Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 5247;andrew.cmu.edu;Todd L. Masco Received: from glenlyon.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 ; Sat, 2 Sep 89 23:46:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 2 Sep 89 23:46:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BatMail.robin.v2.10.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu.sun3.35 via MS.5.6.glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu.sun3_35; Sat, 2 Sep 89 23:46:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 2 Sep 89 23:46:43 -0400 (EDT) From: "Todd L. Masco" To: +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #619 X-Kibology: Allowed SPACE Digest V9 #619 -------------------- Subject: NASA = US Space Program (Was Re: Circumstances of Koopman's death) Subject: Re: What is the Solar Impact Mission? Subject: Re: Quick and Dirty Won the Race Subject: space news from July 3 AW&ST Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours? Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #582 Subject: ESA news bulletins? Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours? Subject: Re: What is the Solar Impact Missio Subject: HR2674 Subject: Re: Golfball flight Subject: Re: Space: The Final Frontier ------------------------------ From: web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) Subject: NASA = US Space Program (Was Re: Circumstances of Koopman's death) Date: 7 Aug 89 04:33:39 GMT Eric Tilenius once again demonstrates the confusion of NASA with the US space program. In article <9220@pucc.Princeton.EDU>, EWTILENI@pucc (Eric William Tilenius) writes: >In article <8908012158.AA03853@trout.nosc.mil>, jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) writes: >>Here are some of the circumstances of George Koopman's death: >>He is pronounced dead at the scene. I'm not sure what the status >>is of AMROC's lawsuit against NASA after all this. >>Has anyone seen a police report? Did the coroner's report do >>thorough testing for psychoactive substances? >>Basically, I want to see the possibility of foul play eliminated. Eric, compelled to rush to the defense of his beloved NASA, says >But when you try to use his death as another of your propaganda weapons >against NASA, I'm afraid I can't remain silent any longer. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >[diatribe about Bowery, praise of Koopman, and nothing about NASA] >because you're using his death as another attempt to demean the entire >space program of the United States of America. ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No wonder the defense was so swift and emotional. Eric thinks that NASA is the entire space program. He must not have been listening to George Koopman while he was alive. William Baxter ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web ------------------------------ From: dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) Subject: Re: What is the Solar Impact Mission? Date: 7 Aug 89 04:20:52 GMT In article <1989Aug4.024551.18663@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <24.Jul.89.09:32:31.BST.ZZASSGL@UK.AC.MCC.CMS> ZZASSGL@cms.manchester-computing-centre.ac.UK writes: >>OK, What is the "Solar Impact Mission" and why is it so hard to >>hit the Sun? After all we have already had close ups of Mercury. > >I don't particularly remember hearing about this one, but almost certainly >it's a mission to go straight down into the Sun, doing some observations on >the way. The hard part is that to do it, you have to kill *all* Earth's >orbital velocity, which is about 50 km/s. A Saturn V could have dropped a >couple of hundred kg into the Sun, as I recall. The shuttle, forget it, >unless you use in-orbit assembly. A beefed-up Energia with about four >upper stages could probably put a modest probe into the Sun. Advanced >propulsion technologies would really help. > >The Mercury flyby was done with a Venus gravity assist. But Mercury is >still a long way out from the Sun, and the last few million km are the >really hard ones, deep in that monstrous gravitational field. The lowest-energy method to drop a probe into the sun would use a Jupiter fly-by to kill the probes orbital velocity. (Basically you fly-by on the opposite side of Jupiter that the Voyager probes used.) It should be possible to drop many tons of spacecraft into the sun using this method. (Even WITH the shuttle, Henry.) >1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo. | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology >1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu 1969-1989: USA: Five landings on the moon, first space-station, first international manned spaceflight, Voyager, Viking, first reusable space-craft, many other commercial, military and scientific missions too numerous to name. Canada: A robot arm. -- Remember Tiananmen Square. | David Messer dave@Lynx.MN.Org -or- | Lynx Data Systems ...!bungia!viper!dave ------------------------------ From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Quick and Dirty Won the Race Date: 7 Aug 89 04:48:17 GMT In article <1690@uhvax1.uh.edu> CHEEHH@uhvax1.uh.edu (Rikhit Arora) writes: >Is this really true?? Henry, could you compare the payloads that could be >delivered to LEO by the Saturn V and Energiya? (The third stage of the >Saturn V does constitute a legitimate "payload" to LEO!) There is a problem in doing specific comparisons because it's hard to pin down a single number for either booster. The Saturn V's payload rose steadily over its flight history, which is why you run into such a range of numbers on its hypothetical LEO payload. And Energia has flown only twice, in two slightly different configurations, and others could be put together easily. Energia's nominal capacity to LEO is 100 tons at the moment -- i.e., that's what the Soviets would feel confident about signing a contract for -- but Energia is believed to be designed for growth versions with six or even eight strap-ons rather than the four seen so far. The Soviets have talked about being able to launch 200 tons relatively soon, which is definitely a lot more than even the last Saturn Vs could do. -- 1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo. | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from July 3 AW&ST Date: 7 Aug 89 05:30:01 GMT This is the Paris Air Show wrap-up issue, light on space news. NASA reveals plans to do exhaustive photography of LDEF before moving it into the payload bay on the LDEF-retrieval mission, to document the exact surface appearance of everything before exposure to air. Air Force Secretary recommends 70% cut in DoD Aerospace Plane funding, saying that costs are too high and risks too great. He does concede that it will be six months before he can be specific about technical objections [!]. Reports are that his opinion was based on a report from the Rand Corp., his former employer. A 70% cut would effectively kill the project. German-led industrial consortium (with members in US, France, and Italy) beign formed to develop a privately-owned retrievable unmanned space platform called "Amica". ESA is considering turning Eureca, a similar rig developed with ESA money, over to the group. This would provide two vehicles for industrial materials work in the early 1990s. The group is already marketing platform space to NASA, ESA, and the French and Italian space agencies; it will concentrate on government-agency payload sponsors initially, with a gradual shift to commercial customers later. Construction will be financed with payload deposits and bank loans. NASA is a crucial customer; Amica does not want NASA money, but wants to trade payload space for free or cheap shuttle deployment and retrievals. NASA is interested but wary. Eureca is scheduled to fly (for ESA) in mid-1991, and it would then be turned over to the Amica group. Amica itself would fly for six months in 1992, after which the platforms would alternate in doing one six-month mission per year. ESA plans to use most of the second and third Eureca flights but has made no commitment to Amica yet. British astronaut to fly to Mir in 1991. The mission, dubbed "Juno", is now official, with the signing of the contract in Moscow. It will be financed by sponsorship and merchandising (!), sale of payload space, and broadcasting rights. About L16M is needed all told. Two astronaut candidates are being sought; they will start 18 months of training at Star City in November. They will learn Russian as part of this. [I'm surprised at this -- I'd have expected that to be a prerequisite -- but maybe they decided there weren't enough people who could meet it. If I recall correctly, nominal training for a Mir flight is one year, so the Soviets are allowing extra time for it. They may also be charging extra, as L16M is about twice the reported "going rate".] The mission will be 8 days long in spring 1991. The backup candidate will spend the time doing the same experiments on the ground. ESA's Olympus broadcast satellite arrives in Ottawa for checkout before shipment to Kourou. First pictures of the new Soviet SL-16 booster. This is the one whose first stage is also the Energia strap-on. At least 11 have been launched since first flight in 1985, mostly carrying military snoopsats. A new version of the Progress freighter is being developed for SL-16 launch. Capacity to LEO is 30 klbs. [Sounds like Progress II is going to be a whole lot bigger than the current one. SL-16 could well be meant as a Proton replacement in the long run; payload capacity should be similar with a third stage added.] SSME fails during development testing: pump shaft seizes and hydrogen fire results, with heavy damage to the engine. This engine was a ground test unit, but NASA is assessing whether the problem might affect the operational engines. First pictures of Soviet launch activities at Plesetsk; quite good photos, actually. This is novel because Plesetsk is primarily military and was very highly classified until recently. It is the world's busiest launch site, ahead of even Baikonur [nowhere else comes close to either], with over 1200 launches to date. Lockheed to develop threat-warning system for US military satellites, to detect and verify attacks by antisatellite weapons. The initial