Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_0/V16NO063.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 36KB

Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 05:00:07
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #063
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 20 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 063

Today's Topics:
                       Air Force Space Command
           Antarctic meteorites (was Re: Cheap Mars Rocks)
                              Antimatter
                   Atlas Launch Record (1986-1992)
                   Delta Launch Record (1986-1992)
                  I want to be a space cadet (LONG)
                              man-rating
               Orbital elements of junk in space wanted
       Soyuz TM-16 crew prepars for flight to Mir space station
              Subjective Safety Measure(Re: man-rating)
                 Supporting private space activities
                   Titan Launch Record (1986-1992)
                       TOPEX Update - 01/18/93
             What's it like at the edge of the universe?

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 19 Jan 93 05:43:15 GMT
From: David Fuzzy Wells <[e-mail]>
Subject: Air Force Space Command
Newsgroups: sci.space

Shows you what I get for replying before reading all the new posts....

Glad to see Capt. Bryant online....  I am sure he can answer most of
your questions much better than myself (as he has already shown =)  ).

                    Fuzzy.
==============================================================================
_ __/|       | Lt. David "Fuzzy" Wells | "Every improvement in
\'o.O'       |    HQ AFSPACECOM/CNA    |    communication makes the
=(___)=      |    Space Debris Guru    |      bore more terrible."
   U  ...ack!| [e-mail] |                FRANK MOORE COLBY
==============================================================================

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

Date: 19 Jan 1993 04:33:43 GMT
From: "Kevin W. Plaxco" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antarctic meteorites (was Re: Cheap Mars Rocks)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (S.J. Morden) writes:
>The mechanism for the concentration of meteorites on Antarctic ice is this:
>

>Therefore, Antarctica, with abundant ice, is a collecting ground for
>meteorites. Where the ice moves up against mountain ranges (submerged under
>the ice), it flows to the surface and is eroded away. Rocks entrained in the
>ice will remain on the surface of the ice. These areas of old ice (often
>"blue ice") can be spotted from the air/satellites.

>
>Similar situations occur in the Nullabor Plain in Western Australia, and in
>"blow-outs" in the Southern U.S., where the ground is eroded away, leaving
>concentrated meteorites.
>

>Any questions?


Yup.  What is the concentration mechanism on the Nullabor Plain?

-Kevin

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

Date: 18 Jan 93 23:07:55 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Antimatter
Newsgroups: sci.space

Does anyone have any proposals for how the actual matter/antimatter "reaction"
would be regulated. Would it need some type of catalyst-type component to
somehow keep the reaction at some type of constant rate for whatever reason,
or to perhaps even make it more efficient in some way by introducing an
element of control to it. It seems like it all comes back to the issue of
harnassing energy. Sure you could just drop say 1 kg of antimatter into a
container of 1 kg of matter, but wouldn't it be quite a lot better and
somewhat safer for those who were in the general vicinity of such a reactor
facility if there was a good, and somewhat reliable way to regulate the
reaction rate of the matter and antimatter, much like the cadmium rods
(I think) in nuclear fission reactors. Well, I would like to hear any ideas
anyone might have on this subject.

[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 22:02:00 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Atlas Launch Record (1986-1992)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Steven S. Pietrobon recently posted launch records for Ariane, Shuttle,
U.S. military, and U.S. commercial space launches.

This information was very interesting, but I have been looking for
launch records for the individual boosters, Delta, Titan, and Atlas.

For those of you who are also looking for this information, I have
taken Mr. Pietrobon's data and broken it down by booster. Therefore,
to save anyone else alot of cutting and pasting, here is that
information.

