Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.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 ; Thu, 31 Jan 91 03:29:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8bdxJNq00WBwA1ok4N@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 03:29:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #089 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 89 Today's Topics: Space Station Weights Galileo Update - 01/21/91 Re: Space Station Weights Re: Magellan Update - 01/21/91 Re: Weekly World News publishes Challenger tape transcript Re: I know who you are... Re: Weekly World News publishes Challenger tape transcript Re: Weekly World News publishes Challenger tape transcript Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Jan 91 04:01:56 GMT From: pilchuck!amc-gw!thebes!polari!crad@uunet.uu.net (Charles Radley) Subject: Space Station Weights Space Station Mass Budgets:- Cage & Scherzer criticized my not reading the LLNL proposals. I can now report that I have received substantial data from Dr Wood of LLNL with my sincere thanks. It is indeed interesting. My thanks also go to NASA Reston, and NASA Marshall who have deluged me with weight data for Freedom as of October / November 1990. My argument with Rus Cage concerned effect of centrifugal forces on the weight breakdown, giving consideration to the functional requirements. Here are weight breakdown summary numbers:- First, Space Station Freedom (fax header date 11 Oct 1990) Solar power Module 37.1 tons Truss Assembly 25.6 tons US Laboratory Module 29.2 tons Habitation Module 28.2 tons ESA Columbus Attached Lab 17.2 tons Japanese Experiment Module 27.7 tons Four Resource Nodes 42.2 tons Other 52.5 tons Total Manned Base 259.7 tons The more recent "Resource Summary" of 1 Dec 90 received from NASA Reston itemized all the modules and nodes but at lower levels is a little hard to follow. EXCEPT for the Japanese Experiment Module, which is clearly broken down in minute detail . The NASA weight breakdown is extremely detailed, over 28 pages with 50 items per page. But the terminology is a little cryptic. I did note the following two items:- US Lab Module Core Structure 36,844 pounds US Hab Module Core Structure 23,709 pounds I have attempted to summarize the JEM breakdown as follows (the detailed list really is much too long to post):- Core Structure 28,859 pounds Internal Equipment 15,120 pounds External Equipment 10,510 pounds. JEM Total 54,489 pounds There is no breakdown of what the "Core Structure" comprises, but the internal and external equipment are broken down into several dozen items. So it is not really possible to say what the hull weighs, but at least the parameters are now somewhat bounded. The LLNL Crew Station is presented as follows:- Habitation Modules 4.9 tonnes Atmosphere 1.5 tonnes Internal Equipment 7.0 tonnes Life Support Module 2.1 tonnes Consumables 3.6 tonnes Power & conditioning 2.6 tonnes Thermal management 2.5 tonnes Crew & personal effects 1.0 tonnes ACS & drag make-up 1.5 tonnes Water 10.0 tonnes Miscellaneous 3.7 tonnes Total 40.4 tonnes Overall LLNL versus Freedom Comparison:- There is no point in reproducing all the material here. I was interested to note that many of the points I had expressed in sci.space are independently raised in the NASA Critique. A couple of new things did strike me. I was intrigued by the lengthy political discussions presented at length by LLNL. In particular I found their political statements about the undesirability of international collaboration as extraordinarily parochial and totally at variance to todays global realities. It is essential that we allow our friends and allies to participate in the "Great Adventure", to do anything else would open the US to accusations of trying to monopolise the benefits of space. I was especially astonished by LLNL's remark that the USSR is "..too impoverished for major fiscal participation". This neglects the potentially enormous benefit of having the Soviets' contribute cheap off-the-shelf launch vehicles. This alone could make the whole endeavor instantly viable..! The Soviets in turn would gain enormous benefits. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 91 18:40:41 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Galileo Update - 01/21/91 GALILEO STATUS REPORT January 21, 1991 Today, commands were sent to the Galileo spacecraft to reset the Command Loss Timer and to modify the system fault protection state in preparation for the planned Low Gain Antenna switch next week. Later today, the spacecraft will perform a planned sun acquisition and a cruise science memory readout activity for the MAG (Magnetometer) and DDS (Dust Detector) instruments. Tomorrow, a CDS "A" (Command Data Subsystem) memory readout activity is scheduled. This readout will provide memory verification subsequent to the memory copy performed on January 8. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 16:17:04 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: Space Station Weights Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: In article <3196@polari.UUCP> Charles Radley writes: |There is no point in reproducing all the material here. I was |interested to note that many of the points I had expressed in |sci.space are independently raised in the NASA Critique. ...and are adequately dismissed in the LLNL reply. BTW, since you saw the critique, can you tell me who wrote it and where they are from? |A couple of new things did strike me. I was intrigued by the lengthy |political discussions presented at length by LLNL... So what. If the approach is good then the politics of the people advocating it are not relevant! You have yet to post any compelling technical reason why their approach won't work. | I was especially astonished by LLNL's remark that the USSR is |"..too impoverished for major fiscal participation". This neglects |the potentially enormous benefit of having the Soviets' contribute |cheap off-the-shelf launch vehicles.... This from the person who said using a Soyuz was not acceptable? Allen -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | America does best when it accepts a challenging mission. | | aws@iti.org | We invent well under pressure. Conversely, we stagnate | | | when caution prevails. -- Buzz Aldrin | ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 91 21:15:14 GMT From: hsdndev!bbn.com!nic!kira!emily!wollman@handies.ucar.