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 ; Tue, 13 Nov 1990 01:58:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 13 Nov 1990 01:57:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #538 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 538 Today's Topics: Re: Galileo Update - 11/02/90 Re: Galileo Update - 11/06/90 Re: Call for new news group : sci.space.seds Hubble/Saturn/Mars articles Re: Space Station Work Package #3 Payload Status for 11/07/90 (Forwarded) hit by Salyut 7? 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 7 Nov 90 16:35:27 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. Subject: Re: Galileo Update - 11/02/90 References: <1990Nov3.050407.1642@zoo.toronto.edu>, <1990Nov5.184601.9529@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, <1990Nov6.162730.6424@zoo.toronto.edu> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <1990Nov6.162730.6424@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1990Nov5.184601.9529@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@mars.UUCP (Ron Baalke) writes: >>>Probably because Ulysses is a European project ... >> >>Ulysses is a joint mission between NASA and the European Space Agency... > >Oh yes, I forgot. When a project is done by NASA with modest ESA involvement, >it's a US project (e.g. HST), but when it's done by ESA with modest NASA >involvement, it's a joint project. :-) :-) > >ISPM would have been a joint project. Ulysses is a European project with >minor NASA participation. >-- Here is NASA's contributions to the Ulysses mission: o Launch vehicle and launch facilities o Power Source (RTG) o Tracking of the spacecraft using the Deep Space Network o 50% of the experiments on board the spacecraft o Use of JPL's Control Center NASA's participation with Ulysses is much more than minor. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 7 Nov 90 17:43:37 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. Subject: Re: Galileo Update - 11/06/90 References: <1990Nov6.203112.23639@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, <29343@boulder.Colorado.EDU> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <29343@boulder.Colorado.EDU> serre@tramp.Colorado.EDU (SERRE GLENN) writes: >In article <1990Nov6.203112.23639@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: >> A NO-OP command was sent yesterday to the Galileo spacecraft to reset >>the Command Loss Timer to 216 hours. A MAG (Magnetometer) instrument > >I think this was posted before, but I forgot and my coworkers keep asking: >"What is the Command Loss Timer, and why does it need to be reset?" > If the timer countdowns to zero, Galileo will assume it had lost contact with Earth and then automatically go into safemode, where it will then try to restablish communications with Earth. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 7 Nov 90 15:31:16 GMT From: van-bc!ubc-cs!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!nereid!white@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Harold Peter White) Organization: Institute for Space and Terrestrial Science Subject: Re: Call for new news group : sci.space.seds References: <1990Nov6.193929.6072@cc.ic.ac.uk> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu I was also thinking about the idea of suggesting a seds news group (ie. sci.seds). I would like to see one group for discussion of the near future of exploration and development of space, with input from all areas. This could possibly save band width from people always cross-posting such things between sci.space, sci.astro, and sci.space.shuttle. To have to go through the same messages two or three times is rather a bother. Let sci.astro talk about astronomy, let sci.space talk about space (and yes, I realize that there is no set devission between the two), and sci.space.shuttle talk about shuttle related topics. Discussion about such things as space station Fred, a moon base, space agriculture and medicine could be posted to sci.seds, instead of cross posted amongst a few different groups. (Assuming people resist the urge to cross-post). Infact, I'm willing to bet that those who read sci.astro and sci.space.shuttle (and a few other groups) will also read this in sci.space, and thus I don't need to cross post. Anyone else interested in a group for discussion on the area of exploration and development of space? H. Peter White white@nereid.sal.ists.ca ISTS / Space Astrophysics Laboratory ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 7 Nov 90 20:54:14 GMT From: usc!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. Subject: Hubble/Saturn/Mars articles Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu USA Today -- 11/7/90 "Hubble To Take Look at Monster Saturn Storm" By Paul Hoversten "NASA's Hubble Space Telescope this week zeroes in on a rare giant storm above Saturn. Photos may help scientists better understand the unusually spectacular phenomenon." The paper quotes Hubble astronomer Dr. James Westphal, of the California Institute of Technology, as saying "we really don't know what we're going to see, but it's going to be very interesting." The report says, that despite the flawed mirror, the Hubble telescope should be able to see the storm up to three times better than ground-based telescopes. The story says the storm is believed to be caused by the welling up of hot ammonia gas from inside Saturn's mostly hydrogen atmosphere. The report quotes another astronomer, Dr. Reta Beebe of New Mexico State University, as saying "you can get some very large bubbles and every now and then you get a super bubble. This is a big bubble that punched its way through and carried warmer ammonia gas that turned to dazzling white ice." -------------------- Washington Post -- 11/7/90 "Sky Watch: Mars vs. Saturn" By Blaine Friedlander Jr. "The planet Saturn does its best to thwart the attention being paid to that red object in the East, Mars, which hasn't been this bright in two years." The astronomy sky watcher's special report says that Saturn is upstaging Mars because of the recently discovered giant storm raging in Saturn's cold but fast moving atmosphere. The article calls out viewing opportunities for Saturn and says to look for Saturn moderately high in the west immediately after sundown. Mars, though, should be the stellar star, according to the story. The report says