Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V12_5/V12_503.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 16KB

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/gb:bD3u00VcJ42TU53>;
          Sun, 28 Oct 1990 01:59:32 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 1990 01:59:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #503

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 503

Today's Topics:
           Re: --- Space Station Budget ---
            Re: Pioneer 11 article
               Re: FITS images
       Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap
           Re: NAVY WITHOLDING EVIDENCE!!!
       Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap
         NASA Headline News for 10/24/90 (Forwarded)
              Re: LLNL Proposal
               Re: HST summary 10/22/90
          Re: Some interesting SSME specifications.
        Re: Disposal of N-waste into the sun.

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: 26 Oct 90 02:59:33 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: --- Space Station Budget ---

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Frank Radley) writes:
>What is meant by "manned capability" as opposed to  MTC or PMC ?

It means "do the same thing, but for less money".
--
The type syntax for C is essentially   | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
unparsable.             --Rob Pike     |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 26 Oct 90 02:58:34 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Pioneer 11 article

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Question:  How strong is "fairly strong?"  Does this mean that Pluto/Charon
>are the most distant objects of significance in the solar system (excepting
>the Oort Cloud)...

Conclusive proof is not available.  But my understanding is that one is now
fairly safe in saying that any further major planets must be either a very
long way out, or a long way out of the ecliptic.  More objects the size of
Pluto/Charon would be possible, I believe -- Pluto is really tiny.

>what does this do to theories about the perturbations
>of the orbit of the outer planets? ...

The most authoritative study of those perturbations, a JPL effort using all
available data and the most thorough analysis yet done, says that they do
not exist:  there are no unexplained discrepancies in outer-planet orbits.
Of course, we are talking about really small discrepancies with a massive
list of observational errors, and there are probably people who would
dispute the JPL conclusions.

> Furthermore, does this evidence
>lend any support or remove it from the brown-dwarf solar companion idea?

My impression is that the companion idea was already pretty dead.  There
is no way to get it far enough out to avoid messing up the planets without
putting it so far out that the dwarf gets lost fairly quickly (on a
geological time scale) due to perturbations from nearby stars.
--
The type syntax for C is essentially   | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
unparsable.             --Rob Pike     |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 27 Oct 90 04:27:20 GMT
From: well![e-mail]  (Jef Poskanzer)
Subject: Re: FITS images

In the referenced message, [e-mail] (Abed Hammoud) wrote:
}    I have some astronomical images in FITS format. I obtained
}    a program called "fitstopgm" from the ftp site fits.cx.nrao.edu;
}    this program worked for some of the images but did not for many
}    other (even thougt they are all FITS files).

Considering I wrote the program without benefit of any documentation
on FITS, it's not too surprising that there are cases it doesn't handle.
If anyone can point me at a format description, I'd be glad to work
on it some more.  (It's not in titan.rice.edu:public/graphics.formats.)
---
Jef

  Jef Poskanzer  [e-mail]  {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!jef
                        For external use only.

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

Date: 26 Oct 90 15:39:51 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Frank Radley) writes:
>+ This HLV will cost less than ONE shuttle flight to  develop.
>+It will lift twice what the Shuttle lifts for a quater to half
>+the launch costs.
>
>Sounds good.   Good enough to get private venture
>capital.....right ? ...

Wrong.  Where's the market?  There is only one customer:  the government.
No venture capitalist in his right mind will fund this without clear
signals from the government that they will buy a bunch.

> Not at all, SSX is also 90 % off the shelf.  And fo..

This seems to depend on who you talk to.  Personally, I think Max Hunter
has a lot on the ball... but it's hard to argue with the folks who point
out that the RL-10 engines he proposes to use are not throttleable and
are not sea-level engines, and SSX needs both.
--
The type syntax for C is essentially   | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
unparsable.             --Rob Pike     |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 27 Oct 90 06:31:12 GMT
From: crash!orbit!pnet51![e-mail]  (S Schaper)
Subject: Re: NAVY WITHOLDING EVIDENCE!!!


