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 ; Sat, 17 Nov 1990 02:40:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0bFCYzy00VcJIC8E41@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 17 Nov 1990 02:39:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #567 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 567 Today's Topics: Voyager Update - 11/16/90 Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations Re: Save our Shuttle data? Re: LLNL Inflatable Stations Re: SPACE Digest V12 #555 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: 16 Nov 90 17:55:26 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Voyager Update - 11/16/90 VOYAGER STATUS REPORT November 16, 1990 Voyager 1 The Voyager 1 spacecraft collected routine UVS (Ultraviolet Spectrometer) data on sources HD 164284 and Voyager 2. Low-rate UVS data were taken on SS Cygni for a major portion of the week. UVS has no near real-time visibility into these data, so has no report on data quality. On November 1 there was a slew to a position pointing toward Voyager 2 to observe interstellar hydrogen levels between the two spacecraft. Round trip light time between the Earth and Voyager 1 is 12 hours and 10 minutes. There was a PWS (Plasma Wave) High-rate record frame on October 29. On October 31, there was a playback of PWS data. Ten frames were played back and better than 97.5% of the data were recovered in the eight needed frames. The other two frames were old data, previously played back, used this time for lockup purposes. On November 2, AACS (Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem) and CCS (Computer Command Subsystem) memory readouts were executed from the mini-sequence loaded into the spacecraft on November 1. The readouts executed nominally and compares have subsequently been performed that indicate the AACS and CCS memory contents are as predicted. On November 5 CCS Load A005 began execution and a TLC (Tracking Loop Capacitor) test was performed by the 34 meter tracking station in Spain. Voyager 2 The Voyager 2 spacecraft collected routine UVS data on sources Voyager 1 and F7. UVS high-rate data were taken in the anti-Voyager 1 direction for a major portion of the week. Glimpses into the data indicate the instrument is doing well. On November 1, the scan platform was slewed to point towards Voyager 1 to observe interstellar hydrogen levels between the two spacecraft. Background levels will be removed by subtracting out the data from when the spacecraft were pointed away from each other. On November 6, one frame of high-rate PWS data was recorded. Round trip light time between the Earth and Voyager 2 is 9 hours and 24 minutes. On November 5 real-time commands were transmitted to the spacecraft to modify the AACS "Auto Drift Stop" routine and to perform an AACS memory readout of the changed location. The commands were received by the spacecraft and executed nominally; however, the AACS readout pointer command and subsequent return to UV5A telemetry mode command were placed too close to each other to allow for readout completion before return to the AACS telemetry mode. This prevented successful verification of the AACS software modification. CONSUMABLE STATUS AS OF 11/16/90 P R O P E L L A N T S T A T U S P O W E R Consumption One Week Propellant Remaining Output Margin Spacecraft (Gm) (Kg) Watts Watts Voyager 1 5 36.3 + 2.0 367 55 Voyager 2 6 39.3 + 2.0 370 61 ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 90 16:35:51 GMT From: van-bc!ubc-cs!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations In article <1266@iceman.jcu.oz> eempa@iceman.jcu.oz (M Parigi) writes: > By the way, how does the need for EVA's compare to that of FREEDOM's? I would expect considerably less, because there is less external equipment. My impression is that LLNL has gone in for putting things inside rather than outside, permitting shirtsleeves maintenance on most of it. >Also, what docking arrangements are planned? Would it be cost-effective to >include ability to dock with shuttle,hermes,Soyuz etc.? The trouble is that each of those needs its own docking port, since there is no standard. -- "I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 90 14:50:13 GMT From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Subject: Re: Save our Shuttle data? In article , dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) writes: >1. The ssme may not be worth saving. If it were we wouldn't be looking so >hard for the Saturn plans. Wasn't this the same sort of thinking which got the Saturn plans aced in the first place? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 90 10:43 EST From: KEVIN@A.CFR.CMU.EDU Subject: Re: LLNL Inflatable Stations X-Envelope-To: space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU Charles Radley mentions that he feels firing thrusters on a rotating station would not be possible for stationkeeping. Isn't this exactly what Galileo is doing? I was under the impression that it fired numerous thrusters whenever one was pointing in the right direction. Overall impression: Mir (the only current successful space station) is reasonably sized, composed of interlocking modules that were sent up in an incremental fashion, and started from one modest core module. Because it's incremental and fairly modular Kvantx is as up to date as possible. Fred is by contrast overplanned, not as openended, oversized, overly heavy, and due to the budget process is promising everything to everyone while showing no sign of delivering much at all. I for one do not _know_ what I would put in every module of the station: why not start with a design that can grow and plan for that? Lastly, LLNL's design seems simple and fast. It certainly reduces launch needs in getting a minimal station functioning. However, the rotational design is puzzling: we can keep people functional at 0-G (see Mir for details), and rotating the station makes expansion far more difficult than just docking on another module. Also, the plans for LLNL's station (I liked the "Brilliant Condoms" name :-)) do not directly include the equipment mass to do the work - just the structure. Fred I consider dead meat. It's an overly complex design (KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid), and far too buried in beaurocratic morass to dig itself out for less than the Savings and Groan bailout. I think LLNL's design is at least a good start, but needs some fleshing out in terms of launchers (hey, SSX is a fairly cheap thing to try, lets at least look at it), equipment, and maybe some examination of the rotating-nonrotating design. But let's do SOMETHING!! Just some random opinions ... kwr Internet: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 90 11:36:56 EST From: AERE6982 <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:AERE6982@RYERSON.BITNET> Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V12 #555 Signe me off please. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #567 *******************