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, 13 Jul 1990 02:44:58 -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, 13 Jul 1990 02:44:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #61 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 61 Today's Topics: Re: Titan boosters Re: Bush Approves Cape York Re: SPACE Digest V12 #52 Re: Bush Approves Cape York Re: NASA Budget Re: NASA's lobbying on the net Re: Why drop the shuttle? Galileo Update - 07/12/90 Re: Anti-Gravity Devices (LONG) Re: buying Soyuzes Re: Grim 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: 12 Jul 90 21:14:54 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Titan boosters In article <5462@itivax.iti.org>, aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: > In article <3243@td2cad.intel.com> jreece@yoyodyne.intel.com (john reece) writes: > > >> For a savings of $150 million per launch and the need for fewer > >> launches, they can get shaken up a bit. > > >The vibration is not simply a matter of personal convenience for the crew. > >Once vibration exceeds a certain threshhold they are effectively incapacited > >until several minutes after it stops. > > Lots of people have gone up on Titans and they did OK. Those were with Titan IIs, no SRBs. The strap-ons might make a difference. ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------ ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 90 04:57:08 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!yarra!melba.bby.oz.au!gnb@decwrl.dec.com (Gregory N. Bond) Subject: Re: Bush Approves Cape York In article <0093984D.DBA9ABA0@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: In article I wrote: > >U.S.) will have to pay like anyone else. And there is _NO_ role in >space for the Australian military. I guess they wouldn't want to put up a com-sat or an observation sat (spy sat just doesn't fit the Aussie frame of mind), huh? Why would they? It would cost a huge fraction of the defense budget ($AUD 8.1B in 1988-89, of which just $1B was capital) to put up any sort of comsat, let alone any spysat. Much easier instead to get data from the U.S. in return for the use of several patches of desert for satellite ground stations. As for coms, mostly it is HF/VHF, but these is some small comsat capacity; I am unaware which satellites are used, but they are probably from the U.S. network or even commercial services. You gotta remember, this is a _SMALL_ country with a VERY SMALL military (the biggest boats are 3 DDG guided missile destroyers, we got 2 squadrons of F-111Cs and three of F/A-18s). Greg. -- 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: AZM@CU.NIH.GOV Date: Thu, 12 Jul 90 13:39:24 EDT Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V12 #52 > It is my understanding that the system as presently configured can provide > visual images better than most or all of those available from current > ground-based optical telescopes. It is obviously short of the design goal. > It does appear that a complete fix (compensating instrument optics) will > be possible. > > >And now they're trying to sell the idea that the Hubble "might" get > >fixed in mid-1993, or if that "don't get it" then in 1996. Does anybody > >at the Hubble-bubble really expect the american "live-for-the-micro- > >second public to sit still and wait three or even six years for the fix > >to go up. It is to laugh. > > If you have access to cable or satellite TV, you should watch NASA Select > or CSPAN - your information is at least several days out of date. The NASA > people in this week's Senate Space Subcommittee meeting said that they are > confident that instrument replacement can be accomplished by 1993 (assuming > the shuttle is still in use), and they are hopeful that the process can be > accelerated. One statement was that replacement within 1.5 years is at > least conceivable. > John Roberts > roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov > You're right. NASA people are sitting there in the Senate Hearing Room spouting off all sorts of "what we're gonna do in the future" stuff. Meanwhile, outside that room in the real world REALITY is that the space shuttle (upon which they intend to launch the Hubble repair missions) IS GROUNDED. It is grounded just as hard as it was after the Challenger was destroyed. And who is to say that another major problem won't develop after the current one is fixed (if it gets fixed), that will ground it again for another 6 months, or a year, or for 20 months, or forever. They aren't promising, they're speculating. One happens, the other only might. V. Derdin Valpar AZM@NIHCU ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 90 17:36:29 GMT From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Subject: Re: Bush Approves Cape York In article <1990Jul12.045708.13524@melba.bby.oz.au>, gnb@bby.oz.