Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_6/V16NO657.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 30KB

Date: Wed,  2 Jun 93 05:14:54
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #657
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed,  2 Jun 93       Volume 16 : Issue 657

Today's Topics:
                   Carl Sagan, respected astronomer
                          DSN Usage (2 msgs)
                   G-level of Hunstville Centrifuge
             Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO (5 msgs)
                    Limits Seen On Human Existence
                       looking for Voyager info
                      Magellan Update - 05/28/93
                      Magellan Update - 05/29/93
                      Magellan Update - 06/01/93
                   Moon vs. asteroids, Mars, comets
                   More on Comet-Jupiter Collision
             More on Comet-Jupiter Collision Possibility
             Redstone Trivia  (Was Re: Von Braun and Hg)
                        Seeing Cape Canaveral?

    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, 01 Jun 93 18:42:07 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Carl Sagan, respected astronomer

>> The story I heard is that after his defense, the astronomers were shaking
>> their heads, muttering "Well, at least he knows biology" and the
>> biologists were shaking their heads, saying "Well, at least he knows
>> astronomy".  :-)

>     Can you provide the source of this story?  I see no reference
>to "biology" in his dissertation or degree.  Or is this merely
>hearsay, or a story someone made up completely?  I suspect the latter.

"The story I heard" is code for 'this is heresy, I mean hearsay' :-)

I can ask the originator of the story.  He was in the same graduating class
as Sagan, which is why I blindly trusted his story.  But it's not that
big a deal to me, I just thought I'd share it with y'all.

I don't know if this person wants his name given out, but
if they do, I'll tell you.  Until then, I make no claims for
it's truth or support, so it's just a story.

BTW, Sagan's latest focus on panspermia in much of his work, and his
focus on global warming, ozone troubles, et. al., are pretty strange
for a 'scientist' without biological training.  Science is about truth,
wheras politics are about how we deal with the truths we know.  When you
start to confuse the two (as Sagan has appeared to do in some cases)
is, to me, a good reason to stop applying the title 'scientist' to the
person in question.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 1 Jun 1993 17:55:39 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: DSN Usage
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>The Deep Space Network is a crucial resource supporting all U.S. (and
>probably international also) deep space missions.  Scheduling DSN time
>must be an interesting problem of juggling competing demands.
>

Sorta like HST time :-)

>How busy is the DSN?  What are the most heavily loaded DSN resources?
>Which missions are using DSN, either on a regular or irregular basis?
>How much time does each get?  How far in advance is DSN time scheduled?
>How are "spacecraft emergencies" handled?
>
My understanding is DSN is saturated.  by what is the question.
PVO, Magellan, Voyager, Mariner were scheduled  for certain
activities by a planning comittee.  When they develope a
Mission, they look at teh DSN usage up-front.  so you can be
looking at a 10 year lead on planning.   Now when spacecraft aren't
using DSN, other activities are on-going.  SETI, i mean, HRMS,
Radio astronomy, VLBI, Radar imaging......

I imagine emergencies are just that.  I saw something where
Mariner 10 had an emergency and bumped everyone.

>What additional requirements and upgrades are planned over the next
>several years?  Are things going to get better or worse?
>


Well,  there are planned upgrades, to help with voyagers
extended mission,  plus other science objectives.

Of course things are going to get worse.  don't be ridiculous.
Galileo threw  a 3 foot adjustable spanner right into the
works when the HGA failed to deploy.   Plus,  there are
increasing areas of study for astronomy.

The ability of users to totally consume resources are far beyond the
ability of producers to ever predict.

pat

The interesting question is how much money is devoted to
improving DSN, and what would be a sensible investment program.

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

Date: 2 Jun 1993 00:43:03 GMT
From: Steve Derry <[e-mail]>
Subject: DSN Usage
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary,sci.space

Pat ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Galileo threw  a 3 foot adjustable spanner right into the
: works when the HGA failed to deploy.

Yes, Galileo's DSN requirements did experience some unanticipated growth. :)

: The interesting question is how much money is devoted to
: improving DSN, and what would be a sensible investment program.

Where does DSN funding come from?  Does it have a budget of its own, or is
it entirely funded by its users?

--
Steve Derry
<[e-mail]>

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 21:25:57 GMT
From: "Adam R. Brody " <[e-mail]>
Subject: G-level of Hunstville Centrifuge
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

A few weeks ago, there was a discussion as to the g-level of
the centrifuge at the space and Rocket Center in Huntsville.  I did not
get a chance to ride but it ramps up to 3 and then back down.  Another
new ride I missed was Mission to Jupiter.  It is a motion-based
simulator akin to Star Tours.

