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, 20 Jun 1990 02:28:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 20 Jun 1990 02:27:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #546 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 546 Today's Topics: Hubble Space Telescope Update - 06/18/90 Consumer Aerospace (Was Model Rocket Contest) Re: Equations and numbers? Re: Public Perception Of Space Re: Model Rockets in Orbit Re: Investing is our space future. Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Jun 90 20:19:56 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!forsight!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Hubble Space Telescope Update - 06/18/90 Hubble Space Telescope Update June 18, 1990 The Faint Object Camera (FOC) first light went rather well, at least as far as the performance of the FOC. The first light effort was plagued by persistent Fine Guidance Sensor (FGS) loss-of-lock due to terminator crossings, but good data was obtained. Quantitative data is still, for the most part, unavailable but the expected stars were seen and data suggests an image that is very similar to that seen by Wide Field Planetary Camera (WFPC): a very sharp core surrounded by a large halo. The FGS's experienced frequent loss-of-lock at terminator transitions over much of the day, there was even one failed acquisition in fine lock. The behavior of the FGS's during this period is under study, but it looks as if this sort of FGS loss-of-lock will occur with some regularity until the terminator disturbance "fix" is installed around August. Scientific Instruments (SI) activities continued to go extremely well with no anomalies being reported. Bootstrap Phase B, part 5A has just begun. The performance of the FOC during the "first light" run was perfect. The only problem encountered was frequent FGS loss-of-lock followed by reacquisition induced by terminator crossing. The FOC shutter is coupled to the spacecraft "take data" flag, i.e. if the FGS's were not in fine lock then the shutter was not to be opened. The effect of the frequent loss-of-lock/reacquisition was to keep the shutter closed more than the FOC team desired: only 4 of the 10 exposures were for the full 10 minute requested duration. The data was compromised somewhat by the shorter and unpredictable exposure times but, overall, it appears that all the questions that the test was intended to answer were successfully answered. Specifically: early analysis of the data show that the position of the 22 x 22 arc second aperture is within 4 arc seconds of its expected location, all the expected stars were seen at about the correct intensities (once you account for the light in the image halo), stellar images look very much like the WFPC images, having a very sharp core (< ~2 pixels) and an extended, asymmetrical (~1 arc second) halo, and the FOC zoom feature was successfully tested. All and all the images look very much like the most recent WFPC images. The FOC team seems extremely happy with what they are seeing. Nothing new on any of the Pointing Control Subsystem (PCS) problems other than the occurrence of frequent loss and reacquisition of fine lock over the past 24 hours. The new alignment between the FGS's and the Fixed Head Star Tracker (FHST) and gyros appears to have worked very well. FHST updates are still working with good regularity. The only new results in the HST focusing were that new calculations suggest that the "tendrils" seen in the WFPC images are fully understandable in terms of the interaction of the aberrations in the incoming beam interacting with the known pupil function (spiders, pads, obscurations). Thus, the expectation is that the image quality should improve dramatically as the diffraction limit is approached. All this week (Monday through Sunday) Bootstrap Phase B focus and alignment proposals will be only HST activity. The Faint Object Spectrograph (FOS) is in hold. Best guess as to when the FOS will try their High Voltage (HV) on is about one week from now. The Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph (GHRS) had another very active and successful day. Detailed analysis of the data is in progress. Preliminary comments indicate that all went very well and that there were no anomalies. The High Speed Photometer (HSP) is in hold with no activities planned for the next 24 hours. The WFPC is in full operate mode. The next WFPC images are scheduled for 3 PM EDT on June 19. More images are due later this week. The images this week will be a repeat of the set of 10 images through 3 different filters. _ _____ _ | | | __ \ | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov | | | |__) | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | ___/ | |___ M/S 301-355 | |_____/ |_| |_____| Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 90 16:33:36 GMT From: lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lawrence Curcio) Subject: Consumer Aerospace (Was Model Rocket Contest) North Coast Rocketry lists the following specifications for the Aerotec N3050 engine: Dimensions: 3.188" X 45" Total Impulse: 11543 n-sec Burn Time: 3.78 sec Peak Thrust: 1200 pounds Initial Mass: 7400 g Propellant Mass: 5579 grams Price: $1299.95 This corresponds to a specific impulse of about 210 seconds (though catalogue impulse ratings are usually over-estimates), and a mass ratio of about 4. Clustering has its limitations - it can bring the mass ratio of the lower stages only asymptotically to that of the individual engines. Guidance is indeed a