Space Digest Thu, 12 Aug 93 Volume 17 : Issue 013 Today's Topics: DC-X engine failures and safety Explanation needed.... FTL COMMUNICATION? Henry Spencer in the Slow Zone (Re: Ghost Wheels & HenrySpancer_Zoo) man-made meteor storm? Mars Observer GIF Image Moon Rocks For Sale (2 msgs) NASA's planned project management changes Renaming Mars Observer (was Mars Observer Update - 08/02/93) S.H. is a hypocrite Simple Space Plane! Time Titan IV failure. Info? (2 msgs) Why the Shuttle will never be popular. 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: 11 Aug 1993 15:19:00 GMT From: Scott Chisholm Subject: DC-X Newsgroups: sci.space Jeez! I make a little comment and the grammar police come out to play. Sorry, I don't have a spell checker in my communications program. BTW, wouldn't your time be better spent getting that shuttle thing back in space instead of correcting bad spelling? I THOUGHT this was how my money was being spent at NASA. It shows. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 1993 08:36:09 -0400 From: Pat Subject: engine failures and safety Newsgroups: sci.space Pre shuttle, all US manned spacecraft seemed to do a nice un powered water ditch, with only the notable loss of one capsule. the soviets doa nice unpowered land ditch. wings don't seem that vital for spacecraft. -- I don't care if it's true. If it sounds good, I will publish it. Frank Bates Publisher Frank Magazine. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Aug 93 10:50:44 MAL From: Anton Subject: Explanation needed.... I really appreciate the informative postings by Ron from JPL but as someone not connected with the space industry find difficulty understanding some of the technical terms. Below is an extract from one of them. Could someone explain these terms or point me to where I can get info about them. Thanks a lot. Anton PK-KJ@UTMJB _____________________________________________________________________________ GALILEO MISSION DIRECTOR STATUS REPORT POST-LAUNCH July 30 - August 5, 1993 > On August 2, delta Differenced One-Way Range (DOR) passes were scheduled What is delta (DOR)? > On August 2 and 5, Memory Readouts were performed for the Solid State >Imaging (SSI) camera. The MRO on August 2 was not received due to loss of DSN What is MRO? > On August 3, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to > 264 hours, its planned value for this mission phase. This command was What is NO-OP and command loss timer? > On August 3, an Ultra-Stable Oscillator (USO) test was performed to verify What is an USO test? > On August 5, Delayed Action Commands (DACs) were sent to transition to > cruise mode after optical navigation No. 3 on August 11, turn the gyros > off and transition to the all-spin mode. The commands were received > without incident. > On August 5, the spacecraft transitioned to dual-spin mode, gyros were > turned on and the wobble identification activity is in progress at the > writing of this report. The spacecraft is expected to be in the > dual-spin mode for approximately 3 hours 30 minutes to perform the > wobble identification activities. What does the above mean ? > 10. The Spacecraft status as of August 5, 1993, is as follows: > > a) System Power Margin - 38 watts > b) Spin Configuration - Dual-Spin > c) Spin Rate/Sensor - 3.15rpm/Star Scanner > d) Spacecraft Attitude is approximately 20 degrees > off-sun (lagging) and 3 degrees off-earth (lagging) > e) Downlink telemetry rate/antenna- 40bps(coded)/LGA-1 > f) General Thermal Control - all temperatures within > acceptable range > g) RPM Tank Pressures - all within acceptable range > h) Orbiter Science- Instruments powered on are the PWS, > EUV, UVS, EPD, MAG, SSI, HIC, and DDS > i) Probe/RRH - powered off, temperatures within > acceptable range > j) CMD Loss Timer Setting - 264 hours > Time To Initiation - 260 hours I'd appreciate some explanation of the above. > UPLINK GENERATION/COMMAND REVIEW AND APPROVAL: > The EJ-3 (Earth-Jupiter #3) Final Sequence and Command Generation package > was approved by the Project on August 5, 1993. This sequence covers > spacecraft activities from August 27 to September 27, 1993 and includes > the IDA closest approach on August 28 and the initial return of science data. > GDS (Ground Data Systems): >1. The Galileo Readiness Review for MGDS Version 18.1 was conducted on > August 5. The major Galileo support function provided by MGDS Version 18.1 > is the uplink command capability replacing the current MCCC Command System. The > Project concluded that MGDS Version 18.1 was ready to start parallel operation s > during which the AMMOS/MGDS Command System will be used for flight support as > much as possible, but the MCCC Command Systems will still be available. At > the end of parallel operations (planned for October 93), assuming no > significant MGDS problems are discovered, the MCCC Command System support will > be decommitted. > SPECIAL TOPIC > As of August 5, 1993, a total of 71950 real-time commands have been > transmitted to Galileo since Launch. Of these, 65548 were initiated in the > sequence design process and 6402 initiated in the real-time command process. > In the past week, 5 