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes: >In article <0093984D.DBA9ABA0@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: > > In article I wrote: > > > >U.S.) will have to pay like anyone else. And there is _NO_ role in > >space for the Australian military. > > I guess they wouldn't want to put up a com-sat or an observation sat (spy > sat just doesn't fit the Aussie frame of mind), huh? > >Why would they? It would cost a huge fraction of the defense budget >($AUD 8.1B in 1988-89, of which just $1B was capital) to put up any >sort of comsat, let alone any spysat. Microsats are relatively cheap. In a pinch, you could throw one or two on a souped-up sounding rocket. As for spy-sats, Israel (not known for large huge budgets) is working on one to watch for ICBMs in the Middle East. You're not talking big bucks for something with rudmentary capabilities. >Much easier instead to get data >from the U.S. in return for the use of several patches of desert for >satellite ground stations. I'm glad you trust us so much :-) >As for coms, mostly it is HF/VHF, but these is some small comsat capacity; See reference to microsats above. >You gotta remember, this is a _SMALL_ country with a VERY SMALL >military (the biggest boats are 3 DDG guided missile destroyers, we >got 2 squadrons of F-111Cs and three of F/A-18s). So cost-share with New Zealand and Singapore. :-) ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 90 13:26:14 EDT From: Dan Sullivan Subject: Re: NASA Budget To: X-Office-To: USENET SMTP >all of this could be paid for with the money saved from ... This and comments like it assume that the 'congresscritters' (I love that expression, it fits mine perfectly) can't find some other place to spend it and would allow NASA to keep it. If you dobt this, look at the proposals for spending the so called 'peace dividend' dan.s.sullivan@office.wang.com ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 90 20:00:54 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!leem@ucsd.edu (Lee Mellinger) Subject: Re: NASA's lobbying on the net In article shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: :In article <9007112052.AA24159@ibmpa.paloalto.ibm.com> szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nicholas J. Szabo) writes: : : Look, I am not trying to be a grinch here, I just want to point out : that this is an unfair situation for other government agencies and : private companies, and that some (only a small fraction, actually, : but NASA posts quite a lot) of the posts have been legally and ethically : questionable. I certainly don't want to discourage Ron Baalke et. al. : from their informative, valuable postings. A agree with Tom Neff that : it would be a great loss if sci.space lost these postings. But I : strongly disagree that NASA equipment should be used for promoting the : agency. : :Fine. That's it, I'm out of here. : :Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer Although I don't post very often (NASA/JPL work to do you know), I vote with Mary. It's been nice (sometimes). Lee "Mit Pulver und Blei, die Gedanken sind frei." |Lee F. Mellinger Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA |4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516 FTS 977-0516 |leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 90 21:01:37 GMT From: mcgill-vision!quiche!calvin!msdos@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Mark SOKOLOWSKI) Subject: Re: Why drop the shuttle? In article <110@3cpu.UUCP> brycen@.UUCP (Bryce Nordgren) writes: > >How feasible is this idea? I mean, if they *do decide to stop running the >shuttles, shouldn't they be put to use as something else? What's the point >of having them sitting around doing nothing? I think that this would work, >but have no background whatsoever as to *how it might work (with the math and >all.) Could somebody estimate how much it would cost (in fuel, time, and >dollars.) to make a shuttle run from the planned position of freedom (if that's >determined yet) to the moon and back? How about Venus or Mars or the >asteroid belt? Does the shuttle have enough range to reach anything not in >the earth-moon system? Whoever figures this stuff out should probably add in >the mass of the supplies that would be necessary to take along. Not very practical: The shuttle weights 90 tons, more than 4 Mirs, and sending it anywhere in the lower solar system requires a booster roughly 2 times as massive (if liquid hydrogen propelled...) i.e. 200 tons. But there are too much "Earthly" features that are unusable elsewhere... For instance, for the glidding abilities, I have read somewhere that the best the shuttle can do is 1:2.27 i.e. each time it looses 1 mile in altitude, it travels 2.27 miles horizontaly... So what do you want to do with that in a Martian context (Perhaps Venus will do... Oh!!! Great idea for me!!!!!). Besides, how 2 or 3 people (not 7 I guess :-) ) are going to live for many month in a place designed for 1 week max.? Mark S. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 00:10:51 GMT From: usc!