Date: Fri, 28 May 93 14:22:04 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #641 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 28 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 641 Today's Topics: Fireball Report Form How I should report fireballs? Liberal President murders spaceflight? Magellan Update #2 - 05/27/93 Magellan Update - 05/27/93 Moon Base (2 msgs) Moon vs. asteroids, Mars, comets New DC-X GIF Privatizing scientific terminology Seeding Mars with "Mars box" life Space Raffles? The crew is toast (2 msgs) Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction? Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin" Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 21:12:00 +0200 From: Andre Knoefel Subject: Fireball Report Form Newsgroups: sci.space International Meteor Organization * Fireball Data Center -------------------------------------------------------- F I R E B A L L R E P O R T F O R M ========================================= Date: y m d Time: h m s in UT! Location: Longitude: deg ' " Latitude: deg ' " --------------------- Apparent path: begin: RA = deg azimuth = deg dec= deg elevation= deg or end : RA = deg azimuth = deg dec= deg elevation= deg --------------------- Description: apparent magnitude: mag duration: s color: trail: fragmentation: persistent train: angular velocity: deg/s, or scale number: sounds description: sounds time lapse: Observer Remarks: ------------------------------------------------------------ mail back to: starex@tron.GUN.de ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 21:11:00 +0200 From: Andre Knoefel Subject: How I should report fireballs? Newsgroups: sci.space How I should report fireballs? ================================ Data on fireballs are useful for different purposes: 1. identification of photographed meteors (exact time required); 2. informationen concerning color, train, fragmentation, and sound which are not easily obtainable by other techniques; and 3. analysis of fireball periodicities and/or fireball radiants. The Fireball Data Center (FIDAC) of the International Meteor Organization (IMO) has the task to build up a wide and complete picture of the appearance of fireballs troughout the year. This information will support the investigation of these imposing, bright events, especially those accompanying meteorite falls. Studies of fireball and meteorite-fall rates at mid-northern latitudes demonstrate that possible meteorite-producing fireballs and actual meteorite falls occur more frequently in the evening than in the morning, and also more frequently in spring than in fall. These general conclusions should be underpinned with further observations allowing a more detailed analysis, including also the southern hemisphere. For all these reasons we need a minimum of data of a fireball events. The three important details are the correct date and time, the coordinates of the location and the brightness of the fireball. The following key items are in a complete fireball observation: - date and time: in UT, important for comparison of data. Please use UT only, pay attention to the date! - location and coordinates: important data for further computations, e.g. the zenithal magnitude, conversion of the trail coordinates from azimuth and elevation to right ascension and declination. Name of the location in original language, adding state and country. - coordinates of the apparent path: in right ascension and declination for investigation of possible fireball radiants and in the case of a meteorite fall for the computation of the impact point/area. If you are not able to determined right ascension and declination you should report azimuth and elevation. Please note, the scale starts with North=360deg ... East=90deg ... - apparent magnitude: as far as possible use astronomical magnitude classes; if required note an interval. In case of obervations by eye witnesses cite the comparisons they give and add a rough estimation (e.g. 'much brighter than Venus' -- estimation mag. -5 to -8). - duration: of the visible path in seconds - color: of the complete trail and any changes along it - train: information about color, duration, apparent breadth, and shape - fragmentation: number of pieces, location along the train, brightness of fragments - persistent train: information about color, brightness, shape and iis variation, and time taken to vanish - velocity: in degrees per second or on a scale of six ranks (0-stationary, 1-very slow, 2-slow, 3-medium, 4-fast, 5-very fast) - sound: all information about sound, the description as a comparison (e.g. rustle, roar, whizzing) and the time lapse between the optical observation and the appearance odf noise; if the occasion arises, the succestion of different noises can be defined too - observer: name - source and remarks: additional remarks, e.g. the souroundings of the observing place (important for synchronous sound recordings) metallic objects in the vicinity, wet/dry air, wind, etc. Even if it not possible to give information concerning all data we would like to receive reports. Please, always indicate which data are certain and wich are not. For the report of fireballs we use a special fireball report form (see seperate mail). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- International Meteor Organization * Fireball Data Center c/o Andre Knoefel, Saarbruecker Str. 8, D - 40476 Duesseldorf, Germany phone: (+49) 211:450-719 (tape) e-mail: starex@tron.GUN.de (Internet) 100114,3235 (CompuServe) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 22:36:59 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight? Newsgroups: sci.space mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >I'd suggest you look up a report done in 1977 (by Ford (the company) >under the management of Mitre). It's several hundred pages studying >the technical, safety, and economic aspects of nuclear power, >breeders, etc. Your preceding paragraph is full of misconceptions >about the economic viability of breeder reactors at current market >prices for uranium, along with misconceptions about a lot of other >things. Oh, and in case you didn't know it, both Britain and France >already had enrichment facilities long before Carter came into office. 1. If they're not economically viable, then _WHY_ did they need to be outlawed (fuel reprocessing)? 2. Banning fuel reprocessing while at the same time more stringent waste disposal requirements are being made is a de-facto limitation to the point of banning nuclear power. And it worked: noone's started construction on a new plant in years and years. -- +-----------------------+---------------------------------------+ |Phil Fraering | "...drag them, kicking and screaming, | |pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu | into the Century of the Fruitbat." | +-----------------------+-Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_---------+ ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 1993 23:40 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Magellan Update #2 - 05/27/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT May 27, 1993 3:00 PM PDT 1. The Magellan Transition Experiment continues as the flight team carefully maneuvers the spacecraft toward the desired aerobraking corridor. The second "double down" trim maneuver was performed at 2:07 PM PDT today to lower the periapsis to 143 km. 2. At the Mission Director meeting early this afternoon, a "single down" OTM was approved for execution on Saturday. This will lower the periapsis by 1.6 km. 3. All spacecraft subsystems continue to report nominal performance. There have been some difficulties with transfer of 1200 bps telemetry between JPL and Denver. 4. On the incident of orbit 7638 last night, Attitude Control estimates that the spacecraft performed the drag pass about 120 deg. off the proper attitude. Spacecraft systems responded as designed and there was no damage to the craft. 5. The solar panels were facing the sun and stayed near 85 degrees C. (instead of cooling to 25 and then warming to 39 during the drag pass). Attitude control stayed in phase plane D, and used about 0.046 kg of fuel during the pass. From orbit 7639 on the spacecraft performance has been normal. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams. |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 1993 20:07 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Magellan Update - 05/27/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT May 27, 1993 10:00 AM PDT 1. The Magellan Transition Experiment continues as the flight team carefully maneuvers the spacecraft toward the desired aerobraking corridor. 2. The spacecraft has now made fifteen atmospheric drag passes with periapsis below 150 km and all subsystems were reported to be nominal. 3. As the spacecraft approaches the low part of the orbit, the attitude control system switches from reaction wheel control to the thrusters. Depending on the amount of attitude error when this switch occurs, the thrusters have used from 0.013 to 0.023 kg of fuel to maintain the position within 10! of the velocity vector. The expected fuel consumption is 0 to 0.3 kg per orbit. 4. Shortly before orbit 7638 last night, an update to the periapsis time table was sent to Magellan. An error in the coded data was rejected by the on-board computer, and the spacecraft apparently went through the atmospheric drag pass in the wrong attitude. Spacecraft systems responded as designed and there was no damage to the craft. 5. The solar panels were facing the sun and stayed near 60 degrees C. (instead of cooling to 25 and then warming to 39 during the drag pass). Attitude control stayed in phase plane D, and used about 0.046 kg of fuel during the pass. From orbit 7639 on the spacecraft performance has been normal. 