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

Date: 1 Jun 1993 17:41:44 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1ug3eq$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
|Let us use acceptable scientific and technical writing skills when posting
|these claims.  If you cannot cite an exact technical document (with
|specific document numbers and page numbers), if you cannot give a
|reference which is available to the general public, and if you can't
|discuss the methods used to derive those numbers; then your numbers and
|cost projections are meaningless.

Unless of course, the references are a pile ......

Dennis, whom we all have a ton of respect for once posted a NASA
figure  that a shuttle mission only cost $27 million dollars.

NOT!.....

Let us turn a wall eye to figures that don't meet basic
tests of rationality.....

pat

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

Date: 1 Jun 1993 17:46:42 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

Actually, let's look at it from an Incremental point of VIew.....

The DDTE moneys for bending a particular Bird is X.  Now if you
Bend 2 of every item,  along the process,   the incremental cost
is not going to be 2X.

IMHO,  it should only be 15% more.   The lathe guys just have to crank
out 2 of everything.   The second of everything goes easier.....

Now it may seem like a bit of a waste to tie up several million
dollars in hardware  and then warehouse it,  but  it will
save quite a lot of money off the insurance bill.

Look at how much the insurance costs on a launch.  It's up to 25%
percent of the launch value,  depending on the launcher.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just  make spares, and have them ready
at TRW or Lockheed for transport???????

pat

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

Date: 1 Jun 1993 18:01:48 -0400
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1ughu2$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>>[e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>>and a jet engine assist on landing.
>>Buran does not have jet engines.
>Really?

Really.  The original plan was to have them on there, and they did in fact
strap a couple on for landing tests, instead of doing drop-tests like we
did with the Enterprise, but the flight configuration has no engines.  It
glides in just like the U.S. shuttle.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 1 Jun 1993 21:01 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>>>Don't include contingency satellitte return missions.  It would have
>>>>been cheaper to build new ones  and pop them off.
>
>>If you want to make statements like this back them up with numbers both the
>>cost of reconstruction
>
>Already done Dennis. A very conservative estimate would be that a typical
>replacement to a typical satellite could be built and luanched for about
>$225 M which is less than half the cost of a rescue mission.
>

Hi there Allen. Nice to Meet you this weekend and glad you could come by.
Still you are clueless however on how this industry works I see.

What about scheduling of the manufacturer for the increased temporary
production rate? What about lost revenue? This is the case on ANY
commercial satellite not just intelsat.

>Perhaps YOU would like to show us a case where it was cost effective?
>In spite of your complaints, we haven't seen one.
>

Here are some nice numbers for you Allen

Marginal Cost of Shuttle Mission

$37 million (From Space News a few months ago)

Cost of Replacement kick motor

$15 million Thiokol Star 27 equivalent (This varies per deal)

$85 million dollars launch cost paid for Shuttle Services

Total

$137 million dollars

Cost for replacement

$225 million (average not true for HS601 series closer to $400 m)

$68 million (Atlas average launch cost (Also close for Arianne))

$50 million (lost revenue mostly permanent due to the customer going elswhere)

Total

$343 million dollars

$343 - $137 = $206 million dollars.

>>and the cost in lost revenues during the construction period.
>
>Intelsat is the only place I know of where this applies. Yet it was
>only performed after receiving huge taxpayer paid subsidies to do it.
>They didn't think it was worth paying the total cost themselves.
>
>   Allen
>--

Now we get to hear Allen's tired ol diatribe about the billon dollar shuttle
again. Fact is that the Shuttle was lauched an extra time for that mission.
The standing army would have been in place whether or not the shuttle
launched the extra time so the cost is only the marginal cost of the mission.
Since the marginal cost is $37 million and the charge to Intelsat was
$85 million, Nasa made a cool $48 million dollars and gained an enormous
amount of experience in EVA activity. So where is the loss Allen?

Also I just had to get this in. Are you going to charge DCX for the thermal
protection system developments for the Shuttle that is being applied to
the DC series? What about the knowlege gained at high mach Numbers by the
Shuttle that is a crucial input to the design of the DC series. The shuttle
is the ONLY platform that gets aerodynamic information at Mach numbers
between 18 and 25. All of the Computational Fluid Dynamics Codes owe their
validity to the Shuttle's real world data.

Lighten up Allen. Shuttle ain't perfect but it is a necessary step in the
process. Also you do love to blur the English language when it comes to
talking about shuttle reuse. I suggest you read a little history about jet
engines. The early ones only lasted about 10 hours before major rework had
to be done to them. This is the F-80, F-84 jets and their engines. It is
only through 48 years of development and further testing that they have
reached the reliablilty that allows the airlines to skimp on maintainence.

