Message-ID: <sbKozl-00VcJMA2k4j@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue,  4 Dec 1990 02:27:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #623

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 623

Today's Topics:
	 Re: Sea Level RL-10s (was Re:  New Shuttle Engines)
	      NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle
    Soyuz TM-11 mission launched to the Soviet's Mir space station
		Re: Translunar/interplanetary shuttle?
		Re: Translunar/interplanetary shuttle?
	       Current status of STS-35 Astro/Columbia
	  (was RE: New Shuttle Engines)--dare I pursue this?

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: 30 Nov 90 13:10:03 GMT
From: hpcc05!col!hpldola!hp-lsd!oldcolo!burger@hplabs.hpl.hp.com  (Keith Hamburger)
Subject: Re: Sea Level RL-10s (was Re:  New Shuttle Engines)

If you want to develop an engine which operates at ideal expansion at sea
level and in vacuum, you could look into the plug nozzle or aerospike
engines developed by Philip Bono and Rocketdyne in the 60's.  Expansion
is controlled entirely by ambient pressure with no actual nozzle. 
Several vehicles, including the Phoenix and our own Hummingbird sounding
rocket are currently being developed around this engine design due to
this and many other advantages of the design.

Keith L. Hamburger
Secretary, Hummingbird Launch Systems
burger@oldcolo.UUCP
627 Skyline Ave.
Colorado Springs, CO  80905
(719)471-8880 (voice)

------------------------------

Date: 2 Dec 90 21:08:07 GMT
From: ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@lll-winken.llnl.gov  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data
bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

STS 35     
1 20980U 90106  A 90336.61736111  .00035624  00000-0  25599-3 0    42
2 20980  28.4655   2.6447 0008117 274.8877 246.4809 15.72079870    58
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

From: glennc@cs.sfu.ca
Date:  2 Dec 90 13:42 -0800
To: SVAF524%UTXVM.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu, biro%css.dec@decwrl.dec.com,
        isg%bfmny0.BFM.COM@uunet.uu.net, klaes%wrksys.dec@decwrl.dec.com,
        lepage%vostok.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com, space-editors-new@andrew.cmu.edu,
        yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu
Subject: Soyuz TM-11 mission launched to the Soviet's Mir space station

     The USSR successfully launched its Soyuz TM-11 flight to their Mir 
space station according to Radio Moscow.  On board were Musa Manarov (Soyuz 
TM-4 flight of Dec. '87, 366 day mission on Mir), Vikor Afanasyev, and 
Japanese journalist Toyehiro Akiayama.  Launch time was about 11:15 Moscow 
time (12:15 am PST).  They will rendezvous with Gennadi Manakov and Gennadi 
Strekalov at the Mir space complex in about two days. 
     Just before this mission, on Nov. 28th, the Progress M-5 separated 
from the Mir space complex at 9:15 am Moscow Time (1:15 EST) (it had 
arrived on Sept. 29th).  The experimental return cargo capsule was ejected 
from the Progress and landed successfully in Soviet central Asia about two 
hours later (TASS report Nov. 28th)
     Upcoming missions to Mir over the next two years are listed as:
May 1991: British Juno flight (still listed in spite of funding problems)
Nov. 1991: Austrian mission
Mar. 1992: German flight: (Radio Moscow has dropped the term West German)
Aug. 1992: French Antares mission (longish duration)
Dec. 1992: Spanish flight.
(Dates from Oct. '90 BIS Spaceflight confirmed on the Radio Moscow 
discussion of the present launch). Note that this suggests that every crew 
change in the next two years will be a mission in which a western astronaut 
pays for at least part of the mission launch cost.  In point of fact it is 
probable that the charges they have means that the whole launch cost for 
the entire crew is carried by the outside groups (cost of a launch in a 
Soviet A-2 Soyuz booster is about $10 million).
     One last point, with the Columbia's STS-35 launch on the Astro mission 
early this morning, (about 1:50 am EST time) and the Soyuz launch (about 
3:15 am EST) this 1.5 hours must be one of the shortest times between 
manned missions to date.
     I am glad to be back on the net after my move from MIT Lincoln Lab to 
here at Simon Fraser University. My reports on the Russian program will be 
somewhat brief for the next few months though I will try to get up to speed 
soon (a professor's life seems one giant set of grant applications at this 
point).  For those wishing to comment please note my new address.

                                        Glenn Chapman
                                        School of Engineering Science
                                        Simon Fraser Univ.
                                        Burnaby, B.C. Canada
                                        glennc@cs.sfu.ca
                                        or glennc%cs.sfu.ca@uunet.uu.net

------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 90 19:30:23 GMT
From: edsews!teemc!fmeed1!cage@uunet.uu.net  (Russ Cage)
Subject: Re: Translunar/interplanetary shuttle?

