Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 05:02:19 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #422 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sat, 14 Nov 92 Volume 15 : Issue 422 Today's Topics: Addr: SPACWE FOOD (4 msgs) COSMOLOGY COSTAR Is NASA doing what Feynman deplored again? -- Was: NASA Town Meeting (2 msgs) Lunar "colony" reality check Mars Observer Update - 11/13/92 Mascons on Earth NASA coverup Putting air on the moon Shuttle Status for 11/13/92 (Forwarded) Study says: Space research spinoffs marginal SUMMARY of 1st NASA TOWN MEETING -- Ra SUMMARY of 1st NASA TOWN MEETING -- Raleigh NC (long) Ulysses Update - 11/13/92 What kind of computers are in the shuttle? 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: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:17:40 GMT From: "Michael V. Kent" Subject: Addr: SPACWE FOOD Newsgroups: sci.space In article KEVIN@VM.CC.FAMU.EDU ("Kevin R. Cain") writes: >Nigel Allen posted: > >>The standard Shuttle menu supplies each crew member with three >>balanced meals, providing 2,800 kilocalories each day. Diets are > >WOW! No wonder they say that the shuttle glides like a brick. At 2,800 >kilocalories a day per I'm not suprised! :-) > >As the saying goes, what's a order of magnitude among friends. The original article was correct. A calorie is defined as the amount of heat required to raise one milliliter of water one Celsius degree. A kilocalorie is 1000 such beasts. The "calorie" listed on food packaging is really the kilocalorie with the "kilo" dropped for convenience. Otherwise, can you imagine a blond fashion model reading a diet Coke can saying "only 1000 calories per serving"? Mike -- Michael Kent kentm@rpi.edu McDonnell Douglas Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Tute Screwed Aero Class of '92 Apple II Forever !! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:06:57 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Addr: SPACWE FOOD Newsgroups: sci.space In article KEVIN@VM.CC.FAMU.EDU ("Kevin R. Cain") writes: >>The standard Shuttle menu supplies each crew member with three >>balanced meals, providing 2,800 kilocalories each day... > >WOW! No wonder they say that the shuttle glides like a brick. At 2,800 >kilocalories a day per I'm not suprised! :-) > >As the saying goes, what's a order of magnitude among friends. 2800 kcal/day is correct. The unit of food energy content, often sloppily called a "calorie", is in fact a kilocalorie by the normal scientific definition of "calorie". -- MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 22:36:43 GMT From: Nick Haines Subject: Addr: SPACWE FOOD Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: In article KEVIN@VM.CC.FAMU.EDU ("Kevin R. Cain") writes: >>The standard Shuttle menu supplies each crew member with three >>balanced meals, providing 2,800 kilocalories each day... > >WOW! No wonder they say that the shuttle glides like a brick. At 2,800 >kilocalories a day per I'm not suprised! :-) > >As the saying goes, what's a order of magnitude among friends. 2800 kcal/day is correct. The unit of food energy content, often sloppily called a "calorie", is in fact a kilocalorie by the normal scientific definition of "calorie". A kilocalorie is often called a Calorie. Some ignorants change the case, making it a calorie. (the `big C' Calorie term for a kilocalorie has been around for decades). Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 92 15:07:23 From: Steinn Sigurdsson Subject: Addr: SPACWE FOOD Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: In article KEVIN@VM.CC.FAMU.EDU ("Kevin R. Cain") writes: >>The standard Shuttle menu supplies each crew member with three >>balanced meals, providing 2,800 kilocalories each day... >WOW! No wonder they say that the shuttle glides like a brick. At 2,800 >kilocalories a day per I'm not suprised! :-) >As the saying goes, what's a order of magnitude among friends. 2800 kcal/day is correct. The unit of food energy content, often sloppily called a "calorie", is in fact a kilocalorie by the normal scientific definition of "calorie". Not only that, the correct nomencalture is that 1 kilocalorie = 1 Calorie A great way to thoroughly confuse people. | Steinn Sigurdsson |I saw two shooting stars last night | | Lick Observatory |I wished on them but they were only satellites | | steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? | | "standard disclaimer" |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 | ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 92 19:53:13 GMT From: amelie' 'agathon Subject: COSMOLOGY Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space LOOKING FOR -1 STUDENT IN COMPUTER SCIENCE(graph theory,trees,automates..) -2 STUDENT IN FUNDAMENTAL PHYSIC -2 STUDENTS IN FUNDAMENTAL MATH interested in the evolution of the Univers. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 22:04:43 EST From: John Roberts Subject: COSTAR -From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat) -Subject: Re: Hubble's mirror or Really Costar. -Date: 6 Nov 92 13:02:30 GMT -Organization: UDSI -Ball Aerospace is making costar, and it's a prety interesting instrument. Are they the same company that makes mason jars? (The logo appears to be the same.) -it's essentially three little mirrors on a sliding arm on a giant optical -bench (phone booth sized). each of the little mirrors is calibrated -to adjust each of the intruments. There was a replica of COSTAR on display at the World Space Congress. I couldn't make head or tail of it. (An explanatory video would have been useful, but I didn't notice one.) John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 92 04:53:34 GMT From: "John M. Owen" Subject: Is NASA doing what Feynman deplored again? -- Was: NASA Town Meeting Newsgroups: sci.space cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil) writes: > In article 20255@access.usask.ca, choy@skorpio.usask.ca > >I was reading Feynman's account of his work investigating > >the Challenger and he was complaining about how NASA is so > >backward. Now the shuttles are flying again, what is > >NASA's situation? > > Based on the 1st NASA Town Meeting in Rayleigh on Monday > that I attended, some in NASA are still denying reality. > The lone astronaut chairing the pane took issue with the > question I posed to Goldin regarding shuttle reliability. > [...] > [...] the astronaut stridently stated that (I paraphrase): > ``I want to clear up some misconceptions regarding the > Shuttle. The Shuttle is the most reliabl space vehicle > that's every flown. We have a reliablity of .987, etc > etc etc.[..."] > OK, so use his number, raised to the 45th power > (i.e. approx # of shuttle flight until SSF is assembled) > to get a 45% probability of losing an orbiter. Feynman > must be spinning in his grave. [...] The key summary of Feynman's report, IMHO, was along the lines of: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature can not be fooled." The decision-making process where P.R. goals and the desire to get along with management goals took precedence over real-world limits is insidious. NASA needed to make sure it was eradicated (at least w/r/t go/no go decisions). After the SSME hydrogen leak episodes, I felt like NASA management had demonstrated the lesson as learned. But now I wonder if we see signs of a shift towards the old insidious attitudes. Urgh. in AW&ST Oct 26 '92, pg. 15, _NewsBreaks_, _Columbia Begins Mission 52_ : "the mission management team granted last-minute rule waivers to permit the launch in wind conditions which exceeded the normal limits and under conditions likely to impose excess structural loads." "The weather waiver was granted despite reservations expressed by Jeff Bantle, mission flight director, who said he considered the weather ''no go," but that he would ''execute the launch.'' (pardon me if Mr. Spencer has already covered this) The article goes on to say that the weather waiver was granted (regarding crosswinds on the KSC runway in event of RTLS abort, I assume): "...after the [management?] team determined the average wind velocity value was less than the maximum permitted." The loads prompting the load waiver were not reached during launch, but the gust limit (15 kt) was exceeded (during the period an RTLS might have occurred, I assume). I wonder who asked for the waivers? I suspect everything was still within some tolerance which exceeds the normal limits. On the other hand, is the flight director being quoted in context? In any case, average wind velocity seems to be a slightly half-baked basis for a decision. Is there a followup to this story, esp. regarding Mr. Bantle's comments, and the relevance of the particular safety limits? Certainly the AW&ST article makes me feel a bit uneasy. It's not enough to make me believe the attitudes that led to the Challenger accident are affecting shuttle operations again. -- jmowen@mona.Gwinnett.COM (John M. Owen) -- My .sig is bigger than yours - but I keep it offline. