Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_0/V16NO087.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 34KB

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 05:03:02
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #087
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 29 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 087

Today's Topics:
     Bumbling Geek Scientists (was Re: Space Education/News/Adds)
           Clinton's Promises (space) in Charlotte Observer
                       Color scheme on the VAB
                           Galileo update?
                           Nasa Press Kit+
       No, only a reactor (was Re: Nuclear explosion in space?)
                     Orbital Mechanics--Careers?
           Precursors to Fred (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.)
            Precursors to SSF (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.)
                    Reason for SSTO/DCX and Market
Reasons for SS(was Re: Precursors to Fred (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.)) (2 msgs)
              Rent Mir/Commerical SS Fred not build it.
            Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger (2 msgs)
                    Using off-the-shelf-components

    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: 27 Jan 93 20:20:27 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bumbling Geek Scientists (was Re: Space Education/News/Adds)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> Also start or help local quality TV organizations, namely cause of what I have
> seen the basic bent for modern TV is a prime help for the lack of science in
> the current crop of students..

[I am having trouble parsing this, but it seems to be connected to what
follows.]

> Im not talking violence, Im talking about who is cool and who is not..
> Scientists many times are not cool, they are egghead, nerds, geeks and such..
> Bumbling social idiots.. (I might be wrong)..

With all due respect, Mike, you are wrong.

*I* am cool.

Ask anybody.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | Here Lies Bill Higgins:
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | He Never Ever Learned
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | To Play Guitar So Well
Internet:       [e-mail]  | But He Could Read and Write
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | Just Like Ringing A Bell

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:58:44 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Clinton's Promises (space) in Charlotte Observer
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bruce F. Webster) writes:
>>. I have friends who are still heavily involved in
>>the space industry at various levels. I happen to think that the best thing
>>Clinton could do would be to kill SS Fred and offer $10B, tax-free, to the
>>first US corporation or consortium to put a station on orbit and keep it
>>staffed by at least X people for a year and day. He should also offer $5B to
>>the second corporation/consortium to do the same thing. The government would
>>spend less, create more jobs, and built an 21st century industrial base.
>
> Gosh, you been hanging out with Jerry Pournelle, huh?
>
> He has expounded on the bonus plan to build a moon colony through the same
> fashion.
>
> I got some questions for you:
>
>     A) Who owns possession of the technology used to develop the station?
Good solution/answer given below! But its debatable.

>     B) Who owns the data?
Same solution to a point.
>     C) How do you set the damned thing up without using goverment help
>        in the first place? Guess who owns all the big launch facilities.
>        (Unless, of course, you wish to disguise this as a Russian
>         Marshall Plan, which is not necessary a Bad Thing. Just be say
>         so up front).
Hum, I think there is some space facilties that are not directly federally
owned and we shall see. I do like the idea of a marshal plan type idea, after
all it can make us the benefiters, have the russians do all the work and we
benefit. Also make the russian ean their money and they will be paying it back
in many ways better than a long term loan (which many counteries never seem to
pay off).. (see Poker flats in Alaska for semi-Nasa facilty.
>     D) Does it have to be a U.S. corp? What if I use off-shore tech, say
>        get the Italians into building my living modules?
Off the shelf would be nice, forgein that is a problem that will be worked
out.. Maybe if the holding company is US, many subcontrators are not US even in
normal projects. Ever heard of Alyeska, its a front/combo company to handle the
Alaska Pipeline and build it.. Co-owned by Arco, BP, Standard, and one or two
others, BP is not a US company.. I think Shell was the other one (Dutch).
>
> IF, in exchange for the prize money, the government gets rights to the
> "science" without infringing on trade secrets, it might work.
>
>

>                     I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
>   -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

Jerry Pournelle, hum.. Does anyone have access to a ear at the Planetary
Society? Pass these ideas on to them...
Does Jerry Pournell have anet address (drop box is better)??

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

Date: 28 Jan 93 03:19:49 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Color scheme on the VAB
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hi all, sorry I've not been around, but I've been busy getting ready to
move to England next month, where I will be quite certain to go to the
BIS lectures. How could I possibly miss those?!

