Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_3/V13_348.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 21KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/cbyLkYi00WBwEhyU4v>;
          Wed,  3 Apr 91 01:54:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  3 Apr 91 01:54:21 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #348

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 348

Today's Topics:
            Commercial Space News (2 of 5)
           Let's build Freedom on the Moon
            Ariane Launch schedule update
            Commercial Space News (3 of 5)
              Re: Genesis Rock?
              Re: Solar Eclipse
            Commercial Space News (5 of 5)
                Re: "Follies"
              Re: Solar Eclipse

Administrivia:

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

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

Date: 1 Apr 91 03:50:18 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Commercial Space News (2 of 5)

ARIANE-5 PROGRAM ON SCHEDULE
   Arianespace, the firm which currently launches about 60% of the
commercial satellites on the market, is on schedule to provide an
up-dated version of its Ariane rocket.  The current Ariane 4 rocket,
which was first launched in 1988,  will be replaced with the Ariane-
5.  This vehicle will be composed of a large cryogenic core rocket,
with 2 large solid rocket boosters, and with its larger payload
capability and volume will be able to boost three medium-sized
satellites or the European Hermes manned spaceplane.  Tests on the
new engines needed for the Ariane-5 are underway, with Arianespace
expecting to complete full scale tests of the new HM60 cryogenic
engine, new large solid rocket motors, and some structural mockup
tests. The solid and liquid motor tests are expected to be completed
by the end of 1994. If the current schedule is maintained, the first
flight of the Ariane-5 will be in early 1995.  The expected price
for Ariane 5 payloads was projected by Arianespace President Charles
Bigot to be equivalent to that of the Ariane 4.  But he also claimed
the Ariane 5 will have higher reliability (98%) and should reduce
insurance rates and launch costs.
  [Commentary:  European governments and agencies - primarily France
and Germany - are spending about $4 B on this development.  The
Ariane-5 vehicle is being developed as a core program of the
European Space Agency (ESA), and Arianespace will be given a new
launch facility and the qualified vehicle to operate.  Furthermore,
since most of the European demand is government (either ESA,
national space agencies, or national PT&T agencies) Arianespace will
be guaranteed a market sufficient to operate the Ariane-5.  Any
additional launches they obtain will reduce the costs of launching
the European satellites.
   Japan has also taken this route, forming the Rocket Systems Corp
to provide an equivalent to Arianespace for the NASDA H-2 rocket.
   This points out a problem with equal trade with Arianespace.
General Dynamics has put over $400M into the improved Atlas launch
vehicle system (and is now losing money).  Now they will have to
compete with a new system developed by European government agencies
and given to their competitor.  Is this fair?
   I can't fault GD's objections, but similarly, the Atlas was
originally designed as an ICBM, and the European perspective is that
they are merely providing the same support the US government has
provided in the past.  My opinion is if this is the European
perspective, then the U.S. government (Congress, NASA and DoD)
should aggressively support the existing US launch companies with
R&D, directed technology studies, and lots of "technology
demonstration" and "prototype" contracts to provide the same playing
field with Japan and the U.S.  (These contracts should also go to
companies like OSC, Amroc, SII, etc.  who have small but crucial new
technology systems they are trying to develop.)  In the long run,
this is not a good solution, as it merely perpetrates the current
market conditions, but without it in the short term, U.S. launch
companies will be forced to operate at a severe disadvantage, and
they will probably end up being driven out of the business.
   Another option is for the U.S. to form a national launch
consortium or company which would act as the Arianespace or Rocket
Systems Corp in the U.S.  This is probably a better solution than
that listed as above, but still could cause some problems in the
long term.
   This is going to be a hot topic for U.S. space policy for the
next several years.]


--
Wales Larrison
Internet: [e-mail]
Compuserve: >internet:[e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 2 Apr 91 11:26:41 GMT
From: eru!kth.se!sunic!mcsun!tuvie!rcvie![e-mail]  (Ian Taylor)
Subject: Let's build Freedom on the Moon

From its conception as the space station to the birth of Freedom, its
overnourished development into Fred and intensive care as 'Ed'...I have
dreamed space for thirty years and seen the nightmare of trying to justify
the unjustifiable. Of course we need an off world base - but why on earth
orbit :-) ? LET'S BUILD freedom ON THE MOON!

