Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_0/V16NO089.TXT

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 05:22:30
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #089
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 29 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 089

Today's Topics:
            Catch-22: (was Using off-the-shelf components)
         Earth's rotation rate may be due to early collisions
                           Galileo update?
                    Hewlett Packard conin space
     How the media portrays scientists? RE: Was bumbling geek...
                      HRMS Update - January 1993
                          Precursors to Fred
                 So what's happened to Henry Spencer?
            Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger (7 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: Thu, 28 Jan 93 14:38:41 GMT
From: Ata Etemadi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Catch-22: (was Using off-the-shelf components)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright)
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

>That depends on what you mean by space-qualified.  The Russians
>consider canned borsht from the local supermartski to be space-
>qualified.  NASA doesn't.

This sort of pseudo-nationalistic attitude probably goes a long way
toward nurturing bad will between your respective countries. I would
very much doubt that you know anything at all about the Russian space
effort. For your information most people consider their launch
technology as approx. 10-15years ahead of the USA. Hence why they can
fly canned borsht.

>Space-qualifed today means
>[some lines deleted...]

Space-qualified has a very precise meaning namely, in the case of
the ESA, the component has to meet the criteria detailed in ESA PSS
01-701 etc.. which are part of a multi-volume set (I think its
only 12 or so volumes :-)

>Given a reliable, low-cost space transportation system, 1 and 2
>become much less important.  And if you have a rotating space
>station, with artificial gravity and earth-normal or near-normal
>atmosphere, 3 ceases to be important as well, and you can buy
>just about everything off the shelf.

The components will STILL have to pass vibration, outgassing and
ECM tests. Given beam transport technology, we could all go on
holiday on Mars with Mr Spock et al.. :-)

    regards
        Ata <(|)>.

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 22:05:38 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Earth's rotation rate may be due to early collisions

-From: [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539)
-Subject: Re: Earth's rotation rate may be due to early collisions [Release 93-12] (Forwarded)
-Date: 26 Jan 93 20:25:35 GMT
-Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

-Isn't there geological evidence that shows that Earth and Moon formed
-(were not molten, which I would expect accretion of a body the size of
-the moon to result in -- gravitational energy) at the same time?
-Theat seems to me to be a death blow to any such theories of
-catastrophic formation of the moon (if what I'm remembering is
-correct).

Not sure what you're saying, but geologic evidence such as dating of igneous
rocks by content of radioactive materials doesn't generally extend further
back in time than the most recent time the rocks solidified. Much of the
rock on the moon is in the range of three to over four billion years old.
Rock at least that old has been found on Earth. These numbers only assign a
minimum to the actual ages of the Earth and moon.

It is extremely likely that at some point, the moon was mostly or entirely
molten and in orbit around the Earth. Chemical analysis fits better with a
model of a lunar body made up of remelted or vaporized material than it
does with a model of the moon being built up by simple accretion of planetary
bodies, as would be needed by the "separate formation" model. The lunar
material appears to have been subjected to intense heating, much greater than

the geologic heating of Earth's crustal material, while the moon as a
self-heated body (back several billion years ago) was probably not nearly
as hot as the Earth was - smaller bodies just don't get heated as much.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:33:36 GMT
From: Jarno Kokko <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo update?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jarno Kokko) writes...
>>Have people thought about combining hammering with the orbit insertion?
>>I think hammering when whole spacecraft is vibrating due to motor
>>firing would shake loose about anything :-) .. Or is it impossible
>>due to some minor technical detail?
>
>I don't think that would be a wise thing to do.  The motor firing has be
>done at a precise time with the spacecraft in the proper attitude.  If the
>hammering was done during the motor firing, and the antenna was to pop
>open, it could change the spacecraft attitude enough to really mess up the
>orbit insertion.  Besides, the spacecraft will very busy as it is during
>the orbit insertion, collecting the probe data, performing a 1000 km Io flyby
>and collecting science data on Jupiter.

