Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Wed, 4 Apr 90 02:45:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 02:45:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #218 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 218 Today's Topics: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format Re: Shuttle Designs NASA Headline News for 04/03/90 (Forwarded) Re: Challenger Report question Re: Comparative Costs to LEO Shuttle Extender (was Re: NASA Headline News for 04/03/90 (Forwarded) Re: Quick launches ( was: Intelsat / Titan Failure ) Magellan Update - 04/03/90 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Apr 90 18:39:25 GMT From: ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@lll-winken.llnl.gov (TS Kelso) Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format As a service to the satellite user community, the following description of the NASA Prediction Bulletin's two-line orbital element set format is uploaded to sci.space on a monthly basis. The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times weekly. Documentation and tracking software are also available on this system. The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. ============================================================================== Data for each satellite consists of three lines in the following format: AAAAAAAAAAA 1 NNNNNU NNNNNAAA NNNNN.NNNNNNNN +.NNNNNNNN +NNNNN-N +NNNNN-N N NNNNN 2 NNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NNNNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NN.NNNNNNNNNNNNNN Line 1 is a eleven-character name. Lines 2 and 3 are the standard Two-Line Orbital Element Set Format identical to that used by NASA and NORAD. The format description is: Line 2 Column Description 01-01 Line Number of Element Data 03-07 Satellite Number 10-11 International Designator (Last two digits of launch year) 12-14 International Designator (Launch number of the year) 15-17 International Designator (Piece of launch) 19-20 Epoch Year (Last two digits of year) 21-32 Epoch (Julian Day and fractional portion of the day) 34-43 First Time Derivative of the Mean Motion or Ballistic Coefficient (Depending on ephemeris type) 45-52 Second Time Derivative of Mean Motion (decimal point assumed; blank if N/A) 54-61 BSTAR drag term if GP4 general perturbation theory was used. Otherwise, radiation pressure coefficient. (Decimal point assumed) 63-63 Ephemeris type 65-68 Element number 69-69 Check Sum (Modulo 10) (Letters, blanks, periods = 0; minus sign = 1; plus sign = 2) Line 3 Column Description 01-01 Line Number of Element Data 03-07 Satellite Number 09-16 Inclination [Degrees] 18-25 Right Ascension of the Ascending Node [Degrees] 27-33 Eccentricity (decimal point assumed) 35-42 Argument of Perigee [Degrees] 44-51 Mean Anomaly [Degrees] 53-63 Mean Motion [Revs per day] 64-68 Revolution number at epoch [Revs] 69-69 Check Sum (Modulo 10) All other columns are blank or fixed. Example: NOAA 6 1 11416U 86 50.28438588 0.00000140 67960-4 0 5293 2 11416 98.5105 69.3305 0012788 63.2828 296.9658 14.24899292346978 Note that the International Designator fields are usually blank, as issued in the NASA Prediction Bulletins. -- Dr TS Kelso Assistant Professor of Space Operations tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil Air Force Institute of Technology ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 90 20:50:45 GMT From: network.ucsd.edu!celit!dave@ucsd.edu (Dave Smith) Subject: Re: Shuttle Designs In article web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes: > >In article <9004021845.AA00131@ti.com> mccall@skvax1.csc.ti.com writes: > >Had the promises been based on the detailed design which you [mccall] claim >existed, it is unlikely that they would have been so wildly inaccurate. > Why would this be so? His claim is that the original design, which would have been much more costly in terms of development, would have fulfilled these promises. Given that there was a detailed design study done, the wildly inaccurate claims occured when the promises of the first design were applied to the performance of the final vehicle, which had been flawed in order to keep development costs down. I remember seeing a lot of different proposals for the Shuttle system. I'm not sure how far any of them actually went in design, but a number of the ones I saw were fully reusable and may have given a lower cost to orbit, turn-around time, etc than the one that was built. How about Fred or Henry giving a couple of references as to where this detailed design was done? Was there a better design done (and studied) that was chucked, or was there just a set of promises and a design that got increasingly bastardized? Tune in same BatTime, same BatChannel for the exciting answers. P.S. Let's keep those personal flames coming! This is almost threatning to be a rational newsgroup, and we