Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.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, 16 Mar 91 01:52:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8bsQ2Gu00WBwA7qU5K@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 16 Mar 91 01:52:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #276 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 276 Today's Topics: Shuttle Status for 03/14/91 (Forwarded) Re: Pioneer 11 Update - 03/01/91 looking for a NASA report Re: Value per pound vs. cost per pound Re: New World Profits (was Re: Space Profits Re: Value per pound vs. cost per pound Re: space shuttle design Re: Names of notable women to be proposed for Venus features (Forwarded) Re: Magellan Update - 03/11/91 Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Mar 91 16:21:25 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@decwrl.dec.com (Ron Baalke) Subject: Shuttle Status for 03/14/91 (Forwarded) KSC SHUTTLE STATUS REPORT - THURSDAY, MAR. 14, 1991 - 9:30 a.m. STS-37/GAMMA RAY OBSERVATORY - ATLANTIS (OV 104) - VAB LAUNCH - APRIL WORK IN PROGRESS: - Preparations for roll out to Launch Pad 39-B with first motion targeted for 12:01 a.m. Friday. - Orbiter power down. - Moving access platforms away from the vehicle. WORK COMPLETED: - Retest of the aerosurface amplifier electronic box. - Bond verifications of 4 tiles around the nose area. WORK SCHEDULED: - Countdown Demonstration Test March 19-20. - Launch Readiness Review March 21. STS-39/DoD - DISCOVERY (OV 103) - VAB LAUNCH - LATE APRIL, EARLY MAY WORK IN PROGRESS: - Installing the roll around tires in place of the nose landing gear flight tires. - Preparations for tow to the OPF about midday. WORK COMPLETED: - Demate Discovery from the external tank and lower to the trans- fer aisle. WORK SCHEDULED: - Removal of the external tank door hinge drive mechanism hous- ings beginning Sunday. STS-40/SPACELAB LIFE SCIENCES 1 - COLUMBIA (OV 102) - OPF BAY 1 LAUNCH - MAY WORK IN PROGRESS: - Tests of the power reactant storage and distribution system. - Potable water servicing. - Replacement of the helium check valves in the main propulsion system. - Second hot oil flush of the auxiliary power units. - Cycles of the landing gear. - Auxiliary power unit functional tests. - Orbital maneuvering system pod functional tests. - Water spray boiler leak and functional test. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ M/S 301-355 | Change is constant. /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 91 15:44:38 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!harrier.ukc.ac.uk!sss3@uunet.uu.net (S.S.Sturrock) Subject: Re: Pioneer 11 Update - 03/01/91 In article <1851@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de> p515dfi@mpirbn.UUCP (Daniel Fischer) writes: >scan across the solar system and take another >shot of the kind Voyager 1 sent a year ago? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Missed that one, anyone know how I might get a look at it, or if not, at least tell me what it showed? Shane Sturrock, Biol Lab. Canterbury, Kent, Great Britain. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 91 17:51:36 GMT From: haven!cs.wvu.wvnet.edu!jdm@ames.arc.nasa.gov (James D Mooney) Subject: looking for a NASA report (I am posting this query for my 10th grade daughter): I've been referred to a study identifying the economic benefits of NASA technology Spinoffs for a research project I am conducting on these benefits. I understand that the NASA Scientific and Technical Information Facility in Baltimore has copies of this study, and I wrote to them several weeks ago. I have gotten no response. I need a copy of this study as soon as possible, and any shortcuts you may know of in getting a hold of one would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Tara Mooney -- Jim Mooney Dept. of Stat. & Computer Science (304) 293-3607 West Virginia University Morgantown, WV 26506 INTERNET: jdm@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu ------------------------------ Date: 14 Mar 91 17:46:18 GMT From: isis!isis!gaserre@uunet.uu.net (Glenn A. Serre) Subject: Re: Value per pound vs. cost per pound In article <21330@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: at the statistics of jet airplanes vs. rockets, for example fuel per pound of payload, structural mass per pound of fuel, maximum speed, etc., you will find that chemical rockets are stretched farther to the limits than You find that chemical rockets are different from airplanes. How are you defining "limits"? Yes, ELVs are designed to lower factors of safety than airplanes, but rockets don't have too much trouble with fatigue, either. airplanes. The cost of building jet airplanes has flattened out, and I expect the cost of building chemical rockets has or soon will do likewise, at similar per vehicle levels for freight ELV's, and much higher levels for reusable passenger vehicles. Why? Jet Airplanes are more complex than rockets (at least, more complex than rockets have to be). Many airplanes get builts at one time, rockets are built a few at a time. Henry wrote: >As a case in point, almost every launcher designer uses 3 or even 4 stages >to get to orbit, when Atlas did it with 1.5 over thirty years ago. There >are large margins of performance available if environmental constraints >become serious enough to justify major redesign. It doesn't seem that Atlas has significantly reduced launch costs. The point is, ELVs are not pushing their technical limits. Your comment seems to support the use of low-tech solutions (Like BDB) instead of high- tech solutions (reusable vehicles). -- --Glenn Serre gaserre@nyx.cs.du.edu -- --Glenn Serre gaserre@nyx.cs.du.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Mar 91 11:58:47 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!gecrdvm1!gipp@decwrl.dec.com Subject: Re: New World Profits (was Re: Space Profits In article <5385@wrgate.WR.TEK.COM>, dant@mtdoom.WR.