problem, and will severely increase the minimum payload weight. I seriously doubt the possibility or utility of a moon lauch. Nevertheless, I like the philosophy of Aerotech. It doesn't consider itself so much a model rocket company as a consumer aerospace company. -Larry Curcio (CMU) ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 90 18:57:14 GMT From: js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. Slenk) Subject: Re: Equations and numbers? >From: sorgatz@ttidca.TTI.COM ( Avatar) >> In short Old Man, the preaching of space doctrine to politicians is >>quite like trying to teach a pig to sing..it annoys the pig and it wastes >>your time. We should simply bypass the bastards, form a rational public >>corporation and do it! Screw the "budget crunches", to bloody-hell with the >>need for NASA's "executive leadership", abandon all the traditional rituals >>associated with such ventures..LET'S DO IT! > ^^^^^^^^^^^ >>-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY +-------------------------+ > >If you can get it started I will gladly work in the Bio division! >(preferably in space, as soon as that becomes possible) >(no smiley's, BTW) As it has been said in the past, "LETS LIGHT THIS PUPPY!" If anybody out there has the money to do this, then get going. I am sure that there are more than enough qualified people out there who would be ready, willing and able to hire on with a company that was seriously going to do something about space. If no single person has the money, then think about how many of us would be willing to buy stock... Go public the first day. Hell, think of how many *companies* would be willing to either exchange goods for stock or to buy in (military, aeorspace, chemical, metalurgical, etc. etc. etc. ad. nauseum). I, for one, will hold onto my stock for a good 10 years (this kind of thing *has* to have stock holders who look to the future that is beyond their nose. The standard method of stock holding deals in terms of instantaneous profits; something you just can't associate with pioneering space exploration). Sincerely, -Jon Slenk / js9b@andrew.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 90 21:28:55 GMT From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Subject: Re: Public Perception Of Space In article , js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. Slenk) writes: > >2) The real work of exploration, advancement and making use (ie: set up >zero gee labs, do communications etc.) should be done by private >companies. Exploration done privately? Um, I doubt IBM and GE are going to be sponsoring the next set of probes to Saturn. There's no profit to be made, other than to sell the photo rights to National Geographic and the Discovery Channel. Of course, Disney blew $50 million plus on "Dick Tracy" but what do I know? The last "shoestring" exploration was the Voyager probes; I believe both came in for under $1 billion. Government, or private consortiums of governments (ESA) will always be leading with the chin. Doug ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 90 05:44:17 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!mvk@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Michael V. Kent) Subject: Re: Model Rockets in Orbit In response to 1st Lt. Henry S. Cobb, who writes about Project Goddard, MIT's attempt to perform the first private launch. He writes, "...in any case, the goal has been achieved by the first launch of Pegasus...": Not to put down Pegasus -- it is an amazing accomplishment -- but I believe McDonnell Douglas beat OSC to orbit by a good seven months. Mike As a matter of fact, I do work for McDonnell Douglas (standard disclaimers). ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 90 05:22:47 GMT From: thorin!homer!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Investing is our space future. In article <13917.267df05d@maven.u.washington.edu> games@maven.u.washington.edu writes: >Please do not forget that the idea behind investing money is to ultimately >MAKE more of it, so very high risk projects demand the potential for very >high returns, and if they require high dollar ammounts, then they are really >only available to the very wealthy investor. > >I personally have money in the Calvert family of "Socially Responsible" funds, >and am not against investing in space, actually I would RATHER invest in space, >it is just that I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO PUT THE MONEY!!! The financial community seems pretty down on aerospace, for good reason with the expectation of military budget cuts. Unfortunately, there are few firms whose commercial space business represents a large fraction of their revenues. If you want an investment in the future instead of an investment in your portfolio, you would do well to send some money in the direction of the Space Studies Institute, which is doing the basic R&D to build space industries - and building a private lunar probe as well. You won't make a monetary profit out of it, but you'll help leverage the Breakout onto the High Frontier(1). More SSI info by email request to me. Anyone who is serious about going into space should be giving to them until it hurts. (1) 'High Frontier' is (TM) or (SM) or some such of SSI, and 'Breakout' ought to be, considering how much O'Neill likes to use the term :-) -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ "Opossums ran amok in Chapel Hill this weekend..." _The Daily Tar Heel_, 11/1/88 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #546 *******************