Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V12_0/V12_061.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/YabKrd600VcJIKhE43>;
          Fri, 13 Jul 1990 02:44:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <EabKr=[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 1990 02:44:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #61

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 12 : Issue 61

Today's Topics:
              Re: Titan boosters
             Re: Bush Approves Cape York
              Re:  SPACE Digest V12 #52
             Re: Bush Approves Cape York
               Re: NASA Budget
            Re: NASA's lobbying on the net
              Re: Why drop the shuttle?
              Galileo Update - 07/12/90
           Re: Anti-Gravity Devices (LONG)
              Re: buying Soyuzes
                   Re: Grim

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 90 21:14:54 GMT
From: concertina![e-mail]  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Titan boosters

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (john reece) writes:
>
> >> For a savings of $150 million per launch and the need for fewer
> >> launches, they can get shaken up a bit.
>
> >The vibration is not simply a matter of personal convenience for the crew.
> >Once vibration exceeds a certain threshhold they are effectively incapacited
> >until several minutes after it stops.
>
> Lots of people have gone up on Titans and they did OK.

Those were with Titan IIs, no SRBs.  The strap-ons might make a difference.

------------
  The only drawback with morning is that it comes
    at such an inconvenient time of day.
------------

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 90 04:57:08 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!yarra!melba.bby.oz.au![e-mail]  (Gregory N. Bond)
Subject: Re: Bush Approves Cape York

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:

   In article I wrote:
   >
   >U.S.) will have to pay like anyone else.  And there is _NO_ role in
   >space for the Australian military.

   I guess they wouldn't want to put up a com-sat or an observation sat (spy
   sat just doesn't fit the Aussie frame of mind), huh?

Why would they?  It would cost a huge fraction of the defense budget
($AUD 8.1B in 1988-89, of which just $1B was capital) to put up any
sort of comsat, let alone any spysat. Much easier instead to get data
from the U.S. in return for the use of several patches of desert for
satellite ground stations.  As for coms, mostly it is HF/VHF, but
these is some small comsat capacity; I am unaware which satellites are
used, but they are probably from the U.S. network or even commercial
services.

You gotta remember, this is a _SMALL_ country with a VERY SMALL
military (the biggest boats are 3 DDG guided missile destroyers, we
got 2 squadrons of F-111Cs and three of F/A-18s).

Greg.
--
Gregory Bond, Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd, Melbourne, Australia
Internet: [e-mail]    non-MX: [e-mail]
Uucp: {uunet,pyramid,ubc-cs,ukc,mcvax,prlb2,nttlab...}!munnari!melba.bby.oz!gnb

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date:     Thu, 12 Jul 90  13:39:24 EDT
Subject:  Re:  SPACE Digest V12 #52

> It is my understanding that the system as presently configured can provide
> visual images better than most or all of those available from current
> ground-based optical telescopes. It is obviously short of the design goal.
> It does appear that a complete fix (compensating instrument optics) will
> be possible.
>
> >And now they're trying to sell the idea that the Hubble "might" get
> >fixed in mid-1993, or if that "don't get it" then in 1996. Does anybody
> >at the Hubble-bubble really expect the american "live-for-the-micro-
> >second public to sit still and wait three or even six years for the fix
> >to go up. It is to laugh.
>
> If you have access to cable or satellite TV, you should watch NASA Select
> or CSPAN - your information is at least several days out of date. The NASA
> people in this week's Senate Space Subcommittee meeting said that they are
> confident that instrument replacement can be accomplished by 1993 (assuming
> the shuttle is still in use), and they are hopeful that the process can be
> accelerated. One statement was that replacement within 1.5 years is at
> least conceivable.
>              John Roberts
>              [e-mail]
>
You're right. NASA people are sitting there in the Senate Hearing Room
spouting off all sorts of "what we're gonna do in the future" stuff.
Meanwhile, outside that room in the real world REALITY is that the
space shuttle (upon which they intend to launch the Hubble repair
missions) IS GROUNDED. It is grounded just as hard as it was after
the Challenger was destroyed. And who is to say that another major
problem won't develop after the current one is fixed (if it gets
fixed), that will ground it again for another 6 months, or a year, or
for 20 months, or forever. They aren't promising, they're speculating.
One happens, the other only might.

                                      V. Derdin Valpar
                                      AZM@NIHCU

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 90 17:36:29 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Bush Approves Cape York

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gregory N. Bond) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>
>   In article I wrote:
>   >
>   >U.S.) will have to pay like anyone else.  And there is _NO_ role in
>   >space for the Australian military.
>
>   I guess they wouldn't want to put up a com-sat or an observation sat (spy
>   sat just doesn't fit the Aussie frame of mind), huh?
>
>Why would they?  It would cost a huge fraction of the defense budget
>($AUD 8.1B in 1988-89, of which just $1B was capital) to put up any
>sort of comsat, let alone any spysat.

