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, 30 Nov 1990 01:49:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4bJU3Je00VcJ45yk4U@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 30 Nov 1990 01:48:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #592 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 592 Today's Topics: * SpaceNews 26-Nov-90 * Re: STS 38 Observation Reports -- red? Re: Big bang discovered 1400 years ago ? Re: ELV Support to Space Station (1 of 2) Re: Photon Engine 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: 23 Nov 90 18:18:30 GMT From: usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!rpi!masscomp!ocpt!tsdiag!ka2qhd!kd2bd@ucsd.edu (John Magliacane) Subject: * SpaceNews 26-Nov-90 * SB SPACE @ ALLBBS < KD2BD $SPC1126 * SpaceNews 26-Nov-90 * Bulletin ID: $SPC1126 ========= SpaceNews ========= MONDAY NOVEMBER 26, 1990 SpaceNews originates at KD2BD in Wall Township, New Jersey, United States. It is published every week and is made available for unlimited distribution. * RS-14/RUDAK-2 LAUNCH * ======================== AMSAT-DL officials have been informed that the launch of RS-14/RUDAK-2 will occur on or about November 29, 1990, plus or minus one day. Also, it is not expected that the RUDAK-2 transponder will be turned on until three days after launch. Radio amateurs should not expect to hear the CW beacon from RUDAK-2 until December 1, 1990. Efforts are still under way to provide a launch net on 20M starting about an hour before launch. UA3CR requests the help of radio amateurs worldwide to help collect telemetry and send it to him via packet radio to him once the CW beacon is turned on. The CW telemetry beacon can be heard on a downlink frequency of 145.822 or 145.948 MHz SSB. The CW Morse-Code telemetry frame will consist of the registration call RS14 and 8 four-digit lines in the following format: RS14 1A 1B 1C 1D 2A 2B 2C 2D 3A 3B 3C 3D 4A 4B 4C 4D 5A 5B 5C 5D 6A 6B 6C 6D 7A 7B 7C 7D 8A 8B 8C 8D The 1A to 7A lines are analog telemetry data. Line 8A is a calibration engineering parameter. The first digits from 1A to 8A are system status data. Figure 6 means general operating status and figure 2 means command operating status. The second digits from 1B to 8B (0 to 7) are line (channel) numbers. The third and fourth digits from 1C to 8D are analog telemetry values. RS14 Telemetry Decoding Parameters: Line # Parameter Formula Unit 0 Transponder power output 0.05N Watts 1 Transponder PA Temperature N Deg. C 2 +24 V Regulated Bus N Volts 3 +16 V Regulated Bus N Volts 4 + 9 V Regulated Bus N Volts 5 +24 V Regulated Bus N Volts 6 Inside Temperature N Deg. C 7 Service N * * STS-38 NEWS * =============== Several independent observers in central Florida and Texas observed Atlantis and the USA 38 spy satellite payload deployment during mission STS-38 last week. Observations seem to indicate that a problem might have occurred with the satellite and it might have been brought back to Earth by the shuttle. * TNX QSL! * ============ A special thanks to all those who sent QSLs, cards and letters to SpaceNews: N0MKJ : Bill Rupp, Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, U.S.A. WB6LIE: Chuck Belk, Santa Ana, California, U.S.A. * FEEDBACK WELCOMED * ===================== Feedback regarding SpaceNews can be directed to the editor (John) via any of the following paths: INTERNET : kd2bd@ka2qhd.de.com PACKET : KD2BD @ NN2Z.NJ.USA.NA UUCP : ...!rutgers!ka2qhd!kd2bd MAIL : John A. Magliacane, KD2BD Department of Electronics Technology Advanced Technology Center Brookdale Community College 765 Newman Springs Road Lincroft, New Jersey 07738 U.S.A. << If you like what you see, send us your QSL card! >> /EX -- John A. Magliacane FAX : (908) 747-7107 Electronics Technology Department AMPR : KD2BD @ NN2Z.NJ.USA.NA Brookdale Community College UUCP : ...!rutgers!ka2qhd!kd2bd Lincroft, NJ 07738 USA VOICE: (908) 842-1900 ext 607 ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 90 23:09:34 GMT From: optilink!cramer@uunet.uu.net (Clayton Cramer) Subject: Re: STS 38 Observation Reports -- red? In article <1990Nov19.063120.15680@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes: > molczan@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Ted Molczan) writes: # #Bill noted that as the object neared the shadow it became red, and # #made a bright orange flash. # # Pardon my ignorance, but isn't it possible that the red color is due # to the same thing that occasionally gives red sunrises and sunsets? # -- # - John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 No. The red color at sunrise and sunset is caused by the atmosphere. There's no atmosphere where the shuttle is; unless you are observing the shuttle at a very flat angle to the horizon, you aren't going to see red. -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer "Meat is murder!" "Dairy is rape!" -- Animal Liberation Front Fine, then antibiotics are genocide! You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine! ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 90 01:25:46 GMT From: dweasel!loren@lll-winken.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich) Subject: Re: Big bang discovered 1400 years ago ? In article <299@sgfb.ssd.ray.com> plw@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Paul L. White) writes: > >Your article on the koran and the Big Bang was extremely enlightening. >Tell me more about the koran, please...especially the enlightening part >about clitorectomies in the Moslem culture. > >Did Cat Stevens really get one? Said with LOTS of :-)'s, I presume. I think that this supposed anticipation of the Big Bang in the Koran is pure coincidence. There are a lot of discoveries that the Koran mentions nothing of, or else we would have heard about them from the Koran-bangers in GORY detail. Does the Koran give the actual SIZE of the observable Universe? Does the Koran mention the hierarchy of structure in the Universe: Gauge fields and elementary fermions (quarks, leptons, neutrinos) Nuclei Atoms Molecules (LOTS of other structures) Stars and planets bound by gravity Star clusters Galaxies Galaxy clusters The Universe as a whole Where does the Koran demonstrate the evolution of life -- ALL life, not just humanity? Where does it discuss taxonomy done by structural features, the standard technique of modern biology? Where does the Koran discuss the chemical elements, as they are now understood? Earth, water, air, and fire don't count because they match more closely to phases of matter rather than to the chemical elements. Does the Koran discuss nucleic acids, the molecules that carry hereditary information? Does the Koran discuss Continental Drift? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster: loren@sunlight.llnl.gov Since this nodename is not widely known, you may have to try: loren%sunlight.llnl.gov@star.stanford.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 90 23:34:04 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: ELV Support to Space Station (1 of 2) Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: In article <1654.274BF76C@ofa123.fidonet.org> Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org (Wales Larrison) writes: >>>... Sums to about $660 Million per year for a Soyuz-based ACRV. >> These costs seem reasonable to me. Now for the interesting part: >>If we use Soyuz as the main method of transportation, is this >>cheaper than using the Shuttle? It seems to me that the answer is >>yes since we are getting a year's worth of rotation for less than >>the cost of one Shuttle flight. > Allen, I ran some rough numbers, and surprisingly enough I found >the answer to be the exact opposite. Here's my calculations..... Why am I not suprised :-) Let me point out a few of my disagreements and propose a more detailed architecture. This architecture will allow for both crew rotation and logistics supply. It will also support expansion at a later time. First let me list a summary of the relevant costs associated with a Soyuz based transport systme for the station. This will include full rotation four times a year and 160K pounds per year of logistic support. Item Cost/year Titan IV $908M (4 at $227M each) Logistic Module $120M (4 at $30M each) Transfer & rendezvous system $ 80M (4 at $20M each) Soyuz & man rated Atlas $1575M (11 at $143.2M each) Extra crew time: $ 100M ------ Total: $2783M Now first of all, let me point out that this approach wins over using using the Shuttle and an ACRV. To beat this number, a Shuttle launch needs to cost under 695M which is just under the average cost of operations over the last ten years. So even using Mr. Larrisons numbers this approach is competative. However, I think we can do quite a bit better with some changes. First, we will use a HLV for logistics. This will greatly reduce costs. Secondly, we will use an off the shelf Atlas. To provide the same 160K pounds of logistics and four crew rotations per year we get: ITEM COST/YEAR HLV $400M (2 at $200M each) [1] Logistic Module $ 80M (2 at $40M each) [2] Transfer & rendezvous system $ 40M (2 at $20M each) Soyuz & man rated Atlas $1210M (11 at $110M each) [3] Extra crew time: $ 100M [4] ------ Total: $1830M To beat this cost, the Shuttle must be launched for less than $458M which is about a third less than current costs. Also note that with a Shuttle based approach you need to add the cost of NASA's ACRV which itself runs into the billions. [1] This is the price quoted by MDAC for HL Delta in quanity. It does not include development cost but over 30 years it will be in the noise level. Besides, Mr. Larrison didn't include Shuttle development costs in his assesment and his costs where over ten times as high. In addition, this will lift 25% more material than the Shuttle or Titan IV alternatives. [2] I added ten million to the cost of these because they carry twice as much. However, I'm sure a way can be found to reuse them in some manner. Either use them in orbit or surround them with Shuttle tiles, stick a parachute in and drop them into the sea. Either way reuse will reduce cost but I assume they are not reused. [3] Money saved by not man rating the Atlas. Since the operational record of the Atlas over the last ten years is far better than the operational record of the Shuttle over the same period and is on par with estimates of Shuttle safety there seems little point. In addition, since Atlas is so much simpler than the Shuttle a good arguement can be made that it always will be safer. [4] As with [2], I suspect ways can be found to do this cheaper. Smaller modules can be deorbited and picked up. However, I will keep it for now. Finally, using Soyuz (or any small capsule) offers other advantages as well. Among them are: 1. This approach is more fault tollerant. Both HLV's considered here are compatible so if one is grounded the other can be used as well. With a little trouble, the logistic module can also be designed to use Titan IV. If the Atlas fails, it may be possible to use Delta or titan. If all else fails, the Soviets can launch for us. 2. With Soyuz we provide for incrimental growth of the station. With an eight person ACRV it will be expensive to send up two more people. Soyuz supports adding smaller amounts of capability in a continual manner. This is better in the current political environment. You can also add an extra one without too much trouble which will be nice as a backup in case one fails. 3. If somebody gets sick there is no need to abandon the station like there would be with a single ACRV. You send the sick person and one other down on a Soyuz and the rest can still be protected. 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 | ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 90 17:23:01 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Photon Engine In article <3503@orbit.cts.com> schaper@pnet51.orb.mn.org (S Schaper) writes: >The ground based version also has certain interesting military applications. Actually, no. A laser launcher would be built for use with cooperative targets. Furthermore, it works better at longer wavelengths, if I recall Jordin's comments correctly, while destruction of uncooperative targets works better at shorter wavelengths. The two would probably share quite a bit of *technology* -- which is why the current laser-launcher project is assuming that SDI will develop the lasers and high-power optics -- but the actual launcher hardware would have no military significance. -- "I'm not sure it's possible | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology to explain how X works." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #592 *******************