Even taxpayers can get excited about a Moon base (remember Apollo?),
the Moon is *visible*, putting yet more hardware into orbit is very
boring...think of it:

   o  CNN live coverage of Moon exploration (a few royalties there)

   o  A really useful science base for Astronomy, Geology etc (funding)

   o  A permanent, maintainable EOS platform (?) (more funding)

   o  Real international collaboration - Antarctica style (Y,DM,Ecu...)

Much of the basic technology was proven in the sixties ... we should be able
to get version one established *very* quickly (1994? come on we can do it)
by reusing Freedom's funding and components...ok, ok, i know we need a
transfer vehicle (shuttle?) and return lander...

...anyone else want to go back to the moon and the future?

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

Date: 3 Apr 91 02:59:50 GMT
From: pa.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!era.dec.com![e-mail]  (Dr Bob CT Engineering Consultant)
Subject: Ariane Launch schedule update



Can someone give me an update on the ariane launch schedule.  They were
to launch the Anik E2 bird this month and I have heard nothing/


thanks

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

Date: 1 Apr 91 03:51:27 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Commercial Space News (3 of 5)

NEW NASA/USAF HLLV PLANNED TO HAVE COMMERCIAL ROLE
  [I have not been covering the new "Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle"
plans being discussed between the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)
and NASA  because there was little commercial activities being
discussed for it.  This new development, may desire being brought to
folk's attention though.]
  The biggest new development in space transportation over the last
year has been the proposed joint development of a new launch system
called the National Launch System "NLS" by the NASA and DoD. This
system was originally envisioned to provide two roles - a
replacement/ backup to the USAF Titan-4 system, and a capability to
launch supplies and expansion modules for the NASA Space Station.
   Current discussions between the two agencies have focused on
defining the relative roles of the two agencies in the program, and
establishing a baseline design to be pursued. Apparently, NASA and
the DoD are nearing agreement on a common system and should be ready
to present the preliminary specifications and joint management plan
to the National Space Council within a few weeks.  Both
organizations have included $175 M within each organization's budget
request to Congress to begin work towards this system in the next
fiscal year.
   The remaining differences are claimed to center around the
eventual systems requirements - with the USAF needing only about 20-
50,000 lbs capability by about 2005 (primarily driven by the Titan-4
replacement role), and NASA pushing for 50,000 - 150,000 lbs
capability for Space Station and some early Lunar missions.  NASA is
also talking about being needing to be able to "gracefully grow" the
system into the 250,000- 500,000 lb capability to support future
Mars missions.
   As discussed by NASA and the DoD, the NLS would draw upon
existing components (shuttle external tanks for the core structure,
shuttle or Titan solid rocket boosters, and Titan-4 shrouds) as well
as the Advanced Launch System (ALS) technology development program
(new lower cost STME cryo engine, new avionics, launch processing,
and system automation) to provide a launch capability by 1999. The
eventual goal for the goal for the system will be to reduce launch
costs to $300/lb and the infrastructure for the system must be
designed to support a launch rate high enough to achieve this.
   Both the NASA and DoD are describing this vehicle as having
commercial applications at the lower end of its launch capability
range (20,000 lbs or more).  And both organizations have stated
there is "commercial interest" in this vehicle.
  [Commentary: If the NLS is desired to be of commercial interest,
then I disagree with this approach.  Designing a system for DoD and
NASA needs, and then trying to kluge it into a commercial launch
system is a recipe for disaster.  Since the design point for the
vehicle will be in the 50,000-100,000 pounds (or higher) range, then
reducing its capability will add parasitic weight and cost to a
commercial launcher, competing in a cost-sensitive market.
   My opinion is that the government should remove themselves from
the detailed design business, and just state they wish to purchase a
launch capability of XX in 1999 and beyond, with a market of YY lbs
per year.  This market guarantee would have to be approved by
Congress, of course, but would allow the commercial launch companies
(Martin, GD, McDonnell, Rockwell, OSC, etc.) to team and compete for
this system.  Rather than having to kluge up a system from DoD and
NASA launch systems (Shuttle and Titan), the commercial companies
could use the ALS and existing systems to come up with a cost-driven
solution.                                           (cont)


