Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V12_5/V12_582.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/AbGOipu00VcJIGwE4Y>;
          Tue, 20 Nov 1990 17:18:30 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 1990 17:17:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #582

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 582

Today's Topics:
               Re: New Shuttle Engines
            Re: Magellan Update - 11/16/90
               STS 38 Elements
            Looking for FTP sites
               Re: New Shuttle Engines
             Re: The Space Plane
             Re: Pity the Shuttle
           Re: Big bang discovered 1400 years ago ?
        Re: STS 38 Observation Reports -- red?
             Re: The Space Plane
               Re: FITS images
              Re: Photon Engine
               STAR PARTY!!!!!!
             Re: The Space Plane

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: 20 Nov 90 01:07:19 GMT
From: dweasel![e-mail]  (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: New Shuttle Engines

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Hosgood) writes:
>
>Someone (Henry probably) once pointed out that the existing shuttle could
>be massively improved (and lightened) by use of newer computers,
>newer engines etc etc. When asked though, NASA insisted on only more
>of what it already had - even for building Endeavour.
>
>*That* is not the way forward.

    True, but this is equipment that has to work EXTREMELY
reliably, all because of the people on board. So that's why NASA has
stuck to its older, clumsier hardware. I guess that's why unmanned
spacecraft will still be necessary -- there is less to lose with
failure.

    I know someone elsewhere in LLNL who knows of a Lab project
that is to be sent up on a Pegasus rocket. To LEO, a Pegasus can send
up about 500 kg, if I remember correctly. Furthermore, there is only a
six-month wait for the Pegasus, as opposed to a three-year wait for
the Shuttle. He also told me that, because it was unmanned, they could
design it closer to performance limits. Thus, they could use 1/2 burst
pressure in one place, as opposed to 1/5 burst pressure for a Shuttle
payload. Currently, with about $6m per Pegasus and 500 kg to LEO, it
works out to $1200 per kilo -- more than competitive with the Shuttle.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster: [e-mail]

Since this nodename is not widely known, you may have to try:

[e-mail]

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

Date: 19 Nov 90 17:19:57 GMT
From: pasteur!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Magellan Update - 11/16/90

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>... what does the science community hope to learn
>>by mapping Venus?
>
>    The reason that we are mapping Venus is to answer many unanswered questions
>about the earth's origins...

[Enter cynic mode.]  Nonsense.  We are mapping Venus to learn more about
*Venus's* geology and origins.  This will improve our knowledge of planets
in general, and thereby may eventually improve our understanding of Earth
in some small ways.  But that is not the primary objective of the mission.
Statements to the contrary are public-relations hype, concocted in a clumsy
and transparent attempt to make the project seem more "relevant".
--
"I don't *want* to be normal!"         | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
"Not to worry."                        |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 19 Nov 90 21:58:55 GMT
From: sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu![e-mail]  (Ted Molczan)
Subject: STS 38 Elements

Here are five recent orbital elements sets for Atlantis.

I have heard that today's planned landing has been postponed by one
day due to weather problems, so observers will have one more crack at
shuttle tonight.

1 20935U 90 97  A 90322.09365025  .00306405  36536-4  25599-3 0   135
2 20935  28.4700 227.7997 0034689  61.3228 299.0858 16.11031040   331

1 20935U 90 97  A 90322.30434027  .00307686  36943-4  25599-3 0   143
2 20935  28.4684 226.1734 0033684  63.9655  81.0604 16.11170235   372

1 20935U 90 97  A 90322.89870569  .00317861  40420-4  25599-3 0   154
2 20935  28.4770 221.5997 0033312  72.8530 287.6349 16.11664892   475

1 20935U 90 97  A 90323.14633844  .00135323  67395-6  10762-3 0   166
2 20935  28.4775 219.6931 0033555  75.0275 285.2969 16.11669223   516

1 20935U 90 97  A 90323.61684027  .00320469  41185-4  25599-3 0   176
2 20935  28.4783 216.0664 0032792  81.1999 135.0244 16.11820265   582

--
Ted [e-mail]

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

Date: 20 Nov 90 01:07:29 GMT
From: csus.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ccut!s.u-tokyo!utsun![e-mail]  (HOSHINO Takashi)
Subject: Looking for FTP sites

Does anyone know that if there are any FTP sites
which carrie images of the Venus from the Magellan
or other images in bitmap, GIF or anything?

Thanks in advance.

