Date: Thu, 6 Aug 92 05:01:49 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #075 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 6 Aug 92 Volume 15 : Issue 075 Today's Topics: A 12 mile tether that generates 5000v? Energiya's role in Space Station assembly (2 msgs) Galileo Update - 08/05/92 Hipparcos Emergency - 08/05/92 Home made rockets Loose nukes (was Re: Clinton Space Position) More second-hand info on TSS Origin of Life article Random Notes (Was Re: NASP, NLS, SSTO, etc.) Soyuz as ACRV (6 msgs) SSF (2 msgs) What is FRED? What is FRED?? (2 msgs) Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Aug 92 18:03:17 GMT From: Bruce Watson Subject: A 12 mile tether that generates 5000v? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug4.054656.14664@aio.jsc.nasa.gov| matthews@ial7.jsc.nasa.gov writes: |or even megawatts of power could be generated (at the expense of orbital |angular momentum, of course). Which is enormous, BTW. |-- |Mike Matthews, Tether Dude +-------------> matthews@ial7.jsc.nasa.gov |"Got the Shuttle on a String" \_ Now accepting NeXTMail via KlugeNet(TM)! |Lockheed-ESC | |Houston, TX | *** WILL HACK FOR FOOD *** -- __________________________________________________________________________ |wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.com| "Another Case of too many scientists and | |Bruce Watson | not enough hunchbacks." -- Gary Larson | ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 92 12:36:54 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assembly Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug3.152318.7997@vax.oxford.ac.uk> clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes: > >Someone else brought up the question of shipping Energias to KSC. The Anotonov >225 transporter, the largest cargo place yet, was specifically designed to >shift chunks of Energia around, so you could just fly them in to KSC. Rather >easier than barging them in as we are told happened with the SV. Barging is easy, cheap, and off the shelf. It's a much superior method for bringing a Saturn sized rocket to the Cape than a specially built aircraft. Of course if pork barrel politics wasn't such an issue, the rocket factory would have been *at* the Cape in the first place. NASA is scattered all over the country for only one reason, political back scratching. Gary ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 16:28:05 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assembly Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug5.011221.12501@samba.oit.unc.edu> cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil) writes: >... Finally, how does the shielding on the >Space Station compare to that on Skylab (which flew at 55+ degs)? True, >Skylab was occupied during a solar Min (the next Max is what nailed it), but >was radn shielding a real concern? To some extent. No special efforts were made to shield the crew, that I'm aware of, but note that the longest planned mission was only 90 days. The single biggest and heaviest component aboard Skylab -- source of some concern when Skylab came down -- was a massive safe used to shield Skylab's supply of photographic film. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 00:10:42 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Galileo Update - 08/05/92 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Forwarded from: PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE JET PROPULSION LABORATORY CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011 GALILEO MISSION STATUS August 5, 1992 The Galileo spacecraft is 174 million kilometers (108 million miles) from Earth, and about 259 million kilometers from the Sun. Its speed in orbit is 21,630 meters per second, more than 48,000 mph. It is operating normally and transmitting coded telemetry at 40 bits per second. This week the spacecraft is using the onboard propulsion subsystem to change its trajectory for the fourteenth time since launch. It is pulsing its tiny thrusters more than 5400 times over a four-day period. On Monday, August 3, a routine propulsion-system maintenance activity "flushed" the thrusters. The same day, the thrusters were fired to orient the spacecraft for the maneuver. Tuesday at about 7:00 a.m. PDT Galileo began the first portion of the maneuver, to change its velocity by about 6.2 meters per second. Similar maneuver portions are occurring today and Thursday, August 6. On Friday at about 11:30 a.m. PDT the fourth portion will conclude; Galileo's velocity will have changed by about 21 meters per second (47 mph). The flight team designed this maneuver as the first in a planned series to set up and refine the second Earth gravity assist on December 8, 1992, taking into account the Asteroid Ida encounter, now approved and scheduled for August 1993. ##### ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | You can't hide broccoli in /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | a glass of milk - |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | anonymous 7-year old. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 92 00:07:32 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Hipparcos Emergency - 08/05/92 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro HIPPARCOS SPACECRAFT EMERGENCY August 5, 1992 ESOC (European Space Operations Center) declared a spacecraft emergency on the Hipparcos spacecraft on August 4 at 1424Z. The project reported that the prime AOCS (Attitude Orbit Control System) had failed. DSS-16 (the 26 meter antenna in Goldstone, California) was configured for support and was on point at 1445Z. After further analysis of the spacecraft condition, the project reported the backup AOCS was working. Hipparcos is in a sun acquisition mode and will remain in this mode until further analysis of the problem on the prime AOCS. The project lifted the spacecraft emergency at 1830Z on August 4. DSS-16 continued tracking until the end of the scheduled support at 0006Z on August 5. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | You can't hide broccoli in /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | a glass of milk - |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | anonymous 7-year old. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 92 19:36:06 GMT From: htcric01@uctvax.uct.ac.za Subject: Home made rockets Newsgroups: sci.space I have recently got into the field of making home-made rockets and have been experimenting with various types of cheap, readily availible fuels and cannisters. We have found that the best rockets to date are made of salt peter and castor sugar, mixed in a half, half ratio. This is then heated to melting point and spooned into container. The best launch went to about 250m for 100gms of ingredients. Launch sites have proved to be a bit of a problem as with the current state of political affairs here, we are a touch scared of being arrested. If anyone has any new/different ideas for fuels, chemical components, homemade flares, please let me know. Thanks Mike ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Aug 92 16:32:22 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Loose nukes (was Re: Clinton Space Position) Enjoyed the conference quite a bit. Also gave me a chance to make a trip to Pittsburgh to see family & friends & my old coworkers at CMU. The details are BTW that a pair of 3-5KT nuclear artillery shells, sans activation codes, were tracked from a depot in Kazakhistan to Iran. A third shell of similar type is still missing. They are sophisticated moderen weapons but can probably not be used as is because they cannot be armed. But they can be reverse engineered and the fissionable material can be reused. Th article indicated that the CIA and KGB had cooperated in tracking them down. There were indications that the leadership of Kazakhistan may have sold them in return for Iranian oil, but did the whole thing in a plausibly deniable way. The weapons are small enough that they could have been driven across the border in the back seat of a volkswagon. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 92 15:54:20 GMT From: Mark Bixby Subject: More second-hand info on TSS Newsgroups: sci.space I was monitoring shuttle air-to-ground on my scanner this morning at 0700 PDT 8/5/92 and at that time the TSS had been deployed to a length of 800 (feet? meters?). Attempts at increasing the length kept failing, due to the vernier motor at the end of the boom failing to maintain tension on the tether. An intermittent clutch failure is suspected. -- Mark Bixby Internet: markb@spock.dis.cccd.edu Coast Community College District 1370 Adams Avenue District Information Services Costa Mesa, CA, USA 92626 Technical Support (714) 432-5064 "You can tune a file system, but you can't tune a fish." - tunefs(1M) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Aug 92 11:44:50 EDT From: Steve Troxel Subject: Origin of Life article Why is it so difficult for people who call themselves scientists to explore the possibility that God created the earth and all the creatures on it? There is every bit as much scientific "proof" for the "theory" of creation as there is for the "theory" of evolution. Why is everyone so set against acknowledging a valid alternative hypothesis? Is there some prejudice against is? Steve Troxel stroxel@cvgs.schools.Virginia.EDU **Save the baby humans.** ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 92 14:27:26 GMT From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu Subject: Random Notes (Was Re: NASP, NLS, SSTO, etc.) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics In article <1992Aug4.204913.3227@desire.wright.edu>, jbatka@desire.wright.edu writes: > In article <93@newave.mn.org>, john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes: >> While driving into the parking lot at the USAF Museum in Dayton on Monday, >> I saw an X-30 mock-up departing Wright-Patterson AFB on the back of a >> semi-truck. It was painted white and blue with red trim. Since the plane >> was about 40 feet long, I suspect that it was a 1/3 scale mock-up. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > You are correct. This model was made by senior engineering students > at Mississippi State University for NASA and the NASP JPO. It should > be at the AF Museum until the end of August (I can get the exact date ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Whoops! I slipped a month. The 1/3 scale model of the NASP left at the end of July to go to the Oshkosh Air Show. It is either en route or at the Ohio State Fair now. It will be at the World Space Congress later on. > if you are interested). > > P.S. I am one of the people they roped in to 'man' the NASP booth > at the U.S. Air and Trade Show, so if you have any questions feel > free to ask. > > -- > > Jim Batka | Always remember ... | Buckaroo > Modemman | No matter where you go, there you are! | Bonzai > --------------+--------------------------------------------+-------------- > | Work Email: BATKAJ@CCMAIL.DAYTON.SAIC.COM | Elvis is > | Home Email: JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU | DEAD! > --------------+--------------------------------------------+-------------- > | 64 years is 33,638,400 minutes ... | Beatles: > | and a minute is a long time. | Yellow Submarine -- ditto ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 15:14:54 +0000 From: Anthony Frost Subject: Soyuz as ACRV Newsgroups: sci.space >> So we add another one. Multiple Soyuz is actually an >> advantage. First of all, it prevents single point failure. >> Suppose the module which connects to the ACRV is on fire and >> needs to be quickly closed down or is suffers major >> structural failure. The way it is now, the crew would have >> no way out. With two Soyuz, they could all pile into one, >> maneuver to the other and do an EVA to transfer the extra >> crew. > So you're going to fit 6-8 people, plus at LEAST one suit > plus beachballs into the Soyuz, in a capsule which fits > three men uncomfortably? So that makes a case for leaving the orbital module on the Soyuz. Lockers for descent pressure suits, EVA suit and beachballs and space for extra crew members during transfer operations. In fact with sexless docking adaptors as long as the second Soyuz could be undocked from Fred no EVA would be needed? Anthony ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 15:14:54 +0000 From: Anthony Frost Subject: Soyuz as ACRV Newsgroups: sci.space > I'd like to see a Soyuz: > (a) Stay up for two weeks for large-scale biomedical > studies. I'm not sure of durations, but I beleive several pre-Salyut Soyuz's did just that? Anthony ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 92 10:27:58 EDT From: "John F. Woods" Subject: Soyuz as ACRV Newsgroups: sci.space henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>Furthermore, both "rescues" were simple; i.e.; hit one docking adaptor, go >>inside, do whatever. With a shuttle, you could use the CanadaArm ... >> to grab onto the truss or use to remove/replace/restore a flapping >>solar panel. >Much like the way the first Skylab crew deployed a sunshade and then freed >and deployed the surviving main solar array. Nice though the arm is, >I'll take men in spacesuits over it any day when the job gets tricky. And oddly enough, the professionals seem to agree, as anyone who watched the Intelsat rescue should know... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Aug 92 16:23:01 GMT From: Doug Mohney Subject: Soyuz as ACRV Newsgroups: sci.space In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>If you had your choice of [shuttle] verses a 3 man shot with limited >>supplies, tools, no CanadaArm, which would you choose? > >The one with a better chance of success, which is probably the shuttle. >But how many 3-man shots can you launch for the cost of running the >shuttle for one year? If I had my choice between three attempts using >3-man capsules, and one using the shuttle, I know which I'd pick. >I note, also, that we have changed the subject: the claim that it just >can't be done using capsules has quietly been dropped. Since you can't define the failure/disaster mode of what might happen to Freedom, I choose to define the failure mode of Freedom as something which would require extensive resources to repair and beyond the capability of a tin can. :-) (By golly, it's nice to be an Imperialist!) Being able to fill up the Shuttle bay with an CanadaArm , consumables, MMU, and having significant maneuver capability in orbit strikes me as being able to handle more situtations. That there Soyuz isn't known for it's dancing capability, is it, hmm? >Much like the way the first Skylab crew deployed a sunshade and then >freed and deployed the surviving main solar array. Nice though the >arm is, I'll take men in spacesuits over it any day when the job gets >tricky. EVA is a last resort. Come come, even you know that. >>Of course, if we went tin-can, we could leave the CanadaArm home and cut back >>Canadian participation in the United States space program. > >Tsk tsk, you're showing your ignorance. We participated in the earlier >programs too (although in still smaller ways). Tsk tsk, I guess you need a better press agent or a bigger contribution before you toot yer horn so loudly. Support U.N. military force against Serbia -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 92 16:47:31 GMT From: "Robert A. Lentz" Subject: Soyuz as ACRV Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug4.150511.24762@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: [Lots of discussion about Fred doing the same on-orbit tasks as shuttle deleted.] Have the concerns for polluting the environment surrounding the station been removed? If not then would not a lot of this on-orbit processing, and the frequent Soyuz flights do much to polluting the