interest of the United States Government, taking into consideration that these sales will not constitute a subsidy to the private sector operator. Commercial Launch Firm Requirements. Commercial launch firms shall: -- Maintain all facilities and equipment leased from the United States Government to a level of readiness and repair specified by the United States Government; -- ULV operators shall comply with all requirements of the Commercial Space Launch Act, a11 regulations issued under, the Act, and all terms, conditions or restrictions of any license issued or transferred by the Secretary of Transportation under 14 the Act. Technology Transfer Guidelines. The United States will work to stem the flow of advanced western space technology to unauthorized destinations. Executive departments and agencies will be fully responsible for protecting against adverse technology transfer in the conduct of their programs. -- Sales of United States space hardware, software, and related technologies for use in foreign space projects will be consistent with relevant international and bilateral agreements and arrangements. Space Infrastructure. All Sectors shall recognize the importance of appropriate investments in the facilities and human resources necessary to support United States space objectives and maintain investmentS that are Consistent with such objectives. The National Space Council will conduct a feasibility study of alternate methods for encouraging private sector investment, including capital funding, of United States space infrastructure such as ground facilities, launcher developments, and orbital assembly and test facilities. The primary forum for negotiations on nuclear and space arms is the Nuclear and Space Talks (NST) with the Soviet Union in Geneva. The instructions to the United States Delegation will be consistent with this National Space Policy directive, established legal obligations, and additional guidance by the President. The United States will continue to consult with its Allies on these negotiations and ensure that any resulting agreements enhance the security of the United States and its Allies. Any discussions on arms control relating to activities in space in forums other than NST must be consistent with, and subordinate to, the forgoing activities and objectives. * * * * -- This space reserved. Space Not Reserved. Space Commercialization Office, Space Systems Division, Los Angeles AFB, CA. --------------------------------------- From: bob@castle.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 01/23/90 (Forwarded) Date: 25 Jan 90 13:25:25 GMT Reply-To: bob@castle.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) Organization: Edinburgh Concurrent Supercomputer Project In article <41226@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: >This is NASA Headline News for Tuesday, January 23rd...... > >The weekly publication "Space News" reports that NASA >Administrator Richard Truly last week asked Vice President Quayle >to recommend to the President that he set 2010 as the date for >the U.S. to return to the moon. Sounds like quite a good decision. Twenty years from now there should be a lot of second hand Japanese and Russian (and hopefully European) lunar ferries coming onto the market. NASA should be able to force the price down by making the right deals. Market forces at work. Only 1/2 :-> Bob. --------------------------------------- From: andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Subject: Re: Wasps Sting Hubble Telescope Date: 29 Jan 90 11:12:45 GMT Organization: University of Sussex Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:17087 sci.astro:6591 From article <2653@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, by baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke): > The clean room at Kennedy Space Flight Center in Florida is designed to > keep even minute dust particles out. But the best high technology > protections were apparently not enough to keep out nine wasps [...] > > The invasion of the insects posed a tricky problem for worker who did > not want to risk damage to the telescope's highly polished mirrors in > trying to kill the unwanted guests. They should have asked my grandad for help. One time-honoured solution is to half-fill a jar with a mixture of jam and beer (more beer than jam). The wasps are attracted to this, leading to their death (by drowning, if not alcoholic poisoning). No nasty spray residue left behind; no nasty squashed wasps on the HST mirrors. Just throw away the jar after a couple of days. :-) :-) :-) -- Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, England JANET: andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk BITNET: andy%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac --------------------------------------- From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se. (Bertil Jonell) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: NASA Funding Date: 21 Jan 90 12:50:21 GMT Sender: news@mathrt0.math.chalmers.se (Evald Nyhetsson) Reply-To: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se () Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden. In article <5A0110121F340076-MTABWIDENER*DXANDY@widener> DXANDY@WIDENER.BITNET writes: > If NASA were to enter the >world of advertising, if only in a small way, surely it would be able to >bring in several millions of dollars. For example, if the ET were to act as >huge billboard, I am sure that a company such as Coca Cola would pay massive >amounts to have it painted like a giant Coke can. The paint would also *weigh* massive amounts and that will decrease the payload. This is the reason that they quit painting the ET white. Like they did for the first missions. Bertil K K Jonell @ Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg NET: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se VOICE: +46 31 723971 / +46 300 61004 "Don't worry,I've got Pilot-7" SNAILMAIL: Box 154,S-43900 Onsala,SWEDEN (Famous last words) --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: NASA Mixed Fleet Manifest for 01/90 [Part 4 of 7] (Forwarded) Date: 30 Jan 90 17:37:40 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** _---------------------_-----------------_--------_-----------_--------------------_------------_---------_ | PAYLOAD | CARRIER |REQ DATE|FLIGHT DATE| VEHICLE | TYPE | SPONSOR | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | HST | N/A | 89 06 | 90 04 18 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | HST REV-01 | PALL+FSS | 93 06 | 93 06 10 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | HST REV-02 | PALL+FSS | 96 01 | 96 02 29 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | IBSS | SPAS | 89 06 | 92 01 23 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | DOD | | IEH | HITCHHIKER-G | 92 06 | 92 10 29 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSSA | | IFCE/CTM | HITCHHIKER-G | 93 02 | 93 03 18 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OAST | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | IMAX-04 | ICBC+MD | 90 03 | 90 04 18 | SHUTTLE | *** | OC | | IMAX-05 | N/A | 90 12 | 90 12 12 | SHUTTLE | *** | OC | | IMAX-06 | ICBC | 91 03 | 91 05 16 | SHUTTLE | *** | OC | | IMAX-EURECA-R** | ICBC | 92 02 | | SHUTTLE | *** | OC | | IMAX-ATLAS-02** | MIDDECK LOCKER | 92 06 | | SHUTTLE | *** | OC | | IMAX-SRAD/TPITS** | ICBC+MD | 92 11 | | SHUTTLE | *** | OC | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | IMAX-HST REV** | ICBC+MD | 93 06 | | SHUTTLE | *** | OC | | IMAX-FTS** | ICBC | 93 09 | | SHUTTLE | *** | OC | | IMAX-XTE** | ICBC+MD | 94 02 | | SHUTTLE | *** | OC | | IMAX-SFU** | ICBC | 94 08 | | SHUTTLE | *** | OC | | IMAX-OMV** | ICBC+MD | 95 01 | | SHUTTLE | *** | OC | | IML-01 | LM | 90 12 | 90 12 12 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | IML-02 | LM+EDO | 93 01 | 93 01 28 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | IML-03 | LM+EDO | 95 04 | 95 06 1 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | IML-04** | LM+EDO | 97 04 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | INMARSAT-01 | PAM-D2 | 88 06 | 92 10 29 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | INMRSAT | | INMARSAT-02 | PAM-D2 | 94 04 | 93 03 18 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | INMRSAT | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | IPMP-01 | MIDDECK LOCKER | 90 03 | 90 04 18 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY* | OCP | | ISEM-01 | HITCHHIKER-M | 92 04 | 92 10 29 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | ISEM-02 | HITCHHIKER-M | 93 12 | 93 03 18 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | ISF-01 | FM+DS | 94 02 | 94 02 3 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | SII | | ISF-02 | AM+DS | 94 08 | 94 10 27 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | SII | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| * Non-complex secondary payload ** For NASA planning purposes *** IMAX is manifested with the appropriate primary payloads 5.6 **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** _---------------------_-----------------_--------_-----------_--------------------_------------_---------_ | PAYLOAD | CARRIER |REQ DATE|FLIGHT DATE| VEHICLE | TYPE | SPONSOR | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | ISF-03 | FM+DS | 95 02 | 96 05 30 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | SII | | ISF-04** | AM+DS | 95 08 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | SII | | ISF-05** | AM+DS | 96 02 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | SII | | ISF-06** | AM+DS | 96 08 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | SII | | ISF-07** | AM+DS | 97 02 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | SII | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | ISF-08** | AM+DS | 97 08 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | SII | | ISF-09** | AM+DS | 98 02 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | SII | | ISF-10** | AM+DS | 98 08 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | SII | | ISF-11** | AM+DS | 99 02 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | SII | | ISF-12** | AM+DS | 99 08 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | SII | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | ISF-13** | AM+DS | 00 02 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | SII | | ISF-14** | AM+DS | 00 08 