Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.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 ; Mon, 9 Oct 89 03:24:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 9 Oct 89 03:23:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #126 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 126 Today's Topics: Re: What to do with the $30 billion (missions) CSA Re: X-30, Space Station Strangles NASP Re: GIFs Thermoelectric generation News of the Week, Oct 6, 1989 Re: Astronaut Selection space station power (was Re: hum on airliner transmissions) Spher. Geom. reference request Re: Shuttle-Centaur Re: American Rocket Co. launch date and time ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Oct 89 19:55:43 GMT From: rochester!yamauchi@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Brian Yamauchi) Subject: Re: What to do with the $30 billion (missions) In article <2445@ibmpa.UUCP> szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (nick szabo) writes: > >1) The list only included missions to be performed by the U.S., before the >year 2000, with funds formerly targetted towards the Space Station. >Non-U.S. missions, missions performed after 2000, and missions performed >with funding beyond Space Station level not included. > >2) The main purpose of the list was to point out the gross inefficiency >inherent in the Station. It was not meant to be a definitive Plan. If you >don't agree with some of the details, fine, substitute your own wishlist >of missions, and see how they compare. >4) The first space settlement may not be on either the Moon or an asteroid; >it may be on Mars, on a comet, on a Galilean moon, or out in free space >using resources from any of those. "Moon or asteroids" is almost as narrow >as "Moon or Mars". I agree completely, but in reality the question may center around the "p-word" -- politics. We may agree that it would be better to spend $30G exploring the solar system than building Freedom, but is there any way to guarantee that if Freedom is killed, the $30G will go towards space probes rather than into some HUD contractor's back pocket? Is NASA funding really a value which is independent of specific programs? If so, then it makes sense to argue Freedom vs. CRAF/ARCF/Cassini/Jovian System Probes. Otherwise...? It would seem reasonable that if Congress is willing to spend $30G on Freedom, they should be willing to spend $30G on JPL -- but remember, we're not talking about reasonable human beings, we're talking about Congress. _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 89 20:36 -0600 From: bradley thompson To: Subject: CSA Perhaps the people looking at the Corporate Space Administration should coordinate with the Canadian Space Agency as to who gets to be the CSA. I also got a letter from the GAS payload people the other day informing me that there are three 12 GAS payload racks now manifested for flight before the end of '91. Brad Thompson ARC ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 89 01:26:29 GMT From: usc!venera.isi.edu!raveling@ucsd.edu (Paul Raveling) Subject: Re: X-30, Space Station Strangles NASP In article <6430@quick.COM>, srg@quick.COM (Spencer Garrett) writes: > > The Shuttle uses *two* glidepaths on final. They fly most of the > approach on a 17 degree (as I recall) glideslope, then make an > abrupt pitch up to the normal 3 degree glideslope. It looks > like the two intersect right off the end of the runway (where > "right off" may be a mile or two at these speeds) and they only > spend a few seconds (10 or 15?) on the 3 degree slope before > starting the flare. That's about right, but I'm not convinced there's really a 3-degree portion. The approach profile is just about like the X-15's speed-brakes-inadvertently-extended approach, where the flare was a 2G pullup ending essentially on the deck. The end of this approach went like this: Time Altitude Speed Event (sec) (ft MSL) (knots) ----- -------- ------- -------------------------------- 23 5,200 325 Roll out onto runway heading 18 3,900 325 Begin flare (2G pullout) ~10 ..... ... Lower flaps 8 ..... 