Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V12_5/V12_538.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/UbDtaE:00VcJ07zE4v>;
          Tue, 13 Nov 1990 01:58:24 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 1990 01:57:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #538

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 538

Today's Topics:
            Re: Galileo Update - 11/02/90
            Re: Galileo Update - 11/06/90
         Re: Call for new news group : sci.space.seds
             Hubble/Saturn/Mars articles
          Re: Space Station Work Package #3
           Payload Status for 11/07/90 (Forwarded)
               hit by Salyut 7?

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]

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 7 Nov 90 16:35:27 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.
Subject: Re: Galileo Update - 11/02/90
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>>Probably because Ulysses is a European project ...
>>
>>Ulysses is a joint mission between NASA and the European Space Agency...
>
>Oh yes, I forgot.  When a project is done by NASA with modest ESA involvement,
>it's a US project (e.g. HST), but when it's done by ESA with modest NASA
>involvement, it's a joint project. :-) :-)
>
>ISPM would have been a joint project.  Ulysses is a European project with
>minor NASA participation.
>--

Here is NASA's contributions to the Ulysses mission:

   o Launch vehicle and launch facilities
   o Power Source (RTG)
   o Tracking of the spacecraft using the Deep Space Network
   o 50% of the experiments on board the spacecraft
   o Use of JPL's Control Center

NASA's participation with Ulysses is much more than minor.

      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | [e-mail]
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 7 Nov 90 17:43:37 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.
Subject: Re: Galileo Update - 11/06/90
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (SERRE GLENN) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>     A NO-OP command was sent yesterday to the Galileo spacecraft to reset
>>the Command Loss Timer to 216 hours.  A MAG (Magnetometer) instrument
>
>I think this was posted before, but I forgot and my coworkers keep asking:
>"What is the Command Loss Timer, and why does it need to be reset?"
>
If the timer countdowns to zero, Galileo will assume it had lost contact
with Earth and then automatically go into safemode, where it will then
try to restablish communications with Earth.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | [e-mail]
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 7 Nov 90 15:31:16 GMT
From: van-bc!ubc-cs!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!nereid![e-mail]  (Harold Peter White)
Organization: Institute for Space and Terrestrial Science
Subject: Re: Call for new news group : sci.space.seds
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]



I was also thinking about the idea of suggesting a seds news group (ie.
sci.seds). I would like to see one group for discussion of the near future of
exploration and development of space, with input from all areas. This could
possibly save band width from people always cross-posting such things between
sci.space, sci.astro, and sci.space.shuttle. To have to go through the same
messages two or three times is rather a bother. Let sci.astro talk about
astronomy, let sci.space talk about space (and yes, I realize that there is no
set devission between the two), and sci.space.shuttle talk about shuttle
related topics. Discussion about such things as space station Fred, a moon
base, space agriculture and medicine could be posted to sci.seds, instead of
cross posted amongst a few different groups. (Assuming people resist the urge
to cross-post). Infact, I'm willing to bet that those who read sci.astro and
sci.space.shuttle (and a few other groups) will also read this in sci.space,
and thus I don't need to cross post.

Anyone else interested in a group for discussion on the area of exploration and
development of space?

H. Peter White
[e-mail]
ISTS / Space Astrophysics Laboratory

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 7 Nov 90 20:54:14 GMT
From: usc!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.
Subject: Hubble/Saturn/Mars articles
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

USA Today -- 11/7/90
"Hubble To Take Look at Monster Saturn Storm"
By Paul Hoversten

"NASA's Hubble Space Telescope this week zeroes in on a rare
giant storm above Saturn.  Photos may help scientists better
understand the unusually spectacular phenomenon."

The paper quotes Hubble astronomer Dr. James Westphal, of
the California Institute of Technology, as saying "we really
don't know what we're going to see, but it's going to be very
interesting."

The report says, that despite the flawed mirror, the Hubble
telescope should be able to see the storm up to three times better
than ground-based telescopes.

The story says the storm is believed to be caused by the welling
up of hot ammonia gas from inside Saturn's mostly hydrogen
atmosphere.  The report quotes another astronomer, Dr. Reta
Beebe of New Mexico State University, as saying "you can get
some very large bubbles and every now and then you get a
super bubble.  This is a big bubble that punched its way
through and carried warmer ammonia gas that turned to
dazzling white ice."

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

Washington Post -- 11/7/90
"Sky Watch: Mars vs. Saturn"
By Blaine Friedlander Jr.

"The planet Saturn does its best to thwart the attention being
paid to that red object in the East, Mars, which hasn't been this
bright in two years."

The astronomy sky watcher's special report says that Saturn is
upstaging Mars because of the recently discovered giant storm
raging in Saturn's cold but fast moving atmosphere.

The article calls out viewing opportunities for Saturn and says
to look for Saturn moderately high in the west immediately
after sundown.

Mars, though, should be the stellar star, according to the story.
The report says that those who reside in the Northern
Hemisphere do not get a chance to see Mars this bright for
another 11 years and says the Red Planet will be a minus two
magnitude (normal for Venus, and very very bright) sight until
the middle of December.  The story also says that another bright
object to the right of Mars is the Taurus constellation star Aldebaran.