ATLAS LAUNCH RECORD (1986-PRESENT)

 Date       Vehicle               Payload
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
  9 Feb 86  Atlas 6004H           NOSS-8
  5 Dec 86  Atlas 5047G (AC-66)   FLTSATCOM-F7
*26 Mar 87  Atlas 5046G (AC-67)   FLTSATCOM-F6
 15 May 87  Atlas 6003H or 6005H  NOSS-9
 20 Jun 87  Atlas 59E             DMSP-F8
  3 Feb 88  Atlas 54E             DMSP-F9
 25 Sep 89  Atlas 5048G? (AC-68)  FLTSATCOM-F8
 11 Apr 90  Atlas 28E/Altair      POGS/SSR, TEX, SCE
 25 Jul 90  Atlas I (AC-69)       CRRES
  1 Dec 90  Atlas 61E             DMSP-F10 (Block 5D-2)
*18 Apr 91  Atlas I (AC-70)       BS-3H (Japanese Broadcasting Satellite)
 28 Nov 91  Atlas 53E             DMSP-F11 (Block 5D-2)
  7 Dec 91  Atlas II (AC-102)     EUTELSAT II-F3
 14 Mar 92  Atlas I (AC-72)       GALAXY-V
 11 Feb 92  Atlas II (AC-101)     DSCS III-F5 (38-01), IABS-01
 10 Jun 92  Atlas IIA (AC-205)    INTELSAT K
  2 Jul 92  Atlas II (AC-103)     DSCS III-F6 (38-02), IABS-02
*22 Aug 92  Atlas I (AC-71)       GALAXY-IR

*  - Launch Failure
AC - Atlas-Centaur

If anyone has a complete Atlas launch record from first orbital flight
through 1985, I'm sure I am not the only one who would like to see it
posted here.

Special thanks to Steven S. Pietrobon for the original data. Please
reference his recent postings for acronym explantations.

-Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
[e-mail]                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 22:02:46 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Delta Launch Record (1986-1992)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Steven S. Pietrobon recently posted launch records for Ariane, Shuttle,
U.S. military, and U.S. commercial space launches.

This information was very interesting, but I have been looking for
launch records for the individual boosters, Delta, Titan, and Atlas.

For those of you who are also looking for this information, I have
taken Mr. Pietrobon's data and broken it down by booster. Therefore,
to save anyone else alot of cutting and pasting, here is that
information.

DELTA LAUNCH RECORD (1986-PRESENT)