--
Wales Larrison
Internet: [e-mail]
Compuserve: >internet:[e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 2 Apr 91 16:28:11 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Genesis Rock?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Perew) writes:
>I was watching "The Other Side of the Moon" on Cinemax a few nights
>ago and James Irwin made reference to an object called the "Genesis Rock".

It was a rock which had characteristics resembling those the astronauts
were looking for in hopes of finding extremely old lunar rock, perhaps
dating back to the Moon's formation.  If memory serves, it did not turn
out to be quite as old as had been hoped.
--
"The stories one hears about putting up | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
SunOS 4.1.1 are all true."  -D. Harrison|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 2 Apr 91 17:47:39 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!m.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!csrd.uiuc.edu!s10.csrd.uiuc.edu![e-mail]  (Samuel W. Ho)
Subject: Re: Solar Eclipse

I saw the eclipse of February 1979, in Goldendale, Washington.

Indeed, the whole sky does turn dark (twilight).  If you are fast,
you can see the shadow of the moon approaching.

To quote your question, it is less dangerous to look at an eclipsed
sun than an uneclipsed one.  It would be better to say that it is
very dangerous to look at either an uneclipsed or partially eclipsed
sun, but one rarely tries to look at an uneclipsed sun.  It is safe
to look at a totally eclipsed sun, but be prepared to turn away very
quickly at the end of the eclipse.  It is not safe to look through
a telescope or binoculars at an eclipsed sun, because you will not
be able to turn away quickly enough, considering the added light
intensity.

To look at an uneclipsed or partially eclipsed sun, either use heavy
filtration (about 7 stops, or 128x attenuation), or make a pinhole
projector and look at the image as projected onto white paper.  Put
the filter in front of any lens (camera, etc.) in the system, or
the concentrated sunlight will burn through the filter.

Sam Ho

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

Date: 1 Apr 91 03:53:47 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Commercial Space News (5 of 5)

NASA SUED FOR BREECH OF COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS BY HUGHES
   On Friday, 22 March 1991, Hughes Communications Galaxy Inc filed
a suit against NASA for over $288 M on claims of damage in shifting
10 satellites from the Space Shuttle after the Challenger accident.
   Hughes claimed it had chosen the Space Shuttle to launch their
satellites after a competition between it and the Ariane, signed a
launch services contract with NASA on 5 Dec 1985 to launch 10
satellites on the shuttle, beginning in December 1987.  However,
after the Challenger accident, all commercial payloads, including
the Hughes satellites were removed from the Shuttle manifest, under
a revised government policy for shuttle usage.  Instead of using the
Shuttle, the Hughes satellites flew on Ariane and U.S. ELVs, but to
date 4 of the original 10 satellites have not flown.
  There were terms in the LSA under which disputes between Hughes
and NASA could be resolved, but Hughes claims their attorneys have
exhausted these procedures, including written appeal to the NASA
administrator.  Thus, the filing of the lawsuit in U.S. Claims Court
in Washington for $288,454,000 in extra costs for launch service,
added insurance and satellite reconfiguration costs after they were
forced to rehost their satellites onto other launch vehicles.
   NASA General Council has stated they will probably dispute this
claim.
   [Commentary: I wish Hughes good luck with this suit, although I
do not think they will receive much satisfaction with it.  They did
incur some major costs post-Challenger, and the government policy
rushed out at that time did not consider how the changes of the
government policy would affect the commercial world.  Besides
Hughes, several other satellite communications companies had to
incur substantial additional costs, as well as the whole field of
commercial upper stages which would have used the Shuttle was wiped
out. (OSC almost went under at this point). I think the Presidential
policy implemented then was hurried and not well thought out - and I
am glad someone with money is calling the government to task on
this.  If they do win, they open up the door for suits from GE
Astro, OSC, and other firms - probably with potential liabilities of
another $200-500M or more (another 8-10 satellites, with additional
liabilities for lost business).
   However, I don't think they will have much luck with this suit.
These suits have not had much of a success rate in the past, and
most government contracts do not have termination liability clauses
built into them (They can be "terminated at the convenience of the
government").  But I have been surprised by some recent successes of
firms suing NASA. ]