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | SII | | LAGEOS II | IRIS | 91 06 | 91 12 5 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | LIFESAT-01 | TBD | 94 01 | 94 12 | DELTA | N/A | OSF | | LIFESAT-02 | TBD | 94 06 | 95 06 | DELTA** | N/A | OSF | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | LIFESAT-03 | TBD | 95 01 | 95 12 | DELTA** | N/A | OSF | | LIFESAT-04 | TBD | 95 06 | 96 06 | DELTA** | N/A | OSF | | LIFESAT-05** | TBD | 96 03 | | DELTA** | N/A | OSF | | LIFESAT-06** | TBD | 96 09 | | DELTA** | N/A | OSF | | LITE | PALLET | 93 04 | 93 05 6 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OAST | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | LUNAR OBSERVER | TBD | 96 10 | | INTERMEDIATE** | N/A | OSSA | | MACSAT(NAVY) | N/A | 90 04 | 90 04 | SCOUT | N/A | DOD | | MARS OBSERVER | TOS | 92 09 | 92 09 | TITAN III | N/A | OSSA | | MARS OBSERVER II** | TBD | 97 06 | | INTERMEDIATE** | N/A | OSSA | | MPEC | HITCHHIKER-G | 90 11 | 92 01 23 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | DOD | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| * Non-complex secondary payload ** For NASA planning purposes 5.7 **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** _---------------------_-----------------_--------_-----------_--------------------_------------_---------_ | PAYLOAD | CARRIER |REQ DATE|FLIGHT DATE| VEHICLE | TYPE | SPONSOR | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | MSAT | TBD | 93 10 | 93 10 | INTERMEDIATE | N/A | OAST | | NOAA-D | N/A | 90 05 | 90 05 | ATLAS E | N/A | OSSA | | NOAA-I | N/A | 91 05 | 91 05 | ATLAS E | N/A | OSSA | | NOAA-J | N/A | 92 09 | 92 09 | ATLAS E | N/A | OSSA | | NOAA-K | N/A | 93 12 | 93 12 | TITAN II | N/A | OSSA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | NOAA-L | N/A | 95 04 | 95 04 | TITAN II | N/A | OSSA | | NOAA-M | N/A | 96 07 | 96 07 | TITAN II | N/A | OSSA | | NTE-02** | HITCHHIKER-M | 95 06 | 94 10 6 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY* | OAST | | OAST-02 | MPESS | 93 03 | 93 07 22 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OAST | | OCTW-01 | MIDDECK LOCKER | 89 07 | 90 10 5 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY* | OSF | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | OMV | N/A | 93 12 | 95 01 19 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | OSL** | TBD | 97 03 | | MEDIUM** | N/A | OSSA | | PCG-III-03 | MIDDECK LOCKER | 90 03 | 90 04 18 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY* | OCP | | PCG-III-04 | MIDDECK LOCKER | 90 06 | 90 11 1 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY* | OCP | | POLAR | N/A | 93 06 | 93 06 | DELTA | N/A | OSSA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | PROFILE | N/A | 91 01 | 91 01 | SCOUT | N/A | DOD | | RADARSAT | TBD | 94 06 | 94 06 | DELTA | N/A | OSSA | | RCA 3001 | PAM-D | 90 06 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | GE | | RCA 4004 | PAM-D2 | 89 09 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | GE | | RCA 4006 | PAM-D2 | 91 06 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | GE | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | REFLEX | HITCHHIKER-G | 94 05 | 94 02 24 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OAST | | RME III-01 | MIDDECK LOCKER | 88 08 | 90 04 18 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY* | DOD | | RME III-02 | MIDDECK LOCKER | 88 10 | 90 11 1 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY* | DOD | | ROSAT | N/A | 90 05 | 90 05 | DELTA | N/A | OSSA | | SALT(NAVY) | N/A | 90 06 | 90 06 | SCOUT | N/A | DOD | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| * Non-complex secondary payload ** For NASA planning purposes 5.8 **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** _---------------------_-----------------_--------_-----------_--------------------_------------_---------_ | PAYLOAD | CARRIER |REQ DATE|FLIGHT DATE| VEHICLE | TYPE | SPONSOR | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | SAMPEX | N/A | 92 06 | 92 06 | SCOUT | N/A | OSSA | | SAREX II-01 | MIDDECK LOCKER | 90 03 | 90 05 9 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY* | OC | | SAREX II-02 | MIDDECK LOCKER | 90 06 | 90 11 1 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY* | OC | | SATCOM | PAM-D2 | 91 07 | 93 11 12 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | GE | | SDS-01 | HITCHHIKER-G | 92 01 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSSA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | SDS-02 | HITCHHIKER-G | 93 01 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSSA | | SE-81-09 | MIDDECK LOCKER | 89 01 | 90 10 5 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY* | OA | | SE-82-16 | MIDDECK LOCKER | 82 06 | 90 04 18 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY* | OA | | SEAWIFS | TBD | 92 10 | | SMALL** | N/A | OSSA | | SFU-RETR | N/A | 94 07 | 94 06 2 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | ISAS | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | SHARE II | UNIQUE | 91 01 | 91 01 31 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSF | | SHARE III | UNIQUE | 91 06 | 92 12 10 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSF | | SHOOT | HITCHHIKER-M | 92 03 | 92 09 3 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSF | | SIRTF** | CENTAUR** | 98 06 | | TITAN IV** | N/A | OSSA | | SKIRT (STP-01) | HITCHHIKER-G | 89 07 | 92 01 23 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | DOD | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | SL-D2 | LM + USS | 90 10 | 92 05 28 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | DLR | | SL-D3 | LM + USS | 92 03 | 94 08 4 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | DLR | | SL-J | LM | 90 10 | 91 06 17 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | SLS-01 | LM | 90 08 | 90 08 29 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | SLS-02 | LM+EDO | 92 03 | 92 09 30 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | SLS-03 | LM+EDO | 94 06 | 95 02 15 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | SLS-04 | LM+EDO | 96 06 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | SLS-05** | LM+EDO | 98 06 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | SMEX-04 | N/A | 94 09 | 94 09 | SMALL | N/A | OSSA | | SMEX-05 | N/A | 95 06 | 95 06 | SMALL | N/A | OSSA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| * Non-complex secondary payload ** For NASA planning purposes 5.9 **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** _---------------------_-----------------_--------_-----------_--------------------_------------_---------_ | PAYLOAD | CARRIER |REQ DATE|FLIGHT DATE| VEHICLE | TYPE | SPONSOR | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | SMEX-06 | N/A | 95 12 | 95 12 | SMALL | N/A | OSSA | | SMEX-07 | N/A | 96 06 | 96 06 | SMALL | N/A | OSSA | | SMEX-08 | N/A | 96 12 | 96 12 | SMALL | N/A | OSSA | | SMEX-09 | N/A | 97 06 | | SMALL | N/A | OSSA | | SMEX-10 | N/A | 97 12 | | SMALL | N/A | OSSA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | SMEX-11** | N/A | 98 06 | | SMALL | N/A | OSSA | | SMEX-12** | N/A | 98 12 | | SMALL | N/A | OSSA | | SMEX-13** | N/A | 99 06 | | SMALL | N/A | OSSA | | SMEX-14** | N/A | 99 12 | | SMALL | N/A | OSSA | | SMEX-15** | N/A | 00 06 | | SMALL | N/A | OSSA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | SMEX-16** | N/A | 00 12 | | SMALL | N/A | OSSA | | SOHO | N/A | 95 03 | 95 03 | INTERMEDIATE | N/A | OSSA | | SOLAR PROBE** | CENTAUR** | 98 05 | | TITAN IV** | N/A | OSSA | | SPACEHAB-01 | SPACEHAB | 92 09 | 92 09 3 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | SPHAB | | SPACEHAB-02 | SPACEHAB | 93 03 | 93 02 25 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | SPHAB | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | SPACEHAB-03 | SPACEHAB | 93 09 | 93 07 22 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | SPHAB | | SPACEHAB-04 | SPACEHAB | 94 03 | 93 10 22 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | SPHAB | | SPACEHAB-05 | SPACEHAB | 94 09 | 94 05 12 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | SPHAB | | SPACEHAB-06 | SPACEHAB | 95 03 | 94 10 6 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | SPHAB | | SPACEHAB-07** | SPACEHAB | 95 09 | 96 01 11 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | SPHAB | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | SPACEHAB-08** | SPACEHAB | 96 03 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | SPHAB | | SPAS-CRISTA | SPAS | 93 07 | 93 04 15 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | SPAS-ORFEUS | SPAS | 92 08 | 92 09 3 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | SPTN-02 | MPESS | 89 01 | 91 12 5 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSSA | | SPTN-T | MPESS | 93 12 | 95 01 19 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSF | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| * Non-complex secondary payload ** For NASA planning purposes 5.10 **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** _---------------------_-----------------_--------_-----------_--------------------_------------_---------_ | PAYLOAD | CARRIER |REQ DATE|FLIGHT DATE| VEHICLE | TYPE | SPONSOR | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | SRAD/TPITS | PALLET | 92 01 | 92 10 29 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSF | | SRL-01 | PALL+MPESS | 92 06 | 92 07 16 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | SRL-02 | PALL+MPESS | 93 12 | 93 12 9 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | SRL-03 | PALL+MPESS | 94 12 | 95 12 7 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | SSBUV-02 | UNIQUE | 89 01 | 90 11 1 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSSA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | SSBUV-03 | UNIQUE | 89 07 | 92 06 18 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSSA | | SSBUV-04 | UNIQUE | 90 01 | 93 04 15 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSSA | | SSBUV-05 | UNIQUE | 90 07 | 94 03 17 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSSA | | SSBUV-06 | UNIQUE | 91 01 | 94 10 6 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSSA | | SSBUV-07 | UNIQUE | 91 07 | 95 09 7 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSSA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | SSBUV-08 | UNIQUE | 92 01 | 96 01 11 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSSA | | SSBUV-09 | UNIQUE | 92 07 | 96 08 15 