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 ; Thu, 7 Jun 1990 01:57:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 7 Jun 1990 01:57:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #499 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 499 Today's Topics: 2001/2010 and Gravity in the Pod Bay ASRM USSR's Krystall module has problems that put off docking to Mir Re: HAWAII AND STAR WARS Re: DSN Reliability and Resources Question Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Jun 90 19:54:24 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Mark.Perew@ucsd.edu (Mark Perew) Subject: 2001/2010 and Gravity in the Pod Bay First, yes, I know that this is horrbily off-topic Sometime ago I made a remark about giving Arthur C. Clarke some artistic license over the issue of the size, speed, position of the "wheel" on board the Discovery. I also snidely pointed out that there was gravity in the pod bay. Another user countered this by saying that there was no gravity and that they used velcro sections in the pod bay to avoid floating around. Well, I finally have reviewed both movies and have discovered that we were both correct. In 2001 the use of velcro in the pod bay is establish (albeit by implication and foreshadowing, not by direct statement or observation). However, if you will check 2010 at 0/1:07:14 MET [Movie Elaped Time :-)] you will observe that the director of 2010 blew it. Here and in subsequent places you will see the characters blithfully walking across the *shiny* pod bay floor (it was dull in 2001) without paying any attention to where the velcro sections were placed in 2001. Thank you. --- Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Universal Electronics, Inc. (1:103/302.0) -- uucp: Mark Perew Internet: Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 90 20:01:28 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Mark.Perew@ucsd.edu (Mark Perew) Subject: ASRM I'm curious about NASA's decision to persue the ASRM. The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel report is somewhat critical of the project in its latest report. For example, it has not yet been determined exaxtly how the ET attach ring will have to be changed in order to support a larger and heavier SRB. Also, in light of the fact that "there are no survivable abort modes" during SRB firing, why would NASA want to a larger and heavier (and presumably longer firing - although I'm not sure about this) SRB? Have there been any studies on replacing the SRBs with liquid fueled systems? Or, what about hybird-systems using solid fuel pellets and liquid oxidizer? It seems to me that in the interests of safety NASA should be getting as far away from SRB's for manned flight as possible. Thanks. --- Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Universal Electronics, Inc. (1:103/302.0) -- uucp: Mark Perew Internet: Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jun 90 20:37:26 -0400 From: Glenn Chapman To: SVAF524@UTXVM.BITNET, biro%css.dec@decwrl.dec.com, isg@bfmny0.BFM.COM, klaes%wrksys.dec@decwrl.dec.com, lepage@vostok.dec.com, space-editors-new@andrew.cmu.edu, yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu Subject: USSR's Krystall module has problems that put off docking to Mir Problems have occurred on the Soviet Union's Krystall, a new 19.5 Tonne expansion module for their Mir space station. Launched successfully on May 31 all systems seemed operational until today (June 6). Then Vermya, Moscow Nightly television news, ran a piece from the space control center talking about problems with the craft (which I could not follow) and showed a number of worried looking people. Radio Moscow on the evening of June 6th then announced that the docking had been delayed until "next wednesday" (June 13) due to a failure of an attitude control rocket on Krystall. This requires a reprogramming of the on board docking computers before the rather tricky docking with the Mir space station's forward ball docking port. Docking will take place on the axis and then Krystall will be transferred to the side port opposite the Kvant 2 expansion module. This means there has been a problem with all three modules launched to Mir. Kvant 1 in Mar. '87 had a piece of plastic stuck to its docking mechanism which required a space walk to remove. Then Kvant 2 in Nov. '89 suffered a failure of a solar panel to deploy properly. By maneuvering the craft they successfully locked the solar array in place and completed the docking. This suggests they will probably succeed with Krystall as well. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 90 17:54:39 GMT From: decvax.dec.com!jfcl.dec.com!imokay.dec.com!borsom@mcnc.org (Doug Borsom) Subject: Re: HAWAII AND STAR WARS In article <1990Jun4.152953.10843@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >You're confusing proofs with good examples. The fact that Kennedy Space >Center (there is no Cape Kennedy nowadays) includes a thriving wildlife >refuge (it does; I've been there) is not sufficient to prove that the >Hawaii launch site would have similar results. However, it *is* quite >sufficient to shoot down the claim that vast ecological devastation >would inevitably ensue. No confusion. I agree that any claim "that vast ecological devastation would inevitably ensue" is unsupported by the arguments presented and is reasonably refuted by counter postings. Unfortunately, saying there will not be inevitable vast ecological devastation isn't very useful in deciding whether the proposal is acceptable from an environmental standpoint. An assesment of the ecological impact is the question here, and it has not been well addressed by those on either side of the argument. >Subject to constraints of honesty and good taste, one does one's best to >match the tone and intellectual respectability of the original posting. Nicely stated. But you're far too modest. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 90 15:49:26 GMT From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Subject: Re: DSN Reliability and Resources Question In article <3945@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > >JPL Deep Space Network's 26 meter antennas are used as backup tracking >stations for the Space Shuttle and the Hubble Space Telescope. That's tracking; what about control? Can JPL communicate with Hubble and initiate viewing sequences? I assume everything goes through TDRS for flight control...or does it? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #499 *******************