Message-ID: <kZsXPXW00VcJ45OE5i@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 01:36:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #69

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 11 : Issue 69

Today's Topics:
			 Spacecraft on Venus
      UCAR to study possible uses of external tanks (Forwarded)
			 re: Radio Astronomy
	       Mission Technical Briefs, Info Requested
		      Re: Space Shuttle Question
			    Giotto is back
			Gravity-assist sources
	  Re: Fun Space Fact #1: Launcher Development Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 90 18:02:47 GMT
From: @decwrl.dec.com  (N = R*fgfpneflfifaL 20-Feb-1990 1302)
Subject: Spacecraft on Venus


    	What would it take - in terms of alloys, etc. - for a manned
    spacecraft to survive on the planet Venus?  Keep in mind that
    this world contains an atmosphere of carbon dioxide and sulfuric
    acid, an atmospheric pressure ninety times that of Earth, and
    a surface temperature capable of melting lead.

    	No Soviet or American lander has yet survived longer than a
    few hours on this hellish planet.  What would it take to keep
    such a craft functioning for days and weeks, even months?  Would
    there be any way to construct a permanent base, keeping in mind
    that the Venusian climate cannot be changed any time soon.

    	Larry Klaes

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 90 19:52:25 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: UCAR to study possible uses of external tanks (Forwarded)

Ed Campion
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                 February 20, 1990


RELEASE:  90-26

UCAR TO STUDY POSSIBLE USES OF EXTERNAL TANKS

     The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and 
the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), 
Boulder, Colo., have signed an agreement under which NASA will 
support UCAR's exploration of the feasibility of using Shuttle 
external tanks (ETs) as research, storage or manufacturing 
facilities in low-Earth orbit.

     Under the agreement, UCAR has the main responsibility to 
address the issues associated with their planned orbital use of 
external tanks.  NASA's support of UCAR's efforts is on a direct 
cost, reimbursable basis.

     The ET is a structure (154 feet long, 28.6 feet in diameter) 
which is used to carry the 500,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen and 
oxygen used with 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 ETs.  This activity is part of NASA's effort to 
seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest 
commercial use of space.

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 20 Feb 90 19:27 CST
From: <CH02079%SWTEXAS.BITNET@vma.cc.cmu.edu>
Subject:  re: Radio Astronomy


In SPACE Digest, vol. 11, issue 28, Thomas Lapp writes:

>The article also goes on to talk about other radio observatories in the
>world.  The only problem I have is the glaring omission of the Green
>Bank Radio Observatory located in Green Bank, West Virginia.  Green Bank
>is operated by the NRAO (who also built the VLA in New Mexico.  Green
>Bank had (until it collapsed last year) a 300 ft. diameter dish which
>was steerable in one axis.  It also has three 85-foot dishes, one which
>is permanent and two which can move along a one mile-long track.  The
>three 85-foot dishes are used for interferometry, which as the article
>describes, is a method of making several small telescopes "look" like
>one large one.

Green Bank was NOT omitted. It is _part_ of the National Radio Astronomy
Observatory. NRAO also includes its main office in Charlottesville, VA,
the VLA, the VLBA (under construction), and the 12-meter telescope at Kitt
Peak, AZ. The 140-ft and the former 300-ft telescopes belong to NRAO, but
the interferometer is now run by the Navy.

>The Green Bank site was one of the major radio observatory sites until the
>VLA was built, at which time it became rather a "second billing" site.

It depends on what sort of science you want to do. If you want high
resolution, you go to the VLA. But single-dish work is still going strong.
And don't worry -- the 300-ft is being replaced by a fully-steerable 100-m
telescope, so that will definitely breathe new life into the dreary place.

>>Disclaimer: Yeah, I *did* grow up in West Virginia, so I *do* know
>>            what I'm talking about.  I've even been there three
>>            times to visit, so there.
>>                         - tom

I've been there, too, and not as a tourist. Apparently you don't know
entirely about it. What you wrote sounds like it came from one of those
ghastly pamphlets they have lying around the front office of the Jansky Lab.

Cheryl Hoefelmeyer
Southwest Texas State University
bitnet: ch02079@swtexas.bitnet

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 90 16:13:03 GMT
From: rochester!kodak!eastman!hpcore!gerwitz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Gerwitz)
Subject: Mission Technical Briefs, Info Requested

Back in the Apollo days I remember sending away to the Gov. Printing Office
or NASA for technical books on each mission.  They were about 100 pages long,
with drawings of the lunar experiment packages, mission timetables etc.

Is there anything of a similar nature available for the shuttle missions.
I am trying to put together a collection of these for my kid's school
science programs.  You may email of post, I will summarize in several
weeks.