 Date       Vehicle            Payload
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 3 May 86  Delta 178 (3914)   GOES-G
  5 Sep 86  Delta 180 (3920)   DM43? (plume observation, stage intercept)
 26 Feb 87  Delta 179 (3924)   GOES-7(H)
 20 Mar 87  Delta 182 (3920)   PALAPA-5 (B2-P)
  8 Feb 88  Delta 181 (3920)   TVE? (Thrust Vector Experiment)
 14 Feb 89  Delta 184 (6925)   NAVSTAR 2-01 (GPS-14)
 24 Mar 89  Delta 183 (3920)   SDI Delta Star (plume observations)
 10 Jun 89  Delta 185 (6925)   NAVSTAR 2-02 (GPS-13)
 18 Aug 89  Delta 186 (6925)   NAVSTAR 2-03 (GPS-16)
 27 Aug 89  Delta 187 (4925)   Marcopolo-1 (BSB-R1)
 21 Oct 89  Delta 188 (6925)   NAVSTAR 2-04 (GPS-19)
 18 Nov 89  Delta 189 (5920)   COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer)
 11 Dec 89  Delta 190 (6925)   NAVSTAR 2-05 (GPS-17)
 24 Jan 90  Delta 191 (6925)   NAVSTAR 2-06 (GPS-18)
 14 Feb 90  Delta 192 (6925)   LACE, RME (Relay Mirror Experiment)
 26 Mar 90  Delta 193 (6925)   NAVSTAR 2-07 (GPS-20)
 13 Apr 90  Delta 194 (6925)   PALAPA-6 (B2-R)
  1 Jun 90  Delta 195 (6920)   ROSAT (Roentgen Satellite)
 12 Jun 90  Delta 196 (4925)   INSAT-1D
  2 Aug 90  Delta 197 (6925)   NAVSTAR 2-08 (GPS-21)
 17 Aug 90  Delta 198 (4925)   Marcopolo-2 (BSB-R2)
  1 Oct 90  Delta 199 (6925)   NAVSTAR 2-09 (GPS-15)
 26 Oct 90  Delta 200 (6925)   INMARSAT II-F1
 26 Nov 90  Delta 201 (7925)   NAVSTAR 2A-01, (2-10, GPS-23)
  8 Jan 91  Delta 202 (6925)   NATO IVA (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation)
  8 Mar 91  Delta 203 (6925)   INMARSAT II-F2
 13 Apr 91  Delta 204 (7925)   ASC-2 (American Satellite Company)
 29 May 91  Delta 205 (7925)   AURORA II (Alaskan Communication Satellite)
  4 Jul 91  Delta 206 (7925)   NAVSTAR 2A-02 (2-11, GPS-22), LOSATX (SDI)
 23 Feb 92  Delta 207 (7925)   NAVSTAR 2A-03 (2-12, GPS-25)
 10 Apr 92  Delta 208 (7925)   NAVSTAR 2A-04 (2-13, GPS-28)
 14 May 92  Delta 209 (7925)   PALAPA-7 (B-4)
  7 Jun 92  Delta 210 (6920)   EUVE (Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer)
  7 Jul 92  Delta 211 (7925)   NAVSTAR 2A-05 (2-14, GPS-26)
 24 Jul 92  Delta 212 (6925)   GEOTAIL, DUVE (Diffuse Ultraviolet Experiment)
 31 Aug 92  Delta 213 (7925)   SATCOM-C4
  9 Sep 92  Delta 214 (7925)   NAVSTAR 2A-06 (2-15, GPS-27)
 12 Oct 92  Delta 215 (7925)   DFS-3 (Deutsche Fernmeldesatelliten System)
 22 Nov 92  Delta 216 (7925)   NAVSTAR 2A-07 (2-16, GPS-32)
 18 Dec 92  Delta 217 (7925)   NAVSTAR 2A-08 (2-17, GPS-29)

* Launch Failure

Delta 206 was listed on both the military and commercial launch records.

If anyone has a complete Delta launch record from first orbital flight
through 1985, I'm sure I am not the only one who would like to see it
posted here.

Special thanks to Steven S. Pietrobon for the original data. Please
reference his recent postings for acronym explantations.

-Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
[e-mail]                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 19 Jan 93 04:48:25 GMT
From: David Fuzzy Wells <[e-mail]>
Subject: I want to be a space cadet (LONG)
Newsgroups: sci.space

>> I heard that the Air Farce now has a space command- is there now a
>> service academy like Annapolis where I can be a space cadet?
>
>If you want to work there you have to go thru one of the existing service
>academies or a ROTC program.  Then HOPE that someday all your wishes come
>true and you're assigned there.  But you're more likely to find yourself
>on the ground tracking stuff in space, than in space yourself.
>
>of Desert Shield/Storm, the made for TV war.)  The Space Commander is (?)
>a 4 star billet, and I've heard it alternates between Air Force and Navy
>officers.  Perhaps somebody who works for Space Command can confirm or
>refute this.  Seems I recall somebody called "Fuzzy" who has contributed
>to our little group before who is associated with SC.

Greetings,
    I hate to seem the sole source of info on Air Force Space Command
and the other space commands, but since the military is overly cautious on
allowing their computers to be connected to the outside world, here it goes:
(any and all comments, especially from those more knowledgeable, are welcome)