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:03:50 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Is NASA doing what Feynman deplored again? -- Was: NASA Town Meeting Newsgroups: sci.space In article jmowen@mona.Gwinnett.COM (John M. Owen) writes: >the old insidious attitudes. Urgh. in AW&ST Oct 26 '92... >(pardon me if Mr. Spencer has already covered this) Nope; I've only just read it, in fact. First the Canadian post orifice has to deliver it to my PO box (takes a while), then I have to pick it up (I only clean out the box about once a week), then I have to read it (usually fairly quick), and then I have to post it. My rule of thumb is that I'm doing fine if posting date is one month behind cover date. -- MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:42:26 GMT From: Andrew Hamilton-Wright Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary In article <1992Nov12.045803.1096@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >The inverse square law is a hard master. A microwave array on the Moon > >Satellite power systems are of dubious economic viability at best. Placing >one on such a distant satellite is lunacy. [I kill me. :-)] One of the important benifits of a lunar ground based (and therefore more easily maintained, IF there is some kind of permenant base on the moon) power, is the possibility of powering obital or other craft with power requirements exceeding feasible solar cell array production. An excess(!) of power could even be used to supply power to incoming craft landing on the moon - thereby reducing total craft weight by reducing fuel carried. -andrew -- /|| // // ,'/""\' Andrew Hamilton-Wright andrew@mks.com (519)884-2251 / ||/// //\' `\\\ Database(Admin), Mortice Kern Systems Inc. / |/ /_// \\___/ 56 Scottsdale, Guelph,Ont. o/ "Everything is possible except skiing through a revolving door" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 02:50:13 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Mars Observer Update - 11/13/92 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT November 13, 1992 11:00 AM PST Launch +49 Days Flight Sequence C3 C continues executing toward its completion on November 17. Magnetometer and Gamma Ray Spectrometer instrument teams are receiving early cruise calibration data. The Mars Observer Camera "bakeout" is continuing through December 28. A new Star Catalog/Ephemeris was uplinked and a successful "USE" command radiated this morning. The ephemeris previously used had the intended effect of altering the solar array sun incidence angle by 5 degrees, from 60 degrees to 55 degrees. This sun incidence angle periodic decrease will be performed in subsequent ephemeris loads, with the final objective being to point the high-gain antenna at earth by the time transition from inner to outer cruise takes place. The current offset is designed to prevent direct sunlight on the solar panels creating an excess amount of power. At the time of transition from inner to outer cruise, the spacecraft will be of sufficient distance from the sun that excess power is of a lesser concern. Uplink of the C4 sequence is planned for November 16. C4 will begin execution at 8:00 AM, PST, upon completion of C3 C. C4 is 28 days in duration and continues the MOC bakeout, performs Radio Science Ultra Stable Oscillator tests, Modulation Index Test, Radio Frequency Subsystem Automatic Gain Control and Command Data Unit Signal to Noise Ratio tests, and a Static Phase Error test. The Spacecraft Team reports that all Mars Observer subsystems continue to perform well. Today, the spacecraft is 8,793,376 miles from earth, traveling at a velocity of 8,106 miles per hour. One way light time is approximately 47 seconds. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Give people a second /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | chance, but not a third. |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 20:39:12 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Mascons on Earth -From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk -Subject: Re: Ten embarrassed questions about the moon (very long) -Date: 12 Nov 92 23:28:14 GMT -> You don't see these phenomena on the Earth, because over the long run it -> behaves pretty much like a flexible crust floating on a liquid interior, -> so any local area of high density tends to sink down, and any region of -low -> density tends to bob up, so out at the distance of Earth orbit, the -> anomalous effects tend to cancel out - in other words, the Earth is in -John: A slight difference of opinion. Although what you say is true to an -extent, there are some gravity differences on Earth. In fact, a good laser -altimeter can read off major underwater features from the differences in -ocean hieght. Sea level is a relative term. In some places water is -actually going "up hill" and "down hill" in sync to the gravitational -anomalies caused by subsea massifs and such. -There are also some differences on land. Although the isostatic -equilibrium