I suspected that the spacecraft would be busy doing something FAR more
important than the antenna motor hammering .. so forget that..  I guess
a VERY high rate data compression routines would be more helpful to this
mission than ideas how to open the antenna... :-)

- Jarnis

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

Date: 28 Jan 93 15:44:29 GMT
From: William Reiken <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hewlett Packard conin space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>
>This is only open to NON profit organizations such as universities and such.
>Also it is limited to US citizens. Kinda have to support the home folks first.
>

    Not True, if your a US CITIZEN living outside the borders of the US
    NASA will treat you like you have NO RIGHTS.  I pay taxes in both
    the US and JAPAN (talking about a 2 sided sword) and when I make
    a request to NASA or NASA-TECH or COSMIC they say that "because you
    live outside the US you cannot receive any of our software or other
    information packets".  Never mind that I paid for the damn shit.
    They just say F*** You.

                            Will...

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

Date: 28 Jan 1993 16:39:12 GMT
From: "Peter J. Scott" <[e-mail]>
Subject: How the media portrays scientists? RE: Was bumbling geek...
Newsgroups: sci.space

According to _Lorenzo's Oil_, scientists are cold-hearted, self-serving
bureaucrats who like to torture little children for their studies.
Didn't see any geeks.

--
This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
brain on news.  Any questions?    |    ([e-mail])

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

Date: 28 Jan 1993 17:10 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: HRMS Update - January 1993
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from the Spacelink BBS

NASA HIGH RESOLUTION MICROWAVE SURVEY (HRMS)
TARGETED SEARCH AND SKY SURVEY STATUS
INAUGURATION  +  60 DAYS

BACKGROUND

The High Resolution Microwave Survey (HRMS) is part of the Toward Other
Planetary Systems (TOPS) program in NASA's Solar System Exploration Division.
The HRMS looks for evidence of planets orbiting other stars through radio
emissions that may be produced by technological civilizations on any such
planets.  The HRMS has two search modes, a Sky Survey and a Targeted Search.
The Sky Survey, managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, uses 34-meter
antennas in NASA's Deep Space Network to sweep the entire sky over a wide range
of frequencies for the presence of strong signals.  The Targeted Search uses
the largest available radio telescopes to observe nearby sun-like stars over a
narrower range of frequencies for weak signals.  The Targeted Search is managed
by NASA's Ames Research Center which is also the lead center for the HRMS. The
combination of the two search modes is millions of times more comprehensive
than the sum of all previous search programs.  The observational phase of the
HRMS was inaugurated at 1900 hours Universal Time on 12 October 1992, Columbus
Day, at the NASA Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex in California and
the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico. The Arecibo Observatory is part of the
National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center, operated by Cornell University for
the National Science Foundation. In a coordinated program, the Arecibo antenna
pointed at the star GL615.1A and the Goldstone antenna began to scan a small
area of sky that included the position of the target star.  The beginning of
the search generated world-wide interest in the media.  This report presents an
overview of the observations and results to date.

INAUGURAL OBSERVATIONS

Sky Survey

Initial observations began with the new 34-meter antenna at the Venus
Development Station at Goldstone. The project is using the available X-Band
receiver which can be tuned from 8200 to 8600 MHz, and the Sky Survey Prototype
System (SSPS).  The SSPS divides 40 MHz of the spectrum into two million 20JHz
channels and automatically looks for Continuous Wave signals as the search
progresses.  Each observation involves driving the antenna rapidly in a
"sliding racetrack" pattern programmed to cover a "sky frame," a rectangular
area of sky approximately 1 degree high and 30 degrees in length.

While observing, the SSPS temporarily stores data from channels with power
above a specified threshold level and excises data from channels affected by
terrestrial signals.  The scan pattern is designed so that each point in the
frame will be scanned by the antenna at least twice (with slightly different
offsets) at times separated by about 10 minutes.  Candidate signals drawn from
the temporary buffer are selected for verification tests at the completion of
the sky frame.  A total of 17 sky frames, including 4 repeat frames, have been
observed at X-Band. To date, no candidates have passed the verification tests
and the results are entirely consistent with the expected thermal noise
statistics.  Through January 1993, the SSPS will continue to observe about one
day per week on the 34-meter antenna at Goldstone with an increase in allocated
time later in the year.

