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 ; Mon, 11 Mar 91 02:22:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 11 Mar 91 02:22:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #257 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 257 Today's Topics: Re: Re: Dyna-Soar Re: Terraforming of Venus Re: space shuttle design [l/m 7/5] Reminders for Old Farts Re: Space Profits POTENTIAL GEOMAGNETIC STORM WARNING MAJOR SOLAR FLARE ALERT - 07 MARCH Description of Files in ames.arc.nasa.gov? space shuttle design 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: 8 Mar 91 15:37:15 GMT From: hpfcso!hplvec!gvg@hplabs.hpl.hp.com (Greg Goebel) Subject: Re: Re: Dyna-Soar >programs -- RoBo (for "rocket-bomber" [ED: which was Sanger's original Saenger's original proposal during WWII was for a suborbital "skip" rocket- bomber (Saenger's "antipodal bomber" that would be launched from Germany, skip over the top of the atmosphere, bomb NYC, and land in, say, Japan); I remember it quite well from Willey Ley's books when I was a kid. Whether it had any relevance aside from concept to any later program I do not know and cannot say. Calamity Coyote -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | DISCLAIMER | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Who cares what I think? I don't take MYSELF seriously, why should you? | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Greg Goebel NET: gvg@hpisla | | Hewlett-Packard HP DESK: gvg(hpisla) / HP0900 / UX | | MSO Marketing PHONE: Telnet/303 679-3424 | | POB 301 / MS-CU312 / Loveland CO 80539 FAX: Telnet/303 679-5957 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 91 19:39:02 GMT From: magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Paul Blase) Subject: Re: Terraforming of Venus JD> Ah, why not 'just' set up lots and lots of surface JD> based 'rockets', and jet the atmosphere away at very high JD> velocities? You might change the rotation rate *and* dump the JD> excess gas at the same time. Very high is defined as at least JD> Solar Escape Velocity; jetting 89 atmospheres of CO2 into the JD> inner system might be seen as pollution :) People on this echo tend to forget that progress is being made in fields other than rocket science. How about creating an organism that can take whatever is in Venus' atmosphere and turning it into something that we can handle? Some kind of cross between an algae and a Portugese Man-O'War that can float in the atmosphere. I'm sure that it could even create limestone to get rid of the excess CO2 if required. (You still might have to import a comet to provide water/hydrogen). --- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR] -- Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104 UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase INTERNET: Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: 9 Mar 91 17:59:00 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!news.cs.indiana.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu!dil@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Perry G Ramsey) Subject: Re: space shuttle design In article <248.27D8BD32@nss.FIDONET.ORG>, Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG (Paul Blase) writes: > investigation of the disaster. According to their findings, it was not > an O-ring failure that triggered the explosion. Rather, it was a failure > of one of the connecting struts that connect the boosters to the main tank. > > approximately 7 seconds after the main engines are ignited. Since the > shuttle main engines are about 32 feet from the bolts, there is a tremendous > torque bending the whole shuttle assembly sideways (on the order of 400x10^6 > inch lbs). When the main engines ignite, the top of the shuttle bends > > Lubkins (and McInnis' and AbuTaha's) allegation [which I won't go into much > detail on here] is that NASA miscalculated the torque loads on the booster Pretty ridiculous, if you ask me. The greatest loading would be when the vehicle was on the pad. If the bolts were underdesigned by 3x (in an industry where 2x margins are considered cautious), when why didn't the whole thing collapse on the pad at maximum stress? What was that black puff of smoke near the aft field joint? What was that bright thing licking up the side of the SRB just before destruction? Why did the bolts fail at that moment when they were relatively unloaded? Why did the guidance system respond to unbalanced thrust of the SRB's? If the tank had been significantly damaged before liftoff, it would have been a major on-pad catastrophe, not an apparently normal takeoff. The truth in the Challenger incident is sordid enough. There's no reason to make up exciting fiction. -- Perry G. Ramsey Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences perryr@vm.cc.purdue.edu Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN USA dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu *** IMAGINE YOUR LOGO HERE ****** Ten thousand low-lifes a day read this space. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Mar 91 12:01:05 GMT From: eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!amelia!eugene@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: [l/m 7/5] Reminders for Old Farts Hints for old users (subtle reminders) You'll know these. Minimize cross references, [Do you REALLY NEED to?] Edit "Subject:" lines especially if you are taking a tangent. Send mail instead, avoid posting follow ups. [1 mail message worth 100 posts.] Internet mail readers: send requests to add/drop to SPACE-REQUEST not SPACE. Read all available articles before posting a follow-up. [Check all references.] Cut down attributed articles. Summarize! Put a return address in the body (signature) of your message (mail or article), state institution, etc. don't assume mail works. Use absolute dates. Post in a timely way. Don't post what everyone will get on TV anyway. Some editors and window systems do character count line wrapping: please keep lines under 80 characters for those using ASCII terms (use ). ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 91 18:54:50 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Paul Blase) Subject: Re: Space Profits >>Gold and silver in large amounts did >>not start flowing from America for nearly 50 years. "W> Exactly. No profit making enterprise would ever have funded the "W> colonization of the new world. Payoff time was just too long. "W> Under your system where every step must make buisness sense the "W> new world would never have been colonized. But every mission to the "New World" was funded with profit in mind. I think that we need to differentiate between "colonization" and "settlements". The first Spanish settlements were not self-sustaining communities, for the most part the men left their families in Spain. They came over with the express purpose of making as much money as possible (by exploiting and/or conquering the natives) and then going home. Later, the colonies were started, with farmers, families, etc. Most of these, by the way, were started for religous purposes or, similiar to Australia, as prison colonies. --- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR] -- Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104 UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase INTERNET: Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Mar 91 12:32:37 MST From: oler%HG.ULeth.CA@vma.cc.cmu.edu (CARY OLER) Subject: POTENTIAL GEOMAGNETIC STORM WARNING X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ POTENTIAL GEOMAGNETIC STORM WARNING /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Issued: 19:00 UT, 09 March Geomagnetic Storm Warning ------------- ATTENTION: Minor geomagnetic storming has begun over the high latitude regions recently. This activity has spread a bit further south than was originally anticipated. Middle latitude geomagnetic activity became active to very active between 14:00 UT and 18:00 UT. Activity at the present time (18:30 UT) has calmed down somewhat, although periods of active to very active conditions over middle latitudes are expected to continue for the next 24 to 48 hours. There is a risk of brief periods of middle latitude MINOR geomagnetic storming. No major storming will occur. Most of the activity should be below minor storm levels. Magnetic K-indices of 4 and 5 are expected over the middle latitudes. Middle latitude magnetic A-indices could reach 32. High latitudes will experience low to moderate intensity minor storming over the next 24 to 48 hours. K-indices of 5 will be dominant. Isolated brief major storming may occur over some locations with estimated K-indices between 5 and 7. High latitude A-indices could exceed 40. Auroral activity will be most intense over the high latitude auroral zone. Some southward migration of the auroral oval is possible over the next 24 to 48 hours. High latitudes will experience mostly moderate auroral activity with some possible bursts of high activity during substorm periods. Northerly middle latitudes will witness low to moderate auroral activity. Central middle latitudes could witness low activity while southerly middle latitudes and low latitudes will not experience any auroral activity. This could change, however, if major flaring continues. The lower latitude limit for observing auroral activity in the U.S. will range between approximately 42 N for the eastern U.S. to 44 N for the western U.S. during the evening hours. No significant auroral storming is expected, although localized active periods could materialize. Polar and auroral radio paths will experience increased fading and absorption due to the increased geomagnetic and auroral activity which has occurred recently. Auroral flutter will dominate polar and high latitudes, particularly during the local evening hours. High and northerly middle latitude VHF auroral backscatter communications may become possible during the late afternoon hours and again near local midnight. A geomagnetic storm alert will be posted if middle latitude magnetic activity surpasses storm level thresholds. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Mar 91 01:48:39 MST From: oler%HG.ULeth.CA@vma.cc.cmu.edu (CARY OLER) Subject: MAJOR SOLAR FLARE ALERT - 07 MARCH X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" -- MAJOR SOLAR FLARE ALERT -- MARCH 08, 1991 Flare Event Summary Potential Impact Forecast -------- MAJOR ENERGETIC EVENT SUMMARY Region 6538 continues to be extremely active. It spawned three M-class flares on 08 March as well as one major flare. This region has exhibited tremendous spot growth over the past 24 hours. The region, now located at S25E47 (at 00 UT on 09 March), covers an area of 2,400 million square kilometers encompassing a total of 63 spots (and increasing). The region contains significant shear and high magnetic gradients configured as a type Beta-Gamma magnetic group. This region extends 27 angular degrees. The most noteworthy event of 08 March was the impressive class X1.7/2B major Tenflare which began at 20:25 UT, peaked at 20:30 UT and ended at 20:34 UT. Although this flare was not of long duration, it produced a very significant 91,000 s.f.u. radio burst at 245 MHz and was also accompanied by a strong 2,700 s.f.u. Tenflare which lasted 14 minutes. This flare is suspected of having produced a SID/SWF for approximately 30 minutes, but this has not yet been confirmed. No sweeps were observed from this event. The location of this flare was S24E43. POTENTIAL TERRESTRIAL IMPACT FORECAST No significant terrestrial impacts are expected from todays major class X1.7/2B flare. However, Region 6538 is now within range to produce moderate geophysical impacts. By 10 March, major flaring will be capable of inflicting potentially high terrestrial impacts such as major geomagnetic and auroral storming (depending on the flare characteristics). The potential for proton activity and PCA activity will increase beginning on 11 March. Major flaring is expected to continue. Major M-class flares are likely. Isolated X-class flares may also be expected. Numerous minor M-class flares can also be expected. Flare sizes could reach an optical category 3B with accompanying major SID's/SWF's of long duration (exceeding 40 to 60 minutes). Geomagnetic storming may occur over the next 24 to 48 hours over the high latitudes in response to the major flaring which took place on 07 March. Storming could become sustained at minor storm levels with possible isolated bursts of major storming. Middle latitudes should remain mostly active, although there is a slight risk for some brief periods of minor geomagnetic storming over the middle and low latitudes. Polar and auroral radio paths will become more disturbed over the next 48 hours if the higher latitudes do become affected by the flare events of 07 March. Signals passing through the polar and/or auroral zones will likely suffer from moderate to strong fading and absorption. As a side note, another Stratospheric Warming Alert has been issued. Stratospheric warming has occurred over eastern Siberia. Stratospheric temperatures over that area have increased by more than 30 degrees over the past week. Watch for future major flare alerts and possible geomagnetic storm warnings for middle latitudes. ** End of Alert ** ------------------------------ Date: 9 Mar 91 19:31:51 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu!v096my2q@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Wieczorek) Subject: Description of Files in ames.arc.nasa.gov? Does anyone know if there is a description of the GIF files found in the ames.arc.nasa.gov archives under the directory pub/SPACE/GIF? I found a corresponding text file to the newer Magellan images under the VICAR subdirectory but there are a lot of images that I have no idea of what I'm looking at. For instance the io2.gif files and the C128764.gif files. Mark ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 91 18:03:32 GMT From: magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Paul Blase) Subject: space shuttle design Re recent postings about the shuttle A couple of articles in "Aerospace & Defense Science", most recently 'Challenger...What Really Happened', by Yale Jay Lubkin [with whom I do not always agree, by the way] describe an alternative explaination for the Challanger disaster. Lubkin describes the findings of William McInnis, a "high-level engineer at Marshall", and Ali AbuTaha, who did a separate investigation of the disaster. According to their findings, it was not an O-ring failure that triggered the explosion. Rather, it was a failure of one of the connecting struts that connect the boosters to the main tank. During the launch, the bolts holding down the SRB's are the only thing that hold the shuttle to the pad; these bolts are blown, and the SRB's ignited, approximately 7 seconds after the main engines are ignited. Since the shuttle main engines are about 32 feet from the bolts, there is a tremendous torque bending the whole shuttle assembly sideways (on the order of 400x10^6 inch lbs). When the main engines ignite, the top of the shuttle bends sideways several feet (visible on tapes of the launch) and then starts to spring back. When the top of the shuttle is straight once more, on the rebound, the SRB's are lit and the bolts blown. During this process the whole SRB 'stack' is bent. Lubkins (and McInnis' and AbuTaha's) allegation [which I won't go into much detail on here] is that NASA miscalculated the torque loads on the booster struts (by about 3X), found out about it later, and then sat on the findings - hounding any critics (McInnis recently committed suicide). During the launch, the strut connection failed and ripped a hole in the main tank. The recent 'fixes' to the O-ring joints in the SRB stacks have not fixed this problem; the struts could fail again at any time Any comments? --- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR] -- Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104 UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase INTERNET: Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #257 *******************