HOSHINO Takashi, University of Tokyo, Japan

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

Date: 18 Nov 90 17:32:30 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!cf-cm!cybaswan![e-mail]  (Steve Hosgood)
Subject: Re: New Shuttle Engines

>>but what problems were encountered with reviving just the F-1 engine program?
>
>In addition to lost documentation and tooling costs, two areas I am aware of
>are:
>

For that matter, why would anyone want to revive the F1? OK, so maybe it
should never have been scrapped, but if the US suddenly needed a big F1 type
engine, they could just go and buy one off the Russians - or the ESA if the
former option is still too unpalateable to the powers-that-be in the US...

It would be better to look ahead - not back. And in future, don't scrap
known technology just because you want to move ahead.

Someone (Henry probably) once pointed out that the existing shuttle could
be massively improved (and lightened) by use of newer computers,
newer engines etc etc. When asked though, NASA insisted on only more
of what it already had - even for building Endeavour.

*That* is not the way forward.

Steve                                             |  WALES: "Land of Song
[e-mail]                             |   and Rugby^H^H^H^H^H
..or in Britain, where we drive on the other side:|    Ice Hockey"
[e-mail]                             |

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

Date: 19 Nov 90 22:14:23 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (J. Taggart Gorman)
Subject: Re: The Space Plane

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (/dev/null) writes:
>I thought it was also funded by NASA for use as an eventual replacement for
>the shuttle or an alternative to it...
>
>    I believe it was the X-29 or X-30 NASP ????

  The X-29 is a high-maneuverablity demonstrator for the fly boys on Terra,
not in space.  The X-30 is the designation for the NASP.

|     John Taggart Gorman Jr.    | "I'm a no rust build up man myself."
|                                |          -Christian Slater
| [e-mail] |             in 'Heathers'

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

Date: 20 Nov 90 01:13:32 GMT
From: dweasel![e-mail]  (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: Pity the Shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>People are claiming that the original design goals of the shuttle can't
>have been primarily motivated by military considerations just because
>the shuttle has turned out to be overly expensive, difficult to
>maintain, too high tech, quite vulnerable, easily defeated with simple
>inexpensive countermeasures, and to have long downtimes and no clear
>military purpose in the current military environment.
>
>I confess that I do not find this chain of logic exactly compelling.

    The "military" purposes of the Shuttle have consisted of
deploying military satellites and testing space-based military
hardware. However, the Shuttle's performance has been so disappointing
that the Air Force has been reverting to expendable boosters. Although
reusable spacecraft are certainly a desirable goal to shoot for, the
Shuttle is turning out to be much too big and fat :-):-). I think that
Hermes and other such smaller vehicles are more plausible reusable
vehicles than the Shuttle.

    And how have Hermes and other such vehicles come along?


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster: [e-mail]

Since this nodename is not widely known, you may have to try:

[e-mail]

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

Date: 19 Nov 90 08:50:45 GMT
From: sunc.osc.edu!malgudi!caen!sdd.hp.com!mips!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch![e-mail]  (Kent Paul Dolan)
Subject: Re: Big bang discovered 1400 years ago ?

[e-mail] (Dominus the Bilious) writes:

>Boy, good thing I have such a short attention span, or I
>might have finished reading that.  I gotta say that's one of
>the best things about having Korsakov's syndrome.

Not a chance you could have washed out all your substancia negra at such
a young age, unless you started swilling Wild Turkey in your formula. I
always wondered how the good doctor spelled his name, though, as I
forgot to pay attention when I read a couple hundred pages of K.s.
clinical studies on a dreary 1984 afternoon.  Thanks!

Kent, the man from xanth.
<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

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

Date: 19 Nov 90 06:31:20 GMT
From: timbuk!cs.umn.edu!uc!noc.MR.NET!ns![e-mail]  (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: STS 38 Observation Reports -- red?

[e-mail] (Ted Molczan) writes:
>Bill noted that as the object neared the shadow it became red, and
>made a bright orange flash.

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't it possible that the red color is due
to the same thing that occasionally gives red sunrises and sunsets?


--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- [e-mail], 612-424-4888, Fax [phone]

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

Date: 19 Nov 90 22:42:58 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!edcastle![e-mail]  (J Gillespie)
Subject: Re: The Space Plane

[e-mail] (Craig L Cole) writes:

>I'm fairly certain NASP is a commercial venture. What I'm not sure of
>is, is NASP the same as the X-29? Maybe the X-29 is the military vehicle
>you're talking about.

