Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from sushi.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Thu, 11 Jan 90 01:37:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 01:37:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #411 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 411 Today's Topics: Payload Status for 01/10/90 (Forwarded) Red Shifts through Random Media Frequently asked SPACE questions Re: Big Bang: Did it happen? Galileo Update - 02/10/90 Still more HR2674 testimony (part 2 of 2) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Jan 90 21:11:13 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Payload Status for 01/10/90 (Forwarded) Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 01-10-90 - STS-31R HST (at VPF) - HST high gain antenna pre load checks and MUE validation was worked yesterday. HST high gain antenna hat coupler installation was completed last night. One more connection will be made this morning after access is established before beginning the HST functional testing. - STS-32R SYNCOM (at Pad A) - With the launch of STS-32R the final planning for download of LDEF and SYNCOM ASE are now being put together. The SYNCOM GSE was disconnected yesterday and will be removed from the pad today. - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at O&C) - Yesterday cotter pin encapsulation and safety wire trunnion bolts (both crew alerts) were completed. Igloo tilt device hoist and setup to cite and igloo tilt is complete. SPDB change out is complete. Fuse holder that was discovered broken on "J" box has been replaced and addition fuse holder protection is to be put in place this morning. BBXRT was powered up yesterday and IPR troubleshooting was performed. - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) - Racks 7 and 11 weight and CG were performed. Cabin fan assembly Pyrell replacement worked yesterday. MVAK training pre ops commenced and will continue through the week. - STS-42 IML (at O&C) - Structural mods (upper mods) for rack 9 and 11 were worked yesterday. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 90 22:16:29 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!emory!hubcap!panoff@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Robert M. Panoff) Subject: Red Shifts through Random Media Help! I need a reference to some very recent work that I have only heard about: apparently if light is passed through a random medium, and this experiment has been done in some labs already, the light is red shifted. Naturally, this has consequences for interpreting red shifts from "distant, fast moving" galaxies as possibly being closer, but the light passes through the interstellar media, which is random. Anybody have a definite pointer to authors, papers, workers? Thanks in advance. -- rmp, for the Bob's of the World ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 04:00:19 PST From: Eugene Miya Subject: Frequently asked SPACE questions This list does change. This is a list of frequently asked questions on SPACE (which goes back before 1980). It is in development. Good summaries will be accepted in place of the answers given here. The point of this is to circulate existing information, and avoid rehashing old answers. Better to build on top than start again. Nothing more depressing than rehashing old topics for the 100th time. References are provided because they give more complete information than any short generalization. Questions fall into three basic types: 1) Where do I find some information about space? Try you local public library first. You do know how to use a library, don't you? Can't tell these days. The net is not a good place to ask for general information. Ask individuals if you must. There are other sources, use them, too. The net is a place for open ended discussion. 2) I have an idea which would improve space flight? Hope you aren't surprised but 9,999 out of 10,000 have usually been thought of before. Again, contact a direct individual source for evaluation. NASA fields thousands of these each day. 3) Miscellanous queries. Sorry, have to take them case by case. Initially, this message will be automatically posted once per month and hopefully, we can cut it back to quarterly. In time questions and good answers will be added (and maybe removed, nah). 1) What happen to Saturn V plans? What about reviving the Saturn V as a heavy-lift launcher? Possible but very expensive -- tools, subcontractors, plans, facilities are gone or converted for the shuttle, and would need rebuilding, re-testing, or even total redesign. 2) Where can I learn about space computers: shuttle, programming, core memories? %J Communications of the ACM %V 27 %N 9 %D September 1984 %K Special issue on space [shuttle] computers Other various AIAA and IEEE publications. Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience James E. Tomayko 1988? 