There was no answer as you well know at the presentation about the RL-2000
for the DC-series. You know that a new engine is going to cost 5 billion
dollars to develop as the DC folks know. Hell the Japanese folks know this
ask them abou the LE-7 and it is "just" an upgrade of existing engine
technology. Those folks ought to take up the suggestion that I made to
talk to NASA about J-2's. Also could you answer a question. Have any tests
been run (I fugure they have but would like to know the numbers) on the
longevity of the RL-10's? How many thousand seconds have they fired without
rebuild or reinspections?

By the way I was happy to meet you and Josh and all the other sci.spacers
even the floating guitar player from fermilab!

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

PS

Launching an extra time allowed the further lowering of cost for the
whole system.

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

Date: 1 Jun 1993 21:08 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>It is real funny for me to read the "experts" talking about the cost of...
>
>Are you perhaps suggesting that YOU are an expert?
>
>Note I'm not saying I am an expert on satellite design either. But I am
>a good engineer with a lot of experience. From that I know when the numbers
>don't add up and when the wool is being pulled over m

You betcha bucko. Besides our satellite, I have been in on the intimate
details of a major satellite program and all of the attendant costs so
I know what largers systems take from a real perspective. Also I have
been privileged to see from the inside how Hughes puts together the HS601
series, how TRW puts together the TDRSS and their lightsat products. I have
been to DSI (small satellites). In addition I have attended over a dozen
"professional" conferences over the last three years where I have presented
along with every single major manufacturer on the planet except the chinese.

So I have both first hand knowledge as the project manager of our small
satellite, as well as the knowledge gained by working around and seeing
most satelite buses in  existence and talking with their program managers.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 21:56:37 GMT
From: Christopher DeBoy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Limits Seen On Human Existence
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] () writes:
>
> Has anyone read this article in the Science Times of today's New York Times?
> A certain Dr. J. Richard Gott has developed a method for predicting the
> likely maximum lifetime of a given object.  He maintains that the "longevity
> of things can be estimated remarkably well from their histories," and that
> all one needs to do that is know how old a given thing is now, and  to assume
> that there is nothing special about it to distinguish it from other like things
> or events.
>
> stuff deleted
>
> I find his theory hard to accept, and am tempted to loudly say "Poppycock!"
> I don't think the universe is that predictable, and that such a theory
> could apply very well to things like human activity (space programs).  It
> seems to carry with it some very heavy assumptions.
>

I am also tempted to say something, but probably not "poppycock".  From what I've
read, his assumption is that the "thing" in question is not within 2.5% of either its
end or beginning (placing it somewhere between 2.5% and 97.5% of its lifetime).
Thus, the maximum expected lifetime for the "thing" is 1/(0.025)=40 times its
present age, and the minimum expected lifetime is 1/(0.975)=1.026 times its present
age.  This is where he got the ~1250 and 10 month life expectancies for the manned
space program.  He claims that it worked for him 30 years ago when this
algorithm said the Berlin Wall wouldn't last until some year in the 90's, I forget
which, and voila, quod erat demonstrandum.  The same method was used to
predict the remaining time the human species has at somewhere between 8
million years and 5128 years (really going out on a limb!).

I can't see how this reasoning can be used seriously.  Of course, it will be valid
over the 95% of an object's lifetime, but who knows  on what magnitudes the
lifetimes of humanity, the manned space program, etc. exist.  We may very well be
less than 2.5% into the lifetime of the species, (or within 2.5% of its end).

The whole thing seems to me a convoluted way of saying that things that have been
around for awhile will probably be around for a long time to come, and things that
haven't been around for awhile might not.

You know, I'm twenty-four, so I've either got 7 months to live or 936 years.
I'd better live it up now; by January I'm on borrowed time.


Christopher DeBoy ([e-mail])
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Johns Hopkins Road
Laurel MD 20723
[phone] x8819

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 23:08:36 GMT
From: Ed McCreary <[e-mail]>
Subject: looking for Voyager info
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

I'm trying to find some detailed information on Voyager and
would like to hear from anyone who has any pointers.

What i'm looking for is information on camera orientation during the
exposure of specific images.  Using IRPS I've been able to track down
sub-spacecraft long/lat and range, but I still need the orientation
information.

any ideas?
--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
[e-mail]                                   _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)

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

Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1993 02:39:07 GMT
From: Innocent Bystander <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Update - 05/28/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

[e-mail] (Ron Baalke) Pontificated:
>
>2.  The performance of the spacecraft during the atmospheric drag
>passes as well as analysis of orbital changes continue to indicate an
>atmosphere which is 13% above the "Single CO2" model.
>

What is this "Single CO2" model?