In article <7633@eos.arc.nasa.gov> millard@eos.UUCP (Millard Edgerton) writes:
>If the engines(mains) are not restartable, HOW DO THEY FIRE TO DE-ORBIT?
>
>THINK ABOUT IT!

No thinking is required.  The OMS engines are used for the de-orbit
burn.  In an emergency, the RCS thrusters can sometimes do the trick.
The SSME's are just along for the ride.

The impulse of the OMS engines is too low to allow a trip to the
moon; you'd need far too much fuel.
-- 
Russ Cage	Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department
Work:  itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage   (CHATTY MAIL NOT ANSWERED HERE)
Home:  russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us  (All non-business mail)
Member:  HASA, "S" division.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 90 18:12:00 GMT
From: edsews!teemc!fmeed1!cage@uunet.uu.net  (Russ Cage)
Subject: Re: Translunar/interplanetary shuttle?

In article <90332.182944AEGQC@CUNYVM.BITNET> AEGQC@CUNYVM (Audra G.) writes:
>The latest issue of _Analog_ has an article describing how the shuttle
>could be adapted as a moon ship.

Yes, you can make a garbage truck do 120 MPH too, but WHY?

I calculated the amount of fuel required to send a Shuttle to the
moon.  It amounts to many Shuttle payloads worth.  It is very
inefficient to send along 69,000 lbs of external tank and 140,000
lbs of superfluous airframe, engines and thermal protection on a
moon trip to carry a 48,000 lb payload.

And that's just for starters.  Combine this with the Orbiter's
limited in-space endurance, the non-restartability of the SSME's
(how do you do your lunar-orbit injection and return to earth?),
and a host of other factors, it makes no sense whatsoever to even
think about sending a Shuttle orbiter to the moon.  By the time
you spent the money to do it, you could have been there already
using something else.
-- 
Russ Cage	Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department
Work:  itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage   (CHATTY MAIL NOT ANSWERED HERE)
Home:  russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us  (All non-business mail)
Member:  HASA, "S" division.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Dec 90 03:52:42 GMT
From: uvaarpa!murdoch!news@mcnc.org  (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Current status of STS-35 Astro/Columbia

HUT (Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope) achieved first light on the star
Beta Dor (HD37350). UIT is working fine, awaiting an observation of
the bright earth. This is for calibration and flat fielding. Until
this is done, UIT will not be able to take images of scientific
accurate calibration. BBXRT is having minor problems with alignment,
and a second attempt at alighment will be done in the next few hours.
WUPPE is having problems with its computer in talking to the shuttle.
The loss of one of the two Data Display Units (DDU) means that only
one instrument can be worked on at a time.  There is another way to
wire the DDU, so it may be possible to resurrect this unit, but the
crew reportedly smelled a burning smell when it failed. Untill the
second DDU is fixed, wuppe can only be troubleshot when it is
scheduled as primary observer. This can mean a significant data loss
for wuppe if the second DDU is not fixed. Once telescope activation is
finished (it is runing behind schedule), the next shift's of
observations include VELA X-1, LMC X-2, SS Cygny, M82, M100, Capella, and
the VELA Super Nova Remnant. 
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

------------------------------

Date: 3 Dec 90 06:19:08 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!brettvs%blake.u.washington.edu@ucsd.edu  (Brett Vansteenwyk)
Subject: (was RE: New Shuttle Engines)--dare I pursue this?

I did make an offhand remark in a recent posting I wish to clarify--I left
it vague for a reaction, but the reaction I got was either a discreet message
mailed just to me or a benign silence, so let me clairify myself.

I had wondered about the operating stresses on a car turbocharger vs. those
on a turbopump on a lower output rocket engine (certainly not a regenerative
one).  With that I mean to ask:  Considering that most of the design
constraints happen with the turbine side of each unit, how different are the:
[1].Typical temperatures involved
[2].Operating stresses (RPMs, and so on).
I realize that, at least on the oxidizer side, one is pumping a cryogenic
substance or something corrosive--certainly nothing as benign as air (or even
gas or kerosine), but that most of the design headaches occur with the turbine
side of the device.

I view the car turbocharger as what the state of the art can bring into
"casual" use (since it has a lifetime of years, is restartable/reuseable,
and doesn't need constant attention).  How "close" is this "casual" use to
something useful in a rocket design?

Well, I hope this doesn't sound like "putting ramjets on Hondas" :-) :-) :-).

			--Brett Van Steenwyk

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V12 #623
*******************