Satellite On-board Attack Warning System unit, for delivery and launch in 1992, will include detection of microwaves, laser light, and impacts. There have been suspected cases of "interference" with US satellites in the past, although details are classified. A major goal of SOARS is unambiguous determination of whether trouble is an attack or an on-board technical problem. Low-profile attacks like peppering a satellite with projectiles could be mistaken for problems with space debris, for example, and it is considered important that the cause of a satellite failure be known quickly and definitely in a crisis; even a tentative analysis can take months now. SOARS normally gets power and communications through its host satellite, but it includes its own hardened backup power supply and transmitter, designed to survive an attack that would disable the satellite. The initial contract is for only one unit, although there are options for two more, and Lockheed obviously hopes to get a production contract eventually. Later versions might add sensors for particle beams, radio jamming, and nuclear radiation. -- 1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo. | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ From: leeds@cfa250.harvard.edu (Paul Martenis) Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours? Date: 7 Aug 89 14:58:04 GMT From article <615@visdc.UUCP>, by jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III): > I wonder if someone might be able to make use of the data that could be > collected while the space telescope is repositioning at "the speed of a > minute hand". Such data could consist of a series of short-exposure > data sets, shifted to compensate for movement, and then added. Yes, it can be done. In fact, the guy sitting next to me here at work is doing this with the "slew data" from the Einstein (HEAO-B) X-ray Observatory. According to him, Einstein slewed at about 18 arcminutes per second. It was up for about two and a half years and the slew data covers almost the whole sky with an average exposure time of ~50 seconds. "The speed of a minute hand" is 6 arcminutes per second, so the HST will get about three times the exposure time. I hope somebody is working on this. - Paul -- Paul L. Martenis E-mail: leeds@cfa 60 Garden St. or: leeds%cfa209@harvard.harvard.edu Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Phone: (617) 495-7284 ------------------------------ From: shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #582 Date: 7 Aug 89 16:35:27 GMT In article <618354547.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >>great business opportunity, some capitalist would be out there building >> "fighters" and making a lot of money. Since that isn't happening, maybe >> this isn't a great business opportunity. So the market isn't allocating >> resources to it. >This might well be a true statement. If there weren't governments >pushing them, there might be an awful lot less high tech weaponry being >built.... >This is supposed to be bad???? We were talking about building purely private "fighter" aircraft for the purely private buyer. That is, people who believe that everything spec-ed or funded by the government is evil, unworkable, and poorly designed can't buy surplus fighters, since such fighters are tainted by the government stigma. Thus, for such people who still want fighter-type aircraft, the only option is a purely private "fighter." It was the virtually non-existant market for such aircraft that I was referring to in the posting that was quoted. -- M F Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov NASA Ames Research Center arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer Dryden Flight Research Facility Of course I don't speak for NASA ------------------------------ From: sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) Subject: ESA news bulletins? Date: 7 Aug 89 16:52:04 GMT If anybody in the European Space Agency is reading this, would it be possible to post regular news bulletins (similar to Peter Yee's postings) regarding the status of launchers and/or payloads? It is not easy to obtain up-to-date info on ESA on this side of the Atlantic; I am sure I am not the only one who would be very interested to read such reports! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw) -------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------ ------------------------------ From: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours? Date: 7 Aug 89 16:45:55 GMT In article <1989Aug5.132113.17013@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes: >In article <14513@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >> >>Speaking of HST, there was a very interesting squib in this month's >>ASTRONOMY. Seems a team has taken the Palomar 5-meter scope to the >>*diffraction limit* using optical interferometry (a technique adapted >>from radio astronomy), .... > > I haven't seen this article but the technique is also called Speckle >Interferometry. I was hoping someone else would follow up with a detailed correction to this, but since no one has: It was my impression