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, 29 Mar 90 01:28:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 01:28:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #193 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 193 Today's Topics: Re: Challenger Report question Re: Will we lose another orbiter? Re: Will we lose another orbiter? Re: Shuttle Escapes Re: Did SEASAT See More Than It Was Supposed To? Re: "Brilliant Pebbles" vs. "Smart Rocks" (was Re: Railgun ...) Payload Status for 03/26/90 (Forwarded) Aurora = Strange Flash of Light? NASA Headline News for 03/26/90 (Forwarded) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Mar 90 16:34:53 GMT From: clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Challenger Report question In article <480@argus.mrcu> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes: >I am disappointed but not too surprised to hear that the Feynman >appendix has been removed from the report... No, it's in the report, it's just not in the first volume -- which is all that most people get or read -- since the first volume contains none of the appendixes. -- Apollo @ 8yrs: one small step.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology Space station @ 8yrs: .| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 90 16:07:28 GMT From: rochester!dietz@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Paul Dietz) Subject: Re: Will we lose another orbiter? In article <6927@timbuk.cray.com> lfa@timbuk.cray.com (Lou Adornato) writes: > Good. At least you didn't think it was divine retribution, as I heard > one person claim. One of the root causes of the Challenger accident, > was public pressure to launch on schedule. This was caused by the > public's inability to understand just how complex and demanding > launching an experimental aircraft can be. Once people stop taking > technology for granted, they start learning. Maybe in the long run > Challenger will have made us stronger by making us see the danger in > having 90% of our population (and 100% of our policy makers) > technologically illiterate. What a load of crap. The public isn't responsible for the institutionalized self deception that characterized pre-Challenger NASA. The public didn't say NASA would launch 60 (then 24) shuttle flights per year. The public didn't force NASA to not admit those estimates were baloney. The public didn't hold a gun to NASA's collective head and say "my god, NASA, when do you want to launch, next April?" It was NASA's responsibility to inform the public about the safe flight rate of the system, not recklessly exceed it in a futile attempt to preserve the myth of the shuttle's economic viability. It was NASA's responsibility to be honest about the potential capabilities of the shuttle when it was being sold. But, as Keyworth noted, NASA is the only government adgency that outright lies. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 90 20:06:19 GMT From: skipper!bowers@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) Subject: Re: Will we lose another orbiter? In article <1990Mar28.160728.14260@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >In article <6927@timbuk.cray.com> lfa@timbuk.cray.com (Lou Adornato) writes: >> Good. At least you didn't think it was divine retribution, as I heard >> one person claim. One of the root causes of the Challenger accident, >> was public pressure to launch on schedule. This was caused by the ...deleted... >What a load of crap. >The public isn't responsible for the institutionalized self deception >that characterized pre-Challenger NASA. The public didn't say NASA >would launch 60 (then 24) shuttle flights per year. The public didn't >force NASA to not admit those estimates were baloney. The public >didn't hold a gun to NASA's collective head and say "my god, NASA, >when do you want to launch, next April?" >It was NASA's responsibility to inform the public about the safe >flight rate of the system, not recklessly exceed it in a futile >attempt to preserve the myth of the shuttle's economic viability. It >was NASA's responsibility to be honest about the potential >capabilities of the shuttle when it was being sold. But, as Keyworth >noted, NASA is the only government adgency that outright lies. It's too bad you feel that way. From my point of view (a grunt at the bottom of the food chain) there are alot of pressures to get the work done on time below cost. This never happens (or rarely anyway) so that it is always a matter of deciding how much engineering is good enough to get the job done. Sometimes it isn't enough and we need to go fix it after the fact. Usually the higher the risk of loss of life or system the more intensely things get looked at, but ther are time when things fall through the cracks (noone is perfect and neither is any system). There are always risks. As an example, the F/A-18 High Alpha (angle of attack) Research Vehicle is over budget by about 4 million U.S. dollars compared to the original projections. The total program cost was advertised at 11 million originally. We are behind schedule by about 18 months. Who is to blame? McAir? NASA? I would say neither, there were a lot of things that made this job very difficult that neither group expected. There are still