you name is certainly real, it doesn't always track rapid -changes, so there can be highs and lows to some extent. I agree with all that - I believe I discuss it in a followup post. But based on my interpretation of several sources, the mascons of Earth have little or no perceptible effect on orbiting spacecraft (in the sense that you don't have to allow for them in your calculations when putting your spacecraft into a selected orbit). I believe this is because the Earth mascons are generally less intense than those on the moon, and because the gravitational field of the Earth is so much greater than that of the moon that the mascons have a much smaller relative influence on spacecraft trajectory. (Again, the equatorial bulge does not count as a mascon.) John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 21:47:19 EST From: John Roberts Subject: NASA coverup -From: elling.olsen@thcave.no (Elling Olsen) -Subject: NASA COVERUP -Date: 11 Nov 92 18:09:00 GMT -Organization: Thunderball Cave BBS - Oslo, Norway (47 2) 56 70 18 -EO>Why don't you do some work and disprove the claim that the -EO>earth/moon neutral point have changed from 20,000-25,000 miles -EO>to 43,495 miles from the center of the moon? -HS>I have too much real, worthwhile work to do already. -EO>Or is it more -EO>confortable to sit in your couch judging and laughing? -HS>"They laughed at Fulton." -HS> -HS>"Yes, but they also laughed at Rube Goldberg." -With limited time, I understand and respect peoples need to do -what they consider real and worthwhile. What I feel rather -strongly about is someones need to laugh at what they know -little about and do not care to look at. Henry knows a lot about the moon. When one can immediately think of several dozen counterexamples (and in fact some of them were discussed in sci.space a few months ago), then one may not feel a very strong incentive to go to the trouble to disprove yet another wild theory. -I do not know about -Fulton or Rube Goldberg, so please enlighten me. My current -interpretation of Henry Spencers comment is that he finds it OK -to laugh at Fulton because Rube Goldberg was wrong. I find that -kind of attitude very saddening, more so when it comes from one -interested in science and even more so if the person happens to -be a scientist. This analysis assumes there's a shortage of crackpot theories - in fact, they're abundant. There are plenty of more plausible theories that can be analyzed - when a post comes along that contradicts an enormous number of prior observations, and the analysis used to support the new theory is very incomplete, it's reasonable to suggest the poster go back to the drawing board and work through the analysis again. Henry has very gracefully shot down many less outrageous theories (including some of mine :-). Anyway, snarfy got plenty of technical replies. -Such a person may be useful in science, but it -is not likely he will do anything outrageous for his time. He -will not invent the telephone, build an airplane, ask the -doctors to wash their hands after touching a corpse or (read my -lips) find a cure for AIDS. Among other things, Henry has done considerable work on an innovative solar sail. Many people who posted sarcastic replies to snarfy have done extensive serious work on improving space exploration. (What's that quote about keeping an open mind?) John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 92 17:16:46 GMT From: Roger Arnold Subject: Putting air on the moon Newsgroups: sci.space In article roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes: >[..] >If that's correct, then a 1000 km array on the moon could potentially give >a resolution at 10 light years of about 50 km. (Imagine mapping the continents >on the planets of nearby star systems!) [..] Sorry, won't work. Not unless the individual telescopes in your array are pretty spectacular instruments in their own right. You need around 10 meters of unobscured aperture, with a mirror perfectly figured and smooth to .01 lamda, to keep the light from the planet from being lost in the statistical noise of light diffracted from the primary. And even that's only adequate for the dozen or so nearest stars. The problem is that, for a terrestrial planet at optical wavelengths, the light any telescope receives from the planet will be ten orders of magnitude below (one ten-billionth) the light from the primary. If planet and primary were of equal brightness, a one meter space tele- scope could resolve them. But as it is, it would take nearly perfect diffraction-limited optics of ten times that aperture to concentrate the planet's light enough to detect it above the far-field light haze from