What I was wondering was, this Christmas break, on my usual trip to
Florida to visit my parents, I made my usual trip to KSC, and thought I
noticed something odd. Maybe it was just that I was there in late
afternoon, but - could it be? - did they change the color scheme on the
VAB?

It seemed dark grey on light grey, as opposed to black on white, as it
used to be, with the red-white-and-blue added in 1976. Again, maybe it
was only the lighting?

Fred Ringwald
Department of Physics & Astronomy
Dartmouth College
Hanover, NH 03755-3528 (for the time being)

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

Date: 27 Jan 1993 22:42:11 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo update?
Newsgroups: sci.space

I dont know about hammering the HGA during the Re-entry manuever
although it seems like a little risk may be called for.  besides
program the probe to stop hammering if you get more then n
ball screw rotations, where n<5.

Also isn't there a plan to hammer the HGA during the probe deploy?

pat

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:46:15 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Nasa Press Kit+
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Philippe Colbach) writes:
> How do I order Nasa's press kits?  Philippe



send info to me to.. Im interested to..


Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel
[e-mail]

PO Box 1666
Nome, AK 99762-1666

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

Date: 27 Jan 93 21:25:19 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: No, only a reactor (was Re: Nuclear explosion in space?)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Carole Fretts) writes:
>
> I'm not sure that this is the right forum for my question, but I need to
> ask this.  Has anyone else heard a news report that the U.S. is planning
> on detonating a nuclear device in space?  I heard it this weekend on
> a Boston morning radio news broadcast but cannot track it down for any
> further information.

No!  This is forbidden by the Test Ban Treaty of 1963.  What you
heard, as astronomer David Palmer has pointed out on sci.astro,
was probably an account of the planned flight of a small nuclear
reactor.

The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO), which does
research into space-based antimissile defenses among other things, has
purchased a "Topaz" space reactor from Russia(!).  The Russian
military space program has operated reactors in space for a couple of
decades.  One, you, may recall, Kosmos 954, came crashing down on
Canada in 1978, spreading radioactive material over a wide area.

Reactors are quite safe, only mildly radioactive, until you turn them
on.  After that they begin to accumulate "fission products" with
unpleasant amounts of radioactivity.  The safe way to operate a space
reactor is to launch it into a high orbit.  Only when you're sure it
is in an orbit that has negligible chance of decaying do you start it
up.  I would presume that this is SDIO's plan for Topaz, but don't take my
word for it.

The Topaz will power an experimental electric propulsion system.
Nuclear reactors are promising for space missions beyond the Earth,
especially beyond Mars where sunlight is weak and solar power is no
longer viable.  They are also a good power supply for electric
propulsion, which in my opinion is way overdue for flight testing.

Controversy has erupted because the radiation the reactor gives off
interferes with astrophysics satellites, such as the Compton Gamma Ray
Observatory, which are trying to detect faint amounts of radiation
from distant stars and galaxies.  The American Astronomical Society
has protested the plans for Topaz and SDIO is trying to work out a
compromise.  They want to fly it in an orbit 1600 kilometers high, and
some astronomers would rather it be at least 6000 km high.

See *Space News*, January 18-24 1993, p. 17.  The *New York Times*
also ran an article in a Tuesday "Science Times" section recently, but
I didn't record the date in my photocopy.  January 5, perhaps?  Maybe
before Christmas.  Look for the headline "Space Test of Reactor Is
Opposed."

> What I caught was that a planned nuclear detonation
> in space was being postponed for a few months to make sure that no
> satellites are damaged in the explosion.

This sounds like a distorted version of the AAS controversy.  Possibly
the story you heard means somebody has made a definite decision on
this.

> I would really appreciate hearing from anyone who knows anything about
> this.  Also, if you have the names of government agencies I could contact
> to confirm this, that would also be appreciated.

SDIO would confirm it for you.  Best I can tell from this here
directory, their Public Affairs Policy Division is [phone].
Opponents of the program include Steven Aftergood of the Federation of
American Scientists in Washington and Prof. Donald Lamb of the
University of Chicago.

