Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Wed, 5 Jul 89 00:24:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 5 Jul 89 00:24:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #534 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 534 Today's Topics: Space Deaths (was Re: Killing Borgs easily) Payload Status for 06/30/89 (Forwarded) Re: NASA Prediction Bulletins RE: Simulation of planetary motions. Re: Space station computers Re: new space goals ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Jun 89 21:59:07 GMT From: bucsb!ckd@bu-cs.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) Subject: Space Deaths (was Re: Killing Borgs easily) In article <598@ubbpc.UUCP> wgh@ubbpc.UUCP (William G. Hutchison) writes: - In article <7926@brunix.UUCP>, rjd@brunix (Rob Demillo) writes: - > Seven people were lost in our effort to get off this planet... - - Eleven (Twelve?), - - including Apollo astronauts (on the ground) - and Russian Cosmonauts. I'll give this a try. Crossposted to sci.space, with followups there... this way, I'll get corrected quickly and precisely. :-) US spacecraft: 7 deaths in-flight (Challenger) and 3 in a pad fire (Apollo 1). USSR: 3 deaths on Soyuz 1, 3 on Soyuz 11, others "suspected." So at least 16. - Bill Hutchison, DP Consultant rutgers!cbmvax!burdvax!ubbpc!wgh -- /\ | / |\ @bu-pub.bu.edu | Christopher K. Davis, BU SMG '90 / |/ | \ %bu-pub.bu.edu@bu-it.bu.edu | uses standardDisclaimer; \ |\ | / | BITNET: smghy6c@buacca \/ | \ |/ @bucsb.UUCP or ...!bu-cs!bucsb!ckd if you gotta. --"Ignore the man behind the curtain and the address in the header." --ckd-- ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jun 89 17:57:40 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Payload Status for 06/30/89 (Forwarded) Payload Status Report Kennedy Space Center Friday, June 30, 1989 George H. Diller Galileo/IUS-19 In the SAEF-2 planetary spacecraft checkout facility, the S- Band/X-band high gain antenna was hoisted atop Galileo on Thursday, June 29. Earlier this week, the installation of 120 radioisotope heater units was completed. These are small heat devices that keep the science experiments and moveable spacecraft elements warm in the very cold environment of deep space. There are 84 on the spacecraft, and 36 on the probe for a total of 120 RHU's. Also this week, a stand-alone functional test of the S- Band/X-band high gain antenna was conducted. On Monday, June 26, the antenna was deployed. The following day, a check of antenna radio power was conducted. On Wednesday, June 28, the antenna was stowed for flight and prepared for mating with the spacecraft. Today, now that installation on Galileo is complete, the antenna will be turned on and the test of radio power repeated. The data will be compared with the earlier results to verify that the antenna is properly connected and performing as required. This antenna is used to transmit and receive signals between the spacecraft and the Deep Space Network tracking stations. Also scheduled for today is a deployment check of Galileo's science boom. Continuing in work are electrical tests of the pyrotechnic devices which have been installed. These devices are associated with boom deployment, removal of optical covers, and release of the probe. Next week, final installation of the thermal blankets will begin, and there will be a deployment check of the two RTG booms. The Inertial Upper Stage booster is undergoing checkout on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. The testing of the avionics systems is complete and checkout of the first and second stage interfaces will now begin. SSBUV On the Shuttle Backscatter Ultraviolet (SSBUV) experiment, which will have fixed attachments in the payload bay of Atlantis, calibration testing of the experiment has been completed. The flight batteries have been undergoing installation this week. It will be transported from the Hangar AE cleanroom on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station to the Orbiter Processing Facility in about another week. It is scheduled for installation in the orbiter's payload bay on July 13. AC-68/FltSatCom F-8 Power-on testing continues. The nose fairing has arrived and has been taken to Hangar J for storage. The Terminal Countdown Demonstration test, the practice countdown which includes a complete fueling of the launch vehicle, is scheduled for August 9. The FltSatCom F-8 spacecraft is at the TRW plant in Redondo Beach, California, being prepared for shipment. It will arrive at Cape Canaveral on July 31. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 89 17:34:19 GMT From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hp-lsd!dag@hplabs.hp.com (David Geiser) Subject: Re: NASA Prediction Bulletins - NASA Prediction Bulletins - Effective January 1986, this system began posting the most recent element sets received from NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center for several categories of satellites: Amateur Radio, Earth Resources, Manned Spacecraft, Navigation, Weather, and NASA's 30 Day Specials (which contain objects launched within the last 30 days and are often easy to spot visually). More specifically, these include the following satellites or satellite series: OSCAR, Radio Sputnik, UOSAT, Cosmos, LandSat, SeaSat 1, SPOT, Mir, Salyut 7, Soyuz, LDEF, US Space Shuttle, NAVSTAR (GPS), GOES, Meteor, and NOAA. These elements will be maintained in ASCII format in the file BULLETIN.TXT which may be viewed with the 'B'ulletin command. They are also maintained in an archive, NPB-xxx.ARC, where xxx is the current file version (a number from 000 to 999) and will serve to indicate whether the file has been updated recently. This file is on Drive C0: in CP/M. Data for each satellite will consist of three lines in the following format: AAAAAAAAAAA 1 NNNNNU NNNNNAAA NNNNN.NNNNNNNN +.NNNNNNNN +NNNNN-N +NNNNN-N N NNNNN 2 NNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NNNNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NN.NNNNNNNNNNNNNN Line 1 is a eleven-character name. Lines 2 and 3 are the standard Two-Line Orbital Element Set Format identical to that used by NASA and NORAD. The format description is: Line 2 Column Description 01-01 Line Number of Element Data 03-07 Satellite Number 10-11 International Designator (Last two digits of launch year) 12-14 International Designator (Launch number of the year) 15-17 International Designator (Piece of launch) 19-20 Epoch Year (Last two digits of year) 21-32 Epoch (Julian Day and fractional portion of the day) 34-43 First Time Derivative of the Mean Motion or Ballistic Coefficient (Depending of ephemeris type) 45-52 Second Time Derivative of Mean Motion (Blank if N/A) 54-61 BSTAR drag term if GP4 general perturbation theory was used. Otherwise, radiation pressure coefficient. 63-63 Ephemeris type 65-68 Element number 69-69 Check Sum (Modulo 10) (Letters, blanks, periods = 0; minus sign = 1; plus sign = 2) Line 3 Column Description 01-01 Line Number of Element Data 03-07 Satellite Number 09-16 Inclination [Degrees] 18-25 Right Ascension of the Ascending Node [Degrees] 27-33 Eccentricity (decimal point assumed) 35-42 Argument of Perigee [Degrees] 44-51 Mean Anomaly [Degrees] 53-63 Mean Motion [Revs per day] 64-68 Revolution number at epoch [Revs] 69-69 Check Sum (Modulo 10) All other columns are blank or fixed. Example: NOAA 6 1 11416U 86 50.28438588 0.00000140 67960-4 0 5293 2 11416 98.5105 69.3305 0012788 63.2828 296.9658 14.24899292346978 Note that the International Designator fields are usually blank, as issued in the NASA Prediction Bulletins. All epochs are UTC. Satellites will be ordered by their NASA Catalog Number. The data file will be updated as soon as possible after receipt of new element sets or whenever element sets are received for the Space Shuttle. Hopefully, this service will provide a central location for users to obtain this data in a timely manner and help eliminate the tedious process of entering data directly from the NASA Prediction Bulletins. If any users wish to see other satellites included or have suggestions for improvements in these data dissemination procedures, please leave a message/comment for the SYSOP and I will get back to you. - TS Kelso via dag :-) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jun 89 10:35 CST From: I am Beatrice Subject: RE: Simulation of planetary motions. Most first year physics books should give you alot of what you need, at least in round numbers. If I were you, I'd find one of these physics students. You mentioned that you'd found a lot of masses, etc, and didn't really have what you wanted - this is what you wanted! Its simple enough to get the data. Check the library. I did this last spring in an evening. And I'm only a sophomore, with decent physics and computer background (I'm a CS/Math major.) I know, you want precise data, etc, etc. I'm sure that can be found in almost any college library, out to a decent number of decimals. PS: I'd recommend not doing it in real time. It takes hundreds of years for the outer planets to complete an orbit about the sun :-) I found that when I speed my simulation up enough to get movement on the outside, the inner planets go WAY too fast. You really cannot win this one. Scott Hess scott@gacvax1.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jun 89 16:37:07 GMT From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space station computers In article <615140237.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >> At normal viewing distances, 120dpi (which is only twice what >> my Mac delivers) would be more than acceptable... > >120 dpi is not acceptable for archival purposes. 400dpi is probably >marginal. Would you want the Mona Lisa archived for historians at only >120dpi? I wouldn't even store my personal archives at that low a dpi. >And even if you store high and downsample on display, then you still >have to do hardcopy everytime you want to study color pictorial >material. I would not want to store and display photographic material >at a resolution less than the grain size of the film... Gee, what do you do now? :-) Settling for more modest display resolution is likely to have major effects on performance, reliability, and cost for quite a while to come. Display resolution and archival-storage resolution are entirely separate questions. If you need to study something at full resolution, you don't print it, you just zoom in. It's not exactly common to go over a 4Kx4K image pixel by pixel. For that matter, it's rare to go over an image at current screen resolutions pixel by pixel -- a fair bit of the resolution is there to make it look good, not because every last dot is used. (When considering what makes things look good, remember that the dynamic range of the screen is different from that of hardcopy, and this matters to the human visual system.) >..... Or spanning the text with two fingers, saying >"Move", pointing at the insertion point and saying "HERE"? And getting two characters too many at the start and three too few at the end because your fingertips are too big, and having it inserted at the wrong place because somebody in the background said "HERE!" at the wrong time. Not to mention having to grab for the can of Windex every ten minutes to clean up the screen, and getting snarls from your buddy who's trying to concentrate while you're shouting at your computer. There are reasons, quite apart from technical feasibility, why touch screens and voice input have never been terribly popular except for specialized applications. -- NASA is to spaceflight as the | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology US government is to freedom. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jun 89 17:47:03 GMT From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: new space goals In article <14424@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >>If I was trying to set an ambitious goal, I'd make it initial deployment >>in 2001 and full operation by 2005. A determined effort ought to be able >>to get the necessary hardware development done in a decade, even starting >>from the current mess. > >It took twelve years from Sputnik to Tranquillity. Twenty years after >*that*, space is once again a certified people-free zone. Mars is such >a mammoth project (much harder than the Moon)... Uh, why is it much harder? Remember, going from Sputnik to Tranquillity required developing a lot of new technologies. I see no comparable requirement for Mars orbit+surface bases. We have adequate rocket engines. We have adequate power systems, life support, landing technology, tracking and telemetry, communications, etc. Better closed-cycle life support would help a bunch, and incremental improvements on a lot of the above would be useful, but basically we have the technology we need. The greater distances to Mars simply require bigger vehicles (for larger crews and more supplies); otherwise distance is just waiting time, and Mars is not much harder than the Moon. In some ways it's easier, because we have Phobos and Deimos as potential resources, and the Martian surface has useful supplies of things like water. We also have the immense advantage of the beginnings of a private space launch industry. The clear number one problem for a major Mars effort is the high cost of launch to low Earth orbit. The way to fix that is to say, *believably*, "starting in 1995, we will buy one million pounds a year of freight capacity to low orbit from the lowest qualified bidders, price not to exceed $500/lb, tested hardware required; development funding must be private, the Mars project will provide none". General Dynamics, Martin Marietta, McDonnell Douglas, Arianespace, etc., will scream bloody murder, hire lobbyists, and start talking excitedly to Congressthings, because they simply can't do it. Amroc, Pacific American, SSIA, Orbital Sciences, etc., will scream with joy, hire engineers, and start talking excitedly to venture capitalists, because THEY CAN... given a reliable market to justify the investment. And cheap transport to low orbit makes the whole thing much easier and much less demanding, because it's no longer necessary to pare every gram off the project's hardware. >What we can do in 10 years simply doesn't last. What we can do in 50 >might. I want to follow the Antarctica model - establish an >international scientific outpost in a distant, hostile environment. Why can't we get the hardware in place for that in 10 years? If we are assuming (a) that this is meant as a challenging project, not an easy 100%-assured one, (b) that there is strong political support, and (c) that the objective is considered more important than empire building, I see no reason why it can't be done in that length of time. Apollo took 8, it was harder because it started with less, and it developed -- but was never allowed to *use* -- most of the hardware needed for more permanent follow-ons. (Anyone who claims that Apollo was always meant to be a one-shot has never seen some of the work Apollo did on follow-ons to the early missions. Apollo was strangled in infancy.) >By drawing the program out timewise, you provide an ongoing focus of >activity that *defines* a half century of endeavor... You also tell everyone involved with it now that they will be old or dead before they see results. If you want half a century of endeavor, as opposed to half a century of marking time and wasting money, set your sights higher. Mars is not that hard. In half a century, we could see the solar system explored and beginning to be settled, and the first starships abuilding. >>... The US does... um... well... > >Simple, Henry. The US builds an elaborate Peace Shield to protect the >Mars outpost from surprise nuclear attack. :-) Alan M. Carroll sent me the following in mail, and has given me permission to post it: --------- Top Ten list of Things the US could do for the Mars Stations : 10. Have Congress pass a law saying "This is a good thing, some company should put up the cash to do it". 9. Impose import quotas on Martian materials. 8. Create 4 congressional sub-committee and 5 commissions to study the issue, and maybe find a scientist or engineer, even. 7. Decry it as unfair foreign competition. 6. Generate the paperwork, which could then be used as radiation shielding. 5. Draw up the astrological charts for when would be the best time to launch, and provide telepaths for the communications systems. 4. Pass Anti-Trust laws to prevent internal US cooperation, or US firms aiding the effort. 3. Require English units on all parts. 2. Duplicate everyone else's work, at twice the price and twice the time. And number 1, 1. Provide lawyers for lawsuits the first time someone gets spacesick. --------- >Oh yes, and you "North Americans" can build some more RMUs. It's what >you do, after all -- and you do it so well. Who'd have guessed that >Canada's role in space would turn out to be exporting arms? That one is a bit of a surprise, all right! (The folks at Spar Aerospace are fond of pointing out that the question of who would build the arm finally came down to Canada vs. an unnamed US company. Canada won. The US company [Spar refuses to identify them!] went after, and got, the contract to build... the shuttle toilet.) >Let's see... Glavkosmos is to spaceflight as the USSR is to vodka? :-) That's not a bad analogy, actually... -- NASA is to spaceflight as the | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology US government is to freedom. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #534 *******************