some technical difficulties that need to be overcome before we make first flight. It will take more time and money to work those problems out. Another thing that needs to be mentioned here is that everyone want todays state of the art _now_. That isn't possible in the government due to the way the budget is structured, todays' proposals will get into fiscal 1992 as fiscal 1991 is already in congress. That will get the feasibility studies done, then there are the requests for proposals that we have to pay each contractor for, then the detailed engineering studies, design reviews and then the contractor gets to cut the hardware. hen implementation and software reviews and... From the beginning to the end will take 4 or 5 years for a small program and 8 or 10 for a major one. Then there is the fact that NASA gets 14 billion dollars and 800 million goes to aeronautics, the rest goes to space. I'm not complaining about the space share but if we want to be the premiere force in world aeronautics it isn't enough. Remember this is out of a trillion dollar budget. As I said before losses must be expected, and I am sorry that you feel that way about NASA. I am proud of the work I perform for the taxpayers as are most of us here and if we have dissappointed you we are all sorry. -- Albion H. Bowers bowers@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!bowers NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Aerodynamics: The ONLY way to fly! Live to ski, ski to live... ------------------------------ X400-Trace: US*ATTMAIL*WIDE; arrival Wed, 28 Mar 90 21:25:16 -0500 action Relayed Date: Wed, 28 Mar 90 21:25:16 -0500 P1-Message-Id: US*ATTMAIL*WIDE; 5A031C150F1A010F-MTABWIDENER Ua-Content-Id: 5A031C150F1A010F From: DXANDY%WIDENER.BITNET@vma.cc.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Shuttle Escapes While I was browsing through the library the other day, I came across a series of books about the construction of the space shuttle. I can't recall the titles of these books, but they were printed in the mid seventies. One of the topics covered, albeit very briefly, was a method of reentry for a single astronaut. It looked like a kind of cradle in which the astronaut sat. The cradle consisted of a heat shield and parachute. I imagine that this type of reentry would be exciting to say the least! Are there any plans to equip Space Station Freedom with any kind of rescue system? (Perhaps I should ask if there are any plans to build Space Station Freedom :-)) Andy Greenshields [dxandy@widener.BITNET] ------------------------------ Date: 29 Mar 90 01:54:14 GMT From: cs!schweige@lll-winken.llnl.gov (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) Subject: Re: Did SEASAT See More Than It Was Supposed To? In article <803@geovision.UUCP> gd@geovision.UUCP (Gord Deinstadt) writes: [initial discussion deleted] >BTW, what seasat saw that seasat wasn't supposed to see by the seashore :-) >was contours of the ocean floor. It turns out that the ocean's surface is >deflected enough by currents flowing over shallow areas that you can chart >some pieces of the ocean's floor this way. This made the US Navy *very* >uptight. They consider ocean-floor charts of any accuracy to be vital >secrets; so much so that they have prevented civilian American scientists >using civilian-developed SURTASS arrays from charting the sea bed. They're >waiting until the Russians publish. > >(SURTASS = ???? - anyhow, it's a sonar system using an array of receivers >to do actual imaging rather than just *ping poop* *ping poop* sort of stuff.) >-- >Gord Deinstadt gdeinstadt@geovision.UUCP Referencing The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems, by Norman Friedman, SURTASS, the UQQ-2 Surveillance Towed-Array System, uses specially designed towing ships, designated T-AGOS, and is a very long passive array sonar. As far as I know, SURTASS has always been a military system, and the T-AGOS ships, while operated by civilian merchant marine crews are owned by the US Navy. My understanding of the physics of passive sonar (also known as underwater acoustics) tells me that it would be pretty hard to do passive imaging of the sea bed, especially by a system designed for open ocean submarine detection. In any event, this is starting to stray in the direction of sci.military (if it ever comes back). Jeff Schweiger -- ******************************************************************************* Jeff Schweiger CompuServe: 74236,1645 Standard Disclaimer ARPAnet (Defense Data Network): schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil ******************************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: 29 Mar 90 03:39:17 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!ge-dab!puma!andrew.ATL.GE.COM!jnixon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (John F Nixon) Subject: Re: "Brilliant Pebbles" vs. "Smart Rocks" (was Re: Railgun ...) stealth@caen.engin.umich.edu (Mike Pelletier) writes: >Whence this silly nomenclature "Brilliant Pebbles"? Those irrepressible fun loving people at LLNL, I believe... >Whatever happened to the succinct, professional sounding "Smart Rocks"? Different program, if I am not mistaken. Actually, I am proposing "Savant Sand" as an SDI weapon. When detecting