Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_3/V13_393.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 19KB

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/Uc0zszi00WBwA:KU5=>;
          Thu, 11 Apr 91 02:12:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 02:12:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #393

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 393

Today's Topics:
              Re: back-up crews
            SPACE Digest V13 #384
        Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits
           Magellan Status for 04/10/91 (Forwarded)
         Re: Space Stations, Money, Startrek
             Re: Laser launchers
              Re: "Face" on Mars
        Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits
        Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits
        Re: Underground Nuclear Test in Nevada
               compressed air launcher
        Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits

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: 10 Apr 91 15:24:17 GMT
From: pa.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!ryn.mro4.dec.com!troa01.enet.dec.com![e-mail]  (Susan Klein)
Subject: Re: back-up crews


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Adam R. Brody) writes...
>Since they abolished back-up crews since STS 4, what is the plan if
>someone gets sick or for some reason cannont make the flight?  How long
>before the flight do the crew go into quarantine to prevent catching
>someone's cold or the flu?

During the STS 36 in February/March 1990, Commander John Creighton had a cold
and the launch was delayed to allow him to recover. The launch was also delayed
for other reasons, such that when he flew, he no longer was suffering. There
was no mention of replacing him. However, on STS 33 in November 1989, Pilot
John Blaha replaced David Griggs, who was killed in June 1989. Blaha had
recently returned from a space mission as Pilot and was available. This
situation has reoccurred. On STS 42 scheduled for January 1992, an astronaut
will be required to replace Manley Carter. He was a mission specialist on board
this mission of the Internation Microgravity Mission. He died last Friday in
a plane crash in Georgia. Since he is a medical doctor, and other astros
listed on the flight are also medical doctors, I would suspect that he would be
replaced by an astronaut, who is a doctor, or has a medical background. Anna
Fisher comes to mind, she is not currently assigned to a flight and she is a
doctor. Since that flight is less than a year away, I expect that NASA will
announce a replacement very soon.

Susan Klein    [e-mail]
        --or-- ...!decwrl!troa09.dec.com!sklein
        --or-- [e-mail]

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 10 Apr 91 18:14:36 EDT
Resent-From: Tommy Mac <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Wed, 10 Apr 91 01:56:48 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #384
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: Fred on the Moon

>Other inconveniences:
>  Supplies: the energy difference between getting them into low orbit
>  and getting them to the moon is quite big.
>
>  No 0G.
>
>  Basicaly the startup cost is dozens/hundreds of times that of LEO.
>  Politics, politics, politics ...

Assumption:  We are putting things in space for the end result of getting some-
             thing back, whether it's knowledge, energy, or materials.

Assumption:  We would eventually like to get back more than we send up.

Consider the resources in LEO:

Good place for tracking, mapping, etc
Good place for energy harvesting (tho GEO or higher would be beter still)
Research and processing requiring zero gee.
Research on the 'geography', like mag. fields, aurora, etc.

Aaaaand, resources on the moon:

Good place for telescopes, or anything requiring a stable platform, no air.
Energy harvesting opportunities as good as LEO (50% incident, due to sundown)
Oxygen, Iron, Silicon, who knows what else, can be gathered there.
Just as good for mapping, considering optics technology (and lack of atmos.)
Good place for 'catching' small asteroids, possibly comets.
Reserach the lunography, seismology, etc.

The only thing that LEO seems to offer that the moon doesn't is zero gee.

But, don't fret.  We'll go through LEO on the way!  Everyone can be happy.
I suspect that a base in LEO would necessarily follow a base on the moon.  I
doubt if an LEO base would lead to a moon base.  I would even argue that a base
on the moon would open up space (assuming someone bothered to do R&D on the
processing and export of Lunar materials).

(PS- the energy to get to the moon is not that much more than GEO, and we put
 things there all the time.)

Tommy Mac               It is easier to defend a planet
18084tm@msu                                   than part of a planet.
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 10 Apr 91 19:26:06 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:
>>NASA had agreed to launch those birds at a
>>specific price, and should have done its best to arrange launches (presumably
>>on US launchers) for them at something resembling that price.
>
>Of course shuttle prices are subsidized so much that that would be
>impossible. They charge $150M for a flight which costs them over $500M.

Well, if expendables are as cheap as everyone says :-), the shift would
actually save them money, so no problem.  If not, they spent 2.5 years
not flying the shuttle, which would have helped the finances a bit.