Microsats are relatively cheap. In a pinch, you could throw one or two on
a souped-up sounding rocket.

As for spy-sats, Israel (not known for large huge budgets) is working on
one to watch for ICBMs in the Middle East. You're not talking big bucks
for something with rudmentary capabilities.

>Much easier instead to get data
>from the U.S. in return for the use of several patches of desert for
>satellite ground stations.

I'm glad you trust us so much :-)

>As for coms, mostly it is HF/VHF, but these is some small comsat capacity;

See reference to microsats above.

>You gotta remember, this is a _SMALL_ country with a VERY SMALL
>military (the biggest boats are 3 DDG guided missile destroyers, we
>got 2 squadrons of F-111Cs and three of F/A-18s).

So cost-share with New Zealand and Singapore. :-)

------------------------------

Date:         12 Jul 90 13:26:14 EDT
From: Dan Sullivan <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Re: NASA Budget
To: <[e-mail]>
X-Office-To:  USENET SMTP


>all of this could be paid for with the money saved from ...

This and comments like it assume that the 'congresscritters' (I love that
expression, it fits mine perfectly) can't find some other place to spend
it and would allow NASA to keep it.

If you dobt this, look at the proposals for spending the so called
'peace dividend'
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 90 20:00:54 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax![e-mail]  (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: NASA's lobbying on the net

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
:In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nicholas J. Szabo) writes:
:
:   Look, I am not trying to be a grinch here, I just want to point out
:   that this is an unfair situation for other government agencies and
:   private companies, and that some (only a small fraction, actually,
:   but NASA posts quite a lot) of the posts have been legally and ethically
:   questionable.  I certainly don't want to discourage Ron Baalke et. al.
:   from their informative, valuable postings.  A agree with Tom Neff that
:   it would be a great loss if sci.space lost these postings.  But I
:   strongly disagree that NASA equipment should be used for promoting the
:   agency.
:
:Fine.  That's it, I'm out of here.
:
:Mary Shafer  [e-mail]  ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer

Although I don't post very often (NASA/JPL work to do you know), I
vote with Mary.  It's been nice (sometimes).

Lee

"Mit Pulver und Blei, die Gedanken sind frei."

|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516  FTS 977-0516
|[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 90 21:01:37 GMT
From: mcgill-vision!quiche!calvin![e-mail]  (Mark SOKOLOWSKI)
Subject: Re: Why drop the shuttle?

In article <[e-mail]> brycen@.UUCP (Bryce Nordgren) writes:
>
>How feasible is this idea?  I mean, if they *do decide to stop running the
>shuttles, shouldn't they be put to use as something else?  What's the point
>of having them sitting around doing nothing?  I think that this would work,
>but have no background whatsoever as to *how it might work (with the math and
>all.)  Could somebody estimate how much it would cost (in fuel, time, and
>dollars.) to make a shuttle run from the planned position of freedom (if that's
>determined yet) to the moon and back?  How about Venus or Mars or the
>asteroid belt?  Does the shuttle have enough range to reach anything not in
>the earth-moon system?  Whoever figures this stuff out should probably add in
>the mass of the supplies that would be necessary to take along.

Not very practical: The shuttle weights 90 tons, more than 4 Mirs, and
sending it anywhere in the lower solar system requires a booster roughly
2 times as massive (if liquid hydrogen propelled...) i.e. 200 tons. But
there are too much "Earthly" features that are unusable elsewhere...
For instance, for the glidding abilities, I have read somewhere that the
best the shuttle can do is 1:2.27 i.e. each time it looses 1 mile in
altitude, it travels 2.27 miles horizontaly... So what do you want to
do with that in a Martian context (Perhaps Venus will do... Oh!!! Great
idea for me!!!!!). Besides, how 2 or 3 people (not 7 I guess :-) ) are going
to live for many month in a place designed for 1 week max.?

Mark S.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 90 00:10:51 GMT
From: usc!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 07/12/90


                              GALILEO
                      MISSION STATUS REPORT
                           July 12, 1990

     As of noon (PDT) Thursday, July 12, 1990, the Galileo spacecraft is
87,688,100 miles from the Earth and traveling at a heliocentric velocity of
52,070 miles per hour.  The spacecraft is spinning at 3.15 rpm as measured
by its star scanner, and is in dual spin cruise configuration.  Round trip
light time is 15 minutes, 44 seconds.