the primary. But, you ask, so what? Won't mixing the signals from the combined telescopes in the array isolate the light from the planet? Well, yes and no. You can boost the signal-to-noise ratio by an amount that's proportional to the number of telescopes in the array. That might allow you to detect the presence of the planet, where you couldn't otherwise. But unless you start with a pretty clean signal in the first place, there will be far too much noise to allow anything like imaging of continents. People talk a lot about the fantastic resolving power of wide baseline arrays. You can do neat things with them, but when signal-to-noise is an issue, it's total real aperture that counts. > >John Roberts >roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov -- Roger Arnold arnold@clipper.ingr.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:15:08 GMT From: "Michael V. Kent" Subject: Shuttle Status for 11/13/92 (Forwarded) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Nov13.182845.21792@news.arc.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov writes: > SPACE SHUTTLE WEEKLY STATUS SUMMARY > Friday, November 13, 1992 [STS-52 just completed.] > Mission: STS-53 DoD Inclination: 57 degrees > Launch timeframe: Dec. wk 1 Nominal Landing Site: KSC > > Mission: STS-54 Inclination: 28.45 degrees > Launch Timeframe: January Wk 2 Nominal Landing Site: KSC > > Mission: STS-55/Spacelab-D2 Inclination: 28.45 degrees > Launch timeframe: February, wk 4 Nominal Landing Site: KSC > Wow! Look at this. Do you remember the last time we launched four missions in numerical order? Glad to see payload processing is starting to settle down into a process. Mike -- Michael Kent kentm@rpi.edu McDonnell Douglas Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Tute Screwed Aero Class of '92 Apple II Forever !! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 22:04:24 GMT From: Robert Walsh Subject: Study says: Space research spinoffs marginal Newsgroups: sci.econ,sci.space In <0f0iOtO00iV4M7vkx1@andrew.cmu.edu> lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lawrence Curcio) writes: >I would think that the spinoffs od space research in the realm of >materials science would be neither marginal nor random. Yea! Where would we all be without our non-stick frying pans :-) Seriously, though, where was this report published? Sounds a little strange to me too... -- rjwalsh@maths.tcd.ie \ Drain you of your sanity Robert Walsh \ Face the thing that should not be Student Computer Research Group \ Trinity College, Dublin. \ - Metallica ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:41:03 GMT From: Gerald Cecil Subject: SUMMARY of 1st NASA TOWN MEETING -- Ra Newsgroups: sci.space In article 1@fnalo.fnal.gov, higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >In article <1992Nov13.160320.16902@samba.oit.unc.edu>, cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil) writes: >> Jon Leech & I were among the 700 people at the 1st NASA Town Meeting, held on >> Monday afternoon 2-6:30 pm in nearby Raleigh. > >Thanks, Gerald, for posting your account, which was drenched in >cynicism but made very interesting reading. Me cynical about NASA? Nah -- they're the only game in town. I just object to excessive razzle-dazzle, and attempts by certain of their employees to push the Shuttle as the best way to accomplish NASA's goals. Goldin is better, basically admitting that they're stuck with it. The best thing about the meetings is that they're happening near many of you! By all means try to attend. A note on procedure that I've sent to NASA with my other comments: the 2nd stringer segment (i.e. panel of NASA program managers) would improve if the panel members were introduced *before* the final segment so that you could question them 1-on-1 during the break. I suggest that you arrive early & find the managers you want to talk to about specific issues, because you can't monopolize the open mikes. Queue fast ... Goldin fielded < 15 questions. My responses to Bill's questions: >1. Do you think this meeting accomplished anything? If so, what? Yes. Goldin gave a good summary of how NASA is attempting to address budgetary concerns, why NASA is essential for high-tech development for US industrial development, and the use of space as an educational magnet. >2. Do you think this meeting (or the whole series of meetings) will >accomplish anything that you want accomplished? (-: Officially, the whole experience will end up as a few sentences in some Headquarters report. But I'd like to believe that some enthusiastic little girl in the audience will hop off a ladder in a few decades, to become the first human on Mars. --- Gerald