I suspect that (say) GD would have been overjoyed if NASA had handed them
an order for 20 Atlases to cover the ex-shuttle payloads, and there would
probably have been some nice bargains to be had...
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 10 Apr 91 23:15:44 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan Status for 04/10/91 (Forwarded)


                     MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                         April 10, 1991


     The Magellan spacecraft and its radar system are performing
normally.

     The star calibrations continue to produce occasional filter
rejections of the reference stars, but the attitude updates
remain in the acceptable range and the pointing accuracy is very
precise.

     The weekly command sequence was successfully sent to
Magellan along with the radar control files and that sequence is
now being executed.

     Today marks the 243rd day since Magellan went into orbit
around Venus on August 10, 1990. That means that Venus has turned
once on its axis since Magellan arrived and the spacecraft is
now back to the point of the first orbit. Mapping started 36
days later, so the first mapping cycle will be complete on May
15.

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

Date: 10 Apr 91 19:46:41 GMT
From: tahoe!jimi!herbert![e-mail]  (Doug Phillipson )
Subject: Re: Space Stations, Money, Startrek

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Emmerson) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael V. Kent) writes:
>
>>...  The major
>>task for Freedom is to learn how to live and work in space.  Once we have
>>that we can work on expanding the facilities.
>
>Odd.  Don't we (i.e. the human species) already know how to live and
>work in space?  Haven't humans spent up to a year in space with no
>major problems?
>
>>...  Fourth, astronauts will spend about 1.5 hours a day exer-
>>cising.  One of the things we need to know is what exercise is necessary
>>and why.  Freedom will help provide that answer.
>
>Odd.  Don't we already know the answer to these questions?  (And isn't the
>necessary amount of excercise closer to 4 hours per day?)
>
>Steve Emmerson        [e-mail]        ...!ncar!unidata!steve

    I agree, I thought we spent billions on Skylab to answer these questions!
Now lets just get out the after action reports on what we learned from Apollo
and Skylab and get on with building a REAL station, not a tonka toy!

#include <std.disclaimer>

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

Date: 9 Apr 91 03:52:26 GMT
From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink![e-mail]  (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Laser launchers


[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

> The loud part I'll agree with, especially when the payload is still at low
> altitude.  It's manageable.  A rocket is kind of noisy too.

For a 20 kg payload, you could drop it from a high-altitude plane or give it a
boost with a compressed-air launch tube, linear accelerator or whatever.  Such
an initial boost saves on the amount of propellant mass the laser system has to
lift; leave the engine _and_ the propellant mas on the ground.  :)

This "initial boost" is probably even more worthwhile for larger payloads.

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

Date: 10 Apr 91 11:29:39 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!astemgw!kuis!rins![e-mail]  (will)
Subject: Re: "Face" on Mars

In article <4jbg#8#@rpi.edu>, [e-mail] (Jim Kasprzak) writes:
>Are you sure this wasn't just science fiction?

    yes I am quite sure, and i'd agree with you about the chaiots of gods
    aspect.  In any case thats what they put on.


                    will...

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

Date: 10 Apr 91 16:31:45 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> A curious assertion.  NASA *is* the government, being a government agency.
>NASA, like the Smithsonian Institution are in a murky gray area.  They are sort
>of connected with the government, but neither are of cabinet level.

What difference does it make whether they're at cabinet level???  NASA is
an "independent agency", not under any cabinet-level department, but it
is most assuredly part of the government.  Its budget and much of its
management is from Congress, its employees are civil servants, they take
orders from the White House, etc. etc.  You can't get much more government
than that.
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 10 Apr 91 13:55:49 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uu.psi.com!pbs.org![e-mail]
Subject: Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>> As I said in my original posting:  there was ample cause to *renegotiate*
>>> the shuttle launch contracts, perhaps shifting them to expendables...
>>
>>How can you *renegotiate* a shuttle launch contract to launch something the
>>shuttle is now *prohibited* from launching?
>
> Please read what I wrote.  You renegotiate a *launch* contract to go up
> on something else, of course, like the expendables that NASA still had
> in (admittedly limited) inventory at the time and could have bought more
> of.  The birds that got bumped were precisely the ones that *could* fly
> on other launchers.
>
And they DID fly on another launcher named Ariane after Hughes made
arrangements with ArianeSpace.  Then sometime AFTER the satellites were in
orbit Hughes decided they had paid the French more than they wanted to.  Why
should NASA have to renegotiate a contract to launch something the French
aerospace company had already orbited?

By the way, there is a satellite rescue mission coming up next year sometime.
Do you happen to recall, Henry, who owns this satellite?  I certainly hope it
isn't a Hughes bird.