6. Based on the present navigation and spacecraft data, the next OTM (Orbit Trim Maneuver) will be the "double down" magnitude. The second of the corridor-adjustment OTMs is scheduled for 2:07 PM PDT today. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams. |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 93 20:04:21 GMT From: "Theodore F. Vaida ][" Subject: Moon Base Newsgroups: sci.space anyone know where to find info about that Al-O process? I'd be greatly interested in details... -- ---------==============Sig file cover sheet=====================--------- ->POLAR CAPS<- or tfv0@lehigh.edu Student Konsultant Making the world safe for computing! Pages including this page: 1 ----- ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 93 22:48:30 GMT From: Tom Zych Subject: Moon Base Newsgroups: sci.space In article <24582@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes: >I like the idea of building an aluminum/oxygen extraction facility on the >moon. This could provide for relatively inexpensive support for other >projects. The aluminum could be used for structures, and the oxygen for life >support, on the moon or in Earth orbit. The Earth-moon transfer vehicle >could be fueled with oxygen and molten aluminum. Al-O batteries could >provide power away from the main perated solar cell facility? Would it be possible to extract reasonably pure silicon from the lunar crust? If so, all the solar cells for a powersat could be made on the moon and shipped to geosynchronous orbit. Given that much volume, it would be a lot cheaper than making them on Earth. BTW, is "Clarke orbit" a synonym for "geosynchronous orbit"? (I'm guessing this because comsats were Clarke's idea, and that's where they go). Is this a FAQ? It isn't in the list. -- Tom Zych tbz1823@hertz.njit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 18:28:34 GMT From: Jay Thomas Subject: Moon vs. asteroids, Mars, comets Newsgroups: sci.space As jhart@agora.rain.com said: > Wherever we go, though, we have to miniaturize and automate big-time. > Does anybody expect any organization, government or commercial, is > willing to shell out in the $10's of billions for any of this stuff? > Get real. We're talking $5 billion or less, maybe even <$1 billion, to > bring back some good paydirt or forget it. The whole ball of wax > has to fit into two or three rocket payloads or forget it. Since this > is aways off in the future, might as well bring advanced biotech, or > early nanotech, into the picture and have fun. If we insist > on government research that's where it should be at, in the > big-payoff technology that makes the big breakthroughs in > automation, miniaturization, etc. That kind of tech is > not as far off as you might think, and it looks like we'll need > it to make this stuff economical. Also we'll get a lot > more "spinoffs" with big-breakthrough generic technology > (ie technology at a basic engineering level that applies to > many kinds of industries) then we will making the nth tiny > improvement in rocket technology, the nth spacesuit, > and other stuff special to space while more U.S. Earth-relevant > high tech moves to Asia, and your job, and any hope of a cheap > ride into space with it. > > jhart@agora.rain.com The problem is not as bleak as it sounds. The Space Studies Institute has done lots of research into it. From this we've drawn the following conclusions: A. The moon is where you start. Though it has no volatiles, it has a tremendous wealth of metals and oxygen. The astroids also have this but they aren't close enough for teleoperations. In early mining financed by private companies, people aren't going to be able to afford the costs of sending a full blown crew to the moon or to NEAs. Instead, it makes more sence to send up teleoperated equipement first and have it payback before you even go to manned mining. Plus SSI has demonstrated (see our display at the Franklin Institute in NJ) that you CAN to teleoperations at lunar distances. B. You really can't start full scale mining. At first you need to think small. In an early return to the moon workgroup we sponsered, we found that you start with creative ways to get profit. Our plan had a first flight to cost 200 million dollars and deliver 6 teleoperated rovers, and materials processing equipement. The rovers would have a race which would return 286 million dollars profit. Thus, you have financial backing for 'wilder' ventures.' Next, you'd have your rovers benefict some materials and send another flight with an iron coin and glass object processer. The customer: Earth. Sold four $500/ carat and including an adequate supply of materials to experiment with, 1.5 tons would be returned to earth and sold for 750 million dollars. Now you're in the big time. Next a larger rocket to be fueled with lunar oxygen minned in the previous trip is launched. Though by the second trip the value of the materials goes down, you still make multibilllion dollars profit. C. Big