Space Digest Thu, 29 Jul 93 Volume 16 : Issue 937 Today's Topics: DC-X Prophets and associated problems (3 msgs) Found your own dark-sky nation? Gagarin: date of death? GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB) (2 msgs) Hubble solar arrays: how'd they foul up? Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here! Making Orbit proceedings Space Calendar - 07/28/93 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: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 15:30:57 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems Newsgroups: sci.space In <22oloj$43k@voyager.gem.valpo.edu> mjensen@gem.valpo.edu (Michael C. Jensen) writes: >Phil G. Fraering (pgf@srl06.cacs.usl.edu) wrote: >: Hmm.... the B-1B still flies more regularly. Perhaps it only looks >: more like a failure to you because its dedicated mission is nuclear >: retaliation and we haven't had a reason to show it off yet... >There are a few more B-1B's than there are orbiters. The limit of >eight flights per year is due to the low number of available >vehicles. Give NASA another four orbiters, and they'd probably be able >to fly around 16 flights a year. How many billions of dollars are you going to spend on the necessary extra facilities to sustain that flight rate and how much are you going to expand the standing army (and at what cost)? -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 15:39:26 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems Newsgroups: sci.space In <230ifc$enm@voyager.gem.valpo.edu> mjensen@gem.valpo.edu (Michael C. Jensen) writes: > [re: astronauts reluctance to fly without controls] >: The answer to that is quite simple. If he don't like it, he ain't >: gettin' hired on my spaceline. After cooling his heels on the ground >: in the unemployment queue for awhile, I'm sure he'll see the light. >: The DC/X is being "flown" by Pete Conrad. He clicks a mouse on a >: Macitosh screen to change pre-programmed flight modes. One click >: sends it into the abort sequence. He states that like it or not, THAT >: is the way of the future. The stick and rudder has seen it's day. Sad >: (I fly now and then myself, more then than now) but true. >: So saith Pete.-- >Only one small problem with these beleifs about "anybody" just flying >the missions.. I'd like to see the company willing to just loft a non-pilot >type in their launch vehicle. (At least until it's flown a good number of >times.) These vehicles cost LOTS of money, and they want the best to fly them >generally. Now maybe, just mabye, MD has decided their ship is so reliable >that even an idiot can fly it, or perhaps it doesn't need a "crew" at all >and they can just install bucket seats and give anybody rides on it, but >somehow I doubt it. It doesn't need crew at all. Believe it. -- "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, 28 Jul 1993 15:46:45 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems Newsgroups: sci.space In <231b5s$gj8@voyager.gem.valpo.edu> mjensen@gem.valpo.edu (Michael C. Jensen) writes: >Doug Mouser (mouser1@llnl.gov) wrote: >: Brilliant condems or "Great Explorations"...LLNL's plan for an inflatable >: space >: station and a maned mars mission. Effectivaly kill by NASA's turf fighting >: and >: politics. >: Doug >: PS. The plan called for a maned mars mission in seven years, for 40 >: billion! >..and you blame NASA for that? $40Bil is a LOT of money.. (why not >compare that to the yearly budget of NASA for instance..) it's >important to note also that a significant portion of NASA's budget >is spent on non-space related research and development.. (the first >A in NASA stands for Aeronautics.. and NASA does a LOT of aeronatical >research..) I don't see where this is NASA's fault, unless you think >that if NASA was eliminated, all of it's funds would go to that projects, >which in it's own way is far fetched.. I'll admit I know little >(more like nothing) about this set of inflaables.. but I strongly doubt >it's all the big bad NASA's fault that it isn't being flown/developed.. Let me see here. A plan that for $40 billion gives us a station and a manned Mars mission within 7 years, as opposed to a plan that spends $25 billion and ten years for a station, leaving $15 billion and -3 years to produce a manned Mars mission. Which one of those sounds like a more expensive plan to you? [To be fair, the NASA plan manages risk better. This is a Big Deal when it comes to playing the games in Washington.] -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 1993 11:54:33 -0400 From: Robert Bunge Subject: Found your own dark-sky nation? Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.geo.geology,sci.space In article <1993Jul27.230808.9314@sfu.ca> Leigh Palmer writes: >In article <233ni7$roi@access.digex.net> Robert Bunge, rbunge@access.digex.net >writes: >>So was using a 6-inch f/5 reflector from a ship on the equator >>in the middle of the Indian Ocean (during the winter). > >OK, Bob, let us in on how one defines winter on the equator. Opps! There's nothing like a case of northern hemisphere bais! By that, I mean in the Indian Ocean, near the equator, in the Oct - Jan time frame. This is sort of important because during other months, some sections of the IO become very humid and suffer from dust being blown off the Arabian pensulia... very bad for transparency! > >Leigh Bob Bunge ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 93 16:34:22 GMT From: Krystina Hill Subject: Gagarin: date of death? Newsgroups: sci.space Apologies for intruding; but this is the most apt group, I have been told, for the following question: Does anyone know the date (yr/mn/day) of Yuri Gagarin's death? E-mail would be best, to save bandwidth. Many thanks in advance, K. Hill UK. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 15:11:36 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB) Newsgroups: sci.space In <22jnuo$ptg@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >In article <1993Jul21.120334.12692@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >>In <22fid4$l24@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >> >>>It is possible to Take advantage of cheap soviet flights, >>>without sacrificing US capabilities. >> >>Thus even further raising the cost of things. After all, if you also >>maintain that U.S. capability, where are the 'savings' coming from? >>If you are buying your actual operational capability from overseas, >>where is the incentive to maintain and develop your own capability? >> >Fred, it costs us on average, 500 Million per shuttle >flight. if we can pass these costs onto the soviets, we >can then use the shuttle flights ofr other programmed >activities. it's called re-programming and juggling >money. Lot's of Missions are stalled awaiting shuttle missions, >they are already authorized and funded, you move those up >into the near term. What makes you think the Soviets are going to pay us $500 million for the privilege of flying our missions for us? This seems to be what you are arguing here ("pass these costs onto the soviets"). Pat, you are talking about flying the same number of Shuttle missions (but with different cargos), flying *more* missions for SSF (higher inclination means less payload) and/or paying some significant dollars for Shuttle improvements, increasing the cost of the Station (that more challenging environment that you tried to use as an excuse for a high-inclination orbit -- the "do it the hard way" rationale), *and* trying to make it sound like it all saves money? Pat, look at what you're saying in various articles here. You want to put SSF at a higher inclination orbit so that we can use Russian launchers so as to move stuff off the Shuttle to make room for other payloads that are currently flying on European and Russian launchers. In other words, the net effect of what you propose is that we spend more money (total), build the station in a more inconvenient orbit for us, put the station in a more difficult environment to build and work in, and shuffle some payloads around (SSF off Shuttle to expendables, other things off those same expendables onto Shuttle) for no net gain otherwise. Pat, review the sum total of what you've argued on this issue and get back to me once you decide just what your position is. >Don't confuse cash flow expeniditure for savings. the government >works on a multi year basis. Since when? >>>If