real time commands were transmitted; one was initiated in > the sequence design process and 4 initiated in the real-time command process. > Major command activities included commands to reset the command loss timer, > and transition to the all-spin mode. Some explanation please. > ___ _____ ___ > /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov > | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Aug 93 22:50:00 -0400 From: Mark Leighton Subject: FTL COMMUNICATION? Newsgroups: sci.space Someone once wrote: > Here's a nutty little concept that was posted on a sci-fi newsgroup > (somewhere in the rec.arts.startrek region, I think). > What if you had an ideal rod (ie. massless, uncompressable, > unbendable) that was one lightyear long, suspended in space. You have two > observers, one at each end (A and B). So we have: > A ---------------------------------------- B > So, what happens when the observer at A grabs the rod and pulls it > towards him/her? Wouldn't the end at B move also? At the same time? > If no, why not? > Its got me puzzled. I'm sorry but this question is impossible as asked. If the rod has no mass then it doesn't exist as matter. If it is not matter then it must be energy and energy is limited to the speed of light. Period. If the rod is matter then it must be composed of quantum particles which interact by one of the four forces (strong, weak, gravity, and electomag), all which travel at the speed of light. Therefore, a material rod would be pulled at point A and would stretch slightly as the pull is transmitted along the rod and 1 year later this pull would make it to point B. This of course happens all the time, but too quickly for us to notice or really care. My contribution to solving the paradoxes of the universe. Next week, Grandfather assassination and what was before the Big Bang... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------- Mark Leighton | Mark's Message Factory mark.leighton@canrem.com < PREFERRED | 100 monkeys at 100 typewriters, leighton@vax.library.utoronto.ca | serving YOU daily. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 15:57:09 GMT From: Christopher Neufeld Subject: Henry Spencer in the Slow Zone (Re: Ghost Wheels & HenrySpancer_Zoo) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <70226@mimsy.umd.edu>, Yuan Liu wrote: >In article pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes: ># sr600uab@sdcc16.ucsd.edu (S.H.) writes: > > ^^^^ ># >Really ? ># ># >What else are you going to Kill ? ># ># A "kill file" is simply a file with names or subject headings that ># the posessor has deceided to stop reading postings from. Much of ># the news software out there is capable of filtering out messages from ># such people. ># > >Judging from the postings generated from "him" so far, this is obviously an >attempt to run a clone of the AI program known as Henry Specer (aka Sander at >the Zoo) deep inside the slow zone [1]. > Really? I was guessing that it was running in the Unthinking Depths. -- Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student | Famous Last Words #4: neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca Ad astra | We won't need generic!cneufeld@utzoo.utoronto.ca | reservations. "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 14:25:40 GMT From: "John F. Lawrence" Subject: man-made meteor storm? Newsgroups: sci.space In 1966, an experiment was conducted with an artificial meteor. A 5.7 gram, 1.2 cm diameter steel pellet was carried into the ionosphere by a Trailblazer II rocket. >From an altitude of 120 km, the pellet was injected into the atmosphere with an initial velocity of 11 km/s. It penetrated to a height of 70 km before it became visible to cameras and spectrographs. For .9 seconds, the meteor streaked across the sky and disappeared at 61 km. If you really want to know more about this experiment, I read about it in V. Buchwald's book "Meteorites". I'm not a meteorite expert. I only recalled this because my undergraduate senior project was a computational study of meteor entry for my degree in Aerospace from Iowa State (go Cyclones!) If I remember the background research correctly, most meteorites are mostly iron with a small amount of nickel. Stone meteorites are also common but they are less likely to be found because they tend to pulverize during re-entry. The common faint streaks of light are suprisingly small pellets (less than a gram) and burn up at an altitude of about 60 km. More spectacular ones are much larger and sometimes survive re-entry. I also remember coming across the story of lady that was hit by one in the 1920s while she was sleeping in her apartment. It crashed through the roof and a couple of floors of the building before it hit her. She suffered a broken hip. Whoa. I have no idea if a shotgun fired from the Orbiter could deliver enough dV to cause the pellets to re-enter. But if it could, most predictions and the experiment conducted in 1966 suggest that they would be visible. The shot gun would definitely give the pellets different orbital parameters and I would assume that this would eventually result in re-entry. Anyway that's more than my $.02 