    First, I work in Air Force Space Command.  That is solely USAF and
should not be confused with the other services' commands or the joint US
Space Command.  US, USAF, and USA Space Command HQs are all located in
Colorado Springs, CO (hope you like cold weather!) and Navy Space Command is
in Dahlgren, VA (I believe.....I will be taking a trip there soon to find out).
Air Force Space Command HQ (AFSPACECOM or SPACECOM, yep, they want to take
over the entire works) is loaded with civilians, so being military is not
a true "must".  In fact, in the Scientific Analysis area in which I work, the
ratio is a little over 5:1 (civ:mil).  This is a bit unusual, even for
AFSPACECOM, but I like it lots.  I can only give you the makeup of the
typical Headquarters-level person since that is where I am and this is my
first assignment.  Be warned, HQ is top-heavy to the extreme (a good
measurement at HQ AFSPACECOM is GPSI...generals per square inch) and is
like-wise loaded in terms or experience.
      For headquarters-level personnel, the average military (USAF of course)
officer is a captain or higher, has over eight years in the service with
two assignments at the operations-level, has a master's degree in some
technical/science/math field (although a fair number carry doctorates)
and loves Star Trek more than any other show.
      The average civilian is a GS-12 or 13, has a master's degree (lots are
doctorates), has at least 4 years experience in the field (although many
have 10+ years), and can sling equations with the best of them.  Ditto on
the fav. show.  Many have published.  Most are from big-name schools.
      FORTRAN and C are the languages of choice and Silicon Graphics is the
computer (Reality Engines are wonderful).  Secret clearance is a minimum,
with Top Secret and above being fairly common (at least in Analysis).  Be
prepared to work at odd hours (sometimes satellites break down when
you least expect it).  Being able to visualize an orbit by only looking
at a two-line elset is a must.  Enjoying travel helps as out of town
conferences and training takes place regularly.
      As for me, I am an anomaly.  Second Lieutenants are _NEVER_ supposed
to go to HQ, always operations.  I was a ROTC grad out of Georgia Tech
with a nice GPA who put down HQ AFSPACECOM as my first choice.  I knew that
it was impossible...but for once, Luck smiled in my favor.  Most new guys
(military) who enter AFSPACECOM go to Undergraduate Space Training for a few
months to learn all about rockets and satellites and astrodynamics.  They
are then shipped off to an operations base....often, Falcon AFB in Colorado
Springs.  Other glorious sites include Diego Garcia, Thule (Greenland),
Australia, England....lots of remote locations and a few in the states like
Onizuka AFB in Sunnyvale, CA or Cheyenne Mountain AFB in Colorado Springs.
Lots of times, the job is screen-watching.  This means staring at a console
for long periods of time, dying in boredom until a crisis happens...then you
better be real good at stress-management or the world may go *BOOM*.
      Of course, since AFSPACECOM looks to be taking over the missile side
of the house for the old SAC, you can also enjoy living in a silo with your
finger on the button.  However, the two big missions are still space surv.
and missile warning.
      On the bright side, the USAF astronauts belong to us.  That means we
get an astronaut briefing every time the shuttle goes up with a USAF officer.
We also (naturally) have close contacts with NASA and all those wonderful
space contractors (and computer contractors) out there and we meet with
them often.
      And Bill, you are correct, a four-star controls the whole shooting
match....with herds of ones, twos, and threes helping.  And remember, not
all those are stars...some are maple leaves (Oh Canada!).

      BTW, we take our jobs REAL seriously...joking about them and the fact
that the Springs will be the second place to go *BOOM* is just a way to
blow off some pressure.  And AFSPACECOM can be a pressure cooker at times.
Dedication and desire are the big words to remember.  No one is there because
they "have to be" (especially in today's military) and 99.9% of the people love
their job and working in this field.  I enjoy my job lots and think that
the study of space debris is fun (yep, some people are weird that way).


[I'm done with the good stuff.  Your best bet is to hit "n" now]


<personal note>: as to the name "Fuzzy" and being a "Space Debris Guru", both
are rather simple to explain.  The nickname is from college days and is due
to the fact that I keep my hair VERY short.  And being a "guru" in space
debris is easy when only a handful of USAF personnel are working on the
problem (let alone understand it).