A special set of three sky frames covering parts of the galactic plane were
observed repeatedly in the frequency bands 1600-1750 MHz and 1380-1430 MHz.
These observations, using the available L-Band receiver on the 26-meter antenna
at the Venus site, are designed to optimize radio astronomy data and improve
interference excision algorithms.

Targeted Search

The Targeted Search System (TSS) used the 305-meter antenna of the Arecibo
Observatory, the world's largest, for its initial observations.  The TSS
processed a 10 MHz bandwidth into more than 14 million channels simultaneously,
producing parallel channel resolutions ranging from 1 Hz to 28 Hz.  Data were
analyzed in real-time for the presence of Continuous Wave (CW) and Pulsed
signals that may drift in frequency by as much as 1 Hz per second.
Observations focused on a list of 25 stars within 100 light years.  Receivers
provided by the observatory allowed observations in four frequency bands
covering a total of about 300 MHz within the range from 1300 MHz to 2400 MHz.
Each "observation" of a star in a particular frequency band consisted of three
steps with the antenna first pointed at the star, then away from the star, and
then back at the star.  Each observing step lasted either 92 seconds or 299
seconds.  Signals that were present only when the telescope was pointed at the
star were considered potentially of extraterrestrial origin and were subjected
to further tests.  Signals that were present both "on" and "off" the star were
deemed to be terrestrial interference signals.  A total of 436 observations
were conducted during the 200 hours of assigned telescope time.  A large number
of interference signals were detected and cataloged.  Fifteen signals required
further verification tests but all proved to be intermittent terrestrial
signals.

Since returning from Arecibo, the TSS is being reassembled in the TS
development lab at NASA Ames. As expected, operational experience has indicated
the need for modifications to several circuit boards and improvements to the
control software.  Over the next year the capability of the system will also be
doubled to cover 20 MHz.  This work is in preparation for observations of
nearby sun-like stars in the Southern Hemisphere, scheduled to begin in 1994 at
the 64-meter antenna of the Parkes Observatory in Australia. Parkes is part of
the Australian Telescope National Facility operated by the Commonwealth
Scientific Industrial Research Organization. Analysis of the data collected at
Arecibo is now under way with the goal of developing better techniques for
quickly identifying, classifying, and perhaps even avoiding interference
signals.

RESULTS

No signals from beyond our Solar System have been detected yet.  Although many
signals have been detected, none appear to originate from a point on the sky as
determined by our observation and verification strategies.  Most of the signals
were recognized immediately as terrestrial interference by the software.  A few
observations and sky frames detected signals that required verification tests.
Nearly all verification tests have been performed at the site within minutes of
the original detection.  A few tests had to be performed on the following day.
No signal passed this level of testing.

The HRMS has successfully inaugurated its observational phase.  Both the
Targeted Search and the Sky Survey are using the lessons learned in the initial
observations to improve the hardware, software, and observation techniques of
the HRMS project.

For more information, please contact:

SETI Office
NASA Ames Research Center
M.S. 244-11
Moffett Field, CA  94035-1000

                                      #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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: 28 Jan 93 21:06:00 PST
From: "RWTMS2::MUNIZB" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Precursors to Fred

On Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:02:17 GMT, "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
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.

You're pretty close to the point, here.   Although none of those were
identified as the primary mission, A through D were advertised (E goes
for any gov't program).  From 'The Mission of the Space Station Freedom
Program', Richard Kohrs (Program Director), 30 November 1989: "The Space
Station Freedom (SSF) program shall accomplish the following objectives:
-   provide for permanent human presence in space;
-   provide for long-term operation and utilization of facilities for
    scientific research and technology development that are enabled or
    enhanced by the presence of humans in space;
-   stimulate the development of important technologies, such as
    automation and robotics, and otherwise support future U.S.
    competitiveness in technology;
-   foster the development and demonstration of commercial products and
    processes;
-   provide for servicing and rehabilitation of satellites and space
    vehicles;
-   make an enabling contribution to the U.S. solar system exploration
    objective of returning humans to the Moon and then going on to Mars;
    and
-   provide platforms to continuously study the Earth to help mankind
    understand its environment."