we swap to a high inclination orbit, it means we can >>>swap some of the construction flights to the soviets, while >>>flying other shuttle dependent missions, like SIRTF or >>>KH-12 repairs, or LDEF 2-3 (Not that it's programmed). >> >>But this is a different argument. First you have to get funding for >>those missions, otherwise your domestic hardware just sort of goes >>away. Putting the whole bill for supporting that domestic capability >>on fewer programs makes those programs more expensive due to the fixed >>costs of maintaining your own capability. Besides which, why wouldn't >>all those other things simply go with foreign hardware as well, >>killing the American launch industry? >> >Well, if things are strictly going to be done on a cash cost >basis, why aren't those programs being aimed at russian hardware now? Because we have all these technology transfer rules. You open up Russian launchers by officially putting NASA payloads on them and do you seriously think that a lot of those payloads *aren't* going to move (unless they need the lower inclination orbits)? >why don't we see missions bailing off the STS for protons as we >speak. the use of russian hardware or non use of russian >hardware does not mandate the activities of other programs. It doesn't mandate them, but ignoring the fallout effects is disingenuous, at best. >in fact, the use of STS for SSF construction and logistics, would >most likely push science missions onto russian hardware. >any slips and delays on SSF will have serious ripples into >the science manifest. and they are much more able to move >onto other vehicles. >and you forget, most of these missions are funded already. Then they are flying already. >>>Besides, given the high probablity of a SHuttle Loss and >>>Fleet shut-down, would you not want to be able to continue >>>Logistics flights from somewhere? >> >>Yes, but the last time I checked Russia didn't have the only >>alternative launch sites on the planet. >> >So do you think construction could take place off of Ariane 4? >or that Ariane has the reserve capacity to run logistics for SSF? >Please cite your alternative launch complex. Please cite yours. >>>If we take Hurricane LeRoY, and it seriously screws up >>>KSC for a couple months, it would be very useful to have >>>an alternate launch site open. >> >Please name some alternate launch sites other then KSC. Feel free. Right now, *NO* sites have the proven capability. Hell, reopen Vandenburg. No matter how many you have, you can always postulate a reason why none of them would be available, Pat. What are the odds? What kind of hurricane would it take to make KSC totally unusable? What if you go to high inclination, the Russians have a revolution, and your improvements to the Shuttle got their funding cut? Then you're not talking a matter of months. You're talking not being able to get the big loads up there *at all*. >>>A high Inclination orbit, does not require we actually >>>buy any russian flight services. it merely makes it possible. >> >>And adds a minimum of $400 million in extra costs. >> >Are you seriously worried about half a billion dollars in DDTE >on a $ 80 Billion dollar station project? You must be joking. You should run for Congress. This 'money is not important' attitude is why we have the mess we have. >Besides, you seem to be advocating capital costs in enhancing KSC >or other launch complexes. you suggest that very thing >just a few paragraphs later. True. But so what? You're talking about justifying spending *specifically* to allow the higher inclination orbit. >>>|>2) Improved Earth Observation Missions. >> >>>What can I say. THis is the one I hear a lot about. 