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSSA | | SSBUV-10 | UNIQUE | 93 01 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSSA | | SSBUV-11 | UNIQUE | 93 07 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSSA | | SSBUV-12 | UNIQUE | 94 01 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSSA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | SSCE-01 | MIDDECK LOCKER | 88 04 | 90 10 5 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY* | OSSA | | SSF/L-01(PMC) | UNIQUE | 97 07 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/L-02 | UNIQUE | 97 10 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/L-03 | UNIQUE | 97 12 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/L-04 | UNIQUE | 98 03 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | SSF/L-05 | UNIQUE | 98 04 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/L-06 | UNIQUE | 98 07 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/L-07 | UNIQUE | 98 10 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/L-08 | UNIQUE | 98 12 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/L-09 | UNIQUE | 99 03 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| * Non-complex secondary payload ** For NASA planning purposes 5.11 **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** _---------------------_-----------------_--------_-----------_--------------------_------------_---------_ | PAYLOAD | CARRIER |REQ DATE|FLIGHT DATE| VEHICLE | TYPE | SPONSOR | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | SSF/L-10 | UNIQUE | 99 04 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/L-11 | UNIQUE | 99 07 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/MB-01(FEL) | UNIQUE | 95 03 | 95 03 9 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/MB-02 | UNIQUE | 95 06 | 95 06 22 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/MB-03 | UNIQUE | 95 08 | 95 08 10 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | SSF/MB-04 | UNIQUE | 95 11 | 95 11 16 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/MB-05 | UNIQUE | 96 01 | 96 02 8 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/MB-06 | UNIQUE | 96 04 | 96 03 28 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/MB-07(MTC) | UNIQUE | 96 06 | 96 06 20 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/MB-08 | UNIQUE | 96 11 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | SSF/MB-09 | UNIQUE | 97 01 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/MB-10 | UNIQUE | 97 06 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/MB-11 | UNIQUE | 97 09 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/MB-12 | UNIQUE | 98 02 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/MB-13 | UNIQUE | 98 06 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | SSF/MB-14 | UNIQUE | 98 09 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/OF-01 | UNIQUE | 96 08 | 96 09 19 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/OF-02 | UNIQUE | 97 04 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/OF-03 | UNIQUE | 99 01 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | SSF/OF-04 | UNIQUE | 99 06 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | SSS | UNIQUE | 93 10 | 95 01 19 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSF | | STARLAB | LM+1 PALL | 90 06 | 91 09 30 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | DOD | | STP-01 | HITCHHIKER-M | 90 07 | 92 01 23 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | DOD | | SWAS | N/A | 93 06 | 93 06 | SMALL | N/A | OSSA | | TDRS-E | IUS | 90 03 | 91 01 31 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSO | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| * Non-complex secondary payload ** For NASA planning purposes 5.12 **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** _---------------------_-----------------_--------_-----------_--------------------_------------_---------_ | PAYLOAD | CARRIER |REQ DATE|FLIGHT DATE| VEHICLE | TYPE | SPONSOR | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | TDRS-F | IUS | 91 08 | 92 12 10 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSO | | TDRS-G | IUS | 91 12 | 95 04 27 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSO | | TDRS-H** | IUS | 92 11 | 95 09 28 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSO | | TFS-01 | HITCHHIKER-G | 93 01 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSF | | TFS-02 | HITCHHIKER-G | 94 01 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSF | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | TOMS | N/A | 93 06 | 93 06 | SCOUT | N/A | OSSA | | TSS-01 | MPESS+1 PALL | 90 10 | 91 05 16 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSF | | TSS-02** | MPESS+1 PALL | 92 10 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | TSS-03** | MPESS+1 PALL | 94 10 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | UARS | N/A | 91 08 | 91 08 22 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | UFO-02 | UNIQUE | 93 10 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | DOD | | UFO-03 | UNIQUE | 94 04 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | DOD | | ULYSSES | IUS/PAM | 90 10 | 90 10 5 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | USML-01 | LM+EDO | 92 03 | 92 03 5 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | USML-02 | LM+EDO | 94 03 | 94 04 7 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | USML-03 | LM+EDO | 96 03 | 96 05 9 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | USML-04 | LM+EDO | 98 03 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | USMP-01 | MSL+MPESS | 92 05 | 92 02 13 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | USMP-02 | MSL+MPESS | 93 06 | 93 03 18 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | USMP-03 | MSL+MPESS | 94 06 | 93 11 12 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | USMP-04 | MSL+MPESS | 95 06 | 94 06 2 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | USMP-05** | MSL+MPESS | 96 06 | 96 07 18 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | UVLIM (STP-01) | HITCHHIKER-G | 88 07 | 92 01 23 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | DOD | | VC-CCTV | MIDDECK LOCKER | 89 01 | 90 10 5 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY* | OSF | | WIND | TBD | 92 12 | 92 12 | DELTA | N/A | OSSA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| * Non-complex secondary payload ** For NASA planning purposes 5.13 **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** _---------------------_-----------------_--------_-----------_--------------------_------------_---------_ | PAYLOAD | CARRIER |REQ DATE|FLIGHT DATE| VEHICLE | TYPE | SPONSOR | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | WISP | OMV+PALL | 95 01 | 95 01 19 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | WSF-01 | UNIQUE | 92 04 | 92 04 23 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | WSF-02 | UNIQUE | 93 09 | 93 11 12 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | WSF-03 | UNIQUE | 92 07 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | WSF-04 | UNIQUE | 93 01 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | XTE | FSS | 94 03 | 94 02 24 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| * Non-complex secondary payload ** For NASA planning purposes 5.14 SECTION 6 PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM NAME DESCRIPTION AAFE Aeroassist Flight Experimental vehicle that simulates the atmospheric Experiment flight phase of an Aeroassisted Orbital Transfer Vehicle (OATV) returning from geosynchronous orbit. Provides environmental and design data for an AOTV. AC Atlas Centaur Intermediate Class Expendable Launch Vehicle. ACE Advanced Composition Free flying scientific spacecraft that may be Explorer solar, celestial or earth pointing. ACES Acoustic Containerless Technical demonstration to obtain early Experiment System microgravity tests of gas transport phenomena in a 3-axis levitation furnace. ACTS Advanced Communications Flight verification of high risk communications Technology Satellite technology to support future satellite communications systems. AD Animal Development-Genetics Series of experiments to determine effects of weightlessness on animal genetics. ADSF Automatic Directional Technology demonstration of directional Solidification Furnace solidification of magnetic materials, immiscibles, and IR detection materials. ADVPCG Advanced Protein Crystal Second generation flight system for protein crystal Growth growth in a microgravity environment. AF Polar Bear Air Force Polar Bear Study atmospheric effects on electromagnetic propagation. 6.1 **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM NAME DESCRIPTION AFE American Flight Collects quantitative in-flight data on Echocardiograph cardiovascular changes in the crew. AFITV Air Force Instrumented Test Anti-satellite target vehicle. Vehicle AFP-675 Air Force Program-675 Collects infrared data to support Strategic Defense Initiative program. Formerly, Cryogenic Infrared Radiance Instrument for Shuttle (CIRRIS). ALFE Advanced Liquid Feed Demonstrates performance of liquid feed system Experiment components in low-g environment. ALT Altitude Orbit altitude in nautical miles. AM Auxiliary Module Provides consumables resupply, payload changeout and additional on-orbit volume for the ISF Facility Module (FM). AMOS Air Force Maui Optical Technology development/geophysical environment Station study. Calibrate AMOS ground-based electro-optical sensors and study on-orbit plume phenomenology using the Shuttle as a test object. AMPTE Active Magnetosphere Satellite to study transfer of mass from the solar Particle Tracer Experiment wind to the magnetosphere. ANS Astronomical Netherlands Study the sky in ultraviolet and x-ray from above Satellite the atmosphere. APE Aurora Photography Enhance understanding of the geographic extent and Experiment dynamics of the aurora. 