Cecil cecil@wrath.physics.unc.edu 919-962-7169 Physics & Astronomy, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 92 18:51:55 GMT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: SUMMARY of 1st NASA TOWN MEETING -- Raleigh NC (long) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Nov13.160320.16902@samba.oit.unc.edu>, cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil) writes: > Jon Leech & I were among the 700 people at the 1st NASA Town Meeting, held on > Monday afternoon 2-6:30 pm in nearby Raleigh. Thanks, Gerald, for posting your account, which was drenched in cynicism but made very interesting reading. I intend to show up for the Indianapolis town meeting at IUPUI next Friday. (I'd like to hear from anybody else who plans to be there.) Although he makes many negative comments, Gerald writes: > Overall, I was fairly impressed. I had not expected Goldin to attend & it was > useful to spend a few minutes asking him technical questions. I hope he survives > the change of Administration. That aspect of the format was much more successful > than the Paine Commission hearing that I attended in '86. NASA also solicited > write-in questions that they promised to answer [Netters, here's your chance!!] > The feel of the meeting often veered abruptly from that of an arcane > budgetary/technical seminar to that of a religious revival. The 2nd stringer > component was less successful. No-one in the audience appeared to have a > focussed question to any of the senior managers. 1. Do you think this meeting accomplished anything? If so, what? 2. Do you think this meeting (or the whole series of meetings) will accomplish anything that you want accomplished? (-: I may ask these questions again as the meetings go on across the nation. I'm curious about the reactions of net.people to Goldin's effort. O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/ - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap! / \ (_) (_) / | \ | | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory \ / Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET - - Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 05:26:23 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Ulysses Update - 11/13/92 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Forwarded from: PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE JET PROPULSION LABORATORY CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011 ULYSSES MISSION STATUS November 13, 1992 All spacecraft and science operations are performing well. Routine Earth-pointing maneuvers are continuing to be conducted about twice a week. The last set of maneuvers were performed on Nov. 6 and 10. The next maneuver will be carried out on Nov. 14. A reduction in the number of ranging passes continued during this reporting period to improve the spacecraft signal at its great distance from Earth. Today Ulysses is about 830 million kilometers (515 million miles) from Earth, traveling at a heliocentric velocity of about 32,400 kilometers per hour (20,200 miles per hour). Ulysses is now 12.7 degrees south of the ecliptic plane in which the planets orbit, slowly looping its way back toward the sun. The Keppler Gas Experiment that measures neutral helium gas from interstellar space was turned on today. Measurement of the arrival speed and direction of the interstellar gas allows scientists to determine how our solar system is moving through interstellar space. Now that Ulysses has climbed almost 13 degrees out of the ecliptic plane, it is possible to determine speed and direction more accurately by including measurements made in the third dimension. ##### ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Give people a second /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | chance, but not a third. |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 92 23:10:46 GMT From: Rich Kolker Subject: What kind of computers are in the shuttle? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <8lr15cg@rpi.edu> kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes: >In article <1992Nov12.001047.10408@nuchat.sccsi.com> rkolker@nuchat.sccsi.com (Rich Kolker) writes: > >>Now, if we can just get the money for the glass cockpit... > >Rockwell recently won a multi-million dollar contract to upgrade the Shuttle's >avionics. This contract is the one, I believe, that is known as glass cockpit. > It's about time. NASA has to train its new pilot astronauts how to use analog instruments, they're all used to modern military cockpits, and the shuttle looks like the inside of a 707. ++ricH ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 422 ------------------------------