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: [e-mail] :-)~~~\
| Calvin: Do you believe in the devil.  You know, an all powerful  |
|         being dedicated to the temptation and corruption of man? |
| Hobbes: I didn't think humans needed the help.                   |

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

Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1993 02:37:11 GMT
From: Innocent Bystander <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Update - 05/29/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

[e-mail] (Ron Baalke) Pontificated:
>4.  Currently the solar panels increase by 35 degrees C during the
>drag pass, reaching a peak of 50 degrees C.  The aerobraking limit is
>about 160 degrees.  The estimated temperature of the HGA is 85 degrees C.
>(with a limit of about 180 deg.)
>

Would there be any erosion (either chemical or physical) of
parts of the spacecraft (considering this heating is a friction
event)?


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: [e-mail] :-)~~~\
| "You know how people are.  They only recognize greatness         |
| when some authority confirms it."                                |
|                    -Bill Watterson in "Calvin and Hobbes"        |

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

Date: 2 Jun 1993 00:05 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Update - 06/01/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager

                        MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                            June 1, 1993

1.  The Magellan Transition Experiment continues to go extremely well.
The spacecraft has completed its "walk-in" phase to the desired
aerobraking corridor.  The spacecraft has made 54 atmospheric drag
passes and the periapsis is now under 140.8 km.   All subsystems are
reported to be nominal.

2.  The solar panels continue to increase by 35-40 degrees C during
the drag pass, reaching a peak of 62 degrees C.

3.  As the spacecraft approaches a drag pass, the attitude control
shifts from reactions wheels to the thrusters and, instead of holding
the position within less than one degree, each axis is given 10
degrees of latitude on either side of the nominal position.  Depending
on the residual error as the shift occurs, the spacecraft may turn or
roll to the limits before the thrusters move it back.

4.  Then as the aerodynamic forces begin to act on the spacecraft,
these motions in the X and Y axes are damped out.  The motions in the
roll axis (Z) often continue, and may go through several cycles back
and forth during the pass.

5.  All motions are reduced by the thrusters as control shifts back to
the reaction wheels.  The amount of propellant used for attitude
control during the drag pass varies from 0.02 to 0.06 kg.

6.  The periapsis altitude will continue to drift downward at about
0.2 km per day over the next week or more, and the first "1/2 up" COTM
is now planned for orbit #7702  at 10:24 AM June 4th.  This will be
followed by a series of 1/2 up COTMs at intervals of 4 to 9 days as
the general drift continues downward.

COTM = Corridor Orbit Trim Maneuver
VIRA = Venus International Reference Atmosphere
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The tuatara, a lizard-like
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | reptile from New Zealand,
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | has three eyes.

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 14:21:59 GMT
From: Jay Thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon vs. asteroids, Mars, comets
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim Hart)
wrote:
>
> [e-mail] (Jay Thomas) writes:
>
>
> >The problem is not as bleak as it sounds. The Space Studies Institute has
> >done lots of research into it. ...  [describes 15+ year old O'Neill
> >strategies]
>
> God, it *is* as bleak as it sounds.  From the sounds of your description
> you folks haven't come up with any new ideas since the late 1970s.   Still
> putting across the same nonsense about "self-replicating factories" when

> you don't even know what kinds of materials and processes are
> important to a factory.   SSI was once a creative organization,
> but now it looks like it has ossified into chanting from the hymnbook
> of O'Neill.  I'm glad I haven't joined.


What we have done since the 70's is actually test these things. And we
continue to do this with power beaming experiments (with old NASA
equipment) and microwave powered to orbit research (a totally _new concept_
being worked on by Leik Myarabo) Though what I mentioned is a little old,
it is very appropriate in this context. Also, none of the newer techniques,
such as automatic fabrication machinery, gives you as much leverage because
they are extremly complicated and have to be imported from earth. If we
miniturize and use nanotech, etc, we have to wait 50 yrs to develop them
and the cost will be enormous.
And by the way is wrong with self replicating factories. Even in the west
and Americas they used self replicating machines: horses, mules, and oxen.
Though it is extremly difficult if not impossible to replicate everything.
But: if you produce 90-95% of your materials, you gain a tremendous
leverage. However, auto-fab may be useful in increasing this 90-95%. This
and living off the land is not 15+ year old O'Neilian strategies. These
have been used by _every succesful group of pioneers while breaking forth
into a new frontier whether it be the west, the Americas or space. When
pioneers didn't do this and imported most of their materials - you get
Anartica.