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Galileo Update - 07/12/90 GALILEO MISSION STATUS REPORT July 12, 1990 As of noon (PDT) Thursday, July 12, 1990, the Galileo spacecraft is 87,688,100 miles from the Earth and traveling at a heliocentric velocity of 52,070 miles per hour. The spacecraft is spinning at 3.15 rpm as measured by its star scanner, and is in dual spin cruise configuration. Round trip light time is 15 minutes, 44 seconds. A command was sent on July 9 to power-on the scan actuator 4-watt heater to maintain the gyros within acceptable thermal limits. The additional power is necessary now that the spacecraft is beyond 1 AU from the sun. Cruise Science Memory Readouts (MROs) were successfully performed for the Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV), Magnetometer (MAG) and Dust Detector (DDS) instruments on July 9 and 12. The periodic Command Detector Unit (CDU) signal-to-noise ratio and the Radio Frequency Subsystem (RFS) receiver automatic gain control tests were successfully performed on July 11. These telecommunications tests collect data to characterize the performance of the S-Band receiver and the command detector elements. A Ultra Stable Oscillator (USO) test was conducted on July 12. This test provides continuing trend information characterizing the performance of this ultra-stable RF downlink frequency source. The Plasma Wave (PWS) magnetic field electronics heater has recently exhibited more on/off cycles (about once/day) than anticipated. This heater interface is automatically controlled by an on-board CDS thermal monitor algorithm. The thermal limits (-10 degree C to 25 degree C) are presently set with some margin to maintain the PWS electronics within its flight allowable temperature range. Since long-term deep thermal cycling may result in solder joint degradation, options have been developed to reduce or preclude the depth and number of PWS thermal cycles. A system/science evaluation of the options is in process. At present the PWS magnetic field sensor/electronics are not at risk. A series of three sets of delayed action commands (DACs) was sent on July 12 to properly set the Energetic Particles Detector (EPD) heater configuration to allow safing and unsafing of the EPD before and after the Trajectory Course Manuever 5 (TCM-5) and motor maintenance activity. Prior to TCM-5, the EPD will be stepped to Sector 0, the minimum plume contamination position. After TCM-5, EPD will be repositioned to Sector 4. The third set DACs will be executed as part of the periodic EPD motor maintenance activity scheduled for September 1990. The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements remained relatively stable. The AC measurement continues to indicate a near short circuit path to chassis. The DC measurement has stabilized and remained near 18.5 volts after the fluctuations observed during last week's SITURN activity. The TCM-5 sequence will be executed by the spacecraft on July 17. The maneuver will be performed in vector mode and consist of an axial burn (using Z thrusters) and lateral burn (using the L thrusters). The total velocity increment expected is about 0.9 m/sec. The TCM-5 maneuver uplink process was accomplished on an accelerated schedule validating the TCM-8 schedule requirements on July 12. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 01:16:32 GMT From: psuvm!wtu@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity Devices (LONG) Wait a minute! I think positron and anti-proton "fall" in earth gravitation field, not "float"! ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 90 18:15:19 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!uflorida!mephisto!prism!ccoprmd@ucsd.edu (Matthew DeLuca) Subject: Re: buying Soyuzes In article <00939901.70FFDD60@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >In article <11242@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >> >>And then this large, unproven (total of two flights to date, I believe) >>rocket blows up, taking half your space station with it. > >A) I mentioned this, and Only in passing, though...I feel it's a central issue in the whole thing. >B) If they trust Buran and their cargo with it, why shouldn't we? I guess > it's cuz they're Foreigners, eh? It's the only choice they have for Buran, in the manner that the ET/SRB assembly is the only choice we have (now...I am aware of various other schemes in the past) for launching the shuttle. After two flights of the shuttle, would you have trusted several billions of dollars of equipment to it? When there's enough flights of Energia to get at least a crude statistical sample of reliability, I'll consider supporting sending up U.S. stuff on it...but not until. And if you wish to accuse me of xenophobia, that's fine, but it might help to have a reason. -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, Office of Information Technology for they are subtle, and quick to anger. Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 90 07:08:42 GMT From: uoft02.utoledo.edu!fax0112@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Subject: Re: Grim In article <7963@ncar.ucar.edu>, dlb@hao.hao.ucar.edu (Derek Buzasi) writes: > A car with a slight misadjustment of the ignition system is a poor analogy > to the HST. After all, the HST is only within about 10% of spec -- in perfect > analogy to the car I describe. If HST put 90% of the light into a 0.1 arc sec > circle (which is about 90% of specified performance), that would match your > analogy. However, instead it puts only 10% of the light into that circle -- > which matches mine. > True, but this does not mean that only 10% of the planned science can be done. This rules out many progams and reduces the efficiency of many but there is still a lot to be done. Maybe that is not sufficient to justify HST, but I don't want to argue that at this point. Still, 50% of the projects is not the same as 10%. Robert Dempsey Ritter Observatory ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #61 *******************