Sounds like if he  saw alien-like craft tested there, he ought to read a
recent AvLeak. Our own people can do some pretty impressive stuff.
BTW, I imagine that AL's speculations are at least as inaccurate as all those
designs of the `stealth fighter' turned out to be.


Say, want to buy some range land on Aphrodite Planitatia? No need to worry
about the cattle stedding up in a blizzard, and a nice view of the
mountains... Just e-mail me your credit card number...

:-)
Zeitgeist Busters!

UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!schaper
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Oct 90 22:22:13 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!umich!sharkey!cfctech!teemc!fmeed1![e-mail]  (Russ Cage)
Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fraering Philip) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:
>aws>Now *THAT'S* risky. The above HLV's are all based on existing
>aws>technology. Over 90% of the parts can be bought today. SSX
>aws>on the other hand requires a lot of new stuff. It would be
>aws>far more risky for LLNL to use SSX.
>
>   You've said things to this effect before, but I remain unconvinced.
>With regard to two alternatives to HL Delta:
[notes two unbuilt, never-flown vehicle *proposals* of much
 different architecture than current boosters]

When trying to build an OPERATIONAL space station, it is not
the time to work on EXPERIMENTAL boosters.  We have made that
mistake once with Shuttle, and look what it did to us!

On the other hand, one can just look at the cost of Titan IV
and see that the LLNL staion need not cost terribly much to
launch even if NO new booster is developed.
--
Russ Cage    Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department
Work:  itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage   (CHATTY MAIL NOT ANSWERED HERE)
Home:  [e-mail]  (All non-business mail)
Member:  HASA, "S" division.

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

Date: 24 Oct 90 21:20:21 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Headline News for 10/24/90 (Forwarded)


              Headline News
Internal Communications Branch (P-2) NASA HQ


Wednesday, October 24, 1990    Audio Service: 202/755-1788


This is NASA Headline News for Wednesday, October 24, 1990

The tanking test for Atlantis was delayed from 7:00 am EDT
today to 1:00 pm EDT this afternoon.  There were no technical
issues.  Rather, the team fell behind their checklist in aft
closeout activities.  The Rotating Service Structure, originally
set for rollback at 10:00 pm last night, was rolled back at 6:04
am this morning.  The test will be carried live on NASA Select
TV this afternoon.

The STS-38 Flight Readiness Review will be held at the
Kennedy Space Center next Monday and Tuesday, Oct. 29 & 30.
A launch window for the Atlantis DOD mission is expected to be
announced at the conclusion of the review.

Activity on Columbia, to prepare that vehicle for its tanking
test next Monday, continues to progress well.  In addition to
the orbiter activity, payload maintenance activities also continue
on Columbia's Astro-1 astronomical observatory.  Yesterday,
engineers completed a functional test of the Broad Band X-ray
Telescope and found no unexplained problems.

Discovery continues to undergo reconfiguration work in the
Orbiter Processing Facility.

  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Instrument turn-on procedures continue to go well with the
Ulysses spacecraft.  It is now about 10 million miles from
Earth and moving outward from the Sun at a velocity of 91,600
miles per hour.  A second trajectory course maneuver is
scheduled for Friday, Nov. 2.  Flight dynamics officers at the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory are currently evaluating Ulysses'
trajectory in preparation for the upcoming maneuver.
Spacecraft and instrument performance are reported to be
excellent.

  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The NASA Excellence Award has been renamed in honor
of George M. Low.  Administrator Richard Truly announced the
change this morning at the keynote address of the Seventh
Annual NASA / Contractor's Conference, now underway in
Grenelefe, Florida.

Deputy Administrator J.R. Thompson will announce the 1990
recipient(s) of the George M. Low Trophy at the award
ceremony tonight.  The award recognizes outstanding
achievement in quality and productivity improvement.





Here's the broadcast schedule for Public Affairs events on NASA
Select TV.  All times are Eastern.  **indicates a live program.

Wednesday, 10/24/90
    6:30 am    **Coverage of Atlantis Tanking Test, with
commentary, from Kennedy Space Center Launch Pad 39-A.
Coverage will remain live through completion of the test, now
expected to be mid-afternoon.