275 Flare completed: Drop gear, jetisson ventral fin 0 2,200 180 Touchdown BTW, earlier I cited a 300 knot approach speed. That's for a normal approach and for the 1st 2/3 of this emergency approach; procedure for this one calls for accellerating to 325 knots when approaching the 90-degree key point, which in a rectangular pattern would be the middle of the base leg. Note the level flight deceleration -- 95 knots in 8 seconds, about 20 ft/sec**2, or 2/3 G. > Now for the questions! Is "coming feet dry" the same as extending > the landing gear? I think Mary was referring to the point where the shuttle crosses the coastline. ---------------- Paul Raveling Raveling@isi.edu ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 89 14:49:26 GMT From: mailrus!sharkey!cfctech!ttardis!cbc@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Chad Childers) Subject: Re: GIFs In article , sh2m+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Brent Houchen) writes: >I got some of the GIFs of Gabriell and Hugo from 128.174.5.98. They >were pretty nice. Does anyone know of a place to get GIFs from NASA? >I'd like to see picture from Voyager, or shuttle launches, shuttle >landings... You know what I mean. (Color ones would be >extra-special.) Thanks in advance! I actually logged on to Compuserve because of a shuttle launch GIF I saw reproduced in their magazine... COMING.GIF... I believe they have a special graphics library set aside for space GIFs in the art gallery, also check the SPACE SIG. Coming is 256 color, 640 pixels across, so it looks best if you view it a little at a time with CSHOW or similar... Chad Childers UUCP: ...uunet!edsews!rel!ttardis!cbc CI$: 73615,543 Fido: 1:120/13 PLink: MTN-EER ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Oct 89 11:29:06 EST From: "S.K. Whiteman" Subject: Thermoelectric generation To: Whom it may consern: I would be interested in receiving information pertaining to theromelectric generators. I am given to understand that these devices are simiconductors that when heated produce an electric current; and contrawise when an electric current is applied will cool. I suspect that these are used in RTGs aboard various spacecraft. They sound interesting for many applications. Please include source information, manufacturer if possible. Thanx in advance, S. K. Whiteman@IPFWVM ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 89 17:50:20 GMT From: frooz!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: News of the Week, Oct 6, 1989 Jonathan's Space Report Oct 6,1989 (no.27) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Atlantis/STS-34/Galileo is scheduled for launch on Oct 12, but legal challenges to RTG launch safety will be heard in court Oct 10. Modul' "D" is due for launch to Mir on Oct 16 by Proton from Baykonur. Viktorenko and Serebrov continue to work on the Soyuz TM-8/Mir/Progress M complex. The Interkosmos-24 satellite was launched on Sep 28 from Plesetsk, with western press in attendance. The satellite is part of the Aktivniy-IK magnetospheric research program. A small Czechoslovak subsatellite, Magion-2, will be released from Interkosmos-24 within a few weeks. A Gorizont TV broadcast satellite was launched by Proton on Sep 28; a Molniya-1 government communications relay satellite was launched on Sep 27. Kosmos-2045, launched on Sep 22, is a GRU photo recon satellite. Kosmos-2046, launched on Sep 27, is a Soviet Naval Intelligence electronic ocean surveillance satellite. In historical news (if you'll excuse the oxymoron), the race to the Moon was finally acknowledged in August by the Soviet government newspaper Izvestiya. An article describes Korolev's N-I lunar launch vehicle, which was designed to send two cosmonauts to the Moon. One was to orbit and another to land on the surface alone. Four flight tests of the booster, in 1969-1972, all ended in failure. Development of the lunar spacecraft, based on Soyuz-Zond, also suffered repeated setbacks. The program was finally abandoned in 1975. So after 20 years we finally know for sure: there really was a race, right up to the finishing line. (c) 1989 Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 89 15:15:49 GMT From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: Astronaut Selection In article <1989Oct5.054849.19370@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >In article <1989Oct5.043948.22183@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>In article MJB8949@RITVAX.BITNET (NUTSY FAGEN) writes: >>>>> I'd like to know how one goes about becoming an astronaut... >> >>Q. How do I become an astronaut? >> Be in good physical condition, with good eyesight. >> (DO NOT get a radial keratomy in an attempt to improve your vision; >> its long-term effects are poorly understood. >The following information is second-hand, but I've heard that there is >a new process called laser ablatement cornea sculpting which has >acheived much better results than radial keritonomy. It's currently >in the evaluation stage, but should be commercially available