6.2 **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM LIST **** PAYLOAD/ACRONYM NAME DESCRIPTION APM Ascent Particle Monitor Collects particulate material from the Orbiter during ascent, using an automated mechanical/ electrical assembly. ARABSAT Arab Satellite Communications satellite of the Arab Satellite Communications Organization. ARC Aggregation of Red Cells Studies aggregation of red cells and blood viscosity under low-g conditions. ARF Aquatic Research Facility Houses a variety of small aquatic specimens for research on microgravity adaptation. ASC American Satellite Company A satellite to provide commercial communication service to continental United States, Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico. ASP Attitude Sensor Package Foreign Reimbursable Hitchhiker-G payload. ASTRO Astronomy Program designed to obtain ultraviolet (UV) data on astronomical objects using a UV telescope. --------------------------------------- From: greer%utd201.dnet%utadnx@utspan.span.nasa.gov Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: booster pollution Date: 19 Jan 90 17:28:06 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet In SPACE Digest V10 #444, Paul Dietz writes: >In article <13353@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> kimf@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Kim Flowers) writes: > >>Hey, what about all those HOH molecules them hydrogen-oxygen boosters >>are spreading all over the place! Could be a real problem... :) > >Actually, they could be, if the launch rate is high enough (read: >much larger than now). The upper stratosphere is extremely dry. >If we inject water there, it could form high altitude ice clouds, >especially in polar regions. Such clouds cause net warming by >reflecting infrared radiation. Also, ice clouds in the Antarctic >stratosphere are thought to play a part in the formation of >the ozone hole. > > Paul F. Dietz > dietz@cs.rochester.edu According to somebody (one of the main figures in this line of research, whose name nevertheless escapes me) who gave a talk here some months ago on the subject, high altitude ice clouds play a major role in the formation of the ozone hole. Briefly, CFC's destroy ozone in a catalytic manner, so it doesn't take much of the stuff to do a lot of damage. Ice crystals act as an adsorptive surface for the CFC's which somehow makes them even more active in destroying ozone. The Antarctic ozone hole closes up during southern hemisphere summer when the high altitude ice clouds are not present. ------- Doublethought For Today --------- "...that flag is a symbol of something | Dale M. Greer greater than just the rights | Center for Space Sciences in this country." | University of Texas at Dallas Rep. Lawrence J. Smith of Florida | UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER --------------------------------------- From: n8741572@unicorn.WWU.EDU (Matthew Skinner) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: radiation hazard from retrieving gallieo Summary: what to do with old RTGs Date: 21 Jan 90 21:37:20 GMT Reply-To: n8741572@unicorn.WWU.EDU (Matthew Skinner) Organization: Western Washington Univ, Bellingham, WA In article KEN@ORION.BITNET (Kenneth Ng) writes: >The fuel for the RTG's is Pu238. ...decay chain deleted... >decays into U234 with a beta emission, I think. U234 half life 2.48E5 >years (I think it'll stay here for a long time :-)), decays alpha >particle to Pa232. I'm not typing the rest of the chain since it'll >remain U234 for the significant future. The point of all this? The Isn't U234 fissionable? Seems I recall plans for a Thorium-Uranium slow breeder reactor that produced U234 for new fuel. Maybe we should collect all the RTGs, wait for them to decay to U234, and then refine the fuel for a nuclear reactor to drive us to the planets. I mean, since the stuff is already up there.... matthew -- Matthew Skinner skinner@ [ nessie | unicorn ].wwu.edu --------------------------------------- From: jgh@root.co.uk (Jeremy G Harris) Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space Subject: Re: Galileo Update - 02/10/90 Summary: Query on "hard short chassis" Keywords: galileo short problem Date: 18 Jan 90 10:46:20 GMT Reply-To: jgh@root44.UUCP (Jeremy G Harris) Organization: UniSoft Ltd, London, England Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.astro:6492 sci.space:16941 In article <2561@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > GALILEO MISSION STATUS > January 10, 1990 [...] > The AC imbalance measurements reached a level which >indicated a "hard" short chassis. [...] > The DC imbalance measurement continued to slowly increase Could someone expand for me on the significance of these measurements? What are the imbalances between, and are they worrying? Thanks Jeremy -- Jeremy Harris jgh@root.co.uk --------------------------------------- From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: SR-71 BLACKBIRD Date: 24 Jan 90 04:04:22 GMT Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) I should point out that we may not be the only superpower with an interest in hiding our aircraft's true altitude and speed capabilities. It's risky to assume that Blackbird is sandbagging but that Foxbat has shown us everything it's got. What would be really fun would be a post-perestroika flyoff! May the best plane win. Unfortunately I consider this unlikely. It will be years before perestroika reaches the US. -- Psychoanalysis is the mental illness \\\ Tom Neff it purports to cure. -- Karl Kraus \\\ tneff@bfmn0.UU.NET --------------------------------------- From: ckirie@aries5.uucp (Chris Irie) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Japanese craft to the moon Date: 24 Jan 90 14:41:11 GMT Sender: daemon@maytag.waterloo.edu Reply-To: ckirie@aries5.UUCP (Chris Irie) Organization: Computer Systems Group, University of Waterloo The CBC reported this morning that there are two probes aboard that will go into lunar orbit. They also said that this happens in MARCH. I could have sworn that the moon was closer than that. --------------------------------------- From: andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: F-1 Engine Date: 22 Jan 90 14:20:15 GMT Organization: University of Sussex From article <1990Jan19.193956.15808@cs.rochester.edu>, by dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz): > The F-1 engine's rated chamber pressure was 1122 psia. The H-1 engine > on the Saturn C-1 booster had a chamber pressure of 576 psia. How does the thrust of one of the Shuttle SRB motors compare with that of one of the good old Saturn V's F1 engines? Was any kind of F1 configuration ever considered in the design of the Shuttle booster stage? -- Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, ENGLAND JANET: andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk BITNET: andy%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac Voice: +44 273 606755 ext.2129 --------------------------------------- From: dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Galileo Update - 01/12/90 Date: 24 Jan 90 17:43:21 GMT Reply-To: dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) Organization: Lynx Data Systems, Eagan, MN In article <331@mtndew.UUCP> friedl@mtndew.UUCP (Steve Friedl) writes: >I asked if it would be possible to bring Galileo back if some >problem developed, and the answers weren't what I was looking >for. I understand that RTGs and cost questions and all that are >relevant, but my intent is strictly one of orbital mechanics. >Could Galileo be put in orbit around the Earth? Is it going too >fast? Mine is a hypothetical question only. Sure, just put the space shuttle up in an intersecting orbit -- SMACK -- and most of Galileo will probably wind up in orbit. :-) To give a more responsive answer: It depends on quite a few factors, such as how much time you have. If the problem developed after the Venus encountor, I think the subsequent encountor with Earth would have too much energy to capture the it in one pass. It might be possible to send it back past Venus to get rid of the energy, or it might take some more complicated manevors. If the problem developed before the Venus encountor, it would be possible to get Galileo somewhere near earth orbit without too much excess energy, but earth would not be around. Some number of years later, it should be possible to arrange an encountor. Once you get an Earth encountor at a low enough energy, you can use one or more flybys past the moon to arrange a capture. The final orbit would have an apogee somewhere out by the moon though. (I don't know how you could circularlize it in a reasonable time.) The basic rule of this type of orbital maneuvor is that if: 1) you have a fly by somewhere, and 2) you have enought delta-V to correct for errors in the original orbit, you can go ANYWHERE. If you give it enough time. However, the final orbit will continue to pass close to the orbit of the last body you used for a correction. The even more responsive, and practical answer, is NO. It is unlikely that Galileo could be recovered. (Note: I am certainly NOT an expert in orbital mechanics -- I play with the concepts as a hobby, but I may well be totally off-base here. If so, please don't be offended.) -- Remember Tiananmen Square. | David Messer dave@Lynx.MN.Org -or- | Lynx Data Systems ...!bungia!viper!dave --------------------------------------- From: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Subject: Galileo Update - 01/25/90 Date: 26 Jan 90 00:00:28 GMT Sender: news@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov Reply-To: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:17026 sci.astro:6535 GALILEO MISSION STATUS January 25, 1990 The Galileo spacecraft is about 21.5 million miles from Earth today, and 5.4 million miles from Venus. Round-trip light time to the spacecraft is almost 4 minutes. Galileo has traveled almost 156 million miles since launch in its orbit around the Sun, and has reached an orbital velocity of more than 78,000 miles per hour. The spacecraft is in very good health, operating in its all- spin "safe" mode with automatic sun-pointing. All science instruments except the dust detector are turned off, and the spacecraft is spinning at a rate of 2.89 rpm, pointed within 1/2 degree of the Sun base on the acquisition sensor. It is sending telemetry at 1200 bits per second over the low-gain antenna as usual. The DC bus imbalance is at 20.59 volts and the AC bus imbalance is at 48.75 volts. The flight team is continuing the orderly step-by-step process of returning Galileo to a cruise configuration and preparing it for the Venus science observations scheduled for early next month. DSS-63, the 70-meter tracking station in Spain, completed its repairs this week and successfully performed a Galileo telemetry and tracking pass today. 