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 ; Thu, 18 Jan 90 01:25:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 01:25:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #435 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 435 Today's Topics: NASA Prediction Bulletins: Space Shuttle Re: booster pollution Re: SSX: Space Ship Experimental (summary) Re: retrieving Galileo Voyager Update - 01/16/90 Re: Big Bang: Did it happen? NASA Funding Re: SSX: Space Ship Experimental (stolen propaganda?) Re: Frequently Asked Space Questions Re: NASP Recon. Drones Re: Any NASA COBE Personnel Out There? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Jan 90 21:16:03 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (TS Kelso) Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins: Space Shuttle The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times weekly. Documentation and tracking software are also available on this system. As a service to the satellite user community, the most current elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below. The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. STS 32 1 20409U 90 2 A 90 16.14622610 .00106925 00000-0 54737-3 0 245 2 20409 28.5014 92.5012 0001779 156.9438 203.1626 15.79767348 1059 -- Dr TS Kelso Asst Professor of Space Operations tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil Air Force Institute of Technology ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 90 08:21:42 GMT From: kimf@tybalt.caltech.edu (Kim Flowers) Subject: Re: booster pollution Hey, what about all those HOH molecules them hydrogen-oxygen boosters are spreading all over the place! Could be a real problem... :) mAd_QuArK! ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 90 22:41:57 GMT From: thorin!grover!beckerd@mcnc.org (David Becker) Subject: Re: SSX: Space Ship Experimental (summary) In article <9001121009.AA01853@zit.cigy.> bpistr@cgch.UUCP writes: "The following was extracted from the Byte Information Exchange in the "space/long.messages #750, from hvanderbilt, 13708 chars, Fri Jan 12 02:24:37 1990 " Space Ship Experimental " An area where this concept might need some serious new techonology would be rockets designed to operate for hours instead of minutes. Expendables run for minutes and chuck the engine. The shuttle .. well excessive maintainance is what this SSX is supposed avoid. When have have rocket engines been designed to operate with low maintainence for lots-o-launches? Otherwise this sounds like a sound idea for some goverment agency to throw big bucks at. David Becker beckerd@cs.unc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 90 16:43:12 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Brian or James) Subject: Re: retrieving Galileo The designers of Galileo had a strong motive to use RTG designs that don't leak large amounts of hard radiation: Galileo's electronic systems. It wouldn't make sense to use a power source that toasted the system it was powering, and electronics can be pretty unforgiving of doses of short wavelength EMR and charged particles. (I had a co-op Electrical Engineering student comment to me about the poor performance of circuit boards exposed to 5000 Rads, although he -wouldn't- what working environment his test boards were intended to be used in.) James Nicoll ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 90 18:20:33 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Voyager Update - 01/16/90 Voyager Mission Status Report January 16, 1990 Voyager 1 The spacecraft collected routine cruise science data throughout this period. A TLC test was performed on 1/1 and the X-band TWT was switched to the high-power mode on 1/2. A high-rate UVS observation of omicron Andromedae on 1/3 and playback of Uranus photometric images on 1/4-5 were lost due to the continuing non- availability of DSS 63 (failed elevation bearing). On 1/2, the Bay 1 Heater was turned off and the X-Band TWT commanded to the high power mode in preparation for Playback #6. Activities for this period included the collection on low-rate UVS data from the source omicron Andromedae, and low-rate F&P&W data throughout the week. A PRA POR occurred on 1/4. The FDS algorithm successfully restored the PRA to its nominal configuration. This is the 35th POR to occur since launch. The most recent previous occurrence was on 8/7/89. A total of 62:45 of tracking time (exclusive of overlaps) was obtained. Of this, none was large-aperture coverage. While no significant real-time telemetry outages were experienced, minor losses amounted to 1:11 - 1.9% of the total scheduled support time. Voyager 2 Routine cruise science data were collected throughout this period, although substantial amounts were lost or severely degraded due to the spacecraft's passage