--
     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: 27 Jan 93 20:49:03 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orbital Mechanics--Careers?
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.research.careers,sci.space,soc.college.grad

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Srinivas Bettadpur) writes:
>>>(mark jones) writes...
>>>>
>>>>  etc....   What are the opportunities
>>>>in orbital mechanics and will they still be there in 5 or 6 years.
>     * Typical places for employment might include JPL, NASA-(gsfc and
> jsc), Lockheed, Rockwell, Martin Marietta, Aerospace Corp., Hughes STX
> and a bunch of other Aerospace companies.

This suggests an interesting algorithm for Mr. Jones:

1) Get the proceedings of a recent conference on orbital mechanics.

2) See who's writing the papers.  Also note the companies they work
for.

3) Talk to the people in (2).  Ask *them* your questions.

4) Apply to the companies for jobs.

To the list Srinivas gave I might add Science Applications
International, Teledyne Brown, and Eagle Engineering.  General
Dynamics and McDonnell-Douglas operate launchers and hence employ a
few astrodynamics people.  Military services also employ civilians.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "Enough marshmallows
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | will kill you
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | if properly placed."
Internet:       [e-mail]  | --John Alexander, leader of
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | "disabling technologies"
 [*Aviation Week*, 7 Dec 1992, p. 50]  | research, Los Alamos

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

Date: 27 Jan 1993 22:44:11 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Precursors to Fred (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
|In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
|>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
|>
|>>[Dennis tries to convince Allen that building hardware and flying it on
|>>Spacelab is a good thing]
|>
|>No, Dennis it trying to convince me that space stations cannot be built
|>without doing lots of Spacelab flights.
|
|So how do you suggest NASA tests hardware and flight procedures before Freedom
|goes up?
|
|Thirty seconds on the vomit comet don't cut it.
|
|


I imagine that MIR would be a good place to do this.

pat

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

Date: 27 Jan 1993 16:54 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Precursors to SSF (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>[Dennis tries to convince Allen that building hardware and flying it on
>>Spacelab is a good thing]
>
>No, Dennis it trying to convince me that space stations cannot be built
>without doing lots of Spacelab flights.
>
>  Allen
>

The wall analogy that was mentioned begins to fit better and better with
Allan. What I simply said Allen is that in order to have an EFFECTIVE
Space Station, no matter who's does it, you must perfect the methodologies
processes and engineering expertise necessary to make the experiments that
will run on the station work and work well. We have made tremendous strides
in the last four years in our understanding of the true needs of the
mocrgravity community for different experiment processes. It turns out that
the stringent requirments (10-7 g) is not necessary for 99% of all
microgee experiments. This enables the relaxation of a design constraint on
the station or it allows you to postion those experiments needing this level
of microgee at the appropriate postion within the lab module.

Also we have found over the last few years that the major contributor to the
"dirtyness" of the microgravity environment is not the astronauts. Remember
That this argument was used by the opponents of manned space as a reason to
build free flyers rather than manned units. It turns out that the experimenters
own hardware was the major contributor in most cases to the quality of the
microgee environment. This has allowed the designers of these experiments to
modify their designs to correct this problem. Further, the reflight of these
precursors on the various platforms is allowing the test of these changes, that
in turn will result in futher improvments to the designs and or the
experiment processes.

Precursor experiments also allow NASA to determine if process X or process y
is really going to work better in microgee. Some do and some don't. This
allows NASA and any one else to spend their time in working on processes
that actually do benefit from microgravity.

So in conclusion Allen, I offer several concrete, documented, and repeatable
resaons that precursor missions are valid cost reducing activities, both
in direct dollars spent overall in the station era, and in intellectual
activity relating to the ability of the precursors to weed out the bad and
allow the focusing on the good. What do you offer?

On the cost front you know as well as I that it is the Congress that
has drivent the cost up while stringing out the process. Are you too far
gone in your visions that you fail to realize that the major cost are in
keeping the standing army together over this time period?

By the way major flight hardware IS under construction and one of the guys
who is machining the flight hardware for SEDSAT 1 will be machining the
end connections of the modules at Boeing's shop at MSFC. We are getting there
we need only one more year of full funding and we WILL get our SSF on
orbit!