that the famous SPECKLE interferometry, which controversially imaged Betelguese years ago and other things since, was NOT the same as "optical interferometry" as mentioned above. Am I right or wrong? (Should crosspost to astro I guess.) -- "We walked on the moon -- (( Tom Neff you be polite" )) tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET ------------------------------ From: kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: What is the Solar Impact Missio Date: 7 Aug 89 16:58:00 GMT >The Mercury flyby was done with a Venus gravity assist. But Mercury is >still a long way out from the Sun, and the last few million km are the >really hard ones, deep in that monstrous gravitational field. I recall only incompletely what I found, but I did some primitive computer simulations of a Solar-intercept trajectory around 1971 or 1972, assuming Titan technology. The only really feasible one that I saw was a Jupiter gravity assist -- send the probe to Jupiter, and whip around the planet so that the probe is dropping right into the Sun. Would provide a close flyby of Jupiter, too, and (assuming that the probe is designed for solar exploration), a nice study of the plasma physics of the Jovian system as well as that of the Sun. Of course, the simulation may not have been sufficiently accurate -- I was just a high school kid back then.... A-T ------------------------------ From: rachiele@NADC.ARPA (J. Rachiele) Subject: HR2674 Date: 7 Aug 89 17:49:49 GMT I have just looked over HR2674, the space transportation thing, and have several questions which I'm sure will get me some flames. 1. If the bill is passed as is, it seems to preclude the government from owning any spacecraft for routine purposes. Is this truly what's intended? 2. The way the phrasing goes, the government can only own its own spacecraft if space transportation is not available as specified. But "space transportation" being defined as a service, can't this service disappear on rather short notice, where rather long lead time would be required to provide spacecraft so the government can provide its own? Doesn't this put us in a rather vulnerable position? 3. The "exception" paragraph of the HR, where the government need not purchase the services if the cost is too high, or if the security requirements are not met, seems to me (a veteran civil servant) weasel-worded enough so that any administrator could reject any potential provider of the transport service. Comments? Jim Rachiele rachiele@nadc.arpa ------------------------------ From: leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) Subject: Re: Golfball flight Date: 7 Aug 89 19:15:31 GMT In article <1359@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: :In article denver@NARDAC-NOHIMS.ARPA ("DENVER BRAUGHLER") writes: : :>Okay, would someone please tell me the gravitional acceleration on the moon? : :From memory, about 1.7 m/sec : : :At a guess, though, I'd say a golf ball goes a good bit faster, say, 60 :meters per second. (Any golfers out there?). Running that number through :gives a distance of 2120 meters...assuming the surface of the moon is flat, :which it's not. : : :>I'm not a golfer either. :Georgia Institute of Technology : [This space for rent] :ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu : :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The average golfer hits the ball with clubhead speed of about 90 mph. Lee |Lee F. Mellinger Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA |4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516 FTS 977-0516 |{ames!cit-vax,}!elroy!jpl-devvax!leem leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV ------------------------------ From: andrew@berlioz (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head ) Subject: Re: Space: The Final Frontier Date: 7 Aug 89 19:43:22 GMT I was musing about what kinds of things it might take to mobilise the general population to the point where "space travel" was an everyday topic of conversation, and continuous action was the order of the day. I exclude conventional political avenues, since these are frequently discussed. Something like wartime mentality would be just the ticket, or that 60s-type intensity. It occurs to me that music is a fair touchstone for reflecting and even augmenting public opinion. This is true in wartime, and also was of course in the 60s. So how about "space music"? So far, I am only aware of 2-and-a-half "pops": "Rocket Man", Elton John "Major Tong", David Bowie (strange note: both Brits) "Fly Me To The Moon", Dean Martin and the gang (1/2, old) Maybe it's time for some high-energy pro-space music. Something to get us moving. The above offerings are very dreamy and floaty (spacey); perhaps a more positive genre (space punk?) is a mode whose time has come. I urge any space songwriters out there to get busy! -- ........................................................................... Andrew Palfreyman There's a good time coming, be it ever so far away, andrew@berlioz.nsc.com That's what I says to myself, says I, time sucks jolly good luck, hooray! *** End of SPACE Digest V9 #619 ***