that those who reside in the Northern Hemisphere do not get a chance to see Mars this bright for another 11 years and says the Red Planet will be a minus two magnitude (normal for Venus, and very very bright) sight until the middle of December. The story also says that another bright object to the right of Mars is the Taurus constellation star Aldebaran. The report says that Earth takes 365 days to orbit the sun and Mars takes 687 days so it would seem the close proximity of the two planets to each other would occur every two years. But, the story continues, Mars' inclination to the ecliptic plane is different from Earth's and the "stutter-step" of celestial mechanics prevents the two planets from being in the same close space any more frequently than once in eleven years. The article says that Mars will be closest to Earth on Tuesday, Nov. 20, at which time the two will be 47 million miles apart. The story says that Mars will be so bright that no light-polluted urban spot in the Northern Hemisphere could prevent someone from seeing the Red Planet. The date to view Mars at its brightest, according to the article, will be at midnight on Tuesday, Nov. 27 when the Earth-Mars and Mars-Sun angles will be optimum. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: Wed, 7 Nov 90 16:37:17 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Space Station Work Package #3 Newsgroups: sci.space In-Reply-To: <90311.130321GWS102@psuvm.psu.edu> Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow Cc: In article <90311.130321GWS102@psuvm.psu.edu> you write: >I'm working on a co-op with GE Astro-Space, the contractor chosen to do >work on the APAE ( Attached Payload Accommodations Equipment). We recieved >a stop work order from NASA on tuesday and I was wondering if anyone else >had heard any more news about his or the status of the other Work Packages? As a result of the 91 appropriation, NASA is to redesign the station in 90 days. This redesign is to provide a modular incrimentally growable design buildable within more reasonable budget numbers. They are also to assume reasonable launch numbers for the Shuttle and make better use of cheaper expendables. One thing being dropped by NASA is the experiments attached to the truss (which it sounds like you work on). This may be killed entirely however there are people attempting to save it. It is hoped that the attach points can stay in the design and if scientists can get funding, they can fly experiments. IMHO, this is a good thing. NASA is finally realizing that their previous design just won't work. For the first time in a long time, things are moving in the right direction. If things continue this way, we just *MIGHT* get a real space station. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer| I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation | | aws@iti.org | programs, spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it | | | works or not? - Dick Jones, VP OCP Security Concepts | ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 7 Nov 90 17:19:16 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA Subject: Payload Status for 11/07/90 (Forwarded) Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 11-07-90 - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at Pad-B) Experiment monitoring continues. - STS-39 AFP-675/IBSS/STP-01 (at CCAFS) CITE preps continue at the VPF along with ground software development. - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) Preps for tomorrows crew equipment interface test will be active today. - STS-37 GRO (at PHSF) Software validation continues. - STS-42 IML-1 (at O&C) Module and experiment staging continue. - STS-45 Atlas-1 (at O&C) Experiment and pallet staging continue. - STS-46 TSS-1 (at O&C) Experiment and pallet staging continue. - STS-47 Spacelab-J (at O&C) Rack staging continues. - STS-67 LITE-1 (at O&C) Pallet staging will be performed today. - HST M&R (at O&C) PR troubleshooting continues. ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 7 Nov 90 20:44:42 GMT From: isis!scicom!wats@uunet.uu.net (Bruce Watson) Organization: Alpha Science Computer Networks, Denver, Co. Subject: hit by Salyut 7? Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu Deja vu all over again. I vaguely remember a similar discussion about Skylab's demise in 1979. Salyut 7 has an equatorial inclination of 51.6 degrees so that it overflies the world from 51.6 south lat and 51.6 north lat. Let's assume that it equally probable that it could come down anywhere within these limits (although there appears to be some effort afoot to dump it in an ocean). The area of the earth between these latitude limits is given by: A = 2.pi.R.h = 2.pi.(6378km).2.(6378).cos(51.6) = 317e6 sq km. The population of the earth passed 5 billion (5000 million) recently. Let's assume that it is now 5.1e9. There are a number of relatively densely populated countries north of 51.6 north, but little population south of 51.6 south. Lets subtract 100 million and use 5e9 for the number of persons living within the latitude limits. So there are 16 people per square kilometer. Or one person for each .06 sq km = 63500 sq m. This is a square 250 meters on a side. If each person measures 1 by 2 meters (I'm being generous), then there are 32000 ways the person can occupy this area. Salyut 7 measures 17 by 4.2 meters. If Salyut 7 remains whole as it crashes to the earth ( again I'm being generous), there are 560 ways it can occupy the area. There are 57 ways the satellite and the person can intersect. The prob`ability of a person being struck is the ratio of the possibilties of success to the possibilities of arrangement: p(someone) = 57/(32000).(560) = 1/300000 (small) The probability that YOU will be hit by Salyut 7 is: p(you) = 2/317e6 = 1/160000000 (real small) Please check my arithmetic and my reasoing. If correct this implies that a Salyut 7 insurance policy for 160000000 dollars could be purchased for one dollar (excepting profit and overhead for the insurance company). A fair wager that someone in the world would be hit would be one dollar that someone would be hit and 300000 dollars that no one would be hit. This is contrary to our intuition. The reason, I think, is that it is hard to appreciate how large the earth is. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #538 *******************