Trying to do too much with SSF has been one of its problems, IMHO.
Trying to meet conflicting mission requirements will doom almost any
program.  Didn't we learn that lesson with the TFX/F-111 fiasco?  I
guess not :-(

However, it was probably done since NASA felt they couldn't get enough
people to support the program if it had more restricted objectives.
Even as Von Braun was publicizing his space station concepts, others
felt it was a waste, and the arguments continue today.

<I assert that if the station fails because Spacelab spent the $$ which
<should have gone to proper integration testing then they will have a
<lesser degree of success.

Proper integration of this complicated program is another area of
concern.  Building the hardware on the ground and making sure it fits
together on-orbit is one problem, but other (bigger?) ones include
integrating the software and power systems between the contractors.
Unfortunately, one of the first things that get cut or delayed during
tight budgets is testing which could identify problems early enough in
the program.  This is a problem for most gov't contacts, since early
component tests which go boom (but tell you a great deal about your
design) are like blood in the water for those sharks in congress who
want to cancel your program.

<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).

I guess I'll also have to respond to your earlier post of 'One Small Step
for a Space Activist... (vol 3 no 12)' when you said:

<In Dec. 1987 NASA awarded a $1.8 billion contract to McDonnell Douglas.
<Nine months later when the final contract was signed, the price
<had gone up to $2.6 billion. Four years later, as a result of cost
<overruns, Work Package 02 now weighs in at $4.9 billion -- A 250%
<increase during a time when funding and design for Freedom was
<relatively stable.          **********************************
 *****************

SAY WHAT???  The program has undergone numerous re- and re-designs and
has never received the full NASA request for funding.

<Congresses' fault? Not this time. Most of the overruns and delays
<have happened at a time when Freedom has seen very stable funding and
<little design interference.

WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER TIMES??  (Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of
mine).  Every year the people working on the program go through the
"rites of spring" as we watch the news about the congressional budget
hearings to see if we'll still have a job, or if the requirements
dictated by that well-spring of engineering experience, the U.S.
Congress, will mandate another redesign.  When McDonnell-Douglas and
Rocketdyne had to go to the Pre-Integrated Truss concept, the structural
design had to start from scratch.  Most of the work that I had done
became obsolete overnight.  The biggest laugh of last year was the
headline (Space News, I believe) which said essentially "Congress
Forbids NASA from Redesigning Space Station", since Congress didn't say
anything about itself.

To use the house analogy, its like asking the builder for a colonial one
month, a split-level the next, and oh! you dug the pool?  Well I don't
want it after all, I just want a condo and I'm not going to pay what you
wanted and by the way could you move the kitchen over here. . .

Granted that they are the customer (we are a customer according to
NASA Admin. Goldin, but I'm not sure Congress knows that), and that a
great deal of the blame regarding the lack of progress belongs to NASA and
its contractors, but the lack of support from Congress is a major factor
(once again, IMHO).

<the Joint Vehicle Integration Team (we never knew Freedom was a vehicle
<- did you?)

Maybe this is part of the problem, no one understands that this is a
very large, very complex *vehicle*.  From NASA SP-7, 'Dictionary of
Technical Terms for Aerospace Use': "Vehicle: Specifically, a structure,
machine, or device, such as an aircraft or rocket, designed to carry a
burden through air or space."  While SSF is orbiting the Earth at
approximately 17000 mi/hr, it needs the same things most other orbiting
vehicles need: attitude determination and control, propulsion,
command and communications, thermal control, etc.  It also has to deal
with the problems posed by Shuttle rendezvous.  And it has to keep
people alive on it for extended periods of time while doing those other
things.  It's not as simple as just tossing a chunk of metal out of the
Shuttle's payload bay.

<Worse, the people responsible for integration haven't done
<all that good a job to date.

Point well taken, and some major systems requirements are still lacking,
but it's hard to hit a moving target (i.e., the changing designs).