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 | --------------------------------------- From: izahi@portia.Stanford.EDU (Raul Izahi Lopez Hernandez) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Space Station Reading Keywords: Space Station References On-board systems DMS NASA Date: 31 Jan 90 00:27:08 GMT Sender: Raul Izahi Lopez Hernandez Organization: Stanford University and others, if more will follow: [1] Chase, R.R.P., "TOWARD A COMPLETE EOS DATA AND INFORMATION SYSTEM", IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Vol. 27, No.2, March 1989. [2] DeJulio, E.T., Leet, J.H.,, "SPACE STATION SYNERGETIC RAM-LOGISTICS ANALYSIS",1988 Proceedings Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium. [3] Barry,T., Scheffer, T., Small, L.R., "AN ENVIRONMENT FOR THE INTEGRATION AND TEST OF THE SPACE STATION DISTRIBUTED AVIONICS SYSTEMS", IEEE AES Magazine, November 1988. I came across these papers doing research on On-board Image Processing Systems since I would like to do design in this area and hope it could be used sometime in a space vehicle. Yeah, I was told that I can dream as much as I want... This material is available in the CD-ROM IEEE file system. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Raul Izahi Lopez Hernandez izahi@portia.stanford.edu Graduate Student, EE Dept. "Nun, ich war und ich bin noch Student, Stanford University denn ein Student bleibt ewig Student!" -DG --------------------------------------- From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Japanese Space Program (was Re: NASA Headline News ...) Date: 31 Jan 90 20:58:53 GMT Reply-To: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Organization: University of Rochester Computer Science Department In article <13433@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> elturner@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edwin L Turner) writes: >I would not have any great confidence in such projections of Japanese >efforts/abilities in space in view of their recent history with >respect to high tech endeavors. >... Needless to say, this approach has often (but >not always) been quite successful for them. Yes. Consider their efforts in commercial aviation, which can only be classified as a dismal failure, despite decades of effort. Or, ICOT. The Japanese have been good at refining technologies, and penetrating markets incrementally. If they do have a success in space, I'd imagine it would be in comsats, rather than in entirely novel space endeavors. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu --------------------------------------- From: mac@idacrd.UUCP (Robert McGwier) Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.ham-radio Subject: Spot-2, V35, Microsats, etc. Keywords: Microsat, Ariane V35, UOSAT, SPOT-2 Date: 23 Jan 90 17:56:26 GMT Followup-To: sci.space Organization: idacrd, princeton, nj Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:16965 rec.ham-radio:18027 As you may know, the Ariane V35 mission was a complete success. It lofted the new French Earth Resources satellite (SPOT-2) into a polar orbit. It was accompanied by six amateur radio satellites, four Microsats, two UOSATS. Are are performing nominally in orbit. The UOSAT commanders are able to work with the UOSATs with no problem and Harold Price, NK6K, and myself are able to command the Microsats at will. Thanks to the folks at Ariane for another perfect ride. Bob -- ____________________________________________________________________________ My opinions are my own no matter | Robert W. McGwier, N4HY who I work for! ;-) | CCR, AMSAT, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- From: jdnicoll@watyew.waterloo.edu (Brian or James) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: booster pollution Date: 23 Jan 90 16:24:38 GMT Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu I'm fairly sure that, in addition to Antarctica's relatively 'simple' weather patterns that another poster mentioned, the southern ozone layer hole is larger because extreme low temperatures play a role in the process by which CFCs destray ozone. Antarctica gets much colder for longer periods than the North pole does (Something to due with the Artic being an ocean instead of a continent, I believe.). There was an interesting article on this in Scientific American a year or so ago. James Nicoll --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: NASA Headline News for 01/25/90 (Forwarded) Date: 25 Jan 90 20:10:09 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Thursday, January 25, 1990 Audio: 202/755-1788 ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is NASA Headline News for Thursday, January 25..... The space shuttle orbiter Atlantis was rolled out to the launch pad at Kennedy Space Center this morning. Launch of STS-36 ...a classified Department of Defense mission...is targeted for no earlier than February 22. A firm date will be set following a flight readiness review scheduled for February 9 and 10. A terminal countdown demonstration test with the crew is scheduled for February 2 and 3. Meanwhile...at Edwards Air Force Base...the NASA 747 carrier aircraft, with the orbiter Columbia aboard, took off at 10:30 A.M., Eastern time, today, for its two-day trip back to Kennedy space center. Inside the payload bay, LDEF...the Long Duration Exposure Facility. The 747-Columbia tandem is scheduled to arrive at KSC Friday afternoon, weather conditions permitting. After arriving at the Cape...the LDEF will be removed from the Columbia's payload bay, January 29, and eventually be moved to the Spacecraft Assembly and Encapsulation Facility where researchers will inspect it and remove experiments. Pre-launch testing of the Hubble Space Telescope is continuing at the Kennedy Space Center. Project officials report the testing procedure is going well with only a few minor problems being encountered. The final end-to-end test is scheduled for January 27. A revised processing schedule is under development in view of a revised forcasted target launch date of April 19. Management of the Polar Orbiting Platform, currently under development by the Office of Space Flight as part of the Space Station Freedom program, has been transferred to the Office of Space Science and Applications which has responsibility for the proposed Earth Observing System program. The NASA EOS program is a key element in the Mission to Planet Earth initiative. Japan's moon-orbiting satellite mission appears to be going well. The low-budget project includes two satellites....one will remain in a highly elliptical Earth orbit. When it arrives in the vicinity of the moon in mid-March it will eject a small 14-inch diameter satellite that will go into a 10,000 mile high lunar orbit. * * * * ----------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA Select TV. All times are Eastern. Monday, January 29..... 1:00 P.M. Fiscal year 91 NASA budget proposal from NASA Headquarters. Tuesday, January 30.... 2:00 P.M. STS-32 crew news conference Thursday, February 1..... 11:30 A.M. NASA Update will be transmitted All events and times are subject to change without notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------- These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon, Eastern time. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A service of the Internal Communications Branch, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. --------------------------------------- From: barnes@Xylogics.COM (Jim Barnes) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Japanese lunar probe (Was: NASA Headline News for 01/25/90) Date: 26 Jan 90 13:34:39 GMT Sender: news@Xylogics.COM Reply-To: barnes@Xylogics.COM (Jim Barnes) Organization: Xylogics, Inc., Burlington MA In article <41322@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: >Japan's moon-orbiting satellite mission appears to be going well. >The low-budget project includes two satellites....one will remain >in a highly elliptical Earth orbit. When it arrives in the >vicinity of the moon in mid-March it will eject a small 14-inch ^^^^^^^^^ >diameter satellite that will go into a 10,000 mile high lunar >orbit. Can anyone explain why it will take nearly two months for the Japanese lunar probe to reach the vicinity of the Moon? ---- Jim Barnes (barnes@Xylogics.COM) | If all you have is a hammer, | everything looks like a nail. --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: NASA Headline News for 01/26/90 (Forwarded) Date: 26 Jan 90 18:55:09 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Friday, January 26, 1990 Audio: 202/755-1788 ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is NASA Headline News for Friday, January 26.... The orbiter Columbia with its cargo....the Long Duration Exposure Facility...in the payload bay is on its final leg home to Kennedy Space Center. Overnighting at Kelly Air Force Base, the 747/orbiter is expected to arrive at the Kennedy Space Center shortly after 4:00 P.M., Eastern time. Weather conditions appear satisfactory for today's flight. The STS-32 crew will hold a televised news conference next Tuesday at Johnson Space Center. They will discuss the retrieval of the Long Duration Exposure Facility...deployment of the SYNCOM satellite and the variety of experiments performed during their ten day mission. The news conference will be carried on NASA Select TV at 2:00 P.M., Eastern time. Jet Propulsion Laboratory engineers report that the Magellan spacecraft heading towards Venus is operating in a standard cruise mode. The spacecraft is 113-million 700-thousand miles from Earth traveling at a speed of over 62-thousand miles per hour relative to the sun. One way light time to Magellan is 10 minutes 11 seconds. The Galileo spacecraft is in very good health, according to JPL. The flight team is preparing for the Venus science observations scheduled for early next month. Galileo is 5.4 million miles from Venus. It's traveled almost 156 million miles since launch and has reached a velocity of more that 78-thousand miles per hour relative to the sun. Four space shuttle mission specialists have been designated payload commanders...a new position in the astronaut corps. payload commanders will have overall crew responsibility for planning, integration and on-orbit coordination of payloads on their mission. Payload commanders are Norman Thagard for STS-42...Kathryn Sullivan for STS-45...Jeffery Hoffman for STS-46 and Mark Lee for STS-47. Aerospace Daily reports the Soviet Union launched the 37th in a series of Molynia communications satellites tuesday. It will replace a Molniya which has been in orbit since 1985. The Molniya satellites operate in a highly elliptical orbit rather than in a geosynchronous orbit as most U.S. communications satellites. * * * ----------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the broadcast schedule for public affair events on NASA Select TV. All times are Eastern. Monday, January 29.... 