time. Once you're in the big time you still have to be creative. At SSI we have tested minature mass drivers with accelerations up to 1800 Gravities in 1986. Now we are proceding with mass catchers. This means that you launch 100 times your mass driver weight (as little as 5-10 T) to L2 each year. Also, we have shown on a benchtop scale that you can use th HF-leach extraction technique to extract up to many your plant weight a year. This translates into up to 7-10X metal 7-10 X silicon and 14-20X oxygen. All with one plant co-extracting. Thus you build up to 95% of your plant expansion materials and _duplication_ materials. Thus the plant can replicate 2-4-8-16-32... Once every 2-4 months the plant builds a replicate. In a matter of years, you are processing 100,000 of tons of materials. D. Expansion. After this is done, you've proven technologies and you can afford to send what you need most for a long term astroidal retrevial mission. _people_ In our conference a few weeks ago, Eric Druemler presented a concept for a long range astroidal retrevial mission using mass drivers. Using a 5000 T 15GW mass driver, you can capture a 10 million T astroid in six months. Talk about payback: 1000+ times. But: you can't get into large scale missions like that launched from earth. You need an industrial base and an early source of ETM. That's where the moon comes in. As for comets, the delta V's your talking about put it into the long term. Even if you use large scale mass drivers its a big deal. But: John Lewis from Spacewatch delivered a paper on 'baked alaskas' at our conference. Up to 50% of the NEA are really boiled off comet cores. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 07:32:15 GMT From: Robin Kenny Subject: New DC-X GIF Newsgroups: sci.space Chris W. Johnson (chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu) wrote: : ..., the new images are as follows: : pub/delta-clipper/images: : dcx-static-test-rig.gif : dcx-rollout.gif : dcx-rollout.jpg : ...and they're located on bongo.cc.utexas.edu (128.83.186.13) as usual. : Chris W. Johnson : Internet: chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu : UUCP: {husc6|uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!chrisj : ...wishing the Delta Clipper team success in the upcoming DC-X flight tests. Some of the *.gif files can't be displayed. All were ftp'd in binary mode and some are OK (a very classy looking craft!) Have all gif's been checked for format? Also; my newsreader is corrupting the dates of articles - what calender date will DC-X(X1?) fly? Regards, Robin Kenny { A very strong disclaimer about "my opinions and NOT my employer's" is inserted here. Only N days to DC-X first flight!} ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 93 13:05:38 EDT From: Robert Coe Subject: Privatizing scientific terminology Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes: > Perhaps we could get corporations to sponsor the adopted names of classes > of objects. Thus we'd have McHalos sponsored by McDonalds, the Burger King > Quark instead of bottom, etc etc... > > Any other suggestions??? The electron ("Brought to you by your local electric company") would seem to be a natural. Perhaps the makers of Nutrisystem (I think it's a weight loss plan) would sponsor the neutrino ("Little or no rest mass..."). ___ _ - Bob /__) _ / / ) _ _ (_/__) (_)_(_) (___(_)_(/_______________________________________ bob@1776.COM Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776 ** 508-443-3265 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 18:32:19 GMT From: Jay Thomas Subject: Seeding Mars with "Mars box" life Newsgroups: sci.space In article <4488@uswnvg.uswnvg.com>, djwilli@uswnvg.com (Dan Williams) wrote: > > Robert Casey (wa2ise@netcom.com) wrote: > : Before you seed life on Mars or elsewhere, be sure there is no natural > : living or fossil life there. Or else you'll trash an opportunity to > : study it and expand biological science. And that probably requires a > : > I think the original poster proposed to seed a "Mars box" as an experiment in > exploring the possibility of seeding Mars, or any other planet. The main > idea is to explore possibilities. > > Accidently seeding a planet is not what we want to do anyway. We will want > to taylor organisms for specific results. Then we can get this terraforming > science time lag down to a few centuries, rather than the current time lag in > the millions of years. :-) > > : through inspection of Mars, by robot or man. In all sorts of different > : enviroments there. Probably take a century of work. By the time you > : get done, you will probably contaminate Mars accidently with Earth life > : anyway. > : > This is an admirable goal, but in the current climate for space expenditure > it will not happen. > > On the other hand if someone could prove life was possible in a Mars box > here on Earth, it might drive intrest for new inspection flights to run > more tests or return samples. But any experiments on Mars will always have > the possibility to contaminate the Mars biosphere. Since Viking at least, > there is the chance we have already seeded the planet despite our efforts > not to. What about the Russians. They launched all those Mars 1,2,3,4,... and lost track of them without sterilizations (they thought vaccum did it) Mars 3 (supposedly) was even supposed to have landed at tumbled over. ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 1993 20:49:22 GMT From: "David B. Lapadula" Subject: Space Raffles? Newsgroups: sci.space I think I recall reading/hearing about some sort of Soviet venture where they tried to sell raffle tickets, with the lucky winner getting to go to MIR, or something like that. I recall that it was done w/a US partner. Did the whole thing turn out to be a sham? Misunderstanding between the Soviets (Russians?) and the US partners? Or what? Anyone know more about it? .. and I wonder if such a thing has been considered for any other space programs, as a way of helping to subsidize costs? Dave Lapadula ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 19:57:59 GMT From: Mary Shafer Subject: The crew is toast Newsgroups: sci.space On Thu, 27 May 1993 14:42:51 GMT, pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron) said: Dillon> I also remember that the first B-1B to go down killed a Rockwell Dillon> tech who was riding in the (non-ejecting)jump seat. The only thing you got right about this was the company the dead person worked for. You were probably misled by the fact that the first B-1B was a reworked B-1A, so it had the capsule rather than ejection seats. The cockpit capsule did separate itself from the B-1B but not all of the airbags deployed, so the capsule landed really hard. The pilot, Doug Benefield, a Rockwell test pilot, was killed by the impact (head wounds, as I recall, plus other injuries). The co-pilot, Major Frank Reynolds, a USAF test pilot, received back injuries (he did return to flight status about a year later, by the way). The flight test enginer, whose name I absolutely cannot remember, a USAF FTE, received head injuries (he didn't return to flight status). As I recall, Benefield was wearing his helmet but it wasn't fastened and the FTE wasn't wearing his helmet at all, but I may have reversed these two. Reynolds had his helmet on and fastened. I believe that the AIB thought that having their helmets on and fastened would have prevented the head injuries. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 15:30:50 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: The crew is toast Newsgroups: sci.space In <1u2rpp$384@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >I suppose, the STS crew compartment could be arranged with a >drogue chute for not a lot of penalty, slow down witht he drogue >to appx 100 mph and then the crew bail out individually, >or count on toughing out the impact and un-ass the sinking >vehicle at high speed. But not my idea of fun. Not my idea of workable, either. First, the mass penalty for the separation mechanism (which has to break the cabin and chute *cleanly* from the rest of the vehicle under very bad conditions) is large, as is the penalty for the chute itself (to slow down that much mass). Second, you would have to build a fair quantity of armed explosives into the structure of the Shuttle (we do this with warplanes sometimes, but I'm not sure I'd want to do it with a non-military vehicle). Third, consider terminal speed of a falling human body is only about 125 MPH. Would you be willing to 'tough out' a bailout from an aircraft without a chute? I wouldn't -- yet you're talking about 'landing' (crashing) your escape capsule at almost that high a speed. The 'separate and then bail out' scenario seems to complex and timing dependent. You've added all that extra mass for your escape system and you've really not added any safety (or perhaps made things somewhat less safe). >I think early WW2 fighters, counted on ditching and then swimming >for it, but i dounbt it was considered survivable. any one know? Hmmm, I couldn't say for sure, but I thought everybody was using parachutes by WW2. What you describe sounds more like WW1 to me, and it wasn't really 'ditching' because you could hardly count on your fighter going down over water, after all. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 23:56:16 GMT From: Jeff Swanson Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu writes: >Other Wolfe books I'd recommend: > _Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers_ > _The Painted Word_ >You might also try _In Our Time_, a book of Wolfe's own drawings, which >are great. Ah, but you've totally missed one of Wolfe's ABSOLUTE classics -- The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. In this one, he really goes off on the onomotapoeia, and tends to really blow the doors off the concept of "structure". Granted, some of it's sort of dumb, but his style snaps things into clarity with a force that few other writers have. --Jeff ***>jswan@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 18:04:06 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin" Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space Well, Pat's reply to this appears to have either expired or been cancelled, so I guess I'll have to follow up on my own note with just a few basic points for Pat. In <1993May24.142733.14684@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >In <1tlcaa$5d8@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >>In article <1993May21.153330.538@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >>> >>>Uh, don't look now, but we sure seem to do a lot of business selling >>>weapons systems to other countries. You might also want to examine >>>the trade deficit with regard to Europe. You'll find we sell them a >>>lot more than they sell us and that part of what we sell them is >>>things like F-16 fighters, radar sets, etc. >>> >>Of course, The net contribution to the US GDP by foreign weapons >>sales is kind of poor. >Well, the net contribution of any single item is kind of poor. In point of fact, I finally got around to looking it up this morning at home. Weapons (primarily aircraft) account for 4+% of all U.S. exports. More than 2/3 of those are purchased (i.e., not military assistance grants). Now, 2%-3% of total U.S. exports might not mean much to Pat, but as far as I'm concerned it's enough billions of dollars to matter. You're not related to Everett Dirkson, are you, Pat? -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 93 17:29:23 EST From: MAILRP%ESA.BITNET@vm.gmd.de Press Release Nr. 25-93 Paris, 18 May 1993 EURECA, the European retrievable carrier ready to be brought back to Earth After 10 busy months in orbit at an altitude of about 500 km, the European Space Agency's Eureca satellite will be retrieved from Space by NASA's Space Shuttle Endeavour, on the fourth day of the STS-57 mission currently scheduled for launch on 3 June 1993 (provisional launch window 2217h -2330h GMT = 0017h -0130h Paris time on 4 June). Physical contact between Endeavour's remote manipulator system (the robot arm in the Shuttle's cargo bay) and Eureca is planned to occur at 2324h GMT on 6 June (= 0124h Paris time on 7 June). ESA's Space Operation Centre (ESOC) in Darmstadt, Germany, has full responsibility for the control and operation of Eureca, and is currently preparing for a series of orbital manoeuvres that will adjust Eureca's altitude and orbital phase to Endeavour's planned orbit. These manoeuvres are a prerequisite for the Shuttle's final approach : grappling of Eureca by its robot arm, its berthing in Endeavour's cargo bay and subsequent safe return to Earth. The final and decisive hours of these delicate and exciting flight operations of the STS-57 mission can be followed at the European Press Centre that will be set up in ESOC for the duration of the retrieval operations. In the night of 6 to 7 June 1993, experts from ESA's Operations Control Centre will present the highlights of the Eureca mission and the details of the rendez-vous operations. Live images from Space will allow the audience to watch Endeavour as it approaches, grapples and stows Eureca in the cargo bay. At the end of the retrieval activities, a press conference with the Flight Operations Director, the Project Manager and the Project Scientist will conclude the night's programme. The Presss Centre at ESOC will be open from 2230h on 6 June. The official programme will start at 2330h and will end at 0230h on 7 June. Media intending to follow the event are kindly requested to fill in and return the attached form to the ESOC Public Relations Office, preferably by fax (Nr. +49 6151- 90 2961). --- Note to Editors Eureca was launched on 31 July 1992 by Space Shuttle Atlantis and released into Space on 2 August by ESA astronaut Claude Nicollier operating the Shuttle's remote manipulator system. Eureca is the largest spacecraft ever built and flown by ESA, weighing 4500 kg and measuring 20 m across, and is the first to be returned to Earth for sample access and potential re-flight. Eureca's 1000 kg multidisciplinary payload consists of 15 different active experiment facilities and three passive 'add-ons'. This ensemble made it possible to carry out successfully 71 individual experiments serving 31 scientists and researchers - the Principal Investigators - from 29 institutes in eight ESA member countries. The research undertaken using the Eureca payload ranges from exobiology to crystal growth, material processing, particle collection, surface physics, technology applications and scientific observation of the Earth's atmosphere, of the Sun and of celestial X-ray sources.   ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 641 ------------------------------