<Is the goal a permanent outpost for Americans in space

That's my goal.

<or is it to spend $2 billion every year on whoever has the political
clout to bring to the pork home?

That may be the goal of some bureaucrats.  Maybe Goldin will get rid of
the ones in NASA before he is fired or the program get canceled.  What
about the other ones?  Did we just elect a new set of them?  Well, we'll
see.

Disclaimer: Opinions stated are solely my own (unless I change my mind).
Ben Muniz     [e-mail]    w(818)586-3578
Space Station Freedom:Rocketdyne/Rockwell:Structural Loads and Dynamics
   "Man will not fly for fifty years": Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 11:09:23 -0500
From: Bob Montante <[e-mail]>
Subject: So what's happened to Henry Spencer?
Newsgroups: sci.space

| > |>Does anyone know why Henry Spencer has not posted recently?
| >
| > Perhaps he is on vacation - with Elvis?

He's *ba-a-a-a-ck-k-k...*

:) And we're all glad!

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:25:35 GMT
From: Richard Ottolini <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

I remember vividly where I was.
I was jogging in the green foothills behind Stanford before classes.
Sally Ride had jogged there too until she joined NASA.
I remember several news breaks about the progress of the launch-
they had delayed it a few times that day because of the
weather, and I was cynical about that.  So then I heard the launch
and the crash in about two minutes and got very emotional
almost to the point of tears.  The last public event that affected
me this way was John Lennon's murder- the Beattles would never
get together again.  A niece was born that day.  Our family calls
her the "shuttle baby".

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

Date: 28 Jan 1993 14:50:10 GMT
From: James Michael Sambrook <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

Where was I when the Challenger accident occurred?

I was an eight grader at Chestnut Junior High School.  I distinctly remember
being told by one of my teachers, Mr. Roche.  However, he had a reputation of
being a joker, and nobody believed him.  He wouldn't even put on the TV to
prove it, so we didn't believe a word he said.  Our next class was Social
Studies with Mr. Mills.  Unfortunately, he was out that day, and we had a sub
who ALSO told us the bad news.  By this time, it started to sink in.
Needless to say, very little was done for the rest of the day.  I don't
remember much of what happened for the rest of the day, I was in a state of
shock.  To this day, I still get chills when I see the explosion.  Let's ALL
hope that it never happens again...

                            James Sambrook

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

Date: 28 Jan 1993 15:37:14 GMT
From: John K Scoggin Jr <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space

I was attending the CommNet convention in Washington DC that day.  I didn't
find out about the accident until late afternoon while driving back to my
hotel in Crystal City.  I remember an especially somber atmosphere in the
restaurant that night - a lot of military and govt employees stay in that
area while visiting DC.  The USAF folks were really down.

    - John
---
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  John K. Scoggin, Jr.            Email: [e-mail]   |
|  Supervisor, Network Operations       Phone: [phone]         |
|  Delmarva Power & Light Company       Fax:   [phone]         |
|  500 N. Wakefield Drive               NOC:   [phone]         |
|  Newark, DE 19714-6066                                      |
|  The opinions expressed are not those of Delmarva Power, simply the |
|  product of an over-active imagination...                           |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:38:30 GMT
From: keith raterink 283-4133 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

Well, I had just started working at Rockwell Shuttle Operations Company on
  January 6, along with about 300 other recent college grads. I remember
  someone coming in and saying "the shuttle blew up". My first thoughts were
  that "blew up" meant some minor fire on the launch pad or something. We
  went to watch the TVs and then I realized what "blew up" really meant. At
  that point, it was hard for me to understand how badly people here at JSC
  were hurting. After seven years working here, knowing all the time and energy
  that is expended, seeing astronauts at the grocery store, and realizing what
  a sense of "community" there is here, I can only begin to understand their
  feelings.