51 degrees, >>>just about doubles the earth observations science. >> >>But does it double it in a way we care about? I don't think we can >>just measure the percentage of the Earth's surface we can see at each >>inclination and claim 'double the science'. >> >I have no idea on this one. Does anyone from planetary sciences know better? >>>>>3) Improved Logistics Flow missions. >> >>>KSC can only process N flights per year. Vandenburg does not >>>launch to 28 degrees. Let's say SSF desperately needs a >>>smoke shifter, a rapid launch from Pletkesk (sp) or baikonur >>>is possible. It certainly is not from KSC. I doubt KSC could push >>>a critical launch through in less then 30 days. >> >>But do you have a requirement for that kind of logistics flow? If so, >>is it better to make your own capability or spend extra money to >>launch to a high-inclination orbit, thereby making things more >>difficult for yourself so that launches from elsewhere are feasible? >> >well, let's look at Skylab. moments after launch they discovered >they needed one solar array and some thermal barriers. >luckily they were able to package that onto the SKylab I flight. >or look at the Mir. Just a few months ago, they lost a handle, >and they are stuck waiting for a progress flight to bring it up. >now if this was a more critical item, it could get very uncomfortable >waiting for the re-supply mission. >well as for wether it's better done by imrpoving us capacity, >please tell me how we avoid a single point catastrophe at KSC >and are you volunteering to Build another SPaceport in the US? >and wouldn't said new spaceport be at a higher Inclination? Please tell me how you avoid such a failure if you structure things so that you need the Russians. >>>If you are going to do some serious materials processing in Orbit, >>>you want to get re-supply missions often. That means either some >>>real big improvements at KSC and risk of single point failure, or >>>the option to do launches out of several space-ports. >> >>Sounds more like an argument for more American capability rather than >>an argument for a high-inclination orbit, per se. >> >Please venture how much money these improvements would cost. You're going to have to make them anyway, and I'd frankly prefer to spend the money to put in improvements over here where we control them rather than give it to the Russians and just hope like hell that they don't have another revolution. >> >>>You learn more about working to solve hard problems then easy problems. >>>High Inclination acts as a driver towards STS getting the AL-LI >>>ET and the ASRM, really not bad ideas in my book. >>>High Inclination, means they work on radiation resistant systems. >>>a interesting engineering problem. >> >>Doing something the hard way for no other reason than that it *is* the >>hard way is just plain silly, Pat. I'm also unconvinced about the >>utility of pouring money into Shuttle just so that we can do things >>the hard way. You seem to be running your logic backwards here. If >>those things are good ideas, inventing a program so as to deliberately >>justify them is unnecessary. If they are otherwise not sufficiently >>good ideas, it seems rather stupid (as well as dishonest) to 'bend' >>the program in such a way as to try to create justification for them. >> >My neighbor has on old saying. >the hard way is the easy way" You are just playing logic games. **I** am just playing logic games? BWWAAAAAAAHHAAAAhhaaaaaahhaaa! >NASA at this point in time developes nothing without a mission >to support it. ASRM and AL-LI tanks need a mission. that is the >nature of the agency. >a >look at all the science platforms. they were used to justify >shuttle, the shuttle got built on the basis that it would >support hundreds of science activities. No, they develop nothing without a reason for it (we hope). This is somewhat different than creating a mission so that you can spend some money to make improvements to the launch vehicle. If they are using your logic (and I don't think they are), I would suggest criminal charges be lodged. >> >>>>>5) Apparently ACRV return is simplified( This is what i was told, >>>>> I can't see an intuitive reason why this is). >> >Still a good reason for a high inclination orbit. >> >>No, it's a problem with 'horizon'. We see a lot of that from folks >>advocating the use of Russian hardware, too. >> >Horizon is a difficult guess. it's a fuzzy thing to >say what's right and what's wrong. So of course you advocate not looking at all. >Canals were the great technical operation of the 1700's. >and they were obsoleted by Rail Roads. would you have advocated >continued canal developement, because of the R&D issues >involved and the need to