3) SETI computation articles? %A D. K. Cullers %A Ivan R. Linscott %A Bernard M. Oliver %T Signal Processing in SETI %J Communications of the ACM %V 28 %N 11 %D November 1984 %P 1151-1163 %K CR Categories and Subject Descriptors: D.4.1 [Operating Systems]: Process Management - concurrency; I.5.4 [Pattern Recognition]: Applications - signal processing; J.2 [Phsyical Sciences and Engineering]: astronomy General Terms: Design Additional Key Words and Phrases: digital Fourier transforms, finite impulse-response filters, interstellar communications, Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence, signal detection, spectrum analysis ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 09:15:58 PST From: pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Peter Scott) Subject: Re: Big Bang: Did it happen? In article <822@tahoma.UUCP>, jpg3196@tahoma.UUCP (James P. Galasyn) writes: > > I just heard from a fairly reliable source that CalTech has demonstrated > the Big Bang never happened. Actually it has just been postponed until a more suitable date. Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 90 01:11:05 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@cs.ucla.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Galileo Update - 02/10/90 GALILEO MISSION STATUS January 10, 1990 Today the Galileo spacecraft is 15.6 million miles from Earth; round-trip light time is 2-3/4 minutes. It has traveled 128.5 million miles along the first leg of its trajectory, with a current heliocentric velocity of about 73,000 mph. The total trajectory distance traveled will be 185 million miles at Galileo's Venus flyby February 9, 1990, and 2.4 billion miles at Jupiter arrival December 7, 1995. The spacecraft is in "dual spin" mode, with the upper part spinning at 3.15 rpm and the lower part non- spinning with gyro-based control. All temperatures and pressures are within acceptable limits; telemetry is being sent via the second low-gain antenna (mounted below a power generator boom) at 1,200 bits per second. The spacecraft attitude sun point angle is 1.96 degrees. Data from the four-day checkout of science instruments, concluded December 30, are still being studied. Because of very high winds at the Deep Space Network tracking station in Goldstone, California, some data were lost during the checkout operations but not enough to compromise the checkout. The heavy ion counter, magnetometer, dust detector, ultraviolet and extreme ultraviolet instruments remain powered on. Some of the memory in the extreme ultraviolet instrument's microprocessor was found to be corrupted; it was reloaded without incident and the instrument is now operating nominally, and being watched. Covers on the near-infrared mapping spectrometer (NIMS), both ultraviolet instruments and the dust detector were removed on schedule during the checkout. The infrared instrument appeared to be cooling more slowly than expected after the cover was removed from its cooling radiator. Yesterday a nearby heater, switched on earlier, was turned off and the cooling rate improved. Based on this, it was concluded that the NIMS radiator cover was fully deployed. The AC imbalance measurements reached a level which indicated a "hard" short chassis. The measurement remained at this level throughout the tracking pass. The DC imbalance measurement continued to slowly increase from about 20 volts to 20.6 volts and remained stable. The spacecraft is normally executing the block of commands designated Earth-Venus #5, which began Monday and will last until February 5. Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov Jet Propulsion Lab M/S 301-355 | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov 4800 Oak Grove Dr. | Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 90 15:11:57 GMT From: mailrus!sharkey!itivax!vax3!aws@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Still more HR2674 testimony (part 2 of 2) STATEMENT OF DONALD K. SLAYTON PRESIDENT SPACE SERVICES INCORPORATED OF AMERICA Before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APLICATIONS COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES November 10, 1989 Mr. Chairman: Although I am President of an entrepreneurial small launch vehicle company, Space Services Inc., Today I am acting as the witness for the Commerical Space Transportation Advisory Committee which reports to the Secretary of Transportation. COMSTAC - as it is called - has members representing the launch vehicle industry, the satellite industry, insurance companies, engineering firms, and others. Dr. Alan Lovelace is the current Chairman of COMSTAC and regrets tat he is unable to appear bedcause this hearing today conflicts with a very important Corporate meeting. As Vice Chairman of this committee, I am please to act as its representative. COMSTAC agrees with the intent of this bill. It is not easy to change the proven way that the government has used to get its satellites into orbit with expendable launch vehicles over the more than thirty years there has been a space business. But there are certain truths today: (a) the U.S. industry is unquestionably capable of providing reliable and cost effective transportation into space; (b) commercial ELV launch services are available to government users today from at least seven U.S. companies whose performance capabilities cover almost the total spectrum of payload weights; and (c) procurement of these commercial services can result in significant cost savings to the Federal Government. The difficulty in having all government officials embrace the concepts contained in this bill is at least three-fold. Some opponents feel that their responsibility fopr doing everything possible to ensure that their satellite has a reliable launch demands the