    Mid-afternoon (approx. 2:30)    **Magellan-at-Venus report
from Jet Propulsion Laboratory.  This will follow immediately
the conclusion of the Atlantis tanking test.



All events and times may change without notice.  This report is
filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12:00 pm, EDT.  It is a
service of Internal Communications Branch at NASA
Headquarters.  Contact:  CREDMOND on NASAmail or at
202/453-8425.


NASA Select TV:  Satcom F2R, Transponder 13, C-Band, 72
degrees West Longitude, Audio 6.8, Frequency 3960 MHz.

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

Date: 27 Oct 90 23:01:13 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: LLNL Proposal

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:

>NASA has been trying for the last few years to convince people that a
>calculated probability that another Shuttle orbiter could eventually be
>lost should be regarded as a normal part of doing business, and the message
>never seems to sink in:
[simulated conversation deleted...]

Well, the public in general realizes the risks. What upsets the
public in general, and those of us who track space in particular, is
that the shuttle, which is so expensive in the first place, is so
unsafe.

It's not just the chance that another orbiter will be lost. It's the
chance that $ 3,000,000,000.00 (count those zeroes and imagine) worth
of sophisticated hardware will be broken up into bite-sized pieces, then
picked up off of the ocean floor again (at great cost) and then cemented into
an unused missle silo.

That kind of makes the risks involved one hell of a lot less acceptable.

We have to differentiate between meaningful space exploration and
a potlatch with space exploration thrown in on the side.

Phil Fraering
[e-mail]

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

Date: 28 Oct 90 02:17:05 GMT
From: phoenix![e-mail]  (Michael Woodhams)
Subject: Re: HST summary 10/22/90

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>Any idea what the magnitude limit for WFPC2 will be?  Will it be 28th mag?
>People around here have HST projects that are pushing that limit
>(like counting faint galaxies, etc.).  Also, that 25th mag number seems
>optimistic; probably means for single object in uncluttered field
>(do such things exist? :-)).
>
From the WF/PC instrument handbook:
Table 2.2.1 WF/PC Dynamic Range within Single Exposure

                                  Min V       Max V
Configuration  Exposure (sec)   Magnitude   Magnitude

Wide Field       0.11             9.3          16.6
Wide Field       3000            20.4          27.5
Planetary        0.11             8.4          16.0
Planetary        3000            19.5          27.0


This was published in 1985, and refers to WF/PC I. The overall
configuration of WF/PC II is very similar to WF/PC I. I expect the
major changes will be better electronics and lower chip readout noise,
and of course corrective optics. So these numbers should be pretty
close to what WF/PC II will do.

Michael Woodhams.

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

Date: 27 Oct 90 06:31:14 GMT
From: crash!orbit!pnet51![e-mail]  (S Schaper)
Subject: Re: Some interesting SSME specifications.

So, what would the velocity vector be after four hours of 100% thrust on the
SSME's?

Zeitgeist Busters!

UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!schaper
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Oct 90 03:33:44 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Disposal of N-waste into the sun.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>   An earlier writer states that long before our sun dies we will have both
>control over it and earths tectonic movement. The man was a zoologist. I do
>not believe that he realized the scale of project he was talking about...

I'm not a zoologist; I run their computers.  As for the scale of the
project...  There are people still alive who remember a time when man
could not fly, radio did not exist, and the total electrical generating
capacity of the planet was measured in megawatts.  Today, the total
population of Earth's skies at this moment (at any moment, in fact)
is a minimum of several hundred thousand, and the population of low
Earth orbit is non-zero.  Today, we get live television from Neptune,
plus pictures of the surface of Venus taken through an opaque cloud
layer.  Today, the power feed to *this building* is rated in megawatts,
and we build machines the size of a man with power outputs measured
in gigawatts.  Our world has changed beyond recognition in one lifetime.

I do not believe you realize the scale of the projects we will be
undertaking in a mere millennium, never mind the lifetime of the Sun.
--
The type syntax for C is essentially   | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
unparsable.             --Rob Pike     |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #503
*******************