>Craig Cole
>[e-mail]
>[e-mail]

Last I heard, the Grumman X-29 was a Forward Swept Wing technology
testbed, with a high percentage of parts in common with your common or
garden F5 (i.e. most things except the wings :-)  I haven't heard much
about this beast for at least a couple of years - does anyone (Mary
Shafer?) know what's happening with it now?  My data are old, but from
what I heard and read it was a very promising project.  Or was it _too_
promising, and people are hoping we'll forget all about it ;-)

More outdated information from
--
   __          /~~~~~~~~\
    /         /   @  @   \    "Happiness is being famous for your financial
   / / /\/\  /     <      \      ability to indulge in every form of excess"
\_/_/_/___/_/  \________/  \__________________________________________-- Calvin

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

Date: 17 Nov 90 15:49:37 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!cs.uoregon.edu!ogicse!intelhf!agora![e-mail]  (Rick Coates)
Subject: Re: FITS images

There's been a lot of discussion about FITS format (it really isn't that
bad - I had a picture up on a Sun after a few minutes of programming
from a brief description off the net - try GIF for a little more challenge!),
BUT:
how about some images?  Look, from news statistics I gather that
alt.sex.pictures has megabytes of traffic - how about some star pictures
as well as crotch shots?  It'd be fun to have the original data to play
with, not GIF files of TV images :-(.

Since this is the net, we of course need to have endless discussions about
how to compress and encode the file, whether or not the file _should_
be compressed, and on and on ;-), but even so, it'd be worth it if
we could get some nice pictures - how about that Hubble image of Saturn?



Rick Coates
Contract H/W - S/W engineer
(Graphics - Sun - Unix - ASIC design - imbedded systems)

...!tektronix!tessi!agora!rickc

--


Rick Coates
Consulting H/W - S/W engineer

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

Date: 19 Nov 90 13:25:59 GMT
From: usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!isgate!krafla![e-mail]  (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Subject: Re: Photon Engine

In <7$_^^Z#@rpi.edu> [e-mail] (Jim Kasprzak) writes:

> 11 Gigawatts? But the only place you can get that much energy is...
>a bolt of lightning!
>
> I think it could only get you going at about 88 miles per hour. (-:

Sorry, Jim.  The Watt isn't a unit of energy.
(seen too many movies?)
K.V.Jonsson

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

Date: 19 Nov 90 22:22:09 GMT
From: amethyst!organpipe!argus.lpl.arizona.edu![e-mail]  (Matt Cheselka)
Subject: STAR PARTY!!!!!!

Announcing a fantastic star party!  High atop Mt. Hopkins, Arizona.  Anyone is
welcome.  We will be meeting near the MMT gate (roughly 5 miles from the top)
at about 6pm...and then observe until about 12 or 1 am.  The moon will pose a
problem for a couple hours...it's at 1st quarter...but that shouldn't stop
much.  So if you're in the area, stop on up.  If you have any other questions, xcontact either myself([e-mail]) or [e-mail].
There will be at least 3 scopes up there...probably more.  I'll have my 10 inch,
Ron is probably bringing a C-8, there will also probably be a Meade 8inch, and
hopefully others.  There will be astrophotography, but the moon will get in the
way for a while.  Most of what I'm interested in is just looking.  I'll
probably concentrate on all the goodies in Andromeda, Pegasus, Orion, Auriga,
and objects in the summer triangle.  We should have a good time.


Matt Cheselka

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

Date: 20 Nov 90 09:46:01 GMT
From: m2c!wpi.WPI.EDU![e-mail]  (MEGAZONE 23)
Subject: Re: The Space Plane

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J Gillespie) writes:
>[e-mail] (Craig L Cole) writes:
>Last I heard, the Grumman X-29 was a Forward Swept Wing technology
>testbed, with a high percentage of parts in common with your common or
>garden F5 (i.e. most things except the wings :-)  I haven't heard much

The two X-29s have noses literally chopped of of F-5s. They have a single
F404 engine ala F-18. The landing gear is from an F-16. And the 3 flight
computers are from an SR-71. I saw one in person at Oshkosh this year.
It is a very basic aircraft as far a serviceability. It has no nav systems
and only an hours worth of fuel. Aircraft #2 is fitted with a spin chute
and is currently undergoing spin tests.

###############################################################################
#  "Calling Garland operator 7G," EVE           Email [e-mail]    #
# MEGAZONE, aka DAYTONA, aka BRIAN BIKOWICZ     Bitnet Use a gateway. Sorry.  #
###############################################################################

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #582
*******************