strong government of the past. Some understandably, see a negative effect on their organization if its responsibilities are lessened. Probably most important is that procurement officials are reluctant because the existing Federal Acquisition Regulations do not encourage innovation on the part of the person who signs hsi name as a contracting officer. The later leads to retention of clauses that are not appropriate. A recent Request for Proposal required a detailed plan on how labor rates were to be controlled and yet it was for a fixed-price contract! COMSTAC has been concerned about these problems for the past two years and established a procurement subcommittee to address the question of how the government could procure commercial launch services. Every U.S. launch services company was represented on this subcommittee. A report was prepared containing a policy statement, a sample RFP, and a Model Contract. The report was approved by the whole COMSTAC committee and submitted to the Secretary of Transportation with the recommendation that it be distributed to DoD, NASA, NOAA, OMB, and other relevant departments. There has to be an abrupt change in mentality for government officials to shift from buying of launch vehicles as in the past to just buying of transportation services. The government buys all kinds of commercial transportation services wherein the vehicles are trucks and trains and ships and airplanes. The cargo might be extremely valuable just as are satellites. These services are nearly always fixed pricee and the vehicles are not usually built to a large set of government specs with stringent government oversight during construction. The launch industry has readched a state of maturity that it can be treated similarly. The risks can be placed with the commercial provider, not retained with the government. The conclusion has been reached in the commercial satellite industry where spacecraft valued at up to $100M are now routinely launched by the commercial launch services industry. We recognize, as does this bill, the need for exceptions to commercial buys such as high valued national security payloads. COMSTAC agrees with the bill's provision that U.S. government payloads be assigned to U.S. launch vehicles. The worldwide commercial launch service market is thin. There are many payloads in Europe, China, and the Soviet Union which are not accessible to U.S. launch providers. The competition for our government payloads should be among the U.S. launch providers if we are to ensure a robust commercial launch industry. A similar benefit is enjoyed by Ariane for ESA payloads. International competition from the non-market economy contries, China and USSR is a very serious concern of our launch industry. We cannot compete against contries who are willing to offer the same services at a fraction of the price of the Western market. If this is allowed without constraints there will be NO U.S. commercial launch industry - at least this would be true among the major players, General Dynamics, Martin Marietta, and McDonnell Douglas. Our communications satellite industry will be completely dependent on foreign launch vehicles. The next phase is likely to be the loss of our satellite industry also. As the bill states the U.S. commercial space transportation industry is an essential component of national efforts to assure access to space for government and commercial users. A potential role for the Federal Government which is touched upon in the findings of this bill relates to the development of commercial launch facilities. The big three launch providers are operating out of the national ranges in Florida and California. The smaller vehicles are looking primarily at those same ranges plus Wallops Island and White Sands. The Cape and Vandenberg ranges are approaching saturation. The need for development of one or more commercial launch sites in the future seems likely. A very big deterrence to this happening is the high cost of thte infrastructure needed for such a facility. Range safety and other tracking capabilities are good examples of the infrastructure needs. Government support for such infrastructure improvements seem as logical here as FAA stations for air transportation. The commercial launch industry is able to compete fairly well with its European competitor. One of the reasons is that our three major vehicle companies have put over $500M of corporate funds in improvements to the vehicles and facilities to date. But COMSTAC is concerned about our ability to compete in the future faced with the European development of Ariane V, with the arrival to the market of the Japanese H-2, plus the Chinese Long March and Soviet Zenit. We formed a component technology subcommittee to address this problem. We have recommended that NASA meet with this group and listen to the needs of industry in order to maintain our competitiveness, as they plan the expenditure of their supporting research and technology funds. This is industry support similar to that given by NASA's predecessor agency NACA, whose outstanding assistance led to U.S. preeminence in aviation. While this could be quite supportive in the near term, it may not be enough over the longer term -- say after 1995. Consider Ariane V. The development is funded completely by the European Space