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

Date: 10 Apr 91 12:34:08 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!news-server.ecf!ecf![e-mail]  (MURTY Hema Sandhyarani)
Subject: Re: Underground Nuclear Test in Nevada

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Hoffman) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (MURTY  Hema Sandhyarani) writes:
>>>
>>>    Yesterday there was another underground nuclear test in
>>>    Nevada.  Why are we allowing this to continue?
>>>
>>>    I am sure that if all the readers of sci.space got
>>>    together and denounces such tests by countries of
>>>    the world, they would have to stop.
>>>
>>
>This is, in my opinion, a very serious science problem.  Science has given
>the military the ability for mass destruction on a global level and the
>military needs to know if they are doing something that is self destructive like
>the ever increasing environmental problems.  In fact, if there is something
>that ALL scientist of ALL types could come together over, the environment
>would win my vote!  We can't live without a sound ecology.
>
>Jim
>
    This is the first comment that actually understood
    what I was getting at in my original post.
    Thank you, Jim.

Hema Murty
[e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Apr 91 17:38:43 GMT
From: agate!stanford.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!rex!rouge!pc.usl.edu![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: compressed air launcher

--text follows this line--
George William Herbert, Joat extroardinaire (what's a Joat?), wrote:
>The japanese proposal was to use a compressed-gas cannon to loft a H-2
>rocket at transonic speeds.  NASDA was last heard complaining about safety of
>fueling such a vehicle in the gun's barrel...
>-george william herbert
>[e-mail]

Everything suddenly becomes clear; why go through so much effort for
so little increace, etc... It's not meant for NASDA. It's for ISAS.
They've finally figured out a way around the limitations NASDA put in
to keep space science in Japan on the back burner by restricting them
to Scout-size rockets... For anyone who doesn't know, ISAS is limited
in the rockets they can use, even though NASDA's boosters are licensed
American technology (except for the H-1 upper stage and the H-2) at
least in part, and part of the licensing agreement says that NASDA
isn't to sell launches on these boosters (i.e. the boosters were
licensed for reasearch purposes? could someone correct me on this?)

But hopefully, the air compressor launcher can get around this; it
will allow ISAS to launch more ambitious missions with the boosters it
is currently allowed to use by law; the boosters don't have to be
fuelled at the bottom of the launch shaft, because ISAS's stuff is all
solid fuelled...

It all makes good perfect sense right now.

All the errors in the above, except what may have been in gwc's quote,
are mine, but some of the better parts are probrably due to some
advice given by Henry Spencer.

Phil Fraering
[e-mail]
"X-rays are a hoax." Lord Kelvin
--
Phil Fraering
[e-mail]
"The geomagnetic storm has ended. Activity has returned to generally
unsettled conditions." - Cary Oler in a Geomagnetic Storm Update.

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

Date: 11 Apr 91 02:07:49 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi![e-mail]  (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Fraering Philip) writes:
>>
>> This is really twisted, when you think about it: "Based on past
>> wrongs by 'aerospace companies' which may or may not include Hughes
> (they do include Hughes)

Do you have anything particular in mind, or is this a blind hatred?

>various escape clauses came into play.  By the way, the suit is against NASA
>and not the government even though the decision to bump comsats from the
>shuttle originated not with NASA, but the WHITE HOUSE.  If Hughes REALLY thinks
>it has a gripe, it should have gone after the Government.  NASA is just as much
>a victim as Hughes.

The suit is against NASA because it is with NASA that the contract was signed.
The White House did not sign any launch contract.  If NASA wants to use that
as their defense, they may do so.  The legality of it will be decided in
court.

>> Come on, if the government thinks something wrong has occured, then
>> they should fight for their rights,
>  The government IS fighting and HAS brought charges against some aerospace
>firms.  In fact the recent cancellation of the A-12 attack bomber is an example
>of the government's new get tough policy on overcharging and mismanagement, not
>to mention misleading the Secretary of Defense with inaccurate claims about the
>atack bomber's state of development.

The reason for the A-12's cancellation is unknown at this time, but it has
nothing to do with overcharging or mismanagement.  The only entity who misled
the Secretary of Defense on the issue was the Navy.  It seems the new get
tough policy is a bit misplaced.

Any resemblance of these opinions to any official policies, living or dead,
is entirely coincidental.


--
Michael Kent                                  [e-mail]
McDonnell Douglas                             Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
St. Louis, Missouri                           Troy, New York
                               Apple II Forever!

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #393
*******************