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:06:43 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Reason for SSTO/DCX and Market
Newsgroups: sci.space

Uses for a SSTO/DC-X seem to be for long distance flying and for
low orbit launching of satelites and other packets.. If I remember correctly
hat SSTo/DC-X is.. Later is like how a F15 sent a missle into orbit for the SDI
tests..

Long Distance flights seem perfect, namely the London or Paris to Tokyo/Hong
Kong Route.. Or maybe Australia to US or Australia to Europe.. Any place where
people fly fro that takes more than 12 hours to fly normally or where they need
to get somepalce fast,., I wonder if the courior services would be interested..
Also the Large Corps who ned to get people places fast..

Yes market is needed and a way to convince the builders that there is a
market..
Is there or will there be a special on SSTO or DC-X in the near future even on
PBS??


Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel
[e-mail]

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

Date: 28 Jan 93 02:11:46 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reasons for SS(was Re: Precursors to Fred (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.))
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>Allan if you have looked at any of the information that has been put out
>>about SSF in the last decade you will see that the PRIMARY mission of
>>SSF is to be a laboratory in space.

This is true as far as it goes. It has always been *claimed* that SSF
will be a major scientific laboratory, and that's a fundamental reason
to build it. (In a minute, I will get to Allen's interesting dissent.)
I think the public statements on this are pretty much propaganda.  The
usefulness of Fred (or Mir, for that matter), judged solely on its
potential contributions to science, does not justify its cost compared
to other labs and facilities.  The "life science" does little to
address fundamental issues in biology or benefit other biological
disciplines.  Microgravity materials science, currently the #2
justification for the station, has been waning in popularity since the
ballyhoo days of the early Eighties.

The U.S. wants a space station for reasons OTHER than science.  It
keeps NASA people working (sounds cynical, but this does have value to
the nation).  It develops another step in regular spaceflight
operations.  It tries out techniques and systems and capabilities that
the U.S. would like to have for even more glorious and glamorous
projects someday-- granted, the Russians have already covered a lot of
this ground.  It serves as a focus for national prestige and a warm
fuzzy feeling that Americans are moving into the 21st century. At this
late date, it provides work for hard-pressed aerospace contractors in
a variety of Congressional districts.

Here's an example. It's been decreed (I think in a National Academy of
Sciences study) that the highest priority for Fred's research should
be life science.  This is mostly useful for deeper understanding of space
medicine; it has little to do with cracking the genetic code or curing
cancer or understanding evolution or other major issues in medical and
biological science.  But it *is* very important for sending people
further into space, or for longer times, which NASA hopes to do in
some remote post-Freedom era.

So Allen writes:

> Actually, if you look at the information that has been put out about
> SSF in the last decade you will see that the PRIMARY mission of SSF is...
>
> A. Life science (at least to the life science community).
> B. Microgravity (at least to the microgravity people)
> C. Assembly point for Moon/Mars (At least to the manned space crowd)
> D. A mechanism to teach us how to live and work in space (at least to
>    the space colonization crwod)
> E. Well paying jobs for your district (at least to Congress).
> F. (insert your favoriet special interest here)
>
> In short, Fred was to be everything to everybody. Your belief that
> a particular one of these was actually (we mean it this time) the
> primary mission requires very very selective reading of history.

Oh, boy, trivia time for old-timers!

F1. A platform for astronomical studies from low Earth orbit.
No kidding, they had telescopes bolted to it in early drawings, where
the observations somehow wouldn't mind a structure with astronauts
bouncing around inside it.  I recall in particular an astrometric
scope David Black was pushing to look for planets around other stars.

F2. Earth observation.  Doesn't make much sense in a 28-degree orbit,
but there were downward-pointing radars and radiometers in the early
paintings.  I guess it would be good for testing out prototype systems
which might need human attention, or for studying the tropics.  For a
long while, Space Station owned a big fancy polar-orbiting platform to
do Earth-obs stuff; as years went on, even Congress recognized the
orthogonality (-: to what Fred was doing and NASA broke it out into a
separate multibillion-dollar project we now know as the Earth
Observing System.