<really personal note>: I also decided long ago that I was going to be a
space cadet (was it "Silent Running" or "I Dream of Jeanie"?  I'll never
tell).  So I got myself into a magnet (read: geek) engineering high school
and made great grades.  MIT was WAY too expensive, and with an ROTC scholar-
ship, Georgia Tech was virtually free.  Picked up my commission and an
aerospace engineering degree.  Lucked out with AFSPACECOM assignment in
analysis (with ultra-cool civilian boss).  I am pursuing a masters degree
in electrical engineering (space systems option) at the Univ. Colorado at
Colorado Springs.  This will allow me lots of time to play with space stuff,
EE stuff, and computer science stuff (especially in virtual reality if
I play my cards right).  Then I plan to run out to the Naval Postgraduate
School and pick up a doctorate in their virtual reality program.  After that,
I jump ship with the Air Force, weasel my way into NASA and get into the
telepresence arena (as I figure manned spaceflight will die due to budget).
I hope to be one of the first "virtual astronauts".  That is my plan.  Good
luck on yours.  BTW, suggestions in this quest are appreciated.

                Cheers,
                        Fuzzy.

==============================================================================
_ __/|       | Lt. David "Fuzzy" Wells | "Society produces rogues, and
\'o.O'       |    HQ AFSPACECOM/CNA    |  education makes one rogue
=(___)=      |    Space Debris Guru    |  cleverer than another."
   U  ...ack!| [e-mail] |                      OSCAR WILDE
==============================================================================

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

Date: 12 Jan 93 16:29:34 GMT
From: Ralph Buttigieg <[e-mail]>
Subject: man-rating
Newsgroups: sci.space

Original to: [e-mail]
 [e-mail] (Henry Spencer), wrote:

 h> However, Doug's point is nevertheless valid, because the original
context
 h> was official government projects... and it is official NASA dogma that
 h> man-rating is mandatory for such purposes.
 h> --

 Just what is "man-rating" ? What sort of extras does the rocket need to
 be man rated?

 ta
 Ralph

--- Maximus 2.01wb
 * Origin: Vulcan's World-Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635)

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

Date: Tue, 19 Jan 93 05:16:21 GMT
From: David Fuzzy Wells <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orbital elements of junk in space wanted
Newsgroups: sci.space

>(By international treaty, orbital elements and a name for everything
>launched onto orbit must be announced within a day of launch. Keeping
>this secret would be pointless in any case: An observer can derive
>orbital elements with binoculars and a clock...)
>
>As I understand it, NORAD keeps a listing of all objects (functional or
[....continues....]
>if the object he observed at such-and-such a time and place was a
>piece of orbital debris.)
>
>I have a number of references on the subject of debris (actually, the
>bibliography from a paper on the subject) but I think they are all
>focused on number density vs. size, and don't give individual orbital
>elements.

Thanks for writing, Frank.  And BTW, I would love those references (I
am sure that my list is nowhere complete) as the size density is a big
problem in the debris field.

Okay, let's take a look at the above.  International treaty doesn't
require all of the above and unless those binoculars are REAL good, I
doubt that you can track deep-space objects.  I know that the treaty
doesn't cover elsets since _we_ have to find those out via our ground
stations for sats that are not our own.  And as for a name, how does
DOD-1 sound to you?  Not very helpful in finding out what it is.  Both
are real sticky-points with the newly-emerging space-faring nations who
want to know what is up there and where it can be found.

Yep, NORAD does keep a listing of "everything" seeing how all data pathways
lead to NORAD.  And that guy that you call up to find out if your object
such-and-such is a piece of debris, a classified sat, or something unknown
that is not in the catalog is probably me or someone in my office.  We do
this alot for our observation guys and they HAVE found pieces that NORAD
did not know about or had reported lost.

