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 ; Fri, 29 Jun 1990 03:17:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 29 Jun 1990 03:16:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #584 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 584 Today's Topics: Please write to support SEI funding Re: Spacelab costs, pricing politics Re: Is there a backup HST mirror ??? Re: Is there a backup HST mirror ??? (see sci.astro) Re: Public Perception Of Space NASA chooses industry/university In-Space Technology studies (Forwarded) Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing Who saw the HST news conference? Hubble Space Telescope Update - 06/28/90 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: 29 Jun 90 02:27:55 GMT From: usc!samsung!umich!ox.com!itivax!vax3.iti.org!aws@ucsd.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Please write to support SEI funding Shortly after July 9, 1990 the Senate Appropriation Subcommittee for HUD, VA, and Independant Agencies will vote on the Space Exploration Initiative in particular and the NASA budget in general. The House has killed almost all funding for SEI so the Senate is the last chance to get anything to hapen this year (or perhaps ever). The chairperson of the Senate subcommittee (Senator Mikulski) is strongly opposed to funding the Space Exploration Initiative (Moon and mars exploration). There is an urgent need for people to write to some of the other members of the subcommittee to generate support. If you support SEI, please take a few minutes to write one of the Senators listed below and express your support. Just a few lines asking for full funding for SEI and a short statement on why you support it is all you need to write. A handwritten note will be just fine. Even if you called Senator Mikulski, there is still a need to write. She doesn't support this and doesn't care how many people call her supporting SEI or space in general. The names and address of some key senators is listed below. If you are from one of their states, write to them. Otherwise, write to the senator who's state is closest to yours or select one at random. The letters need to arrive by July 5 (next Thursday) to be effective. Thank you for your help. Allen U.S. Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) 433 RSOB 20510 TEL:224-4242 FAX:224-4797 U.S. Senator J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA) 136 HSOB 20510 TEL: 224-5824 FAX: 224-2501 U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) 717 HSOB 20510 TEL:224-4744 FAX:224-9707 U.S. Senator Wyche Fowler, Jr. (D-GA) 204 RSOB 20510 TEL: 224-3643 FAX: 224-8227 U.S. Senator Robert Kerrey (D-NE) 302 HSOB 20510 TEL:224-6551 FAX:224-7645 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Allen W. Sherzer | Death to all extremists! | | aws@iti.org | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 90 08:51:50 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma!nickw@uunet.uu.net (Nick Watkins) Subject: Re: Spacelab costs, pricing politics From article , by LMASSONN@ESOC.BITNET: > ... Spacelab is considered more a "dead end" (because of its Shuttle reliance) > and Ariane is the "European success story". What about the Columbus pressurized module, is this not a Spacelab derivative ? Nick -- Dr. 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 ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 90 00:50:58 GMT From: sunybcs!ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu!collie@rutgers.edu (collie) Subject: Re: Is there a backup HST mirror ??? In article <108@3cpu.UUCP>, brycen@3cpu.UUCP (Bryce Nordgren) writes... >In article <31170@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes: >>Now that the HST is safely in orbit, what happens to the backup mirror >>(assuming there was one)? Will it be auctioned as scrap? >Providing that one does actually exist, it may be sent up to fix the >"spherical aberration" mentioned in another article. ;) > ---Brycen ********************* No.The cost would be too high for NASA,and the G.A.O also would kick up a big fuss.(The purse is closed.) ********************* >PS - I'm a new user and have never posted to this net before. I tried to >find and view the "nettiquette" document, but the system said we didn't have >the newsgroup that it was in. Could someone please mail it to me? I've >really enjoyed the discussion in here, and would like to participate, but >don't want to step on any toes. Your help is much appreciated. ******************************************************************************* Can there be order in Chaos ? ******************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 90 23:31:53 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!rex!rouge!dlbres10@ucsd.edu (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: Is there a backup HST mirror ??? (see sci.astro) With reference to the previous message (you can read it using ctrl-p in rrn, or just use tree-mode in gnus) they _can_, if neccesary, bring HST back to Earth to be fixed? _Maybe_, with the shuttle backlog being the way it is, a Buran could be used... Philip Fraering dlbres10@pc.usl.edu "I'm troubled, I'm dissatisfied, and I'm Irish." : Marianne Moore. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 90 14:17:14 GMT From: js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. Slenk) Subject: Re: Public Perception Of Space Re: spending government's money on things... After discussing it with some friends, I see that while I had the right idea (government out of non-military space), the reasoning was somewhat fallacious. I would like to clear it up. * The government should only spend time and effort in securing human rights and liberties (this means protecting people from force). This means the police, the military and the court systems are all valid things for the government to be involved in. (I believe that it is only the government that should have the ability to initiate force.) * Space is expensive, right now. * Space has a lot of benefits, if one can grab them. * The current view of space is that since it is expensize, and since there are lots of benefits to be had by entering into space exploration, a natural candidate for the job is the government: it has a lot of person power and it has a lot of capital to invest. Where free market companies may not wish to go because it is economiaclly unfeasable, the government may tread because it doesn't worry so much about "making a profit." * Profit is a term that means (in my lexicon) net benefit. If there is no profit in an action, then there is no reason to take it. The free market is supposed to reflect this idea, in that no company will get involved in something that has no chance of being profitable. The government, and a lot of the public, however, don't seem to care about profit. If the government can afford to do it, then supposedly they should do it because to them money doesn't mean as much and there are benefits to be had. * Overall, the situation is, as I see it, this: The government shouldn't do anything other than protect rights. The concept of a free market should do everything else. Space is currently being "taken care of" by government institutions, funded by our taxes (another matter!), and it is not purely military in nature (hubble). Thus, the problem! Hope this makes my position somewhat clearer (in that I think people have the wrong ideas regarding the purpose of a government). Sincerely, -Jon. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 90 00:26:54 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA chooses industry/university In-Space Technology studies (Forwarded) Mary Sandy Headquarters, Washington, D.C. (Phone: 202/453-2754) June 27, 1990 RELEASE: 90-88 NASA CHOOSES INDUSTRY/UNIVERSITY IN-SPACE TECHNOLOGY STUDIES NASA's Office of Aeronautics, Exploration and Technology (OAET) has selected 11 proposals for development of space flight technology experiments and 4 proposals for further study in its In-Space Technology Experiments Program (IN-STEP). Since 1987, IN-STEP has stimulated the aerospace engineering community to work with NASA in making greater use of the Space Shuttle, expendable launch vehicles and Space Station Freedom for space research and technology experiments. The current program provides technology advancements that will extend U.S. leadership in space. The latest solicitation was second in a series sponsored by OAET. The 11 proposals selected for development of space flight technology experiments are: * "Electrolysis Performance Improvement Concepts Study," Life System, Inc., Cleveland * "Liquid Motion in a Rotating Tank," Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas * "In-Step Venting Experiment," Martin Marietta Corporation, Astronautics Group, Denver * "Large Inflatable Paraboloid Accuracy Measurement," L'Garde, Inc., Tustin, Calif. * "Development and In-Space Evaluation of a High Stability Hydrogen-Maser Clock," Smithsonian Institution Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, Mass. * "In-Step Integrated Two-Phase Thermal Experiment," TRW Space and Technology Group, Redondo Beach, Calif. * "Space Cryogenic System Experiment," Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, Calif. * "Jitter Suppression for Precision Space Structures," McDonnell Douglas Missile System Co., St. Louis * "Measurement and Modeling of Joint Damping in Space Structures," Utah State University, Logan, Utah * "Permeable Membrane Plant Nutrient Delivery Experiment," Boeing Aerospace and Electronics Co., Seattle * "Mode II: Reflight of the Middeck Zero-Gravity Dynamics Experiment with the Middeck Active Control Experiment Test Article," Massachusetts Institute of Technology Space Engineering Research Center, Cambridge, Mass. The four proposals for further study are: * "Sodium Sulfur (NaS) Battery Flight Experiment," Ford Aerospace Corporation, Palo Alto, Calif. * "Optical Properties Monitor," AZ Technology, Huntsville, Ala. * "Risk-Based Fire Safety," University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) * "Microgravity Measurement & Management," University of Alabama at Huntsville, Huntsville, Ala. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 90 23:47:31 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!David.Anderman@ucsd.edu (David Anderman) Subject: Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing Again, my question is: should the National Space Society oppose the creation of a spacefaring civilization (if it is to be launched by Chinese rockets)? --- Opus-CBCS 1.13 * Origin: Universal Electronics, Inc. (1:103/302.0) -- uucp: David Anderman Internet: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 90 13:15:11 GMT From: eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!unido!mpirbn!p515dfi@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Daniel Fischer) Subject: Who saw the HST news conference? Is there someone out there in the U.S. who saw and videotaped the news conference at GSFC yesterday regarding the HST mirror? NASA Select TV is not available in Europe, but this time I would go quite far to get FIRST-HAND info on what's really going on: could someone send me an *audio* tape copy of this event - all expenses would be paid by me, of course? Unfortunately, U.S. video doesn't run at all on PAL recorders, but judging on the few 'sound bites' broadcast by AP NETWORK NEWS, this news conference was quite informative even by just hearing it. +- p515dfi@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de --- Daniel Fischer --- p515dfi@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de -+ | Max-Planck-Institut f. Radioastronomie, Auf dem Huegel 69, D-5300 Bonn 1,FRG | +----- Enjoy the Universe - it's the only one you're likely to experience -----+ P.S.: Isn't this a remarkable gap between the press releases by NASA & ESA and the HST reality until yesterday? Just recall that -> Several times it was stated that the HST images were *sharper* than expected, which was echoed in many learned journals,e.g. SCIENCE of 1 June. The halo problem of the Point Spread Function was discussed solely on various bulletin board systems (since early June) but never in the press. -> NASA and ESA have distributed their WF/PC resp. FOC first light pictures with all of the spherical aberration halo clipped off - although they must have *known* that this halo contained 90-93% of all the photons, while the 0.15 arc sec peak in the middle gets just 7-10% (figures from ST-ECF @ ESO) -> At the 176th AAS meeting the HST project leaders "repeated most often: THERE IS NO REASON, AT THIS TIME, TO EXPECT THAT HST WILL NOT LIVE UP TO ALL ITS DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS!" as Eric Jagerlund reported on sci.astro on 18 June (Message 1990Jun18.165016.7973@ariel.unm.edu) - at a time when it must have been totally clear that the halo would refuse to go away... ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 90 19:02:10 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Hubble Space Telescope Update - 06/28/90 Hubble Space Telescope Update June 28, 1990 At least one of the two mirrors in the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) was built in the wrong shape and will not work properly. The flaw most seriously affects the Wide Field and Planetary Camera (WFPC) and the Faint Object Camera (FOC) which use visible light but doesn't affect as heavily four other instruments which do not depend heavily on crisp, clean visible images. The WFPC, that was to do 40 percent of the scientific work, will not be usable and the FOC will not work as hoped. Even with a bad mirror the HST will still be usable with the instruments that use ultraviolet or infrared light. Infrared and ultraviolet astronomy will get priority over visible light astronomy and the HST should still be able to detect distant quasars, as well as study closer objects like Jupiter's Great Red Spot. The mirrors were not tested together before launch because that would have cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Even after HST was assembled the system was so delicately balanced it could not be calibrated and tested under the influence of Earth's gravity. Ground controllers may be able to compensate for some of the problems, but a permanent correction will have to wait two or three years for astronauts to visit the craft and replace some of the parts. Corrective optics on a second generation of instruments currently under construction may compensate for the spherical aberration, and could be available for launch in 1993, 1996 and 1997. The problem with the mirrors is suspected to have happened during the time the mirrors were measured and polished. The mirrors were ground to shape in Perkin Elmer's optics fabrication facility, and once the mirrors were close to their final hyperboloidal shape, they were transferred to the Perkin Elmer's computer controlled polishing facility. They were measured and polished very carefully; the largest deviation from perfection anywhere on the surface of the mirrors is less than half a millionth of an inch. However, the process was probably done to a wrong figure somewhere during this time. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #584 *******************