environment? And the frequent soyuz flights would still put a cap on the duration of some of the microgravity experiments. (Though I am not certain what the maximum time between reboosts can be either...and always thought anything other than a free-flyer for the micro-gravity work was kind of stupid.) And last I knew, the proposal still called for refurbishment by swapping modules as the shuttle carried them up. I have heard how they would be carried up on the HLV Delta, but how would they be returned? (Perhaps I missed a lot in the latest redesign...) Thanks, -Robert -- r-lentz@nwu.edu "We're a rock-and-roll band and we'll bring down the house the way Bill is going to bring down the country." -Roger Clinton, on his band's plans to play at the Inauguration if his half brother, Bill, wins. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 92 16:47:18 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Soyuz as ACRV Newsgroups: sci.space In article <4AUG199221381894@judy.uh.edu> seds%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >By the way someone here stated that COMET could return 750 kg. That is not >true, COMET Weighs 750 kg. The return capsule payload is only 60 kg. As I said, I haven't seen specs for COMET itself, only for some of the proposals that went into COMET planning... But even ignoring that, note that I didn't say that *COMET* had a 750kg return capability. I said that its *capsule* had such a capability. Unless COMET has changed radically since the early proposals, only a fraction of the mass that comes down in its capsule actually counts as payload. But most of the extra is things that aren't needed for a dedicated payload-return capsule. The way you make things cheap and efficient is to design them to do one mission and do it well. For example, transporting astronauts to/from orbit and supporting them for long stays while there are two different missions that should be done by different equipment; orbiter plus Spacelab is an insanely inefficient way to do this, if only because of all the mass that gets hauled up at great cost only to be brought down again a week or two later. More to the current point, the vast majority of payload- return requirements -- real ones, not imaginary ones -- can be met with a simple, small, cheap expendable return capsule. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 92 10:36:37 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: SSF Newsgroups: sci.space This thread has hit on a very important issue, but it beats around the bush. The fundamental problem is that a large "stepping stone" or "centerpiece" of "the space program" will by its very nature be in the wrong orbit. If we choose 28.5 degrees, we lock out participation by the Soviet launch sites and the largest users of space, our military in polar orbit. If we put it at 50 degrees the penalty for using it as a "way station" to Clarke orbit, the Moon, Mars, or asteroids is prohibitive. In turn, 28.5 degrees still puts a significant penalty over going straight to Clarke orbit, the Moon or Mars. If we put it in polar orbit, it is useful for the military and climate monitoring, but useless as a way station, and we can't get to it from Canaveral. This, among other reasons, is why military and commercial users have thrown out the concept of a hyper-centralized "space station" in favor decentralized networks of standardized satellites: constellations. These small platforms are launched into orbits specific to the application at hand, instead of pretending they can open up the solar system from one orbit. Communiations platforms ive in Clarke and Molniya, GPS/Navstar lives in 12-hour orbits, spysats and Mission to Planet Earth live in polar orbits, etc. It's time for the space activist community to catch up with the space users; it's time to redesign our visions to fit the physical reality of working in space. -- szabo@techbook.COM Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 92 15:27:36 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: SSF Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug5.103637.16930@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: >thrown out the concept of a hyper-centralized "space station" in favor ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Not only that, but the problem is getting worse. Space stations used to be centralized. Now they are "hyper-centralized". What's next? :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they | | aws@iti.org | put a man on the Moon?" | +----------------------261 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 92 16:53:20 GMT From: "Robert A. Lentz" Subject: What is FRED? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <9208050511.AA16025@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes: > >-From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >-Subject: Re: What is FRED?? >-Date: 4 Aug 92 22:34:02 GMT > >-In article <1992Aug4.215355.8158@den.mmc.com> zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin) writes: >->What program does "fred" refer to? I've seen it mentioned quite >->a bit but have never come across what it actually is... > >-It's a cynical nickname for Space Station Freedom, coined when the thing >-shrunk yet again a couple of years ago. > >Actually, somebody on sci.space suggested "Fred" even before Reagan announced >the name "Freedom". As I recall it was proposed back during a discussion about naming the new shuttle. It was pointed out that we have Atlantis, Colubia, and Discovery, so the new shuttle name should begin with a "B". Someone then suggested the pair of Fred and Barney for the station and shuttle. Someone else suggested Darwin' ship "Beagle", commenting that it sort of even looks like one :-) -Robert -- r-lentz@nwu.edu "We're a rock-and-roll band and we'll bring down the house the way Bill is going to bring down the country." -Roger Clinton, on his band's plans to play at the Inauguration if his half brother, Bill, wins. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 92 10:33:09 EDT From: "John F. Woods" Subject: What is FRED?? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1992Aug4.215355.8158@den.mmc.com> zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin) writes: >>What program does "fred" refer to? I've seen it mentioned quite >>a bit but have never come across what it actually is... >It's a cynical nickname for Space Station Freedom, coined when the thing >shrunk yet again a couple of years ago. Here I fear I must disagree with my esteemed colleague; when the "Name the Space Station" contest was still on, someone on USENET here suggested "Fred", amidst immediate acclaim and a discussion of how many computer programs seem to use "fred" as the name of temporary variables. When the name Freedom was chosen, someone observed that this was merely the Government padding the real name (Fred), much as it has done with Fred's budget. Then, when Freedom shrank to the point that there was only name to paint the word "Fred" on it :-), the name resurfaced and stuck (here, anyway). ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 92 16:48:01 GMT From: Saltheart Foamfollowe Subject: What is FRED?? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <1992Aug4.215355.8158@den.mmc.com> zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com ( > >What program does "fred" refer to? I've seen it mentioned quite > >a bit but have never come across what it actually is... > > It's a cynical nickname for Space Station Freedom, coined when the thing > shrunk yet again a couple of years ago. To further explain, as the original name is Freedom, Fred is the same name, but resized to fit the new bulkhead dimensions... +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Real Life: Adrian Zannin | Riker: "Looks like he died in | | Internet: sheart@toz.buffalo.ny.us | his sleep." | | CIS: 75360,630 | | |--------------------------------------| Worf: "What a horrible way | | > This space for rent < | to die." | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: P From: P From: Bruce Watson Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Energiya's role in Space Station assem Message-Id: <25492@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> Date: 5 Aug 92 05:02:42 GMT References: <1992Aug03.121000.172991@cs.cmu.edu| <1992Aug3.145353.18257@samba.oit.unc.edu+ <92217.150646HEVANS@ESTEC.BITNET- Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co. Lines: 42 Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In article <92217.150646HEVANS@ESTEC.BITNET| HEVANS@ESTEC.BITNET (Hugh D.R. Evans) writes: | | |In article <1992Aug3.145353.18257@samba.oit.unc.edu+, cecil@physics.unc.edu |(Gerald Cecil) says: |+ |+So, my question: why is the Space Station being assembled in a 28.5 deg. |+orbit? This locks out ANY participation by the CIS launch complexes for only |+a few % gain in payload. (This also excludes the obvious benefit to earth |+observations of an orbit at 40+ degs, perhaps an important selling point to |+soon-to-be VP Gore.) Concerns re abort sites are irrelevant, in that NASA |+has happily launched Shuttles to higher inclination orbits in the past. | |One reason I can think of that FRED isn't going into a 40+ degree |inclination is the trapped proton fluxes that it would encounter going through |the South Atlantic Anomaly ( maximum fluxes at ~ -40 deg west, |-35 deg south). At a 28 degree inclination, the space station only slightly |dips into the Anomaly. The total radiation dose received by a man |inside a 4mm sphere of Aluminium ( SSF's skin will be about that thick) |is 17 rads over a 30 day period, compared to 25 rads at a 40 degree |inclination; requiring an extra 6 mm of Al over the entire surface of the |space station in order to reduce the dosage to that of the 28 degree |inclination orbit. This represents quite a considerable mass increase. What is Mir's skin thickness? Cosmonauts who have spent up to and including a year on board at an inclination of 51.6 degrees don't seem to have been bothered by radiation. | |Regards, |Hugh Evans. | |ESTEC, ESA * Inet: hevans@estwm8.dnet.estec.esa.nl |P.O. Box 299 * or hevans@estec.esa.nl |2200 AG Noordwijk * SPAN: ESTCS1::HEVANS |The Netherlands * BITNET: HEVANS@ESTEC -- __________________________________________________________________________ |wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.com| "Another Case of too many scientists and | |Bruce Watson | not enough hunchbacks." -- Gary Larson | ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 075 ------------------------------