Agency. It is designed to launch Hermes, to carry scientific payloads, and to be be *the* commerical launch vehicle of the future. Arianspace has already started marketing the Ariane V at prices that we expect are very attractive because Arianespace does not have to recover the development costs as our industry would. It remains to be seen whether or not our government, in order to support our international competitiveness, would be willing to support the development of a new launch vehicle, such as a version of the ALS, whose major role would be the support of commercial needs. This is one of the important questions that needs to be addressed in the forthcoming study to be performed by the National Space Council. Mr. Chairman, COMSTAC applauds the spirit and intent of this bill. It puts some teeth into the broad policy statements of the past several years. It will help stabilize the commercial launch industry and it will help the Federal Government lower its cost of space transportation. This concludes my testimony on behalf of the COMSTAC. While I have the floor, and with you permission Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to your request for our analysis of the effectiveness of existing legislation based on our experience. We believe the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, its 1988 amendment, and the President's Space Policy NSDD of 1988 are all excellent documents and lay a good foundation for the commercial launch industry. There are a couple areas involving definitions and juridictions that require clarification, amendment and/or enforcement. I believe the problems relate more to implementation than direction. We have our Flight Readiness Review tomorrow for a 15 November launch of our second Starfire launch which coincidentally is the nation's second commercial suborbital flight. A week ago we were threatened with a shutdown of our WSMR range operations because of a difference of opinion between Washington and the field. DOT believes it has the authority to issue launch licenses and set insurance requirements for all commercial launches. As of last week there are others who don't agree with either the scope of the launch license *or* the insurance orders. This was also true on the first launch. As a small entrepreneurial company we are in a nutcracker, poorly equipped to adjudicate these honest differences of opinion between and within Federal agencies. Therefore we are carrying double the liability and four times the property insurance required by our DOT license. Our MOA witht the USN purports to supercede the launch license where differences occur. These jursdictional disputes need to be settled and maybe this bill is an appropriate mechanism to do it. A key issue is what are licensed versus unlicensed operations on a government range. Another discrepancy is the acceptance of the definition of expendable launch vehicles (ELV's). The Space Act clearly defines launch vehicles to include "any suborbital rocket." The NSDD of January 1988 encourages reliance on private launch services and prohibits NASA from maintining an ELV adjunct to the STS. However, with the exception of support for the NASA CCDS, all government (and some non-government) suborbital flights are being done and are planned to continue being done *by* the government. This act defines a space launch as flight above 70 km which is fine b4ecause it clarifies the definition of suborbital vehicles. However, it has the same probability of being ignored as previous legislation and executive direction on the subject. It would seem either some teeth to encourage implementation of current direction ore an exception to acknowledge and concur in non-implementation might be in order. The Delta is the onlyl other vehicle launched under the Commercial Space Launch Act to date. Their experience is similar to ours. 1. Top level policy and directions are fine. There are still some problems with implementation at the lower levels. The policy has not flowed down or been totally accepted. I believe this is partly resistance to change and losing turf and partly a real problem with existing FAR's, etc. needing changes. 2. DoD security requrements on the range are excessive for commercial operations and cause operational problems. 3. Clearing foreign nationals onto the range who may be customers or participants is a tedious and time consuming process not conductive to good comercial marketing practices. 4. The range is unable to configure from one vehicle type to another in a timely fashion. This impacts launch schedules. Thank you. We are available for questions at your discretion. --------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to Catherine Rawlings for sending me all the HR2674 hearings testimony (she's Packard's aide for the Space Science and Applications Subcommitee), and to the Industrial Technology Institute for letting me type this in during my lunch hour on a Lisp machine with a decent editor (what a waste, but it sure beats banging away at 1200 baud on my home laptop). ------------------------------Tihamer Toth-Fejel ttf@iti.org---- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Allen W. Sherzer | Is the local cluster the result | | aws@iti.org | of gerrymandering? | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #411 *******************