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/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Wed, 10 Jan 90 01:38:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 01:38:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #406 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 406 Today's Topics: Payload Status for 01/09/90 (Forwarded) Re: NASA Headline News for 01/09/90 (Forwarded) Electromagnetic Braking (was Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space) Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles Re: Photographer of the decade Galileo Update - 02/09/90 Re: NASA Headline News for 01/09/90 (Forwarded) Re: NASA Headline News for 01/09/90 (Forwarded) Re: Soviet lunar module to be revealed? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Jan 90 21:46:59 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Payload Status for 01/09/90 (Forwarded) Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 01-09-90 - STS-31R HST (at VPF) - MUE validation was worked yesterday and will continue today. HST lifting and fit check to the scuff plates was performed yesterday. - STS-32R SYNCOM (at Pad A) - Launch was delayed 24 hours to this morning with a launch time of 0735 hours and it was a beautiful launch. - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at O&C) - Cite testing continued yesterday with troubleshooting being performed most of the day. BBXRT activation was completed and interface checks were performed. SPDB removal is planned for today. Tomorrow will power up for additional cite testing and on Thursday plan to perform the cite closed loop test for igloo. - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) - Weighing of racks 7 and 11 began yesterday and will continue today. Cable tie struts were worked on rack 4. Module leak check was performed. Pyrell foam replacement continues. - STS-42 IML (at O&C) - No activity. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 90 23:48:05 GMT From: att!cbnewsh!brt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (benjamin.reytblat) Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 01/09/90 (Forwarded) In article <15081@bfmny0.UU.NET>, tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: > In article <40131@ames.arc.nasa.gov> NASA sez: > >This is NASA Headline News for Tuesday, January 9..... > > > >The New York Times says the world's most powerful optical > >telescope will become partially operational this spring. ... > > Here's what I don't get about this regular "NASA News" release. Why in > hell do we need to pay NASA to tell us what the New York Times said that > morning? Because not all of us have the time to wade through NYT every morning just to find the one or two small stories per week that have anything to do with space. Thanks, Peter. Ben Reytblat brt@homxc.att.com ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 90 20:24:12 GMT From: terry@astro.as.utexas.edu (Terry Hancock) Subject: Electromagnetic Braking (was Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space) In article <1990Jan9.013636.4166@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > >In all this talk of nuclear vs. solar arrays for outer planetary >missions, another possibility hasn't been mentioned. A spacecraft in >orbit around Jupiter is moving rapidly through a strong magnetic >field. It should be possible to generate power with an electrodynamic >tether, especially when very near the planet. >Now, this will slow the spacecraft, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >but the available kinetic energy is very large (Jupiter >has a very deep gravity well), and the orbit could be pumped up again >by slingshoting off Jupiter's moons. >It would let >you, for example, place a spacecraft into low circular orbit >(not possible with ordinary chemical rockets without aerobraking), >and would give that LJO spacecraft a lot of power to play with >(maybe for radar observations of Jupiter's atmosphere?). > > Paul F. Dietz > dietz@cs.rochester.edu Suppose you were interested mainly in the braking effect, how efficiently could you get it to brake? Also, how does the braking effect scale against the relative velocity between spacecraft and magnetic field? What about with the strength of the field? How would a high-velocity plasma effect it? How would you design a system to brake against plasma? In particular, how would it work for a vehicle moving at perhaps 0.01 - 0.1 c into the interplanetary medium. How about into the magnetic fields associated with stars? My point is that if an efficient enough system could be designed, this would permit a Daedelus-Class starship to stop itself upon entering another star system -- a possibility not considered by the original proposers of the idea. Clearly the efficiency required is great, such a vehicle would need to be braked at several hundred gees in order to successfully enter stellar orbit in a sufficiently short distance to remain inside the interplanetary medium, and thousands if it must depend on the magnetic field. However, if indeed the energy can be captured rather than dissapated, can't such a system increase its efficiency even further by creating a stronger field or some such? (obviously, I'm a tad vague on the mechanism to use, this doesn't necessarily have to be an electrodynamic tether, of course). Just how far is this beyond current technology? ******************************* Terry Hancock terry@astro.as.utexas.edu ******************************* ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 90 16:53:48 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles In article <583@imokay.dec.com> borsom@imokay.dec.com (Doug Borsom) writes: >I thought that one of the objections to several of the SDI proposals >was