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wales Larrison                          Space Technology Investor
"There are some men, who in a 50-50 proposition, insist on getting
the hyphen too..."



--
Wales Larrison
Internet: [e-mail]
Compuserve: >internet:[e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 2 Apr 91 14:58:08 GMT
From: eru!kth.se!sunic!mcsun!ukc!inmos![e-mail]  (Jamie Packer)
Subject: Re: "Follies"

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Lumpy dick: a boiled mixture of flour and milk. According to my
>grandmother lumpy dick is what you ate if you were lucky enough to
>eat.
>

I'm afraid this is almost nothing to do with the current subject, but...
Do you know in England we have a variety of pudding called "spotty dick"
its a very solid sponge pudding with rasins (the "spots") in. I've
always wondered if there were other dicks around...

Jamie

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

Date: 2 Apr 91 09:53:28 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!uhccux![e-mail]  (David Tholen)
Subject: Re: Solar Eclipse

[e-mail] (Steve Robiner) writes:

> Can someone out there who has seen (well, maybe not directly) a total
> solar eclispe describe to me what it and the sky look like at the time?
>
> Questions:
>
> Does the whole sky turn very dark (or just a circular area around the
> sun/moon?  Can one see the stars in that area?

Stars will be visible, though the limiting magnitude is not as faint as at
night without a Moon in the sky.  The sky will turn dark, though the horizon
will be brighter.

> Is it truly more dangerous to look at an eclipse than looking at the
> normal sun?  It can't possibly be any brighter.  The only danger I can
> see is that while viewing the relatively dark eclipsed sun, the moon
> moves out of the way, and one's dialated eye is caught off gaurd and
> exposed to the sun's full brightness.  Is there any other danger
> beyond that?

An eclipsed Sun is no more dangerous to look at than a normal Sun.  The added
danger simply stems from the fact that people have a reason to look at the
Sun during an eclipse, but not at other times.  Having said that, let me
emphasize that both a normal Sun and an eclipsed Sun are indeed dangerous
to look at directly.  Don't do it, if you value your eyesight.

> Has the sun's corona been observed above the Earth's atmosphere?  If not,
> isn't possible that it is merely an atmospheric phenomenon, just light
> scatering and refracting around the edges of the moon.

The corona has been seen from Earth orbit.  It is real and not an artifact.

> How big is the Moon's shadow on the Earth?  I would guess it's nearly the
> size of the moon, but there must be some refraction of light around the
> edges of the moon, making the totally dark shadow of the moon somewhat
> smaller.

Which part of the shadow?  The umbra (total eclipse) is not very big; the
penumbra (partial eclipse) is very big.  Draw a simple diagram with tangents
to delineate the shadows.  The penumbra is the size of the Moon at the Moon
and gets larger as the distance from the Moon increases.  The umbra is the
size of the Moon at the Moon and gets smaller as the distance from the Moon
increases.  The surface of the Earth is very close to the tip of the umbral
cone.  Because of the Moon's elliptical orbit, it is sometimes far enough
from the Earth for the tip to miss the Earth entirely.  The result is an
annular eclipse, one for which just a ring (or annulus) of sunlight is
visible along the centerline of the eclipse.  An eclipse of this variety
will occur in 1994 diagonally across the U.S. from northwest to southeast.

> Is the moon, during a full total eclipse, exactly the same apparent size as
> the sun, or is it larger?

If it's a total eclipse, then by definition the Moon must be either the same
size or larger; if the Moon is smaller, then you have an annular eclipse.

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #348
*******************