                Cheers,
                        Fuzzy.
==============================================================================
_ __/|       | Lt. David "Fuzzy" Wells |      "The only completely
\'o.O'       |    HQ AFSPACECOM/CNA    |        consistent people
=(___)=      |      "We do debris"     |         are the dead."
   U  ...ack!| [e-mail] |                   ALDOUS HUXLEY
==============================================================================

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

Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 03:07:35 -0800
From: Glenn Chapman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz TM-16 crew prepars for flight to Mir space station

    Final preparations are being made for the Soyuz TM-16 flight to the
Commonwealth of Independent States Mir space station space station, set for
Jan 24th. The new crew, Manakov and Polishcuk, arrived at the Baikonor
Cosmodrome on Jan. 9/10th. They will be releaving cosmonauts Anatoli Solovyov
and Sergei Avdeyev (up for 173 days now, since July 30) who are preparing for
the end of their mission.  In addition two other flights to Mir are planed
for 1993, a joint French mission in July, and another flight at the end of
the year.  That final flight will provide a crew which plans to stay up for
18 months, beating the current record of 366 days. (Radio Moscow)
     An interesting report noted that a joint Russian/French flight tested an
improved version of the Russian supersonic ramjet engine (scramjet) on top of
a rocket booster.  The scramjet started at Mach 3.5 (3.5 times the speed of
sound) and had a successful subsonic to supersonic combustion transition at
Mach 5.  It ran supersonic combustion for over 15 seconds (three times longer
than the flight last year) until running out of liquid hydrogen.  (AW&ST Dec.
7, 14/21)


                                                        Glenn Chapman
                                                        School Eng. Science
                                                        Simon Fraser U.
                                                        Burnaby, B.C., Canada
                                                        [e-mail]

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

Date: 19 Jan 93 04:31:39 GMT
From: "robert.f.casey" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Subjective Safety Measure(Re: man-rating)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>While, In the last 100 years, the number of fatalities due to failure of the
>prime mover  Motors, cables and lift ram has been negligible,  there
>have still been numerous elevator fatalities.  Mostly due to improper
>door opening.  Most public housing authorities have been sued for this.
>the door opens, and there is no car.  while certainly there is a
>great deal of passenger negligence,  that still counts.  WE also

Probably some of the above accidents stem from no or sloppy safety
inspections.  I remember an elevator in an old building (which housed
an electronics surplus shop) in Paterson, NJ (an inner-city rat-hole)
which had virtually NO safety features.  No doors, to call it, you reached
into the shaftway and tugged on a rope, and no fence or anything else to
keep you from falling in.  And who knows what other safety problems not
visible to a causal obverver.  The city inspectors probably didn't
know that this elevator existed, or maybe ...

Ignoring safety issues will make anything normally safe bad.

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

Date: 19 Jan 93 04:24:23 GMT
From: Philip Young <[e-mail]>
Subject: Supporting private space activities
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

|> There's no fundamental problem with putting a launch site elsewhere --
|> the Aussies are trying to do one at Cape York [...]

Don't hold your breath.  Our government, commendably, does not want to
spend taxpayer's money on this, so (existing, financed) private concerns
could, and would, do it.  However, the said government does not have the
vision to expedite the process by getting out of the way, and doesn't
have the will to take on the sectional interest groups who, by vociferous
opposition, further their objectives through media exposure.

This should not be construed as praising the opposition either, although to
their credit they've announced a policy that major projects should not be
subject to bureaucratic delays of more than a year (revolutionary for the
Land of Oz).  But with a federal election due by May, there has not been
one peep from either the feral ... oops, federal ... politicians or
the press.  My guess is that there will be a spaceport in this region,
but it'll be in Singapore or Malaysia.

--
Philip R. Young
Data General Australia Pty. Ltd. |   Disclaimers and all that ...

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

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 22:03:22 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Titan Launch Record (1986-1992)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Steven S. Pietrobon recently posted launch records for Ariane, Shuttle,
U.S. military, and U.S. commercial space launches.

This information was very interesting, but I have been looking for
launch records for the individual boosters, Delta, Titan, and Atlas.

For those of you who are also looking for this information, I have
taken Mr. Pietrobon's data and broken it down by booster. Therefore,
to save anyone else alot of cutting and pasting, here is that
information.