wouldn't want that, would we? -- David L. Smith FPS Computing, San Diego ucsd!celerity!dave or dave@fps.com "We are a bigger musical genius than any Bob Dylan" - Milli Vanilli ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 90 18:31:13 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA Headline News for 04/03/90 (Forwarded) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tuesday, April 3, 1990 Audio service: 202/755-1788 ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is NASA Headline News for Tuesday, April 3...... Technicians are surveying damage that resulted from a broken water pipe in a support building next to the Vehicle Assembly Building at Kennedy Space Center, yesterday. It's not believed the mishap will delay launch of Discovery on April 10. A deluge of water caused an electrical short-circuit shutting down a variety of computer operations and temporarily halting work on STS-31 launch preparations. A back up power system at Launch Pad 39-B kept the air conditioning system working for the Hubble Space Telescope, but battery charging for the telescope was stopped. The orbiter was powered up at 6:30 A.M., Eastern time, today, and pad workers are continuing pre-launch processing. Launch is scheduled for 8:47 A.M., EDT, on April 10. Landing at Edwards Air Force Base is scheduled for 10:02 A.M., Sunday, April 15. * * Rockwell International will provide NASA with an equipment pallet designed to extend Space Shuttle missions for periods up to 16 days. Rockwell and NASA have inked an agreement which calls for the aerospace firm to build the extended duration orbiter pallet. Rockwell will fund design and construction. NASA, after receiving the platform in 1991, will pay the firm in three annual installments. Initial use is scheduled for 1992. * * NASA and National Science Foundation representatives testify today before the Senate's Science, Technology and Space subcommittee on the agency's Mission to Planet Earth program. NASA Associate Admininstrator Lennard Fiske and Dr. Robert Corell, of the National Science Foundation, will discuss the program with senators. * * The maiden flight of the winged Pegasus orbital booster remains on schedule for Wednesday afternoon. The payload--to be deployed into a polar orbit--contains a small satellite, an instrumentation package and two barium canisters. NASA Select TV coverage of the mission begins at 1:00 P.M., EDT, Wednesday. Launch is expected about 3:10 P.M. ************** ----------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the broadcast schedule for Public Affairs events on NASA Select TV. All times are Eastern. Wednesday, April 4...... 1:00 P.M. Coverage starts of the B-52 deployment of the Pegasus orbital booster. Aircraft departure at 2:00 P.M. EDT; Air launch at about 3:10 P.M. Note: a time change for NASA Update Friday, April 6..... 11:30 A.M. Because of priority use of the transponder, NASA Update will be transmitted at 11:30 A.M., Friday, April 6. Sunday, April 15.... [My guess is that should be the 8th, not the 15th. -PEY] 9:00 A.M. STS-31 pre-launch mission status briefing. 9:30 A.M. Mission specific briefings begin on Hubble Space Telescope. 1:30 P.M. Secondary payloads briefing Monday, April 9..... 11:00 a.m. L-1 STS-31 pre-launch press conference Detailed briefing schedule will be filed tomorrow. All events and times are subject to change without notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------- These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon, EDT. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A service of the Internal Communications Branch, NASA HQ. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 90 23:37:00 GMT From: orc!bu.edu!mirror!frog!john@decwrl.dec.com (John Woods) Subject: Re: Challenger Report question In article <480@argus.mrcu>, paj@mrcu (Paul Johnson) writes: > >I understand that Feynman wrote an addendum to the report that > >put stronger blame on the parties involved. I recently checked > >the Challenger Commission report out of the library and Feynman's > >addendum was not in it. Does anyone know where I could find it? > I am disappointed but not too surprised to hear that the Feynman > appendix has been removed from the report. According to Feynman in > WDYCWOPT, Rogers did not want it in there in the first place and tried > all sorts of tricks to get it out or at least toned down. Only when > Feynman threatened to refuse to sign the report did Rogers back down. The "Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident" is a 5 volume set, in which only Volume 1 and the famous Appendix F of Volume 2 are interesting (Volumes 2 and 3 are mostly investigative team reports, volumes 4 and 5 are the transcripts of the hearings). Did your library have only volume 1? (The NSS, for example, only sells volume 1). Anyway, as many people have pointed out, a slightly-expanded