worth. (Hi there Ken J.) John Lawrence lawrence@mickey.jsc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 14:11:13 GMT From: Ed McCreary Subject: Mars Observer GIF Image Newsgroups: sci.space >>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 1993 20:51:05 GMT, cannon@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Chris Cannon) said: CC> Along these lines, I was wondering what kind of format the original CC> VICAR files are. What resolution/bits per pixel/color they use. CC> If they are greater than 8 bits/pixel, then its a shame they CC> are GIF's There's a description of the VICAR format somewhere around ames that Ron Baalke wrote. It's worth grabbing if you're interested. As for pixel depth, most of the cameras used recently have been 8-bit. Viking actually had only 7-bits of valid data per pixel but it was scaled to 8-bit to simplify things. As for the color images, they are usually assembled from three 8-bit image so you end up with a 24-bit per pixel color image. But, quantization techiques work wonders and most images when quantized down to 8 bits look just fine. The benefits in size and ease of viewing you get from an 8-bit image far outweighs the information lost in the quantization process, IMHO. -- Eddie McCreary edm@twisto.compaq.com "Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind faith." Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 93 09:50:14 -0600 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Moon Rocks For Sale Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary,sci.geo.geology In article <10AUG199304171618@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: [Lunar rocks collected by robots are to be auctioned by Korolev's family.] > The Moon rocks are expected to sell for around >$50,000. > > This will be the second time that lunar material has been available >at an auction. The first time was in January 1993 when Moon dust was >sold at an auction house in Berverly Hills, California. The Moon dust >was collected by a NASA technician onto a 2 inch piece of transparent tape >from the spacesuit of astronaut Dave Scott after his Apollo 15 trip to the >Moon in July, 1971. The Moon dust sold for $46,750. So, rockhound Ron, what do *you* expect they'll go for? Shouldn't "rocks" of any size go for a lot more than "dust stuck to a piece of tape?" Bill Higgins | If we can put a man on the Moon, why can't Fermilab | we put a man on the Moon? -- Bill Engfer higgins@fnal.fnal.gov | If we can put a man on the Moon, why can't higgins@fnal.Bitnet | we put a woman on the Moon? -- Bill Higgins ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 1993 15:30 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Moon Rocks For Sale Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary,sci.geo.geology In article <1993Aug11.095014.1@fnala.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes... >So, rockhound Ron, what do *you* expect they'll go for? Shouldn't >"rocks" of any size go for a lot more than "dust stuck to a piece of >tape?" > You would think so, but auctions are very unpredictable. I'm trying to find out the size of the rocks and whether they are being sold individually or as a lot. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | When given a choice between /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | two exciting things, choose |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | the one you haven't tried. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 12:39:14 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: NASA's planned project management changes Newsgroups: sci.space In article steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: > Government launches a communications satellite, private companies > launch communication satellites. >Different purpose. Cos want to broadcast the olympics on three >channels, live. Govs want the nation to remain in being. But by and large the same satellite and made by the same manufacturer. But that's not relevant to this issue. We are talking about the delivery truck, not the satellite. Why does the govenrment NEED to pay twice as much for expendable launch services? Can't be the launcher since the commercial users buy the same luanchers. Can't be saftey since govenrment launches are no safer than commercial ones. Can't be govenrment mandates since, as government contractors, commercial launchers are built under the same regulations (in fact, they are built right next to each other). The only difference is the paperwork required by the government. Now, WHY does the government NEED all this extra stuff when it only adds cost? > Both use the same launcher. The only difference is the government pays > tens of millions more for the exact same service. >Come on, the government procurement takes place on a scale >ten times larger than the largest company - Usually when you conduct procurment on larger scales you get lower costs. My employer, for example, paid a lot less for the PC on my desk than I would have if I bought one for myself. >NASA is subject >to all government laws plus whatever specifications Congress >made just for them (aren't they lucky). Most of those regulations (drug plicy, EEO, and all that) apply to the makers of commercial launchers since they also build launchers for govenrment. > Another comparison is the difference between procurement >practises and accounting required by charities. Different purpose, >different rules. Charities don't procure in a way that doubles the cost of anything. (I wouldn't donate to any that did anyway). Sure accounting methods are different for different industries. But why does government NEED to do it so that it's launches cost tens of millions more? I understand what they are doing which makes it more expensive and many of them alos apply to the commercial launchers. The question is why government must add all those extra costs. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | Mortiki: "What do we do after we do it?" | | aws@iti.org | Man with no name: "Ya live with it." | +----------------------10 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 08:41:11 GMT From: Dave Michelson Subject: Renaming Mars Observer (was Mars Observer Update - 08/02/93) Newsgroups: sci.space In article jhardin@splat.com ("John Hardin at home") writes: >} I suppose Mars Observer could have been named after an astronomer who had >} made important early observations but I don't think that names like >} "Schroter" or "Schiaparelli" would capture the public's imagination. >} >} Anyone have any bright ideas for an appropriate name? Maybe it's not >} too late.... :-) > >Percival Lowell (sp? - all my books are packed) is another obvious choice. Duplicate name. (There is a Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona :-) Besides, Lowell was noted for his popularization of the (non-existant) Martian canals. Hardly a good starting point for a probe which seeks to report accurate results :-) Nice try, though. -- Dave Michelson -- davem@ee.ubc.ca -- University of British Columbia ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 14:32:24 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: S.H. is a hypocrite Newsgroups: sci.space In <53160@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> hshen@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (H.S.) writes: >In article <2466o7$n9c@pravda.sdsc.edu> u1452@boris.sdsc.edu (Jeff Bytof - SIO) writes: >>[In response to S.H., a fellow Triton}: >>>>>Organization: San Diego SuperComputer Center @ UCSD > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>>Hope this is not an insult. May I ask this: >>>>>"Are you a staff of SDSC or an *user* ? " >>>>Simply a user. >>> Thanks A lot. This is All I want to know. >>> Next time, if you are just the user, do not wear the Title of >>> the Organisation which you are not belong to. Wearing somebody >>> else's Title to send message is very ease to cause elusions. >>> Sometime, it could be taken as done intensionly for political >>> propaganda. >>> Remember this: >>> **You** do not represent San Diego SuperComputer Center @ UCSD! >>S.H.: This is from YOUR mail header: >>Organization: University of California, San Diego >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>You represent UCSD? Hypocrite. >I am Hypocrite ? >I didn't speak for *someone else* like you!!!!!!!!! >That was the rereason why I said that. >No matter what Title I wear, I did not speak for someone else. >But that was not your case! You were wearing some title to >speak for someone else. >So, who is Hypocrite ??? >Anyway, why are you getting so fuzzy about? >I simply asked you where are you comming from ? >It won't be difficult to prove that you are one of the "user group" >coming here for whatever the means. No, you just come here under multiple accounts and flood the place with paranoid fantasies and non-germane crossposting. You're not only a hypocrite -- you know you're wrong and don't want to post under your 'real' account. Hence "S.H." vice "H.S.". You couldn't buy a clue if someone wrote the check for you and pinned it to your shirt before they led you to the counter. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 14:50:46 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Simple Space Plane! Newsgroups: sci.space In <5925@gorn.echo.com> rstevew@gorn.echo.com (richard steven walz) writes: >In article <23scnc$13f@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes: >>In article <1993Aug4.205054.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >>>Okay wierd idea time again: >>>Ideas for a space plane, or atleast how to power it.. >>>Useing Kerosene (I think this will work, nicely if it does since Kerosense is >>1/Mr(overall) = 0.0927 >>-george william herbert >------------------------ >Right on the money, George, but there's no harm in slinging second stages >onto existing jets that have extra LOX to go higher with commercial jet >fuel and then launching either piggybacked or underslung or bombayed >vehicles. Separation at speed is a *hard* problem. I would not want to try to kluge something that wasn't originally intended for the purpose (although that has certainly been tried in the past). And air-launch isn't really what was being suggested, was it? >Then again, I haven't figured why they haven't used huge helium >balloons to lift launch vehicles to a decent fraction of the way out of the >largest part of air mass. This is done with some sounding rockets, I believe. The problem is that the gain doesn't outweight the weight constraints you wind up having to meet to get something a balloon can lift -- getting above the air just isn't that much of a win, since even launching from sea level you don't spend *that* long in atmosphere -- just climb straight out. The real trick is getting orbital speed in a direction that doesn't intersect the surface of the earth (or an appreciable part of the atmosphere, which would bleed off velocity). >They could even be reuseable! We DID actually get >the X-15 to virtually the same altitude as the first suborbitals, and that >was then with hydrazine and either ammonia or hydrogen peroxide >concentrated. I see no reason we could put a lot of pieces of the space >station up there cheaply using this stuff! There's a difference between getting up high and getting orbital velocity. Altitude is relatively simple when compared to getting the velocity necessary to *keep* altitude. >I think we are a bit too shuttle >focussed for good cargo delivery to orbit. True enough, but not for the reasons you state. And the things you've suggested just don't get that big a win when compared to the cost of having to keep your actual booster small enough to be lofted by balloon or aircraft. >And we DO have a missle slung >under the F-15 now to shoot down satellites! ASAT: 1) does not achieve orbital velocity, and 2) has been shelved. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 14:35:19 GMT From: Mike Fraietta Subject: Time Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space In article <2487ao$1up@kbad.eglin.af.mil>, jeffcoat@eglin.af.mil (Mark Jeffcoat) writes: |> Three questions: |> |> 1. What is the current difference between International Atomic Time (TAI) |> and Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)? |> |> 2. When was UTC last adjusted? |> |> 3. What time basis is used by the Global Positioning System (GPS)? |> |> E-Mail response to jeffcoat@buzz.eglin.af.mil, or just post it. E-Mail |> would be easier on me. |> |> Here is the way I understand it to be: 1) TAI = UTC + Delta_AT 2) UTC last adjusted I believe on 30 June by 1 leap second 3) GPST is defined to be the same as UTC (USNO) at midnight on the night of 5 Jan 1980 and the morning of 6 Jan 1980. GPST = TAI - 19s. Hope that helps. -- Mike Fraietta fraietta@pat.mdc.com McDonnell Douglas Aerospace - Houston Division (713) 283-1066 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 19:58:46 GMT From: Charles Grimm Subject: Titan IV failure. Info? Newsgroups: sci.space > No i think it was the glomar explorer. they did > salvage part of the soviet boat, but it broke in two > during the lift. only the forward section was recovered. > > I believe the bodies of six soviet crewmen were buried at sea. > personal effects were stored, for later return. after the > mission was breached, i believe they did return these > fragments. > > the primary objective of the mission failed. most of the secondary > objectives failed after secrecy was lost too. > > pat > -- > I don't care if it's true. If it sounds good, I will > publish it. Frank Bates Publisher Frank Magazine. I had heard from a very unofficial source that the operation was successful, but like most covert activities admitting success was counterproductive. First, we never attempted it. Second, we attempted it and failed. Third, we attempted it with very limited success. Fourth, someday, usually due to the freedom of information act, we'll tell the truth. Disclaimer: Please pay no attention to this post, and don't try to get me fired if you agree or disagree. My company has no clue or connection to what I think. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 1993 08:40:38 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Titan IV failure. Info? Newsgroups: sci.space Darn, gunned down on a semantics point. I just finsihed reading the arctic Grail, and at least it implied Amundsen did a lot of studies on the Fauna of the Arctic. observing caribou habits, etc.... Certainly the greely expedition was more science based, but considering amundsen brought everyone back alive, it was an improvement. I think amundsen like cook did a lot of astrometry while up there also. pat -- I don't care if it's true. If it sounds good, I will publish it. Frank Bates Publisher Frank Magazine. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 04:00:49 GMT From: Rob Schultz Subject: Why the Shuttle will never be popular. Newsgroups: sci.space : You know, I hate to be a wet rag, but these analogies are pretty much : meaningless. The space shuttle is not a winnebago or a dump truck or a : Lamborgini (or Lamborghini? It's not in my dictionary). Ok, how about this. The space shuttle started as a small pickup and midway through had folks try to turn it into a Lamborgini. -- Rob Schultz | | There is no such thing as over-kill... robs@eskimo.com | | ...only under-targeting. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 17 : Issue 013 ------------------------------