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 00:13:55 GMT
From: BEN <[e-mail]>
Subject: More on Comet-Jupiter Collision
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

According to a highly authoritative celestial mechanic who doesn't want
to be quoted yet, the formal probability of an impact between 1993e
Shoemaker-Levy 9 and Jupiter on 1994 July 20 is now 100%.

However "Nothing is 100% certain with comets."

Ben

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

Date: 1 Jun 93 17:47:10 -0400
From: [e-mail]
Subject: More on Comet-Jupiter Collision Possibility
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>
>                           COMET SHOEMAKER-LEVY (1993e)
>
>      According to IAU Circular 5807, A. Carusi has confirmed that the center
> of the comet train for Comet Shoemaker-Levy (1993e) will collide with Jupiter
> in 1994 during the period of July 23-27.  This confirmation is based on the
> orbital elements published in IAU Circular 5800.  He also suggests that the
> the entire comet train may be involved with the collision since the window
> for the collision is 30 times the length of the comet train.  Donald Yeomans
> and Paul Chodas from JPL have computed that the probability of the center of
> the comet train colliding with Jupiter in July 1994 is as high as 64 percent.
>
>      IAU Circular 5807 also reports that J. Scotti from the Lunar and
> Planetary Lab has recovered Comet Shajn-Schaldach, designated as 1993k.

What is the likelihood of 1993e's orbit being noticably changed?

If there is a good likelihood of it being changed how likely are the following?

a. simple change in period of orbit?
b. Being completely ejected from the Solar system?
c. having its orbit changed to retrograde?
c1. Or totally out of the Ecliptic?
d. Capture by Jupiter.
d1. Capture by a Jovian moon (could this ever happen?)
e. Straight in to Sun?
f. Straight in to Earth (or Merc. Venus or Mars.)

Are any of these totally impossible for an interaction with Jupiter to cause?
d1 or e?

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

Date: 1 Jun 1993 20:33 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Redstone Trivia  (Was Re: Von Braun and Hg)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (joseph.l.nastasi) writes...
>I stated:
>
[stuff delted]

>I was really focusing on the Mercury spacecraft and THe Right Stuff's
>overkill on Von Braun.  Besides the movie made him look like a f**kin'
>idiot!  I hated that aspect of the movie.  Things like manual control
>were designed in very early in the program, with the astronauts adding
>valuable input to the design.  Oh yes, I also got a kick of the "wild-
>eyed" German scientist that pushes the two buttons to launch the vehicle.
>I think that, even then, the ignition sequence was automated from the last
>few seconds of the count.  Anyone remember?
>
>Anyway, Von Braun's cool on my list...
>
>>
>> Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville
>>
>
>Joe Nastasi
>

Yea I really hated the way they portrayed him in the movie.

Well the Redstone was launched by the push of a button. Automatics were not
used because if there were a last second problem then General Medaris
(In the Early ABMA launches) or the Launch Control (NASA Launches) could
abort without problem.

What is really weird is that on the Explorer I mission the second stage was
also fired on command from the ground! There was not enough weight or
power for automatics.

Get this. The second stage firing time was ascertained by "listening" for
the doppler from the rf beacon and from HAND CALCULATIONS of the time
that the stage would be tilted over to 90 degrees from the ballistics of
being at the top of the stage's arc!!!! These calculations were carried
out by Dr. Charles Lundquist (My Boss) and Dr. Ernst Sthulinger (Von Braun
Team).

The later Mercury Redstone's were only a little more sophisticated. As Mr.
Spock would say (Stone Knives and Bear Skins Jim!)

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 23:35:34 GMT
From: "Otto J. Makela" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seeing Cape Canaveral?
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.travel,sfnet.matkustaminen

I'll be traveling in Florida in mid-July with my girlfriend.  I'm interested
in visiting the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral (or have they changed
the name again?).  I'd like to know beforehand what kind of public transport
connections are available to there (let's say from places where long-distance
buses stop), what kind of tours are available there to tourist-type people
and how often they take off, how long they take, and what kind of money are
we talking here?  Or, where in nasa.gov could I ask this?
--
   /* * * Otto J. Makela <[e-mail]> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
  /* Phone: [phone], BBS: [phone] (V.32bis/USR-HST,24h/d) */
 /* Mail: Kauppakatu 1B18/SF-40100 Jyvaskyla/Finland, ICBM: 62.14N25.44E */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 657
------------------------------