version appears in "What Do You Care What Other People Think", along with the extremely entertaining chapter, "Mr. Feynman Goes To Washington". -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 90 15:35:23 GMT From: wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@decwrl.dec.com (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Comparative Costs to LEO In article <652@idacrd.UUCP> mac@idacrd.UUCP (Robert McGwier) writes: >> ... Space is not just comsats and spooks. > >I agree. That doesn't change what I believe to be a statement of fact and >that is the preponderance of launches into LEO are polar, etc. Can you back that up with numbers? I'm skeptical. (If we're being picky, I'm sure it's untrue, because the preponderance of launches are the smaller Soviet boosters going into medium-inclination orbits, but if we're talking Western launches, I'm unsure but skeptical.) -- Apollo @ 8yrs: one small step.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology Space station @ 8yrs: .| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 90 00:17:23 GMT From: ogicse!zephyr.ens.tek.com!wrgate!mrloog!dant@ucsd.edu (Dan Tilque) Subject: Shuttle Extender (was Re: NASA Headline News for 04/03/90 (Forwarded) yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: > >This is NASA Headline News for Tuesday, April 3...... > > >Rockwell International will provide NASA with an equipment pallet >designed to extend Space Shuttle missions for periods up to 16 >days. Rockwell and NASA have inked an agreement which calls for >the aerospace firm to build the extended duration orbiter >pallet. Can someone tell me how long the shuttle will be able to stay up with this extender pallet? (Hmm, needs a name... how about Shuttle Helper...) Currently the longest shuttle flight has been something like 10+ days. Will the Shuttle Helper add 16 days to that (giving 26 days) or just add 6 days giving 16 days total? Somehow, I get the feeling that it's the latter. --- Dan Tilque -- dant@mrloog.WR.TEK.COM ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 90 00:42:57 GMT From: serre@boulder.colorado.edu (SERRE GLENN) Subject: Re: Quick launches ( was: Intelsat / Titan Failure ) Fred McCall responds to an earlier posting: >[Actually, as far as I'm concerned, we need a vehicle that can be >loaded in a matter of days, and that can take off empty in less than >24 hours from the time the decision is made to go, including fueling >and moving to the pad. I'm not even sure that it's possible to go >that quick with anything that has any real size to it, but a design >for a vehicle that could should definitely be explored.] > Actually, Titan II, Commercial Titan, or Titan IV could meet your quick launch criteria. The propellents for stages I and II are Aerozine 50 (a hydrazine mix) and nitrogen tetroxide, both of which are storable. The only thing you'd need would be a place to store the fully assembled rocket and a transporter system big enough to carry the whole thing. If Range Safety allowed, you could even store stages I and II with the fuel already loaded ( but I'd hate to be around during transport.). Now that I think about it, most of the other launch vehicles (Delta, Atlas, maybe even the shuttle) could probably do this. The problem is not the launch vehicle, but the management and support systems that are required to launch a rocket these days. --Glenn Serre serre@tramp.colorado.edu ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 90 00:49:54 GMT From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!hp-sdd!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Magellan Update - 04/03/90 Magellan Mission Status Report April 3, 1990 The Magellan spacecraft is now 105,455,042 miles from Earth, 41,408,204 miles from Venus, and traveling at a heliocentric speed of 61,997 miles/hour. One way light time is 9 minutes 27 seconds. Magellan continues in normal, quiet cruise mode. All Starcals were successful and the attitude updates averaged .058 degrees. Two significant uploads were successfully accomplished. The first was a change to the filler bit pattern which the Command and Data Subsystem (CDS) puts in the telemetry stream just prior to the high rate playback frame synch word, to assist in solving the "slip-a-bit, flip-a-bit" problem on the Data Management Subsystem (DMS) playback. The other was the background filter in the Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem (AACS-A) to correct the type A spurious interrupts from the Star Tracker Unit believed caused by high energy photons. The B-side filter was uploaded on March 26. On April 2, new AACS parameters were updated for earth-point, cruise and sun polynomials for the Cruise 21 sequence. Cruise 21 will last through April 23. 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 | ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #218 *******************