     A command was sent on July 9 to power-on the scan actuator 4-watt heater
to maintain the gyros within acceptable thermal limits. The additional power
is necessary now that the spacecraft is beyond 1 AU from the sun.

     Cruise Science Memory Readouts (MROs) were successfully performed for
the Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV), Magnetometer (MAG) and Dust Detector (DDS)
instruments on July 9 and 12.

     The periodic Command Detector Unit (CDU) signal-to-noise ratio and the
Radio Frequency Subsystem (RFS) receiver automatic gain control tests were
successfully performed on July 11.  These telecommunications tests collect
data to characterize the performance of the S-Band receiver and the command
detector elements.

     A Ultra Stable Oscillator (USO) test was conducted on July 12.  This test
provides continuing trend information characterizing the performance of this
ultra-stable RF downlink frequency source.

     The Plasma Wave (PWS) magnetic field electronics heater has recently
exhibited more on/off cycles (about once/day) than anticipated.  This heater
interface is automatically controlled by an on-board CDS thermal monitor
algorithm.  The thermal limits (-10 degree C to 25 degree C) are presently
set with some margin to maintain the PWS electronics within its flight
allowable temperature range.  Since long-term deep thermal cycling may result
in solder joint degradation, options have been developed to reduce or preclude
the depth and number of PWS thermal cycles.  A system/science evaluation of
the options is in process.  At present the PWS magnetic field
sensor/electronics are not at risk.

     A series of three sets of delayed action commands (DACs) was sent on
July 12 to properly set the Energetic Particles Detector (EPD) heater
configuration to allow safing and unsafing of the EPD before and after
the Trajectory Course Manuever 5 (TCM-5) and motor maintenance activity.
Prior to TCM-5, the EPD will be stepped to Sector 0, the minimum plume
contamination position.  After TCM-5, EPD will be repositioned to Sector 4.
The third set DACs will be executed as part of the periodic EPD motor
maintenance activity scheduled for September 1990.

     The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements remained relatively stable.  The
AC measurement continues to indicate a near short circuit path to chassis.
The DC measurement has stabilized and remained near 18.5 volts after the
fluctuations observed during last week's SITURN activity.

     The TCM-5 sequence will be executed by the spacecraft on July 17.  The
maneuver will be performed in vector mode and consist of an axial burn (using
Z thrusters) and lateral burn (using the L thrusters).  The total velocity
increment expected is about 0.9 m/sec.  The TCM-5 maneuver uplink process was
accomplished on an accelerated schedule validating the TCM-8 schedule
requirements on July 12.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | [e-mail]
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 90 01:16:32 GMT
From: psuvm![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity Devices (LONG)

Wait a minute! I think positron and anti-proton "fall" in earth
gravitation field, not "float"!

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 90 18:15:19 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!uflorida!mephisto!prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: buying Soyuzes

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>>
>>And then this large, unproven (total of two flights to date, I believe)
>>rocket blows up, taking half your space station with it.
>
>A) I mentioned this, and

Only in passing, though...I feel it's a central issue in the whole thing.

>B) If they trust Buran and their cargo with it, why shouldn't we? I guess
>   it's cuz they're Foreigners, eh?

It's the only choice they have for Buran, in the manner that the ET/SRB
assembly is the only choice we have (now...I am aware of various other
schemes in the past) for launching the shuttle.  After two flights of the
shuttle, would you have trusted several billions of dollars of equipment
to it?  When there's enough flights of Energia to get at least a crude
statistical sample of reliability, I'll consider supporting sending up
U.S. stuff on it...but not until.

And if you wish to accuse me of xenophobia, that's fine, but it might help
to have a reason.


--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology      Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards,
Office of Information Technology     for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Internet: [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 90 07:08:42 GMT
From: uoft02.utoledo.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Grim

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Derek Buzasi) writes:

> A car with a slight misadjustment of the ignition system is a poor analogy
> to the HST. After all, the HST is only within about 10% of spec -- in perfect
> analogy to the car I describe. If HST put 90% of the light into a 0.1 arc sec
> circle (which is about 90% of specified performance), that would match your
> analogy. However, instead it puts only 10% of the light into that circle --
> which matches mine.
>

True, but this does not mean that only 10% of the planned science can be done.
This rules out many progams and reduces the efficiency of many but there
is still a lot to be done.  Maybe that is not sufficient to justify
HST, but I don't want to argue that at this point. Still, 50% of the projects
is not the same as 10%.

Robert Dempsey
Ritter Observatory

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V12 #61
*******************