 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Paul F Gerwitz  WA2WPI  | SMTP: gerwitz@kodak.com                          |
 | Eastman Kodak Co        | UUCP: ..rutgers!rochester!kodak!eastman!gerwitz  |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 90 15:38:51 GMT
From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hp-pcd!hpcvia!10e@ucsd.edu  (Steven_Tenney)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Question

Thanks to all of you who posted responses to my questions.  The info will
be very useful.

Steve Tenney

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 09:04:31 SET
From: ESC1325%ESOC.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Comment: CROSSNET mail via SMTP@INTERBIT
Subject: Giotto is back

Date: 20 February 1990, 08:28:26 SET
From: Lutz Massonne             +49 6151 886 701     ESC1325  at ESOC
To:   SPACE@ANGBAND.S1.GOV
Subject: Giotto is back again

As romours spread yesterday from our control room :-) the reactivation
of the Giotto spacecraft is successfully on the way.
The Giotto spacecraft had been put into "hibernation" shortly after
the Halley encounter. This means the spacecraft is in a attitude with its
spin axis perpendicular to the obital plane. Therefore the high gain
was not pointing to Earth anymore.
Commanding the spacecraft was still possibl, using a sufficiently powrful
ground station. Therefore a set of telecommands was sent yesterday
to initiate Earth reacquisition, and the Giotto carrier signal was
recevied yesterday evening.

If hopefully also the telemetry will be received, the spacecraft checkout
can begin.

Disclaimer: This information is not valid until officially released
            by ESA Public Relations :-)


 +===================================+===============================+
 | Lutz Massonne                     |   ESC1325@ESOC.BITNET         |
 | mbp Software&Systems GmbH         |   +49 6151 886 701            |
 | Orbit Attitude Division           |                               |
 | European Space Operations Centre  |This mail expresses my personal|
 | Robert-Bosch Str. 5               |opinion only, neither ESA's nor|
 | D-6100 Darmstadt, FRG             |mbp's.                         |
 +===================================+===============================+

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 90 06:20:26 GMT
From: honp7@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (A JETSON News User)
Subject: Gravity-assist sources


  All the talk recently about gravity-assist mechanisms finally got
to much for me and I went-a-diggin' around the library.  One good thing
about Houston is the excess of NASA doc's around.  Here's a list
of sources for anyone who's interested.  A working knowledge of
mechanics, vectors, and some calculus is handy.

M. A. Minovitch, _The DEtermination and Characteristics of Ballistic
Interplanetary Trajectories Under the Influence of Multiple Planetary
Attractions_, Technical Report 32-464, Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
Pasadena, Calif., Oct, 1963.

The title says all.  Starts of with the basics and works its way up.
Very good.  It has a companion article:

M. Minovitch,_Utilizing Large Planetary Perubations for the Design
of Deep-Space Solar-Probe and Out of Ecliptic Trajectories_, Technical
Report 32-849, JPL, Pasadena, Calif., 1965.

You need to read the first one first to realy understand this one.
It does include a _short_ summary if you can only find the second.

BTW, I didn't know it, but the pre-Challenger plan was a flight
with a gravity assist from Mars.  None of this see-the-solar-system-
in-six-years stuff.
If anyone knows of any other really good articles, please let me know.
Enjoy.

Eddie McCreary
U. of Houston        "My mind is going, my mind is going, my mi..."
honp7@elroy.uh.edu                                          HAL

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 90 18:06:49 GMT
From: agate!usenet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: Fun Space Fact #1: Launcher Development Costs

In article <9002162147.AA15080@ti.com>, mccall@skvax1 (Constitutional rights? We don't need no stinking Constitutional rights!) writes:
>			        the Shuttle "doesn't work very well".
>What this really means, of course, is that the Shuttle isn't what it
>was billed as when the money for it was justified to Congress.  But
>then, it was Congress that kept cutting back the funding for it,
>wasn't it?

This is one of the myths that constantly circulates among space
pacifists.  If only Congress gave NASA enough money everything would be
fine.  The reason this myth persists is that too many people accept this
statement as fact without checking the facts.  Go read the congressional
record around the time of the original shuttle appropriations.  In
particular, look for questions by Rep. Karch from Minnesota.  NASA made
absurd predictions about what the shuttle would do and how much it would
cost.  (they are recycling some of their original claims in support of
NASP)

Check your facts *before* you post.  You might even need to read an
article twice: first to find out what it says, and again to respond
*after* going away to check the facts.  This is of course contrary to
the spirit of newsgroup reading, which is normally an exercise in
eye-hand coordination bypassing the remainder of the brain.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU   
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V11 #69
*******************