The report says that Earth takes 365 days to orbit the sun and
Mars takes 687 days so it would seem the close proximity of the
two planets to each other would occur every two years.  But, the
story continues, Mars' inclination to the ecliptic plane is
different from Earth's and the "stutter-step" of celestial
mechanics prevents the two planets from being in the same
close space any more frequently than once in eleven years.

The article says that Mars will be closest to Earth on Tuesday,
Nov. 20, at which time the two will be 47 million miles apart.
The story says that Mars will be so bright that no light-polluted
urban spot in the Northern Hemisphere could prevent someone
from seeing the Red Planet.  The date to view Mars at its
brightest, according to the article, will be at midnight on
Tuesday, Nov. 27 when the Earth-Mars and Mars-Sun angles
will be optimum.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | [e-mail]
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 90 16:37:17 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Space Station Work Package #3
Newsgroups: sci.space
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>I'm working on a co-op with GE Astro-Space, the contractor chosen to do
>work on the APAE ( Attached Payload Accommodations Equipment).  We recieved
>a stop work order from NASA on tuesday and I was wondering if anyone else
>had heard any more news about his or the status of the other Work Packages?

As a result of the 91 appropriation, NASA is to redesign the station in
90 days. This redesign is to provide a modular incrimentally growable
design buildable within more reasonable budget numbers. They are also to
assume reasonable launch numbers for the Shuttle and make better use of
cheaper expendables.

One thing being dropped by NASA is the experiments attached to the truss
(which it sounds like you work on). This may be killed entirely however
there are people attempting to save it. It is hoped that the attach points
can stay in the design and if scientists can get funding, they can fly
experiments.

IMHO, this is a good thing. NASA is finally realizing that their previous
design just won't work. For the first time in a long time, things are
moving in the right direction. If things continue this way, we just
*MIGHT* get a real space station.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer| I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation |
|   [e-mail]  | programs, spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it      |
|                | works or not?  - Dick Jones, VP OCP Security Concepts    |

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 7 Nov 90 17:19:16 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Subject: Payload Status for 11/07/90 (Forwarded)
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]


    Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 11-07-90


    - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at Pad-B)

    Experiment monitoring continues.


    - STS-39 AFP-675/IBSS/STP-01 (at CCAFS)

    CITE preps continue at the VPF along with ground software
    development.


    - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C)

    Preps for tomorrows crew equipment interface test will be
    active today.


    - STS-37 GRO (at PHSF)

    Software validation continues.


    - STS-42 IML-1 (at O&C)

    Module and experiment staging continue.


    - STS-45 Atlas-1 (at O&C)

    Experiment and pallet staging continue.


    - STS-46 TSS-1 (at O&C)

    Experiment and pallet staging continue.


    - STS-47 Spacelab-J (at O&C)

    Rack staging continues.


    - STS-67 LITE-1 (at O&C)

    Pallet staging will be performed today.


    - HST M&R (at O&C)

    PR troubleshooting continues.

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 7 Nov 90 20:44:42 GMT
From: isis!scicom![e-mail]  (Bruce Watson)
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Networks, Denver, Co.
Subject: hit by Salyut 7?
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]


Deja vu all over again.  I vaguely remember a similar discussion
about Skylab's demise in 1979.

Salyut 7 has an equatorial inclination of 51.6 degrees so that it
overflies the world from 51.6 south lat and 51.6 north lat.  Let's
assume that it equally probable that it could come down anywhere
within these limits (although there appears to be some effort
afoot to dump it in an ocean).  The area of the earth between
these latitude limits is given by:

A = 2.pi.R.h = 2.pi.(6378km).2.(6378).cos(51.6) = 317e6 sq km.

The population of the earth passed 5 billion (5000 million)
recently.  Let's assume that it is now 5.1e9.  There are a number
of relatively densely populated countries north of 51.6 north,
but little population south of 51.6 south.  Lets subtract
100 million and use 5e9 for the number of persons living
within the latitude limits.  So there are 16 people per square
kilometer.  Or one person for each .06 sq km = 63500 sq m.
This is a square 250 meters on a side.  If each person measures
1 by 2 meters (I'm being generous), then there are 32000 ways
the person can occupy this area.  Salyut 7 measures 17 by 4.2
meters. If Salyut 7 remains whole as it crashes to the earth (
again I'm being generous), there are 560 ways it can
occupy the area.  There are 57 ways the satellite and the
person can intersect.  The prob`ability of a person being struck
is the ratio of the possibilties of success to the
possibilities of arrangement:

p(someone) = 57/(32000).(560) = 1/300000     (small)

The probability that YOU will be hit by Salyut 7 is:

p(you) = 2/317e6 = 1/160000000      (real small)

Please check my arithmetic and my reasoing.  If correct this
implies that a Salyut 7 insurance policy for 160000000 dollars
could be purchased for one dollar (excepting profit and
overhead for the insurance company).  A fair wager
that someone in the world would be hit would be one
dollar that someone would be hit and 300000 dollars that
no one would be hit.  This is contrary to our intuition.
The reason, I think, is that it is hard to appreciate how large the
earth is.

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #538
*******************