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: Magellan Update - 01/21/91 It seems that, since someone posted a note asking what all the acronyms are, Ron (and maybe Peter?) have started, at least sometimes, to expand their acronyms and initialisms in text. I am somewhat of two minds about this. First, it seems to be useful to have the expansions available for newcomers--I was one once--and non-so-newcomers--I didn't know what DESATs and SITURNs were, either. However, doing so tends to ruin the NASA flavor of some of them, not to mention the fact that it repeats information that people already know. So, how does everyone feel about a periodical posting--perhaps monthly--which will give expansions of the acronyms and initialisms that are often used in this newsgroup? I volunteer to coordinate it, if there's enough interest. So, if you think this would be a good idea, please mail me a reply (`r' or `R' in [tr]?rn) and say so. If there's enough interest after a week or so I'll start collecting these things. -GAWollman Garrett A. Wollman - wollman@emily.uvm.edu Disclaimer: I'm not even sure this represents *my* opinion, never mind UVM's, EMBA's, EMBA-CF's, or indeed anyone else's. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 91 16:25:10 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!euclid.jpl.nasa.gov!pjs@decwrl.dec.com (Peter Scott) Subject: Re: Weekly World News publishes Challenger tape transcript In article <73191734@bfmny0.BFM.COM>, tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: > In article <9947@orca.wv.tek.com> bill@flutter.tv.tek.com (William K. McFadden) writes: > >So, what does it say? > > --- WARNING --- > > This may make you very sad. I sure was. You were right; so was I. What makes it even more saddening is not knowing whether or not this is true. There are a couple of lines in there (I won't repeat them) that sound a little phoney, but not by much. More unusual is the absence of expletives, and that if the voices could be identified as male or female, I would have thought that at least a few utterances could have been identified by person. But I think we both know that if they survived the break-up, this is the kind of thing that would have happened. -- Not speaking for NASA. | Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech | (pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 91 15:55:17 GMT From: eagle!news@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (James Fincannon) Subject: Re: I know who you are... I called the number and a recorded announcement stated that due to public misunderstanding of the CD-ROM, they decided to not sell it and therefore didn't offer the service of removing your name. In article <9101220028.AA14067@gemini.arc.nasa.gov>, greer%utdssa.dnet%utaivc@utspan.span.nasa.gov writes... >This is not space related at all, but Space_Digest is my only outlet to >to network world. Maybe this message is already out there, but then >again, maybe it isn't. > >Anyway, I heard that the Lotus Corporation is going to sell the names, >addresses and phone numbers of 120,000,000 Americans on CD-ROM. This >database MAY include consumer information such as: > > * Your Annual Salary > * Your Debt-to-Earnings Ratio > * Your Net Worth > * Your Investment Portfolio > * Your Car(s) > * Your Gun(s) > * Your Computer, Stereo Equipment, Video Equipment, etc. > * Et Cetera... > * ...and so forth... > * ...and so on... > >I know that some of this is true, but at this time I don't know how >much is just paranoia run amok. In any case, you may call toll free, >1-800-688-8320, to get a name removal packet from Lotus. Barring Acts >of God, Congress, or the Courts, this set of CD-ROMs will be available >in March of 1991, so act soon or it'll be too late. > >_____________ >Dale M. Greer, whose opinions are not to be confused with those of the >Center for Space Sciences, U.T. at Dallas, UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER > "...that flag is a symbol of something greater than just the rights > in this country." -- Rep. Larry Smith of Florida, October 12, 1989 ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 91 19:20:26 GMT From: ksr!clj%ksr.com@uunet.uu.net (Chris Jones) Subject: Re: Weekly World News publishes Challenger tape transcript In article <1991Jan25.162510.9542@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, pjs@euclid (Peter Scott) writes: >In article <73191734@bfmny0.BFM.COM>, tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: >> In article <9947@orca.wv.tek.com> bill@flutter.tv.tek.com (William K. McFadden) writes: >> >So, what does it say? >> >> --- WARNING --- >> >> This may make you very sad. I sure was. > >You were right; so was I. What makes it even more saddening is >not knowing whether or not this is true. What happened is a tragedy, whether or not the WWN got the story right (I wouldn't bet on them having gotten it right). It's not necessary to know exactly what went on in the crew cabin to feel very sad about that. > But I think we both know that if they survived the >break-up, this is the kind of thing that would have happened. The medical report done by Joe Kerwin makes it clear that the disintegration of the Challenger was eminently survivable, and that, judging from three of the four air packs examined, at least some of the crew survived until impact. I believe he concluded they probably lost consciousness during the crew cabin's ascent and he does not speculate as to whether any of them regained consciousness during the descent. I don't presume to know what would have happened in the crew cabin if the crew remained conscious. The important things to know about the failure are why it occurred, how can a recurrence be prevented, and what to do if it reoccurs. >Not speaking for NASA. | Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech > | (pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov) Probably the most apt use of a disclaimer I have ever seen. -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 91 16:01:13 GMT From: prism!gt6337a@gatech.edu (Niel M. Bornstein) Subject: Re: Weekly World News publishes Challenger tape transcript In article <73191734@bfmny0.BFM.COM> tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: >In article <9947@orca.wv.tek.com> bill@flutter.tv.tek.com (William K. McFadden) writes: >>So, what does it say? >Here is the rest: the suppressed transcript of the crew's last minutes, I'm no psychologist (though I do have a BS in Applied Psychology), but this reads to me more like a movie script than an actual transcript. I am extremely doubtful about the validity of this 'transcript'. I can't back it up, but it just sounds wrong. Everything you'd expect to hear is in there. The whole thing smacks of the kind of conspiracy you'd expect in tabloids like the Weekly World News. Niel -- * Niel M. Bornstein gt6337a@prism.gatech.edu * * Even if I understood the opinions of Georgia Tech, I couldn't explain them. * We are destroying art by destroying the beautiful in life. -- Kakuzo Okakura ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #089 *******************