1:00 P.M. Fiscal 91 NASA budget briefing from Washington. Tuesday, January 30.... 2:00 P.M. STS-32 crew news conference from Johnson Space Center. Thursday, February 1.... 11:30 A.M. NASA Update will be transmitted. All events and times are subject to change without notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------- These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon, Eastern time. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC), NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. --------------------------------------- From: marco@ncsc.navy.mil (Barbarisi) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: The Position of Venus in the Night Sky Date: 26 Jan 90 19:03:57 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet I heard that an unusual event recently occurred in the night sky: Venus was the evening star, it then disappeared from view, and then it re-appeared as the morning star. As a result of this transition, Venus appears on the opposite side of the Moon relative to where it was three weeks ago. Can anyone out there explain this phenomena to me? What are the relative positions of the Earth, Moon, Venus , and the Sun during each phase I've mentioned? Is this phenomena unusual, and if so, why? Please respond directly to me, marco@ncsc.navy.mil, since I do not subscribe to these lists. Thanks..... Marco Barbarisi Naval Coastal Systems Center Panama City, FL 85 deg 44' West, 30 deg 10' North ARPAnet/Internet: marco@ncsc.navy.mil --------------------------------------- From: jackh@csuf3b.CSUFresno.EDU (Jack Hart) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: A sad anniversery Date: 26 Jan 90 11:10:41 GMT Organization: California State University, Fresno (Computer Science) I'd just like to point out that Saturday, January 27 is the 23rd anniversery of the Apollo/Saturn 204 accident, in which Gus Grissom, Edward H. White II, and Roger B. Chafee died of asphyxiation in a capsule fire during a ground test of their Apollo block 1 spacecraft. I do this to point out that NASA is no stranger to major, dangerous foulups caused by poor planning and weak design. There are those who say North American had no business building spacecraft, including Frank Borman in his book Countdown. Grissom apparently bitched repeatedly about all the glitches that turned up in even the most basic of systems. I for one am always amazed that no one realized the danger of an oxygen atmosphere in the presense of electrical wiring. While things were redesigned and eventually worked well, this seems a hell of a price to pay for leaving things to "business as usual", a mentality that years later resulted in 7 more lives lost on Challenger. In all the wailing and teeth-gnashing following January 28, 1986 (Sunday is an anniversery, too, sadly enough) there seemed to be little mention of the previous accident. Personally, I have always felt that exploration and advancement of science merited the occasional loss of life, just as flight testing took the lives of many pilots as they experimented with new aircraft and designs. I also don't think that stopping tests until the politicians decide it's OK is the right way to go. I just feel that accidents due to contractor negligence or bureaucratic ineptitude have no justification or excuse. An aside:Most people refer to Apollo/Saturn 204 as "Apollo 1". The missio never received this designation, but the name sticks. There is even a bogus Apollo 1 mission patch: I have one, purchased from a bootlegger at a local Warbirds meet. This view is so pervasive that in The Pictorial History Of NASA, edited by Bill Yenne and an official-type book, it is referred to as Apollo 1 and the patch is pictured along with the real patches. While this may have been a real design for the mission, it was never used. I imagine that patches for later Challenger missions had been designed, too, but they aren't accepted as official. Sorry for the downer posting, but I felt a little respect was due those who died for something they felt important. Lowell -- Jack Lowell Hart, Jr. jackh@csufres3b.UUCP jackh@csufres.CSUFresno.EDU Great Central Valley Aerospace Club Verein fur Raumschffart, Raketenflugplatz, Fresno --------------------------------------- From: hunter@oakhill.UUCP (Hunter Scales) Newsgroups: rec.video,sci.space Subject: NASA Laserdiscs Date: 29 Jan 90 21:27:43 GMT Followup-To: rec.video Distribution: na Organization: Motorola Inc. Austin, Tx Xref: pt.cs.cmu.edu rec.video:11057 sci.space:17083 A few years ago, I heard of a Laserdisc that NASA had produced that had thousands of still video pictures on it. I think they were of Voyarger, but I can't be sure. Does anyone know if NASA still does this and where I can get information on these discs? With the revival of Laserdiscs, I would like to get a player adn the availability of discs like this would be a strong impetus. Mail me please and I will summarize. Thanks. -- Motorola Semiconductor Inc. Hunter Scales Austin, Texas {harvard,utah-cs,gatech}!cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!hunter #include --------------------------------------- From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: NASA Mixed Fleet Manifest for 01/90 [Part 3 of 7] (Forwarded) Date: 30 Jan 90 16:43:57 GMT Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA | 22 | 85 10 30 |57.0| 8 |SPACELAB D-1 LM |GLOMR | C:HENRY W. HARTSFIELD | | 61-A|CHALLENGER| 175| 7 | | | P:STEVEN R. NAGEL | | | | | | | | MS:JAMES F. BUCHLI | | | | | | | | MS:GUION S. BLUFORD, JR. | | | | | | | | MS:BONNIE J. DUNBAR | | | | | | | | PS:REINHARD FURRER | | | | | | | | PS:ERNST W. MESSERSCHMID | | | | | | | | PS:WUBBO J. OCKELS | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 23 | 85 11 26 |28.5| 7 |EASE/ACCESS MPESS |GAS(1) | C:BREWSTER H. SHAW, JR. | | 61-B|ATLANTIS | 190| 7 |MORELOS-B PAM-D |CFES | P:BRYAN D. O'CONNOR | | | | | |SATCOM KU-2 PAM-D2 |IMAX | MS:MARY L. CLEAVE | | | | | |AUSSAT-2 PAM-D |DMOS | MS:SHERWOOD C. SPRING | | | | | | |MPSE | MS:JERRY L. ROSS | | | | | | | | PS:RUDOLFO NERI VELA | | | | | | | | PS:CHARLES WALKER | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 24 | 86 1 12 |28.5| 7 |MSL-2 MPESS |HH-G1 | C:ROBERT L. GIBSON | | 61-C|COLUMBIA | 175| 6 |SATCOM KU-1 PAM-D2 |IR-IE | P:CHARLES F. BOLDEN | | | | | |GAS BRIDGE |HPCG | MS:FRANKLIN R. CHANG-DIAZ | | | | | | |IBSE | MS:STEVEN A. HAWLEY | | | | | | |CHAMP | MS:GEORGE D. NELSON | | | | | | |SSIP(3) | PS:ROBERT CENKER | | | | | | |GAS(13) | PS:BILL NELSON | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| 4.6 **** PREVIOUS SHUTTLE FLIGHTS **** _-----_----------_----_---_-----------------------------_-----------_-----------------------------------_ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 25 | 86 1 28 | - | 7 |SPTN-HALLEY MPESS |TIS-01 | C:FRANCIS R. SCOBEE | | 51-L|CHALLENGER| - | - |TDRS-B IUS |FDE | P:MICHAEL J. SMITH | | | | | | |CHAMP | MS:JUDITH A. RESNIK | | | | | | |RME | MS:ELLISON S. ONIZUKA | | | | | | |SSIP(3) | MS:RONALD E. MCNAIR | | | | | | | | PS:GREGORY JARVIS | | | | | | | | SFP:CHRISTA MCAULIFFE | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 26 | 88 9 29 |28.5| 5 |TDRS-C IUS |ADSF-02 | C:FREDERICK H. HAUCK | | |DISCOVERY | 160| 4 | |PVTOS-02 | P:RICHARD O. COVEY | | | | | | |IRCFE | MS:JOHN M. LOUNGE | | | | | | |SE-82-04 | MS:GEORGE D. NELSON | | | | | | |PCG-II-01 | MS:DAVID C. HILMERS | | | | | | |IEF-02 | | | | | | | |HME-01 | | | | | | | |ARC-02 | | | | | | | |MLE-01 | | | | | | | |ELRAD | | | | | | | |SE-82-05 | | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 27 | 88 12 2 | XX | 5 |DOD | | C:ROBERT L. GIBSON | | |ATLANTIS | X | 4 | | | P:GUY S. GARDNER | | | | | | | | MS:RICHARD M. MULLANE | | | | | | | | MS:JERRY L. ROSS | | | | | | | | MS:WILLIAM M. SHEPHERD | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| 4.7 **** PREVIOUS SHUTTLE FLIGHTS **** _-----_----------_----_---_-----------------------------_-----------_-----------------------------------_ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 29 | 89 3 13 |28.5| 5 |TDRS-D IUS |SHARE | C:MICHAEL L. COATS | | |DISCOVERY | 163| 5 |IMAX-01 |SE-83-09 | P:JOHN E. BLAHA | | | | | | |PCG-III-01 | MS:JAMES F. BUCHLI | | | | | | |CHROMEX | MS:ROBERT C. SPRINGER | | | | | | |SE-82-08 | MS:JAMES P. BAGIAN | | | | | | |AMOS-01 | | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 30 | 89 5 4 |28.9| 5 |MAGELLAN IUS |FEA-01 | C:DAVID M. WALKER | | |ATLANTIS | 161| 4 | |MLE-02 | P:RONALD J. GRABE | | | | | | |AMOS-02 | MS:NORMAN E. THAGARD | | | | | | | | MS:MARY L. CLEAVE | | | | | | | | MS:MARK C. LEE | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 28 | 89 8 8 | XX | 5 |DOD | | C:BREWSTER H. SHAW, JR. | | |COLUMBIA | X | 6 | | | P:RICHARD N. RICHARDS | | | | | | | | MS:DAVID C. LEESTMA | | | | | | | | MS:JAMES C. ADAMSON | | | | | | | | MS:MARK N. BROWN | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 34 | 89 10 18 |34.3| 5 |GALILEO IUS |SSBUV-01 | C:DONALD E. WILLIAMS | | |ATLANTIS | 160| 7 |IMAX-02 MD |SE-82-15 | P:MICHAEL J. MCCULLEY | | | | | | |GHCD | MS:SHANNON W. LUCID | | | | | | |PM-01 | MS:ELLEN S. BAKER | | | | | | |MLE-03 | MS:FRANKLIN R. CHANG-DIAZ | | | | | | |STEX | | | | | | | |AMOS-03 | | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| 4.8 **** PREVIOUS SHUTTLE FLIGHTS **** _-----_----------_----_---_-----------------------------_-----------_-----------------------------------_ | FLT | DATE |INCL|CRW| PRIMARY PAYLOADS CARRIER | SECONDARY | CREW ASSIGNMENT | | | ORBITER | ALT|DUR| | PAYLOADS | | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 33 | 89 11 22 | XX | 5 |DOD | | C:FREDERICK D. GREGORY | | |DISCOVERY | X | 6 | | | P:JOHN E. BLAHA | | | | | | | | MS:F. STORY MUSGRAVE | | | | | | | | MS:KATHRYN C. THORNTON | | | | | | | | MS:MANLEY L. CARTER, JR. | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | 32 | 90 1 9 |28.5| 5 |SYNCOM IV-05 UNIQUE |CNCR | C:DANIEL C. BRANDENSTEIN | | |COLUMBIA | 190|11 |LDEF-RETR N/A |PCG-III-02 | P:JAMES D. WETHERBEE | | | | | |IMAX-03 MD |FEA-02 | MS:BONNIE J. DUNBAR | | | | | | |AFE-02 | MS:G. DAVID LOW | | | | | | |MLE-04 | MS:MARSHA S. IVINS | | | | | | |L3 | | | | | | | |AMOS-04 | | |-----|----------|----|---|-----------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| 4.9 **** PREVIOUS SCOUT VEHICLE FLIGHTS **** PROGRAM INITIATION DATE: 1959 LAUNCHES TO DATE: 112 FIRST FLIGHT: 1960 LAUNCH VEHICLE SUCCESSES: 98 LAST 20 FLIGHTS _-------------_-----------------_--------------------_----------------_---------_ | | | | FINAL PAYLOAD | | | LAUNCH DATE | LAUNCH VEHICLE | SPACECRAFT | ORBIT ACHIEVED | NOTES | |-------------|-----------------|--------------------|----------------|---------| | 75 10 12 | S-195 | TIP 2 | LEO | SUCCESS | | 75 12 5 | S-196 | DAD | | FAILURE | | 76 05 22 | S-179 | AIR FORCE | LEO | SUCCESS | | 76 09 1 | S-197 | NAVY | LEO | SUCCESS | | 77 10 27 | S-200 | NAVY | LEO | SUCCESS | |-------------|-----------------|--------------------|----------------|---------| | 78 04 26 | S-201 | HCMM | LEO | SUCCESS | | 79 02 18 | S-202 | SAGE | LEO | SUCCESS | | 79 06 2 | S-198 | UK-6 | LEO | SUCCESS | | 79 10 30 | S-203 | MAGSAT | LEO | SUCCESS | | 81 05 14 | S-192 | NOVA I | LEO | SUCCESS | |-------------|-----------------|--------------------|----------------|---------| | 83 06 27 | S-205 | HILAT | LEO | SUCCESS | | 84 10 11 | S-208 | NOVA-III | LEO | SUCCESS | | 85 08 2 | S-209 | SOOS-I | LEO | SUCCESS | | 85 12 12 | S-207 | AFITV | LEO | SUCCESS | | 86 11 13 | S-199 | AF POLAR BEAR | LEO | SUCCESS | |-------------|-----------------|--------------------|----------------|---------| | 87 09 16 | S-209 | SOOS-2 | LEO | SUCCESS | | 88 03 25 | S-206 | SAN MARCO-DL | LEO | SUCCESS | | 88 04 25 | S-211 | SOOS-III | LEO | SUCCESS | | 88 06 15 | S-213 | NOVA-II | LEO | SUCCESS | | 88 08 25 | S-214 | SOOS-IV | LEO | SUCCESS | |-------------|-----------------|--------------------|----------------|---------| 4.10 **** PREVIOUS DELTA VEHICLE FLIGHTS **** PROGRAM INITIATION DATE: 1959 LAUNCHES TO DATE: 182 FIRST FLIGHT: 1960 LAUNCH VEHICLE SUCCESSES: 170 LAST 20 FLIGHTS _-------------_-----------------_--------------------_----------------_---------_ | | | | FINAL PAYLOAD | | | LAUNCH DATE | LAUNCH VEHICLE | SPACECRAFT | ORBIT ACHIEVED | NOTES | |-------------|-----------------|--------------------|----------------|---------| | 83 09 8 | 172 | RCA-6 | GSO | SUCCESS | | 83 09 22 | 173 | GALAXY-B | GSO | SUCCESS | | 84 03 1 | 174 | LANDSAT-D PRIME | SS | SUCCESS | | 84 08 16 | 175 | AMPTE | HE | SUCCESS | | 84 09 21 | 176 | GALAXY-C | GSO | SUCCESS | |-------------|-----------------|--------------------|----------------|---------| | 84 11 14 | 177 | NATO-3D | GSO | SUCCESS | | 86 05 3 | 178 | GOES-G | | FAILURE | | 86 09 5 | 180 | DOD-1 | LEO | SUCCESS | | 87 02 26 | 179 | GOES-H | GSO | SUCCESS | | 87 03 20 | 182 | PALAPA B2P | GSO | SUCCESS | |-------------|-----------------|--------------------|----------------|---------| | 88 02 8 | 181 | DOD-2 | LEO | SUCCESS | | 89 02 14 | 184 | NAVSTAR-1 | GSO | SUCCESS | | 89 03 24 | 183 | DOD-3/DELTA STAR | LEO | SUCCESS | | 89 06 10 | 185 | NAVSTAR-2 | GSO | SUCCESS | | 89 08 18 | 186 | NAVSTAR-3 | GSO | SUCCESS | |-------------|-----------------|--------------------|----------------|---------| | 89 08 27 | 187 | BSB-R1 | GSO | SUCCESS | | 89 10 21 | 188 | NAVSTAR-4 | GSO | SUCCESS | | 89 11 18 | 189 | COBE | LEO | SUCCESS | | 89 12 12 | 190 | NAVSTAR-5 | GSO | SUCCESS | | 90 01 24 | 191 | NAVSTAR-6 | GSO | SUCCESS | |-------------|-----------------|--------------------|----------------|---------| 4.11 **** PREVIOUS ATLAS CENTAUR VEHICLE FLIGHTS **** PROGRAM INITIATION DATE: 1958 LAUNCHES TO DATE: 66 FIRST FLIGHT: 1962 LAUNCH VEHICLE SUCCESSES: 56 LAST 20 FLIGHTS _-------------_-----------------_--------------------_----------------_---------_ | | | | FINAL PAYLOAD | | | LAUNCH DATE | LAUNCH VEHICLE | SPACECRAFT | ORBIT ACHIEVED | NOTES | |-------------|-----------------|--------------------|----------------|---------| | 78 11 13 | AC-52 | HEAO B | LEO | SUCCESS | | 79 05 4 | AC-47 | FLTSATCOM-2 | GSO | SUCCESS | | 79 09 20 | AC-53 | HEAO 3 | LEO | SUCCESS | | 80 01 17 | AC-49 | FLTSATCOM-3 | GSO | SUCCESS | | 80 10 30 | AC-57 | FLTSATCOM-4 | GSO | SUCCESS | |-------------|-----------------|--------------------|----------------|---------| | 80 12 6 | AC-54 | INTELSAT V | GSO | SUCCESS | | 81 02 21 | AC-42 | COMSTAR D-4 | GSO | SUCCESS | | 81 05 23 | AC-56 | INTELSAT V | GSO | SUCCESS | | 81 08 6 | AC-59 | FLTSATCOM-5 | GSO | SUCCESS | | 81 12 15 | AC-55 | INTELSAT V | GSO | SUCCESS | |-------------|-----------------|--------------------|----------------|---------| | 82 03 4 | AC-58 | INTELSAT V | GSO | SUCCESS | | 82 09 28 | AC-60 | INTELSAT V | GSO | SUCCESS | | 83 05 19 | AC-61 | INTELSAT V | GSO | SUCCESS | | 84 06 9 | AC-62 | INTELSAT V | | FAILURE | | 85 03 22 | AC-63 | INTELSAT VA | GSO | SUCCESS | |-------------|-----------------|--------------------|----------------|---------| | 85 06 29 | AC-64 | INTELSAT VA | GSO | SUCCESS | | 85 09 28 | AC-65 | INTELSAT VA | GSO | SUCCESS | | 86 12 4 | AC-66 | FLTSATCOM-7 | GSO | SUCCESS | | 87 03 26 | AC-67 | FLTSATCOM-6 | | FAILURE | | 89 09 25 | AC-68 | FLTSATCOM-8 | GSO | SUCCESS | |-------------|-----------------|--------------------|----------------|---------| 4.12 SECTION 5 PAYLOAD REQUESTS NOTES: 1. INCLUDES PRIMARY, COMPLEX SECONDARY, AND MANIFESTED NON-COMPLEX SECONDARY PAYLOADS. 2. REQUEST DATE: LAUNCH DATE REQUESTED BY THE PAYLOAD ORGANIZATION 3. FLIGHT DATE : LAUNCH DATE SHOWN IN THE MANIFEST. IF NOT MANIFESTED, NO DATE IS GIVEN. **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** _---------------------_-----------------_--------_-----------_--------------------_------------_---------_ | PAYLOAD | CARRIER |REQ DATE|FLIGHT DATE| VEHICLE | TYPE | SPONSOR | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | AAFE | UNIQUE | 94 08 | 94 08 25 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OAST | | ACE | TBD | 96 10 | | DELTA** | N/A | OSSA | | ACTS | TOS | 92 05 | 92 04 23 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | AFP-675 | PALLET | 89 03 | 92 01 23 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | DOD | | ALFE (STP-01) | HITCHHIKER-G | 89 07 | 92 01 23 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | DOD | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | AMOS-05 | MIDDECK LOCKER | 89 10 | 90 04 18 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY* | DOD | | AMOS-06 | MIDDECK LOCKER | 89 11 | 90 05 9 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY* | DOD | | AMOS-07 | MIDDECK LOCKER | 89 12 | 90 11 1 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY* | DOD | | APM-01 | UNIQUE | 89 02 | 90 04 18 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY* | DOD | | APM-02 | UNIQUE | 89 04 | 90 11 1 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY* | DOD | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | ASP | HITCHHIKER-G | 88 11 | 91 12 5 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | ESA | | ASTRO-01 | IG+2 PALLETS | 89 11 | 90 05 9 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | ASTRO-02** | IG+2 PALLETS | 93 07 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | ATDRS-01** | TBD | 97 12 | | INTERMEDIATE | N/A | OSO | | ATDRS-02** | TBD | 99 06 | | INTERMEDIATE | N/A | OSO | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | ATDRS-03** | TBD | 01 06 | | INTERMEDIATE | N/A | OSO | | ATDRS-04** | TBD | 03 06 | | INTERMEDIATE | N/A | OSO | | ATDRS-05** | TBD | 05 04 | | INTERMEDIATE | N/A | OSO | | ATDRS-06** | TBD | 07 01 | | INTERMEDIATE | N/A | OSO | | ATDRS-07** | TBD | 09 01 | | INTERMEDIATE | N/A | OSO | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | ATDRS-08** | TBD | 10 12 | | INTERMEDIATE | N/A | OSO | | ATDRS-09** | TBD | 12 08 | | INTERMEDIATE | N/A | OSO | | ATLAS-01 | IG+2 PALLETS | 91 03 | 91 04 4 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | ATLAS-02 | IG+1 PALLET | 92 07 | 92 06 18 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | ATLAS-03 | IG+1 PALLET | 93 07 | 93 04 15 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| * Non-complex secondary payload ** For NASA planning purposes 5.1 **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** _---------------------_-----------------_--------_-----------_--------------------_------------_---------_ | PAYLOAD | CARRIER |REQ DATE|FLIGHT DATE| VEHICLE | TYPE | SPONSOR | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | ATLAS-04 | IG+1 PALLET | 94 04 | 94 03 17 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | ATLAS-05** | IG+1 PALLET | 95 06 | 95 09 7 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | ATLAS-06** | IG+1 PALLET | 96 06 | 96 08 15 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | AXAF | UNIQUE | 97 04 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | AXAF-R1 | FSS | 02 04 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | AXAF-R2 | FSS | 07 04 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | AXAF-R3 | FSS | 12 04 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | BBXRT-01 | TAPS | 89 11 | 90 05 9 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | BBXRT-02** | TAPS | 93 07 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | BIOPLATFORM-01** | N/A | 98 01 | | MEDIUM** | N/A | OSF | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | CANEX-02 | UNIQUE | 85 12 | 92 04 23 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | CANADA | | CAPL | HITCHHIKER-G | 91 01 | 92 12 10 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSF | | CASSINI | CENTAUR | 96 04 | 96 04 | TITAN IV | N/A | OSSA | | CETA | UNIQUE | 90 06 | 90 11 1 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSF | | CHROMEX-02 | MIDDECK LOCKER | 90 02 | 90 10 5 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY* | OSSA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | CMG-04 | MAR | 92 07 | 93 05 6 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | CMG-05 | MAR | 92 07 | 93 10 22 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | CMG-06** | MAR | 92 10 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | CMG-07 | MAR | 93 04 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | CMG-08** | MAR | 93 07 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | CMG-09** | MAR | 94 04 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | CMG-10 | MAR | 93 10 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | CMSE/E | HITCHHIKER-G | 91 04 