keep up american canal building >capacity. and railroads died to road travel. and trucks >to airlines. Actually, yes, I would have. You will note that we now spend orders of magnitude more to move things than we would have had to spend if we sent them by train, or even by barge. And in case you are unaware, ever hear of the InterCoastal Waterway? Big canal project. Out there were you live. Works good. Saves lots of money. Yep, we should have flushed canals and not built it. Send all the stuff via China on clippers or something, instead. Panama CANAL. Yep, another one of those obsolete canals. We should just put that stuff on airplanes. >Horizons are funny things. Indeed they are, particularly when they are ignored. >> >>>WOuld they be healthier if they were pouring money into >>>large IC Fabrication plants every year? DEC can't afford more then >>>one large design project at a time, do you think they could do more >>>after pouring money into a DRAM plant? >> >>DRAM is easy. That's why foreign countries that want an SC business >>start there. >> >And if it's so easy, why don't IBM and DEC and Intel and AMD >still make them? only your employers are still at it, and I >think they get some money from the feds to keep at it. Because it's cheaper to buy the dumped chips from the startups, Pat. Take a look at the industry. Japan dumped DRAM all over the world to get their startup FABs going, then they started transitioning to ASIC just as Korea was trying to get started and began dumping DRAM all over the place. There is more money in ASIC -- higher profit margin and all that, but they're harder to do. That's why everybody starts with DRAM. And I believe you're mistaken. So far as I know, we're not getting "money from the feds to keep at" memory manufacture -- but I don't do SC, so you can take that for whatever it's worth. >>>And IBM used to do everything in-house, and it left them technologically >>>adrift come the 80's. They had drifted so far from the main-stream >>>they had no products to sell to the other electronics firms. >> >>No, what left them 'adrift' was cutbacks in research. >> >I think all those people who won nobel prizes in the 80's from >IBM Research will dispute your thesis. Have you talked to any of the research people at IBM lately? >IBM has spent twice as much on research as any of their competitors. >it was because they ahd to conduct reserarch in all areas. >IBM failed because they lost touch with the market. No, they failed because they thought they could *control* the market. And they could, for a while. I think Microsoft is going to learn that same lesson over the next several years. >>>The only way they could develope a PC, was to buy entirely from >>>outside sources. >> >>No, that's the only way they *wanted* to develop a PC, since it wasn't >>seen as a real big market at the time. Your version strikes me as >>slightly revisionist history. >Depends on how you look at it. ESD had i believe one year and 8 >million dollars to crank out a box. that meant they couldn't >have a 2,000 person developement team writing software, building hardware >and debugging a production plant. >IBM built other desktop machines at the same time as the PC. >the IBM 3000 workstation, the DATAMASTER (predecessor) the >Displaywriter. but these all cost so much to build, that they >were un-competitive on the market. >they wanted to make a market competitive product. that meant >a low cost out sourced developement effort. just like the fiero. No, they just didn't want to spend very much money on it. They didn't think the market was that big, just like T.J. Watson didn't think the computer market was that big (I think he said there was a market for TWO). -- "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, 28 Jul 1993 15:20:39 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB) Newsgroups: sci.space In <22mo82INNkl3@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes: >However, to give Fred a little flame :-), $400 million in resulting performance >improvements between the Al-Li tank and ASRM isn't a bad envestment no matter >what orbit we end up in. Perhaps, but let's justify it on the basis of need, not create a mission as justification. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 15:24:35 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Hubble solar arrays: how'd they foul up? Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993Jul21.223929.15756@sfu.ca> Leigh Palmer writes: >In article <22kejf$ogn@access.digex.net> Pat, prb@access.digex.net writes: >>What i was wondering is how could this kind of design flaw >>sneak past any sort of reasonable test procedure? >Good grief, man. How can you ask such a question, even >rhetorically, when the most conspicuous related example >of our time is the mirror on the same spacecraft? >The answer to your question is, no doubt, the same. >There was not a reasonable test procedure in place, or >if there was, some committee decided not to believe its >negative results, which amounts to the same thing. Oh come now! The two pieces weren't even done in the same *country*. Do YOU have a clever way to simulate sufficiently long periods of zero-g so as to test for such a resonance mode? I can't think of any good ones. All in-gravity tests are going to require some damping of motion, either because of the effects of gravity itself on the parts or because the test article has to be suspended *somehow*. Ever build anything real? If so, you would know the impracticality (and impossibility) of 100% testing of *any* complex system. -- "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, 28 Jul 1993 15:15:12 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here! Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jul25.181743.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >Anyone have sites for getting the info on old tech, low tech that was passed >over for the current high tech stuff.. > >Reason for uestion: Maybe a way to get commericialization and private use of >space is to take a few steps back from the current high tech ways, and use low >tech ways to get companies started and people into space.. As has been >expressed by the Challenger accident, and the shuttle delays is that high tech, >high complexity launch systems are not reliable enough yet for day to day, >scheduled launches.. When so far most shuttles have had to reschedule for up >to weeks after scheduled launch.. Actually, Shuttle is *old* tech, 1970s vintage. The SRBs can be traced, with little change, back to Chinese fireworks over 3,000 years old. Like much old tech, such as vacuum tube computers, it takes constant maintenance to maintain readiness. Newer technology is, in general, more reliable than old as we've learned better ways of doing things. The microprocessor in your computer is expected to last for 20 years without constant swarms of technicians pushing tube testers down it's rows of racks. That despite it's higher performance and higher tech. Big dumb vehicles like Saturn were horrifingly expensive, $500 million per launch and you threw away the vehicle after one use. Shuttle was an early first cut at using newer designs to reduce costs by salvaging the expensive bits thrown away in expendibles. At present flight rates, it still costs $500 million a flight, though flights can accomplish more due to the large crew volume and cargo bay available. Still, it's Rube Goldberg complexity is a function of older technology piled in layers to accomplish the task. To keep all those baroque bits working takes swarms of technicians. In the 20 years since Shuttle's design was frozen, we've developed new materials and new methods that can simplify a launcher by replacing many baroque bits with a few new improved bits with better performance and better reliability. For example, one of the main concerns about the SSME is the reliability of the turbopumps. We now know how to make much better turbopumps than we did in 1970, thanks in part to the experience we gained with Shuttle. We know how to make one piece SRBs, or even liquid fueled alteratives with fly back capability as was orignially intended. We know how to make ligher stronger ETs. ETC. Another area is thermal protection. Shuttle uses thousands of small tiles glued to the craft. We've now developed large flexible blankets with as good a protection without the high labor cost of installing