in >around five years. And evidently, it results in flawless corrections >to nearsightedness, farsightedness, and some astigmatisms. >Does NASA have any official policy on using eye surgery to meet vision >requirements? Yes. The policy is _NO_. This applies to the flight physicals for test pilots and other flight crew. (This is because the FAA says no and we use the FAA standards. The military uses the same rule.) If they won't let an aircraft backseater do it in the atmosphere there's no way they'll let a shuttle backseater (mission specialist) do it in space. This policy will change if the FAA accepts RK, etc, but probably not immediately, based on what I've heard about the JSC flight surgeons. I was astounded that they let Rhea Seddon fly around in the T-38s until she got so pregnant that she could barely get into a flight suit (actually, she quit flying at about 6 months) and so was everybody who'd ever dealt with the JSC flight surgeons. >> For that matter, avoid >> any other significant medical unknowns.) >Or not :-). Seems like a matter of individual choice to me. JSC has thousands of well-qualified people burning to become astronauts, so they don't need to wonder if some medical procedure will render you vulnerable in space--they just get someone else. Henry's posting mentioned that NASA is very image conscious and this is quite true. How would it look if someone had a RK, went into space, got exposed to reduced pressure, and blew their eyeballs out? (This reduced pressure scenario is, I understand, the explanation of the FAA's hesitancy on RKs.) -- Mary Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 89 13:50:37 GMT From: usc!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!swbatl!texbell!sugar!splut!jay@ucsd.edu (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) Subject: space station power (was Re: hum on airliner transmissions) In article <35268@apple.Apple.COM> stadler@Apple.COM (Andy Stadler) writes: > Yes, 400 Hz is still a widely-used AC power frequency. Except on > the space station Freedom.... ...which is being designed to use _DC_ power distribution. I understand, though, that JSC is raising unholy cain about that, and it may yet get changed to something sensible. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- America works less when you say..."Union Yes!" ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 89 22:03:05 GMT From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!psueea!parsely!agora!rickc@uunet.uu.net (Rick Coates) Subject: Spher. Geom. reference request I would like to get a general text on spherical geometry to help me solve some problems without re-inventing the whole thing each time. I am interested in algorithms, not proofs or derivations (see sample problems at end). Any references you have would be much appreciated. Sample problems: 1. Given two points, return the coordinate of a point on a great circle between the points as a function of r where 0.0 < r < 1.0 defines the entire great circle. 2. Given a single point, return the coordinates of a point on a circle at a distance r from the given point, as a function of a where 0.0 < a < 2pi defines the entire circle. Many thanks in advance, Rick Coates ...!tektronix!tessi!agora!rickc ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 89 14:16:47 GMT From: hsi!mfci!rodman@uunet.uu.net (Paul Rodman) Subject: Re: Shuttle-Centaur In article <1989Oct4.225958.15017@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Agreed that there were safety problems with Shuttle-Centaur. What I find >bizarre is the assertion that these problems could not be solved, given >some time (like, say, 2.5 years of no shuttle flights) and effort. I heard the original plan had DUMP VALVES for the Centaur fuel (which put the craft over landing weight if you had to abort)! pkr ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 89 01:38:59 GMT From: thorin!grover!beckerd@mcnc.org (David Becker) Subject: Re: American Rocket Co. launch date and time In article <58865@aerospace.AERO.ORG> smith@aero.UUCP (Thomas F. Smith) writes: >The AMROC launch of the "Koopman Express" >is currently scheduled for 5 OCT 89, Well, as you have all heard, it just sat and burned. Ah for the good old days when men were men and engineers blew up rockets. Not much of a memorial for Koopman however :-( What sort of success rate did Von Braun an Co. have? Have that many lessons been forgotten or is Amroc using an innovative design? David Becker beckerd@cs.unc.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #126 *******************