through superior conjunction. The minimum Sun-Earth-Probe angle (0.75 degrees) was attained on 1/2. The collection of low-rate F&P&W data continued throughout this reporting period and two frames of PWS were recorded, one each on 12/21 and 12/27, for later playback. In addition, the scan- platform was slewed to the target plate on 12/15 and the UVS read- out mode was inhibited through 12/21. On 12/21 the read-out mode was enabled for a successful readout. Shortly thereafter, the read-out was inhibited again through 12/27 at which time the read- out was enabled for a second successful read-out. The Scan Platform was pointed to a UVS dark sky position. Data were of poor quality from 1/1 through 1/3. This was not unexpected, due to the low SEP angle of less than 2 degrees. There was a PRA POR on 1/4. A total of 75:45 of tracking time (exclusive of overlaps) was obtained. Of this, 4:20 was large-aperture coverage. 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: 16 Jan 90 17:10:34 GMT From: ames.arc.nasa.gov!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Big Bang: Did it happen? In article <9001101715.AA09754@aristotle.jpl.nasa.gov> pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: , jpg3196@tahoma.UUCP (James P. Galasyn) writes: <> <> I just heard from a fairly reliable source that CalTech has demonstrated <> the Big Bang never happened. < , bpistr@cgch.UUCP writes: >>Organization: Ciba Geigy ZIT (Central Engineering) Basel, Switzerland > > The following was extracted from the Byte Information Exchange in the > 'space' topic. The author is one of the reigning space technology > gurus in that conference. I thought it might be of interest to readers > of this list, so I'm passing it along... > > Apparently this vehicle (SSX) has been approved for concept validation > studies by SDIO (the "Star Wars" people), as a cheaper possiblity for > access to space. (God knows we need one!). > US Vice President Dan Quayle, who seems to be the administration's point > man for space, has made some supportive comments about the need for lower > cost access to space, etc., so far without referring to this project by > name, anyway. > > ------------------ start of included material -------------- > ========== > space/long.messages #750, from hvanderbilt, 13708 chars, Fri Jan 12 02:24:37 1990 > ---------- > Space Ship Experimental > > The Case For SSX ........ Vast quantities deleted here. > > ------------ end of included material ----------- > Is this for real? I don't mean the concept, I mean the statement about Star Wars Concept Validation. This article is almost a direct steal from the Gary Hudson/Project Phoenix literature. the points, concept,presentation layout, and a lot of the phraseology(sp?) are identical. The government wants 1 billion to do this? Gary Hudson says that he needs only 25 million to get a prototype in flight. (Or is that 25 million more than he has now?) In any case if the government gets going on this, what will he do, consult with them on the project? What I would like to find out is : Who is the brilliant guy that stole his literature, and is passing it off as a new SSX? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trendy footer by: John Stevens-Schlick Internet?: JOHN@tranya.cpac.washington.edu 7720 35'th Ave S.W. Seattle, Wa. 98126 (206) 935 - 4384 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My boss dosn't know what I do. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 90 06:32:46 GMT From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) Subject: Re: Frequently Asked Space Questions At the request of an old reader friend, I briefly checked in on the old group. Sorry I don't have more time, but the SNR [signal to noise ratio is still a bit low] and I am really busy. I did notice an attempt try and really serious answer questions and collect new references. I encourage you guys to organize the group and not let real information like that fall into /dev/null. Use those sophisticated tools to start creating network memory. Amelia and I will help a little bit. 8) Only you can solve the cyclic posting problem: raise the quality of the net, etc. Some of us are working in other news groups on this problem where solutions are more tractable. There is no reason why sci.space (SPACE-DIGEST on the Internet mail side) can't be as good either. Peter Yee's doing a good job, as well as quite a few netters. The one thing I think you MUST realize is that for NASA's 20K civil servants, there are about 100K contractors. Because these companies compete against one another, not everything can be made public, immediately. When you see a posting from a NASA site, there is no way to distinguish CS from contractors (this is both good and bad). Some of these companies do attempt gain advantage over their competitors. There ARE issues of privacy involved here, and there is on going litagation on a wide variety of matters. Do think about using more conventional sources of information request like phone and snail mail. Bye again for now. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene Do you expect anything BUT generalizations on the net? ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 90 15:53:48 GMT From: samsung!cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!csri.toronto.edu!hogg@think.com (John Hogg) Subject: Re: NASP Recon. Drones In article <480ea6a7.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer) writes: >In article <5430@omepd.UUCP> larry@omews10.intel.com (Larry Smith) writes: >>There is a secret $3 million Air Force study going on to study the >>design for a unmanned hypersonic drone that can fly to any continent >>in under an hour to perform recon. or strikes. >... >Why do we need this albatross? What does it buy that present or improved >satellite recon couldn't? Three things: fast results, unpredictability, and potentially better resolution. The last point is the most obvious one: the same optics will give better results at a low altitude (small numbers of kilometres) than at orbital altitudes (small hundreds of kilometres). The improvement is nothing like linear, because most of the atmosphere is down low. Furthermore, a drone is unlikely to carry the same instruments as a satellite. However, the principle holds. The other two problems with satellites follow from their predictable orbits. It may take considerable time and/or fuel to move a ground track over a point of interest. Normally, an orbit is chosen that will cover all points of interest eventually, which means that the locals have ample warning of when to cover up anything they don't want seen. These difficulties can be partly overcome by putting up a large number of birds, but that's expensive, and is not the approach that the US has taken; they go for a very small number of very high quality satellites. A good question, however, is, ``What does this drone buy that Open Skies doesn't?'' Canada has recently completed the first ``open skies'' reconnaissance flight over Czechoslovakia and Hungary, and the Hercules aircraft used was indisputably cheaper than any hypersonic drone. An overflight of this country by a Warsaw Pact nation will follow later this year. This was a ``proof-of-concept'' flight, but while the details of a treaty must still be worked out, it seems certain to be signed eventually. US historical practice has been to freely violate sovereignty of airspace, except for those countries able to shoot its aircraft down. Forbidden territory has effectively been the Soviet Union, and thus its Warsaw Pact allies, only. (Cuban Missile Crisis objectors, send email.) By continuing this policy in tandem with Open Skies, the US could in future inspect all countries on short notice, without introducing any new systems. I don't know how the SR-71 retirement fits into all this. I suspect that we're not being told something. -- John Hogg hogg@csri.utoronto.ca Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 90 16:01:16 GMT From: frooz!cfa.HARVARD.EDU@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner, OIR) Subject: Re: Any NASA COBE Personnel Out There? > In article <1730001@hpislx.HP.COM> gvg@hpislx.HP.COM (Greg Goebel) writes: >>"Spectral Resolution" for FIRAS: >> 0.2 cm^-1 From article <1990Jan14.233158.9704@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer): > Looks fine to me. The spectroscopists have this curious habit of using > waves per unit length ("wavenumber") rather than length per wave (normal, > conventional "wavelength"). Right so far; wavenumber is useful because it is essentially a frequency unit. It just has the speed of light divided out. The unit even has an official name ("kayser"), which is seldom used. > A wavenumber resolution of 0.2 cm^-1 is a wavelength resolution of 5cm. This part was a bit too hasty. Wavenumber resolution of 0.2 cm^-1 is a frequency resolution of 6x10^9 Hz (in vacuum; very slightly different in air). The corresponding wavelength resolution depends on the wavelength (or frequency) being observed. The correct formula can be found by setting dw/w = dW/W, which leads to dW = dw/w^2, where dW is wavelength resolution, dw is wavenumber resolution, and w is wavenumber and W is the wavelength. (It's really easy to get confused, though; I had to write the conversion formulas down even though I work with these units all the time.) I forget exactly what the wavelength for FIRAS is, but I think it is about 1 mm or 10 cm^-1. The spectral resolution stated would then correspond to 0.02 mm. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #435 *******************