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | COLDSAT** | N/A | 97 06 | | DELTA** | N/A | OAST | | CRAF | CENTAUR | 95 08 | 95 08 | TITAN IV | N/A | OSSA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| * Non-complex secondary payload ** For NASA planning purposes 5.2 **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** _---------------------_-----------------_--------_-----------_--------------------_------------_---------_ | PAYLOAD | CARRIER |REQ DATE|FLIGHT DATE| VEHICLE | TYPE | SPONSOR | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | CRRES | N/A | 90 05 | 90 06 | ATLAS CENTAUR | N/A | OSSA | | CSI/CASES** | PALL+MPESS | 96 10 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OAST | | CTM | HITCHHIKER-G | 89 06 | 94 10 6 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | ESA | | CVTE-01 | MAR | 91 02 | 91 01 31 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | CVTE-02 | MAR | 92 02 | 92 02 13 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | CVTE-03 | MAR | 92 12 | 92 12 10 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | CXH-03 | HITCHHIKER-M | 92 11 | 93 02 25 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | CXH-06 | HITCHHIKER-M | 94 09 | 94 06 2 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | CXH-07 | HITCHHIKER-M | 95 06 | 96 01 11 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | CXH-08** | HITCHHIKER-M | 96 03 | 96 07 18 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | CXM-01** | MPESS | 91 10 | 93 05 6 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | CXM-02** | MPESS | 92 01 | 94 02 24 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | CXM-03** | MPESS | 92 01 | 94 05 12 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | CXM-04** | MPESS | 92 10 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | CXM-05** | MPESS | 93 01 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | CXM-06** | MPESS | 93 04 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | CXM-07** | MPESS | 93 10 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | CXM-08** | MPESS | 94 04 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | CXM-09** | MPESS | 94 10 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | CXM-10** | MPESS | 95 04 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | CXP-01 | PALLET | 91 04 | 93 10 22 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | CXP-02 | PALLET | 91 10 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OCP | | DCWS** | PALLET | 94 10 | 96 01 11 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OAST | | DEE | GAS BEAM | 91 01 | 92 10 29 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSF | | DOD-04 | UNIQUE | 90 02 | 90 02 22 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | DOD | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| * Non-complex secondary payload ** For NASA planning purposes 5.3 **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** _---------------------_-----------------_--------_-----------_--------------------_------------_---------_ | PAYLOAD | CARRIER |REQ DATE|FLIGHT DATE| VEHICLE | TYPE | SPONSOR | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | DOD-05 | UNIQUE | 90 07 | 90 07 9 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | DOD | | DOD-06 | UNIQUE | 91 03 | 91 03 4 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | DOD | | DXS | HITCHHIKER-G | 91 12 | 91 12 5 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSSA | | EOIM-III-02 | MPESS | 91 01 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSF | | EOIM-III-03 | MPESS | 92 06 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSF | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | EOIM-III-04 | MPESS | 94 01 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSF | | EOIM-III/TEMP2A-03 | MPESS | 91 05 | 91 05 16 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSF | | EOIM-IV | MPESS | 92 05 | 93 07 22 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSF | | EOS-I | N/A | 97 12 | | TITAN IV | N/A | OSF | | EOS-II | N/A | 00 06 | | TITAN IV** | N/A | OSF | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | EOS-III** | TBD | 02 12 | | TITAN IV** | N/A | OSF | | EOS-IV** | TBD | 05 06 | | TITAN IV** | N/A | OSF | | EOS-V** | TBD | 07 12 | | TITAN IV** | N/A | OSF | | EOS-VI** | TBD | 10 06 | | TITAN IV** | N/A | OSF | | EURECA-1L | EURECA-A | 90 09 | 91 05 16 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | ESA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | EURECA-1R | EURECA-A | 91 03 | 92 02 13 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | ESA | | EURECA-2L | EURECA-A | 93 01 | 93 05 6 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | ESA | | EURECA-2R | EURECA-A | 93 06 | 93 11 12 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | ESA | | EURECA-3L | EURECA-A | 95 06 | 96 01 11 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | ESA | | EURECA-3R | EURECA-A | 95 12 | 96 07 18 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | ESA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | EUVE | N/A | 91 08 | 91 08 | DELTA | N/A | ESA | | EUVE RETR | FSS | 94 02 | 94 02 24 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | FAST | N/A | 93 12 | 93 12 | SCOUT | N/A | OSSA | | FR-01** | HITCHHIKER-G | 92 06 | 94 06 2 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | TBD | | FR-02** | HITCHHIKER-G | 92 06 | 96 07 18 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | TBD | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| * Non-complex secondary payload ** For NASA planning purposes 5.4 **** PAYLOAD REQUESTS **** _---------------------_-----------------_--------_-----------_--------------------_------------_---------_ | PAYLOAD | CARRIER |REQ DATE|FLIGHT DATE| VEHICLE | TYPE | SPONSOR | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | FR-03** | HITCHHIKER-G | 92 06 | | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | TBD | | FTS-DTF-01 | UNIQUE | 91 09 | 91 12 5 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSF | | FTS-DTF-02 | UNIQUE | 93 01 | 93 10 22 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | OSF | | FUSE | FSS | 98 01 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | | GEOSTAR-01 | PAM-D2 | 91 08 | 92 02 13 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | GEOSTAR | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | GEOSTAR-02 | PAM-D2 | 92 02 | 92 09 3 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | GEOSTAR | | GEOSTAR-03 | PAM-D2 | 92 08 | 93 02 25 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | GEOSTAR | | GEOTAIL | N/A | 92 07 | 92 07 | DELTA | N/A | OSSA | | GOES-I | N/A | 91 06 | 91 06 | ATLAS I | N/A | OSSA | | GOES-J | N/A | 92 02 | 92 02 | ATLAS I | N/A | OSSA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | GOES-K | N/A | 95 07 | 95 07 | ATLAS I | N/A | OSSA | | GOES-L | N/A | 97 02 | | ATLAS I | N/A | OSSA | | GOES-M | N/A | 00 07 | | ATLAS I | N/A | OSSA | | GP-B** | N/A | 96 06 | | DELTA** | N/A | OSSA | | GRO | N/A | 90 01 | 90 11 1 | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | OSSA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | HC-10 | UNIQUE | 88 10 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | HUGHES | | HC-11 | UNIQUE | 88 05 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | HUGHES | | HC-12 | UNIQUE | 89 02 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | HUGHES | | HC-13 | UNIQUE | 89 06 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | HUGHES | | HC-14 | UNIQUE | 89 11 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | HUGHES | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| | HC-15 | UNIQUE | 90 06 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | HUGHES | | HC-16 | UNIQUE | 90 11 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | HUGHES | | HC-17 | UNIQUE | 91 06 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | HUGHES | | HC-18 | UNIQUE | 91 11 | | SHUTTLE | PRIMARY | HUGHES | | HPE | HITCHHIKER-G | 89 02 | 93 03 18 | SHUTTLE | SECONDARY | ESA | |---------------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|--------------------|------------|---------| * Non-complex secondary payload ** For NASA planning purposes 5.5 --------------------------------------- From: LANG@UNB.CA Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Death of GEOSAT Date: 1 Feb 90 04:04:55 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet GEOSAT is Dead. Long live Geodesy! ----------------------------------- With a primary mission of 1.5 years, a design life of 3 years, and a secondary mission lasting 3 years, GEOSAT has finally failed after providing over 4.5 years of global altimetry measurements. The final failure was due to the power (which has been decreasing for some time) finally falling below the minimum operational level. The mission was officially declared over on 5 January 1990. GEOSAT, built and managed by the Applied Physics Laboratory of Johns Hopkins University under contract to the Naval Research Laboratory and the Naval Electronics Systems Command, was launched on 12 March 1985 from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. (Source: Memo from Jack Calman dated 5 January 1990 on behalf of the JHU/APL GEOSAT Program Office) ======================================================================== Richard B. Langley BITnet: LANG@UNB.CA or SE@UNB.CA Geodetic Research Laboratory Phone: (506) 453-5142 Dept. of Surveying Engineering Telex: 014-46202 University of New Brunswick FAX: (506) 453-4943 Fredericton, N.B., Canada E3B 5A3 ======================================================================== --------------------------------------- From: aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Overheard at the hearings by a congressional aide Date: 1 Feb 90 15:24:43 GMT Sender: news@itivax.iti.org Reply-To: aws@vax3.UUCP (Allen W. Sherzer) Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow From Spacelines (midwestern NSS chapter newsletter) Feb. 90: When mention of COMSTAC (a private industry group to establish prudent launch vehicle design standards) came up in testimony, one of the NASA reps present leaned over to another within the group and said, "They're the enemy!" - From Andy Cutler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Allen W. Sherzer | Cthulhu for President - | | aws@iti.org | If you're tired of choosing the LESSER of 2 evils | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------