that they would require orbiting nuclear reactors to power them >and such stuff was prohibited by the ABM treaty (which, of course, the >US never ratified, but which we pretty much observe)... I think you've confused several treaties, actually. The US did ratify the ABM treaty. However, said treaty says nothing about reactors in space. There have been proposals for a ban on reactors in Earth orbit, but none has yet reached the stage of serious negotiations. The Soviets have an operational series of reactor-powered radarsats (which, interestingly enough, they say they'd be willing to sacrifice for a no-reactors treaty). The ABM treaty presents severe problems for SDI in much more direct ways: with slight exceptions, it flatly bans antimissile systems and development of same. -- 1972: Saturn V #15 flight-ready| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1990: birds nesting in engines | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 90 22:14:50 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!cluster!metro!otc!wayner@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Wayne Robinson) Subject: Re: Photographer of the decade in article <129794@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) says: > > In article <1990Jan1.213436.16129@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, tdrinkar@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu (Terrell Drinkard) writes: >> >> erc@khijol.UUCP (Edwin R. Carp) writes: >> dakramer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Anthony Kramer) writes: >> >>The editors of the magazine 'American Photo' nominated Voyager 2 as >> >>the photographer of the decade, although they leave the final award >> >Voyager, my eye! Ansel Adams gets MY vote. >> >> Not to be overly picky, but Adams' most famous pictures were taken >> during his 1916 trip to Yosemite, not during the 1980s; So make him photographer of the century!!! ;-) --- Do not fold, spindle | Wayne Robinson or mutate. | Development Unit | OTC Limited. | wayner@otc.oz ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 90 18:11:43 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Galileo Update - 02/09/90 Galileo Mission Status January 9, 1990 Galileo is now 14,308,100 miles from the Earth, 14,731,150 miles from Venus and is travelling at a Heliocentric velocity of 71,6390 miles per hour. Round trip light time is 2 minute, 32 seconds. The spacecraft's spin rate is 3.15 rpm and the attitude sun point angle is 2.05 degrees. Four SITURNS to the Sun were successfully performed without incident on December 26, 29 and January 2 and 5. A command was sent on December 22 to turn off the EPD detector bias voltage. This action was taken to preclude damage or degradation to the sensitive detectors/electronics as a result of the AC bus voltage imbalance condition. An indefinite removal of bias voltage will not cause damage/degradation to the detectors, however, a voltage bias-on condition is preferred. The science checkout portion of the EV-4 sequence was successfully performed from December 27 through December 30. Prior to the instrument checkout activities, science covers were released/deployed for the DDS, EUV, UVS, and the PPR. All spacecraft pyro event indications associated with cover actuators were as planned and without incident. It is pointed out that the PLS and EPD covers were deployed/opened several weeks earlier; the SSI cover, which is transparent, is not planned for release until after Earth 2 flyby. Subsequent to the cover events, a fairly extensive science instrument checkout was performed. In general, the scientists were pleased with the nature and the extent of the checkout activities and the operation of the instruments. Detailed data analysis is in process. The NIMS optics and radiator covers were released on January 3 as planned. Prior to cover deployment, the scan platform was moved from the 153 degree cone position to the 30 degree cone position and the spacecraft was transitioned from dual-spin to all-spin to ensure no possibility of cover deployment contact with any part of the spacecraft. Shortly after cover deployment, the scan platform was repositioned to 153 degree cone location. Spacecraft pyro event indications were as expected with no anomalies observed. Subsequent to the pyro events, NIMS temperatures began dropping thus providing some additional evidence of cover deployment. However, the rate of temperature decrease was substantially slower than expected. Concern was raised that possibly the radiator cover did not fully deploy and may be "hung-up" and subsequently come free and perhaps hit some part of the spacecraft. An intensive analysis performed by the flight team and design personnel concluded that it is extremely unlikely that the NIMS cover if not deployed could hit the spacecraft or damage would occur if it did. The flight team is now investigating possible actions to confirm cover deploy and if not deployed alternate actions to assure full deployment. Navigation data is also being analyzed to help determine the state of NIMS cover deployment. Continued with telecommunication subsystem tests performed on January 4; all tests were completed without incident. A Delayed Action Command (DAC) was sent on January 4 to close the PPR cover prior to the scheduled sun acquisition on January 5. The PPR cover was left open as a result of the thruster fire all clear alert code associated with an earlier performed HGA correction. The cover close command was needed to protect the PPR from possible thruster plume contamination associated with the sun acquisition. The DC and AC bus voltage imbalance measurements continued to fluctuate. All other power-related measurements continue to reflect as expected operation. A Tiger