an attack, put several tons of suborbital sand, suitably positioned, in front of the stuff coming your way. Sure, it puts some plutonium in the upper athmosphere, but ..... :-) ;-) 8-) -- ---- jnixon@atl.ge.com ...steinmetz!atl.decnet!jnxion ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 90 09:20:24 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Payload Status for 03/26/90 (Forwarded) Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 03-26-90. - STS-31R HST (at VPF) - HST was transferred to the PGHM Saturday. Today HST will be undergoing electrical and mechanical mates to the PCR. - STS-32R SYNCOM/LDEF (at SAEF-2) - LDEF deintegration continues. - STS-35 ASTRO-1 (at OPF) - Payload to orbiter electrical and freon connections were completed Saturday. Orbiter/ASTRO interface verification test is scheduled for today. - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) - Rack and floor installation into the module, and rack fire suppression bottle installation was performed Saturday. Rack panel installation is scheduled for today. - STS-42 IML-1 (at O&C) - Rack bumper modifications and pyrell foam removal/reinstallation was worked Saturday. Rack-11 attach clip is planned for today. - STS-45 Atlas-1 (at O&C) - Pallet joint kit installation on frame 4 was active Saturday. No work is scheduled for today. - HST M&R (at O&C) No work planned for today. - STS-55 SL-D2 (at O&C) No work planned for today. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Mar 90 8:22:20 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Aurora = Strange Flash of Light? The news speculation and net responses that stated the reported flash of light was an aurora have confused me, because I don't know enough about aurorae (auroras? ... whatever...). I recall seeing it once as a child on a vacation to the North, and that, and the pictures I've seen, all were the traditional "curtains" of light, or ill-defined blobs of glow in pastel colors. I've never seen any reference to an aurora producing something equivalent to a "whole-sky flashbulb effect" which is what at least part of this local light flash was. The color I saw was a cold blue-white, like a flashbulb, and it seemed to be coming from the whole sky, including the South, not from the North as I would expect an aurora to appear in this hemisphere at this latitude. If this was an aurora, is it an extremely rare form? Or are aurorae so variable that they can be responsible for pratically any color, form, or duration of atmospheric light display? I'd like to learn more about auroras. Anyone have a favorite reference they would cite? Regards, Will wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 90 09:14:19 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA Headline News for 03/26/90 (Forwarded) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Monday, March 26, 1990 Audio: 202/755-1788 ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is NASA Headline News for Monday, March 26.... The Hubble Space Telescope was rolled out to Launch Pad 39B over the weekend. It was placed into the Payload Changeout Room and will be transferred to the orbiter Discovery's payload bay on Tuesday. An interface test is scheduled for Thursday. A seal in a fuel line, associated with Discovery's number two main engine, was replaced by pad workers last Friday. The Rotating Service Structure is scheduled to be returned to its position around the orbiter today. Also at the Cape, work continues on the Gamma Ray Observatory being prepared for launch later this year. Weight and center of gravity measurements are currently being made. In addition, testing with the Payload Operations Center at Goddard Space Flight Center has begun. No decision has been made by NASA to rescue the stranded Intelsat 6 satellite. But, the options, if exercised, would be to either reboost it to a usable altitude or retrieve the satellite and bring it back to Earth. NASA, Intelsat and Hughes Aircraft representatives will meet again in the near future. NASA research pilots at the Ames/Dryden Flight Research Facility at Edwards, Calif., have successfully tested a flight control system that detects in-flight failures and automatically reconfigures aircraft control surfaces allowing continued flight or safe landings. The new system has been demonstrated on NASA's F-15 Highly Integrated Digital Electronic Control research aircraft. A Delta 2 rocket lofted another in a series of Global Positioning System satellites into geostationary orbit, Sunday night. The rocket lifted off at 9:45 P.M., Eastern time, lighting up the Florida coastline. The satellite is the seventh of 21 to be put into orbit for a world-wide navigation system for U.S. and allied land, sea and air forces. The global network is to be completed by 1992. **************** ----------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA Select TV. All times are Eastern. Thursday, March 29............... 11:30 A.M. NASA Update will be transmitted. All events and times are subject to change without notice. --------------------------------------------------------------- These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12:00 noon, Eastern time. --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #193 *******************