TITAN LAUNCH RECORD (1986-PRESENT)

  Date       Vehicle              Payload
---------------------------------------------------------------
* 18 Apr 86  Titan 34D-9          KH-9-F20 (Key Hole, Big Bird)
  12 Feb 87  Titan 3B-66          SDS-7
  26 Oct 87  Titan 34D-15         KH-11-F8
  29 Nov 87  Titan 34D-8/TS       DSP-F5R (Block 2)
*  2 Sep 88  Titan 34D-3/TS       Chalet (Vortex) (ELINT)
   5 Sep 88  Titan 23G-1          ?
   6 Nov 88  Titan 34D-14         KH-11-F9
  10 May 89  Titan 34D-16/TS      Chalet (Vortex)
  15 Jun 89  Titan 402/IUS        DSP-F14 (Block 14)
   4 Sep 89  Titan 34D-2/TS?      DSCS II-F16, DSCS III-F4
   6 Sep 89  Titan 23G-2          ?
   1 Jan 90  Titan 3              JCSAT-2, SKYNET-4A
* 14 Mar 90  Titan 3              INTELSAT VI-F3
   8 Jun 90  Titan 403            ?, NOSS 2-1
  23 Jun 90  Titan 3              INTELSAT VI-F4
  13 Nov 90  Titan 402/IUS        DSP-F15 (Block 14)
   8 Mar 91  Titan 405            Lacrosse 2
   8 Nov 91  Titan 405            KH-12?, NOSS 2-2
  25 Apr 92  Titan 23G-3          ?
  25 Sep 92  Titan 3              Mars Observer
  28 Nov 92  Titan 404            KH-12?

* Launch Failure

Titan 3B is a Titan III minus the solid boosters.
Titan 3 is the Commercial Titan III,
Titan 34D is the final variant of the military Titan III series.
Titan 23G series are the refurbished Titan II ICBMs.
Titan 4xx series are the Titan IV family.

I was unaware of a Titan 34D failure in September 1988. Does anyone
have any information on the cause of this failure?

If anyone has a complete Titan launch record from first orbital flight
through 1985, I'm sure I am not the only one who would like to see it
posted here.

Special thanks to Steven S. Pietrobon for the original data. Please
reference his recent postings for acronym explantations.

-Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
[e-mail]                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 19 Jan 1993 04:14 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: TOPEX Update - 01/18/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.geo.meteorology

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. [phone]

                  TOPEX/POSEIDON STATUS REPORT
                        January 18, 1993

          The satellite is healthy and all instruments continue
to operate normally.

          The science data team has delivered the tenth 10-day
science data cycle to JPL's Physical Oceanography Data Active
Archive Center.  This satisfies the fight team's goal of
providing 10 cycles of data to the principal investigators for
experiment processing and presentation at a verification workshop
to be held at JPL Feb. 22 to 25, 1993.

          The satellite pointing remains good since the attitude
control system calibration results were implemented in late
December.  Consequently, the altimeter performance is good and
100 percent of the data are typically received from three daily
playbacks.

          The batteries are performing well and show no signs of
degradation.  The flight team continues to implement "tender
loving care" for the batteries following all recommendations of
the project battery team to ensure that they do not overcharge
the batteries.

          Today the French solid-state altimeter was turned on so
the French can take data when the satellite overflies the Centre
National d'Etudes Spatiales verification site in the
Mediterranean Sea.

          Since launch on Aug. 10, 1992, the flight team has sent
more than 1 million commands to the satellite.

                              #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Every once in a while,
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | try pushing your luck.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: 19 Jan 93 04:03:11 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: What's it like at the edge of the universe?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (robert.f.casey) writes:

[...] Is there a boundry, where you can
>stand right next to the "surface" of the universe bubble, and
>touch with your spacesuited hand the wall of superdense material?
>Would it be dark, or bright, perfectly smooth, or with irregularities
>like mountians (microns high, miles high, lightyears high?)?
>Could you walk on it, is there gravity (lots of gravity like millions of
>G's, or none, what happens if a meteorite hits the surface (bounce off,
>stick, big energy explosion, disappear?)?