Team is investigating the AC/DC bus voltage imbalance. To date, no credible single design or component failure has been identified which could produce the observed anomalous measurements. Furthermore, the team concluded based on flight data and/or circuit analysis, that it is highly unlikely that the RTG, the CDS interface measurement electronics, the CDS, or the PPS imbalance sensor are the cause of the imbalance. Several other potential causes are still being investigated including coupling between the AC and DC power busses internal to the power subsystem and possible Spin Bearing Assembly (SBA) contamination. A total of 1114 realtime commands have been sent since to the spacecraft since launch; 192 were transmitted; of the 192, 51 were preplanned as a part of the sequence design; 141 were not. Many of the unplanned commands were associated with the issuance of noninteractive instrument commands during the science checkout. This two week period was the most active period of realtime commanding since launch. Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov Jet Propulsion Lab M/S 301-355 | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov 4800 Oak Grove Dr. | Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 90 20:13:22 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 01/09/90 (Forwarded) In article <40131@ames.arc.nasa.gov> NASA sez: >This is NASA Headline News for Tuesday, January 9..... > >The New York Times says the world's most powerful optical >telescope will become partially operational this spring. ... Here's what I don't get about this regular "NASA News" release. Why in hell do we need to pay NASA to tell us what the New York Times said that morning? A lot of this reads like someone just sits at a desk each morning, zips through a dozen newspapers and magazines for interesting headlines, slaps NASA's name on top and hands it out. Will someone please find this agency a mission! [No disrespect to Peter Yee who just passes this on...] -- "We plan absentee ownership. I'll stick to `o' Tom Neff building ships." -- George Steinbrenner, 1973 o"o tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 90 20:55:36 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 01/09/90 (Forwarded) In article <15081@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >>This is NASA Headline News for Tuesday, January 9..... >> >>The New York Times says the world's most powerful optical >>telescope will become partially operational this spring. ... > >Here's what I don't get about this regular "NASA News" release. Why in >hell do we need to pay NASA to tell us what the New York Times said that >morning? A lot of this reads like someone just sits at a desk each >morning, zips through a dozen newspapers and magazines for interesting >headlines, slaps NASA's name on top and hands it out. NASA Headline News is an amalgam of internal and external space related news. It is not really published for external use, but is really intended to supply a concise cull of current news to NASA readers. You may have noticed which NASA organization (LPC) puts the news together. I post the whole thing since some of the contents may be of interest to non-NASA readers. I'm under the impression that the NASA Headline News is used as an internal agency radio broadcast script -- what you see if the printed copy. -Peter Yee yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov ames!yee ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 90 15:19:11 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma!nickw@uunet.uu.net (Nick Watkins) Subject: Re: Soviet lunar module to be revealed? In article <8912181657.AA27680@decwrl.dec.com> klaes@wrksys.dec.com (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283 18-Dec-1989 1201) writes: > I was told by a friend who was watching CNN this weekend that the > Soviets are going to display in the Moscow Space Museum an actual > manned lunar module (or parts at least) from their manned lunar > program of the 1960s and early 1970s. He said the Soviets revealed > their biggest problem in the program was getting a powerful enough > booster, as the one they had exploded three times. I presume they They have revealed it was actually four. > Does anyone have more information on this? Thanks. Check out Aviation Week for January 8, 1990. Mission was 2 man. Lunar module (small compared to Apollo LM) would be launched by N-1, plus upper stage for TLI. Modified Soyuz (including orbital module) would then be launched by Proton, rendezvous with LM and stage, and be sent to moon. Rest of mission is as per Apollo except only one crewman descends. AW&ST has one picture, of LM descent stage only, but says upper stage is a modified Soyuz orbital module also. Has anybody else seen any other pictures? Report is based on a visit by Caltech/MIT engineering professors to the Moscow Aviation institute where the hardware was. I know this is redundant to those who see AW&ST but hope it is of interest to others. Closest mission profile to the real one that I recall seeing was in an article by Dave Woods years ago, but I think he had an A-2 involved somewhere as the Proton was never man rated. There are further details of the (never) manned Zond missions in the January edition of Spaceflight. The Cosmonauts interviewed say that there never was much chance of the landing mission actually occurring, hardware notwithstanding. The lunar flyby seems to have been a different story. Nick -- Nick Watkins, Space & Plasma Physics Group, School of Mathematical & Physical Sciences, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton, E.Sussex, BN1 9QH, ENGLAND JANET: nickw@syma.sussex.ac.uk BITNET: nickw%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #406 *******************