F3.  Space physics.  There were designs, for example, for a
large superconducting spectrometer for cosmic rays.  Such instruments
went away as the station was downsized and redesigned to keep costs
down.

At this point, A, B, D, and E are still in business, while C, F1, F2,
and F3 have vanished.  There are plans for a "Phase II" station, an
extensive expansion of Fred after it's been running for a few years,
which might put some of this back (along with more power, lab space,
larger crew, etc.).  I'm dubious about the chances of funding such
major upgrade in the face of a Shuttle operating budget, a Fred
operating budget, and any other little science or technology projects
NASA may want to do for the next decade or three.

A program as expensive as Fred has to be "everything to everybody."
You have to have political support from enough interest groups to keep
it going.  NASA has managed it so far, but in throwing most scientific
disciplines overboard it has lost much of the support it might have
had from the scientific community-- though the Space Station might
never have been a *good* place to do astronomy or Earth science.

>>Allen building SSF or any other large structure in space is a mere engineering
>>exercise that we learned long ago.

Oversimplification that Dennis should *know* is gonna get stuffed down
his throat...

> So why is the truss work package over a billion over budget and still
> out of control? No Denis, since nothing like this has ever been build
> in space before it cannot be called 'mere engineering'.

Now that Dennis has finally learned to spell Allen's name correctly,
Allen has begun to misspell *his* name.  Sigh.

For one thing, Dennis, it doesn't make sense to argue (as you and I
did) that experimenters need to learn how to build their furnaces and
gloveboxes and centrifuges and instruments and debug them on Spacelab
and COMET flights... and then claim that Fred's designers will find it
easy to slap together a space station and operate it.  *Both* tasks
are a "mere engineering exercise" in that sense.  You know better than
I do just how much work goes into "mere engineering" for space
systems!

>>There are no mysteries involved in the process.

But there are plenty of surprises!

> Except for why in hell it takes twice as long and costs three times
> what it is supposed to. (Although given NASA's poor performance in
> almost every aspect of cost estimating and management maybe this
> isn't that strange).

Allen, this isn't true for *everything* NASA does, especially outside
the nasty problems of Shuttle costs.

Okay, now I'll be catching hell from *both* of these guys.

--
     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/

   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:08:10 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reasons for SS(was Re: Precursors to Fred (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.))
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>Microgravity materials science, currently the #2
>justification for the station, has been waning in popularity since the
>ballyhoo days of the early Eighties.

That is hardly surprising.  You have two groups of researchers:  Group
A, who try to make better materials in space, and Group B, who try to
prove that they can do better on Earth.  Group B can afford to do 100
experiments on Earth for every one that Group A can do in orbit.  The
fact that the argument is still going on suggests that Group A is probably
right.

And the situation will not get better with Space Station Freedom.

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:43:07 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Rent Mir/Commerical SS Fred not build it.
Newsgroups: sci.space

Maybe what we should do is rent Mir and the Russian space facilties and use
them to help build SS Fred (Interesting name).. I doubt the US people would be
exciting if we bought Mir and Energina and such.. (Jobs and such, even if it
would probably save us money)..

The Russians alreay have Mir up in space, why not used it to build a
American/US space station, or build a wing onto Mirt that is for US use..
I know Mir is far from ideal, but what is.. Why reinvent the wheel when the
wheel is already in Orbit??

Does anyone know of any Russian Jobs?? Namely space jobs, or Russians who are
looking for jobs int he Use Space industry?..

I do like the idea of a reward for the first commerical space station in orbit
versus NASA/DOD building one.. One thing NASA can do it rent space on the new
station.. Why must the FED own everything, can't it be happy to rent things..


Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:50:52 GMT
From: Michael Kean <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

I can remember when I first heard the news of the Challenger tragedy.  I was
in a computer science class in grade 11.  The head of the business dept.
came in and had been crying.  He whispered into the ear of the computer
science teacher, class was put on hold and the monitors of our C64 computers
were connected all to a central VCR.  CNN was tuned in and we watched the
replay on the monitors of the explosion.  After they broke for a commerical
we turned off the monitors and sat in the room for about 15 minutes in total
silence.  Each to his own thoughts & feelings on what we had just witnessed.
For the rest of the day there was a dark cloud over the complete student
body.  This as I am sure all of my age group (now 24 years old) will attest
to the fact this event is am much a part of our memories as was the
assination of President John F. Kennedy was for our parents and the rest of
the world at that time.

Mike Kean.

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:25:14 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:

> Just a reminder- 7 years ago today- 11:38am EST....
> So, where were you when the Challenger disaster took place?
> It was during my sophomore of high school, and I was in English class
> when they told us.
> No tribute of any sort was allowed, nor could we openly talk about it
> without some sort of negative reaction from administrators.
> I remember it well, I even got in 'trouble' for this.
> Pro-space exploration views were not welcome.
> At least now things have improved.

I was at work in the service department of Bill Utter Ford in Denton TX
(working my way thru my undergrad physics degree).  Joel Petty (another
mechanic) and I listened to the launch on his radio while we worked.  I
recall hearing the comment, "...looks like a major malfunction..." and
feeling the same way I would if I saw flashing lights in my rear view
mirror -- a gut wrenching fear.

After another minute or so the word started to circulate that "the shuttle
blew up".  The owner called all employees up to the showroom where we
watched the TV and waited for further results.  After ~45 minutes we knew
the worst was confirmed and went back to work somewhat dazed.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute

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

Date: 27 Jan 1993 17:13 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Using off-the-shelf-components
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ata Etemadi) writes...
>G'Day
>
> Are there any companies out there whose off-the-shelf products are
>space-qualified ? I ask this since a colleague at IKI told me that
>they had flown many standard PC hard discs as onboard storage devices
>and had great success. I just wondered what other components might be
>out there which are standard and space-qualified. I don't imagine
>for one minute that these components will be chosen for major space
>missions since they are just not expensive enough. Maybe the UOSAT
>folks will be willing to give them go...
>
>    regards
>

You know I feel like I am the Shell Answer man for space of late.

You can fly any commercial hardware you like on the shuttle as long as it
meets the flamablity, outgassing, offgassing and EMI requirements.

Let me give you an example. I recently, along with others working at the
University of Alabama in Huntsville, built tested and delivered to the
SpaceHab module (STS 57) a major payload for the measurement of the
microgravity levels inside of the SpaceHab module.  This experiment has
a controller that is a personal computer that sit by the millions on desks
all across the world, with a data acquisiton card manufactured commercially
by the US leader in that field. Also flown for data storage are two 2.1
gigabyte ST42100 5 1/4" Seagate hard disks. Attached to this are some rather
expensive accelerometers that are the best in the world.  The software is
a standard version of the commercial data acquistion software made by the
manufacturer of the data acquistion card.

These components were integrated into a structure that fits in a Middeck
locker and all of the above components passed the shake tests, outgassing
and offgassing tests, as well as near compliance on EMI which  required a
waiver, which was granted.

This hardware and software, with the exception of the accelerometers (which
have 1 microgee accuracy) were bought from local computer stores or national
distributors.

The problem is that non of you so called big shots out there with the big
mouths and no follow through are willing to do the work necessary to make
this happen on a day to day basis. I guarantee that if a few of you would
bid on NASA announcment of opportunities when they come out, and do the hard
work necessary to use the commercial equipment, you could lower the cost of
the program by at least 2/3. How can I say that? IT is because this is
exactly what we did here. Talk is cheap and there is a lot of cheap talk on
this group. Get offa your rears and do something to help lower the costs
of moving into space. I can't do it all. (but I damn sure am trying)

Yours was probably a legitimate question and I try to answer nicely but
you must realize that NASA is not the enemy. On the contrary, NASA will
help you to help NASA because if for no other reason it looks good to be
able to show costs savings on programs and reverse technology transfer is
the primary way in my estimation that this is going to happen.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

PS: Paul S you are a newby and you better get used to the McElwaine's of this
net.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 087
------------------------------