Here we are, in an insignificant galaxy, somewhere in the Universe.  No
matter which way we look, space looks pretty darned uniform.  As
observational techniques get better, we can see further into the
Universe, but there's a fundamental limit equal to the age of the
Universe times the speed of light.  Since electromagnetic radiation is
all we can use to observe, we can only see objects and events which
emitted or interacted with radiation in the past.  The further away the
event is, the older its light is by the time it reaches us.  Our latest
observations come from nearly the beginning of time (give [not take] a
billion years).  The uniformity of space tells us important things
about the structure of the universe.  It tells us that there is no
"edge" or space within about 14 billion light years.  Some cosmologists
say that means there is no edge at all, that it's all part of some
fifth (or higher) dimensional sphere.  If so, it doesn't look like the
"circumference" of that sphere is less than the 14 billion light years
we can observe.

Here's an analogy.  Like "Sphereland," mentioned in a previous article,
I'll take a two dimensional example and apply a third.  Picture
yourself as a spider in a flat, circular web.  You can "see" things in
the web by sensing their vibrations.  Now, let's assume that the
vibrations damp out as the move across the web, and that they take time
to travel along the strands.  If there's an insect struggling, you can
sense it (a) if the vibrations are strong enough for you to feel at
this distance, and (b) when enough time has passed since the insect
twitched so that the vibration has time to get to you.

If the web is large, the vibrations may damp out before they get to
you.  Or if the vibrations travel slowly, you can only sense vibrations
which happened "near" you.  In fact, your perception of the web comes
from vibrations emitted in a circle around you which expands as time
goes by.

Now that you have the set-up, take your web and bend it through a third
dimension into a sphere.  Now put an insect in your spherical web.  The
vibrations can still only be transmitted along the surface of the
sphere.  If the sphere is small enough, you'll feel vibrations coming
from all directions.  If the insect is directly on the opposite side of
the sphere, vibrations will all converge on you at once, so that you'll
sense an insect in every direction at once.

However, if the circumference of the sphere is larger than the distance
vibrations can travel since the insect started struggling, and the
insect is further away than that distance, you can't sense it yet.

Similarly, if the "circumference" of the Universe is larger than about
14 billion years, we can't see all of the events in it.  The events we
can't see are those beyond 14 billion light-years.  Now, there may be
an "edge" out there, beyond that radius, if the Universe isn't
5-d-spherical.  But we can't see it, because light leaving the edge
hasn't reached us yet.

The question you asked was, "If there's a boundary, what's it like?"
My guess: it's dark on one side and Universe as usual on the other.
That's all.  If there is an edge, it's like a spider at the edge of
his web, only able to sense vibrations from one side.  No vibrations
come from outside the web.

Now maybe somebody with more cosmology than I have could help me out.
Is this question of "does the Universe have an edge" really the same
question as "closed" vs. "open" Universe?  I think not, because "closed
vs. open" is just about whether there's enough mass to cause the
expansion to slow and eventually become a contraction back to a reverse
of the Big Bang ("the heat death of the Universe").  But I know I'm
missing something here.

This analogy brings up an interesting point.  If the "circumference" of
the Universe is less than our maximum observational distance (~14 Gly),
and the Universe does indeed wrap around through a 5-d-sphere, we'd
start to see objects multiple times -- once as light reaches us
directly from the object, then again as the light "wraps around" the
Universe and reaches us again.  But we'd probably have a hard time
figuring out that we're seeing an object twice, since several billion
years will have passed between the images that we receive, and the
object will have moved and evolved in the meantime.  And maybe the
Universe has rotated (through some other dimension).  How could we
know?  Observe something old and stable, then look for it again?

What's it like at the edge of the Universe?  Probably a lot like living
in California.  Out beyond that, there's a whole lot of nothing for a
long, long way.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "The thing's hollow -- it goes on forever -- and --
     oh my God! -- it's full of stars!"
       -- Dave Bowman, In Arthur Clarke's "2001"

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 063
------------------------------