and inspecting the crazy jigsaw puzzle of tiny tiles. Even better, we have spray on coatings that can do the same job. Shuttle is fragile because it was ahead of it's time. It demanded things that were hard with 1970s tech. AND IT WAS FROZEN IN PLACE. Many of those things are now easier. Rather than retreat to even older lower tech solutions, we should press forward to develop even better new high tech that simplifies designs and increases reliability. If DC succeeds, it will be an example of higher tech, not lower tech than Shuttle. It still uses many bits though, a single engine has fewer failure opportunities than multiple engines. Redundancy can sometimes add safety, but at the cost of increased complexity and loss of performance. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 93 13:09:30 EDT From: Jerry Davis Subject: Making Orbit proceedings Hi all. Has anyone received the proceedings from the Making Orbit Conference? I didn't attend, but ordered them from someone on the net who offered to send extra copies for a nominal fee. Alas, I haven't heard anything since. I have lost the ordering information so can't contact them directly. Anyone know what's up? Thanks. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 1993 15:45 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Space Calendar - 07/28/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary,sci.space.shuttle The Space Calendar is updated monthly and the latest copy is available at ames.arc.nasa.gov in the /pub/SPACE/FAQ. Please send any updates or corrections to Ron Baalke (baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov). Note that launch dates are subject to change. The following people have made contributions to this month's calendar: o David Ward - ETS-VI launch is now February 1994. TOMS launch is now May 1994. o Nick Moriarty - IRS-1E India launch is August 1993 o Mike Kenny - OREX launch is January 1994 Feng Yun 2A launch is February 23, 1994 o Paul Schlyter - The maximum for the August 12 Perseid meteor shower is expected to be more interesting at 1h UT. ========================= SPACE CALENDAR July 28, 1993 ========================= * indicates change from last month's calendar July 1993 Jul 28 - S. Delta Aquarid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 19:00 UT, Solar Longitude 125.7 degrees) Jul 29 - NASA's 35th Birthday * Jul 29 - First Test Flight of the Delta Clipper (DC-X), Unmanned * Jul 30 - Safir Zenit Launch (Germany) August 1993 Aug ?? - GEOS-J Launch Aug ?? - ORBCOM FDM Pegasus Launch Aug ?? - Commercial Experiment Transporter (COMET) Conestoga Launch * Aug ?? - IRS-1E PSLV-D1 Launch (India) * Aug 04 - STS-51, Discovery, Advanced Communications Technology Satellite * Aug 05 - Magellan, End of Aerobraking * Aug 07 - NOAA-I Atlas Launch Aug 08 - 15th Anniversary, Pioneer Venus 2 Launch (Atmospheric Probes) Aug 09 - Mars Observer, 4th Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-4) * Aug 09 - Second Test Flight of the Delta Clipper (DC-X), Unmanned * Aug 11 - Galileo, Optical Navigation Image #3 * Aug 11 - Landsat 6 Titan 2 Launch Aug 12 - N. Delta Aquarids Meteor Shower (Maximum: 07:00 UT, Solar Longitude 139.7 degrees) * Aug 12 - Perseid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 1h UT, Solar Longitude 139.9 degrees) Aug 13 - Galileo, Trajectory Correction Maneuver #20 (TCM-20) * Aug 17 - Galileo, Optical Navigation Image #4 * Aug 21 - Galileo, Optical Navigation Image #5 Aug 24 - Mars Observer, Mars Orbit Insertion (MOI) Aug 26 - Galileo, Trajectory Correction Maneuver #21 (TCM-21) Aug 28 - Galileo, Asteroid Ida Flyby (9:52 AM PDT) September 1993 Sep ?? - SPOT-3 Ariane Launch Sep ?? - Tubsat Launch Sep ?? - MSTI-II Scout Launch Sep 02 - GPS Launch * Sep 10 - STS-58, Columbia, Spacelab Life Sciences (SLS-2) Sep 14 - Advanced Photovoltaic Electronics Experiment (APEX) Pegasus Launch Sep 26 - Galileo, End of Ida Data Playback, Part 1 October 1993 Oct ?? - Intelsat 7 F1 Ariane Launch Oct ?? - SLV-1 Pegasus Launch Oct ?? - Telstar 4 Atlas Launch Oct 01 - Seastar Pegasus Launch Oct 05 - Galileo, Trajectory Correction Maneuver #22 (TCM-22) Oct 12 - Soyuz TM-20 Launch (Soviet) Oct 22 - Orionid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 00:00 UT, Solar Longitude 208.4 degrees) Oct 28 - GPS Launch November 1993 Nov ?? - Solidaridad/MOP-3 Ariane Launch Nov ?? - Soyuz TM-17 Landing (Soviet) Nov 03 - 20th Anniversary, Mariner 10 Launch (Mercury & Venus Flyby Mission) Nov 03 - S. Taurid Meteor Shower Nov 04 - Galileo Exits Asteroid Belt Nov 06 - Mercury Transits Across the Sun, Visible from Asia, Australia, and the South Pacific Nov 08 - Mars Observer, Mapping Orbit Established Nov 10 - STS-60, Discovery, SPACEHAB-2 Nov 13 - Partial Solar Eclipse, Visible from Southern Hemisphere Nov 15 - Wilhelm Herschel's 255th Birthday Nov 17 - Leonids Meteor Shower (Maximum: 13:00 UT, Solar Longitude 235.6 degrees) Nov 22 - Mars Observer, Mapping Begins Nov 28-29 - Total Lunar Eclipse, Visible from North America & South America December 1993 Dec ?? - GOES-I Atlas Launch Dec ?? - NATO 4B Delta Launch Dec ?? - DirectTv 1 & Thiacom 1 Ariane Launch Dec ?? - ISTP Wind Delta-2 Launch Dec ?? - STEP-2 Pegasus Launch Dec ?? - Soyuz TM-18 Launch (Soviet) Dec 02 - STS-61, Endeavour, Hubble Space Telescope Repair Dec 04 - SPEKTR-R Launch (Soviet) Dec 04 - 15th Anniversary, Pioneer Venus Orbit Insertion Dec 05 - 20th Anniversary, Pioneer 10 Jupiter Flyby Dec 08 - Mars Observer, Mars Equinox Dec 14 - Geminids Meteor Shower (Maximum: 00:00 UT, Solar Longitude 262.0 degrees) Dec 20 - Mars Observer, Solar Conjunction Begins Dec 23 - Ursids Meteor Shower (Maximum: 01:00 UT, Solar Longitude 270.9 degrees) January 1994 * Jan ?? - DSPSE (Clementine) Titan IIG Launch (Lunar Orbiter, Asteroid Flyby Mission) * Jan ?? - Orbital Re-Entry Experiment (OREX) H-2 Launch (Japan) * Jan ?? - Eutelsat II/Turksat 1 Ariane Launch Jan 03 - Mars Observer, End of Solar Conjunction February 1994 Feb ?? - SFU Launch * Feb ?? - ETS-VI (Engineering Test Satellite) H2 Launch (Japan) * Feb ?? - Intelsat 7 F2 Ariane Launch Feb 05 - 20th Anniversary, Mariner 10 Venus Flyby Feb 08 - STS-62, Columbia, U.S. Microgravity Payload (USMP-2) Feb 15 - Galileo's 430th Birthday Feb 15 - Galileo, Trajectory Correction Maneuver #22A (TCM-22A) Feb 21 - DSPSE (Clementine), Lunar Orbit Insertion * Feb 23 - Feng Yung 2A Launch (China) Feb 25 - 25th Anniversary, Mariner 6 Launch (Mars Flyby Mission) March 1994 Mar ?? - TC-2C Launch * Mar ?? - Solidaridad II Ariane Launch Mar 02 - GPS Launch Mar 05 - 15th Anniversary, Voyager 1 Jupiter flyby Mar 08 - Galileo, Ida Data Playback, Part 2 (3 months) Mar 14 - Albert Einstein's 115th Birthday * Mar 25 - DSPSE (Clementine) Lunar Mapping Orbit Change Mar 27 - 25th Anniversary, Mariner 7 Launch (Mars Flyby Mission) Mar 29 - 20th Anniversary, Mariner 10, 1st Mercury Flyby Mar 31 - Galaxy 1R Delta 2 Launch Mar 31 - STS-59, Endeavour, SRL-1 April 1994 Apr ?? - Equator S Scout Launch Apr ?? - GOES-I Launch * Apr ?? - Telstar 4 Ariane Launch Apr 04 - Mars Observer, Perihelion * Apr 29 - DSPSE (Clementine) Lunar Orbit Change May 1994 May ?? - ISTP Polar Delta-2 Launch May ?? - Soyuz TM-19 Launch (Soviet) May ?? - Helios 1 Launch May ?? - ISO Launch * May ?? - TOMS Pegasus Launch * May ?? - Panamsat 2 Ariane Launch * May 03 - DSPSE (Clementine) Lunar Orbit Departure May 04 - 5th Anniversary, Magellan Launch (Venus Orbiter) May 04 - Mars Observer, Mars Southern Summer May 05 - STS-63, Discovery, SPACEHAB-3 May 10 - Annular Eclipse, Visible from Mexico & USA * May 24-25 - Partial Lunar Eclipse May 29 - Ulysses, Begin of 1st Solar Passage June 1994 Jun ?? - Soyuz TM-18 Landing (Soviet) Jun ?? - RADARSAT Delta-2 Launch (Canada) * Jun ?? - Brasilsat B1/Turksat 2 Ariane Launch Jun 23 - STS-65, Columbia, International Microgravity Lab #2 (IML-2) July 1994 * Jul ?? - NOAA-K Launch * Jul ?? - DirecTV Ariane Launch * Jul 09 - 15th Anniversary, Voyager 2 Jupiter Flyby * Jul 20 - 25th Anniversary, Man on the Moon (Apollo 11) * Jul 23-27 - Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e Collision with Jupiter * Jul 28 - 30th Anniversary, Ranger 7 Launch ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Common sense is not very /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | common. |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 937 ------------------------------