                       KER


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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:27:21 GMT
From: "Russell J. Pagenkopf" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

I too, am part of the group of students who were in high school at the
time. I was a senior and as such had arranged a class schedule that left
my afternoons free. For some reason, that day I choose not to leave early
and heard about the explosion over our school PA. Classes were canceled
and we all went home more than a little stunned. I still remember watching
the reruns that were played over and over that night on the news. I think
that some good did come out of the tragedy though. It rattled us as a
country and again showed us that space travel, while being the safest way
to travel, can also be the deadliest when we grow complacent. I pray that
we learned from that mistake and will do everything we can to make sure
that an event like the Challenger explosion will never happen again.

To the families of those who died that day,

We grieve with you.



--
  Russ Pagenkopf                              [e-mail]
 School of Journalism, University of Montana         [e-mail]
<There is no other wisdom, and no other hope for us but that we grow wise.>

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

Date: 28 Jan 93 17:44:14 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (FRANK NEY) writes:
|>> I can't believe they wouldn't let you discuss on of the most tragic
|>> events in recent history.
|>
|>I can.  Public schools are notorious for the collection of politically
|>correct liberals infesting them.  They probably thought that the money
|>would have been better spent on welfare and that NASA and the
|>Challenger Seven deserved what they got.
|>
|>God, I hate PC Libs!  Especially when they are in positions to
|>indoctrinate our future.

Give me a break.  Most liberals that I know (including myself) are in favor
of greater information flow, not less.  It is we who want kids in school to
be able to talk about issues.  I condemn the behavior of not letting the school
kids talk about the disaster, and I agree that it is much too common behavior.
Even Christa's school in Concord, NH where everyone was watching the launch
turned off the TV and herded the kids back to their classes when it was clear
something was wrong.  (We could argue about why schools try to stiffle the free
flow of info, but that is for another news group, one to which I don't
subscribe,
fortunately.

FWIW, I was working here at DEC trying to get some text rotation routines
working for our old UIS windowing system when someone who watched the launch
from home dialed in and sent a broadcast message to everyone.  I ran out into
the parking lot to listen on my car radio (and so no one would see the tears
streaming down and so no one would talk to me).  I remember being in quite a
state, yelling at the stupid announcers saying that there was some hope because
a parachute had been spotted ("Idiot!  The astronauts have not worn chutes
since
STS-4!  That has to be an SRB!")  I remember it being especially hard for me
since I had really identified with Christa McCauliffe, wishing so hard that
they
would choose a software engineer next.  I also remember it being nearly the
first launch that I had not watched.  I felt like blaming myself...if only I
had
watched, it would have been ok.  What a state I was in!

Sigh...

Burns

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

Date: 28 Jan 1993 17:57:02 GMT
From: David Toland <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

I was reheating some homemade chili (my lunch) in the microwave, and
stepped around the corner to the reception desk to watch the launch
(The receptionist had brought in a black and white portable that day).
As soon as I saw the exhaust trail split into a Y, I knew something
wasn't right.  It was too early for the SRB separation, but I was
hoping that it was just the SRB that had blown.  I kept hoping that
the orbiter itself had remained intact and that the crew had survived,
but as time went by it became more and more obvious that the catastrophe
was total.

The rest of my coworkers were gathered around the TV.  At first, nobody
could say anything, and then everyone was talking at once.  Although
we all eventually drifted back to our offices, the rest of the day
was pretty unproductive.

Our horror over the incident was intensified by the fact that while
we lost heroes, a co-worker in a different building had lost a
family member.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are MINE MINE MINE, and not necessarily anyone else's.
[e-mail]   |  "Laddie, you'll be needin' something to wash
                           |  that doon with."

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

Date: 28 Jan 1993 16:49:38 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Using off-the-shelf-components
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:

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

Tough job, but somebody has to do it. :)

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

[ Dennis describes his off-the-shelf hardware & experiment ]

>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.

Let me ask you two quickies:

    A) Do you have to recertify every time you fly? I guess you do
       because no one experiment flies that frequently (yet).

    B) Is there a database of commercial hardware which has been
       "flight tested"? If, let's say me and DeLuca want to put
       together our own flight experiment, we can just go to a book,
       pick out the pieces, integrate them, and get them tested with
       a better chance of passing pre-flight checks?


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

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 089
------------------------------