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) says: > >bdietz@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Jack Dietz) writes: >> >>In article <5370@wrgate.WR.TEK.COM> Dan Tilque writes: >> >>>slower rate or even halted altogether. However, Columbus knew >>>this and kept exploring until he had at least something valuable to >>>show for his trip. >> >>This implies that Columbus was exploring what he thought was unprofitable >>land. In other words, he was using the money of the Spanish crown in >>order to satisfy his desire to explore, not in the interests of the >>royal pair. > > >>Interesting. If only our explorers could pull something like that >>off, leading Congress on while they encourage exploitation... > >NASA administrators are good at something like this. It's a required >ability of higher level bureaucrats. > >--- It's the state of R&D in the US: Bullshit about what you've "almost" got your hands on, and get the company (or even better-the gov't) to pay for the next "trip" (also known as next years budget). the name of the game isn't to invent, but to spend money and write papers. Doesn't matter if you invent, the company usually doesn't know what to do with it anyway! Pete (I damn well better put a disclaimer on this one) Gipp all opinions here are mine and do not reflect the views of any company I work for or know of "nobody knows anyone at all, strangers in paradise down at the mall, everybody needs a home"....Iggy ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 91 18:34:41 GMT From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Value per pound vs. cost per pound In article gaserre@isis.isis.cs.du.edu (Glenn A. Serre) writes: >Henry says: >>...There may be a slight constraint to avoid major releases >>into sensitive regions of the upper atmosphere, but I can't imagine this >>having much impact, given that launchers climb through those regions >>very quickly for other reasons already. > >Nick: >This "coasting phase to protect the ozone" is yet another constraint that >must be imposed on a system already strained to its technical limits. > >Me: >Who mentioned a "coasting phase"? Just don't use solid fuel boosters that >produce Chlorine compounds, use rp1-lox, lh2-lox, or NO4-N2H2. Actually, the possibility of a coasting phase came up in private mail, so it's not *quite* out of left field. There may be some concern about release of even water vapor into sensitive regions. Nick's problem here is that he doesn't know much about launcher design, or he wouldn't make ridiculous statements like "already strained to its technical limits". Launcher designers commonly trade off performance for reliability, ease of handling, use of existing hardware, etc.; you would not find such tradeoffs in systems that were stretched to their limits. As a case in point, almost every launcher designer uses 3 or even 4 stages to get to orbit, when Atlas did it with 1.5 over thirty years ago. There are large margins of performance available if environmental constraints become serious enough to justify major redesign. -- "But this *is* the simplified version | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology for the general public." -S. Harris | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 91 18:24:17 GMT From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: space shuttle design In article <248.27D8BD32@nss.FIDONET.ORG> Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG (Paul Blase) writes: >... Lubkin describes the findings of William McInnis, >a "high-level engineer at Marshall", and Ali AbuTaha, who did a separate >investigation of the disaster... >Any comments? McInnis I'm not familiar with, but AbuTaha is basically a crank. He came up with a steady series of offbeat theories about the Challenger failure, some of which NASA took seriously enough to check (results negative). There is really no need to invoke new failure mechanisms and sinister coverups. The Rogers Commission's account of the mechanism of the disaster stands up quite well, is amply confirmed by the camera films and data, and pointed to real and verifiable weaknesses in the design. By far the simplest explanation is that it happened exactly the way they said it did. -- "But this *is* the simplified version | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology for the general public." -S. Harris | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 91 20:55:38 GMT From: pasteur!agate!bionet!uwm.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: Names of notable women to be proposed for Venus features (Forwarded) Looking at the surface of Venus, maybe we should save the names of prominent women for the surfaces of comets or for specific rings in the rings of Saturn and so on... Phil Fraering dlbres10@pc.usl.edu ------------------------------ Date: 14 Mar 91 04:17:43 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!kksys!wd0gol!newave!john@decwrl.dec.com (John A. Weeks III) Subject: Re: Magellan Update - 03/11/91 In article <19890@paperboy.OSF.ORG> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes: >In many articles, baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: >|> The Magellan spacecraft is performing nominally... >|> The Galileo spacecraft health continues to be excellent.... > Is nominal != excellent, or are we simply seeing the different > approaches to PR by different writers? (not a flame; just curious). I think that they used "nominal" to imply that Magellan is doing very well considering the situation. While Magellan has returned a ton of great data and has shead a new light on our view of Venus, the craft has experienced a few problems. The location of Venus, the Sun, and Earth have contributed to an expected onboard temperature surge. This has required some creative orbit work to try to balance the temperature of the various spacecraft components. In the process, it was discovered that some type of temperature shield has not been working as well as planned, which has lead to an even higher temperature. Then there are the sporadic computer glitches. And one of the gyros failed just before Magellan entered orbit around Venus. As always, the brilliant people at JPL and NASA have found ways to keep Magellan running while maximizing the amount of data collected. Keep in mind that just one or two strips of radar data from Magellan would have been enough to make Magellan a major success considering the amount of new information contained in those first high resolution glimpses of Venus. Galileo, on the other hand, has been using fuel at a lower than projected rate. This leaves a large enough fuel margin to make a second asteriod fly-by. Someone must have been paying attention to the decimal places! And the pictures from the southern pole and far side of the Moon are a nice bonus. There is one nagging problem that Galileo's keepers are watching--an AC/DC bus voltage inbalance. While I am not an expert, it looks like there is small leakage path somewhere between two wires. So far this has caused no operational problems, and Galileo continues to perform as well as or better than expected. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john =============================================================================== ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #276 *******************