Message-ID: <AcO6=sy00WBwI1gU5Z@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 05:48:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #719

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 719

Today's Topics:
	   View of STS-40 from the Mission Evaluation Room
		    Re: Traxler says:  WAKE UP!!!!
		      Re: Fred's Operatic Death
	     Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch?
	     [l/m 7/11] Frequently asked SPACE questions
	 Re: L-5 Society is now National Space Society (NSS)

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: 10 Jun 91 19:35:27 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: View of STS-40 from the Mission Evaluation Room

A colleague (Lou Adornato adornato%asd.dnet@aio.jsc.nasa.gov) asked me
to pass this on, since he doesn't have access from this machine.  Someone
who understands the technique of e-mailing to berkeley to post should
pass the information to both of us, please.

NOTE: The following is onofficial and unauthorized and should be taken as 
heresay only (otherwise a guy named Bruno's going to come down from Washington 
and rearrange my pulmonary system).

I am happy to report that there have been no orbiter DPS or avionics
concerns on this mission so far.  (The reason I'm happy to report that
is that it means that Mike Wallace won't be showing up at my place
with a film crew). On flight days 4, 5, and 6 I'm the second shift's
avionics team lead in the Mission Evaluation Room (MER). Here's the
view of STS-40 from where I've been sitting.

Initial ground radar data indicated that STS-40 missed it's MECO
velocity target by 22 fps.  Subsequent analysis of the observed
orbital elements now indicate that MECO velocity was within 4fps of
target, and that the radar data was incorrect.  Further analysis is
planned post flight.

As of the end of my shift on Flight Day 5, there are no major IFA's on
any spacelab or orbiter systems, with the exception of the
environmental seal on the PBD and some loose thermal blankets on the
aft bulkhead.  Thermal reports that there are no potential hazards in
the loose blankets.  At this time it looks as though proper thermal
conditioning (via sun angle) will cause the seal to deflect away from
the door and prevent it from interfering with the latching mechanism.
(My understanding is that a failure of latch group 4 wouldn't be a
problem anyway - you have to loose at least 2 latch groups before you
have a situation) Contingency plans are being put in place for an EVA
IFM "just in case" (the incredibly unofficial motto of the Mission
Operations Directorate).  Current plans are for one crew member to
reenter the hab module after deactivation to observe the PBD closing
(through the spacelab's endcone window).  There was some concern over
the safety of this procedure since the cabin air fan will be off at
this time (it's turned off to save power as part of the deactivation
procedure, and running it without the condensate separator could
impact the turnaround for US MGL).  The observer should be in the
module no more than 15 minutes, but a localized CO2 buildup (in the
absence of convection currents) was a concern.  Analysis indicates
that there is no safety concern because several of the racks will be
forcing air into the subfloor, and there should be an air flow down
the tunnel from the middeck. Aditionally, the observer will be in
constant contact with the rest of the crew, and there's an emegency
breathing station right by the viewport.

One RCS vernier (R5F, I think) has failed off (due to erratic chamber
pressure readings, I think), but there's no impact on vernier attitude
control (the verniers are arranged in such a way that it would take at
least 2 adjacent jet failures to cause even an inconvenience).  An
APU3 Exhaust Gas Temperature sensor failed on ascent (indicating
+/-200F changes is less than a minute), and the crosstalk took a gas
generator bed temp sensor with it.  This isn't considered critical - I
can't be sure but I think there are redundant backups, and I don't
think either reading is really essential to safe operation of the APU.

An unknown problem resulted in the S/L computer being re-IPL'd on FD4,
but no experiment data was lost and the problem has not returned (dump
analysis is still in progress).  The humidity seperator experiment
(DTO976, I think) was aborted early on FD2 because a large slug of
water broke off from the prefilter and temporarily swamped the humsep.
The PI suspected it might be a transient or startup condition.  The
test was rerun yesterday, but not for as long as was originally
planned (due to timeline considerations, I think). Some free water was
detected by the crew in the lower equipment bay on the waste water
tank drain valve solenoid, but it was wiped off and the source wasn't
found - the crew will probably check again today to see if the water
has returned.

Other issues that have come up are include a loss of about 7lbs of N2
on FD1, which was apparently due to a leak through the WCS (the handle
wasn't thrown all the way after use, resulting in inadequet seal on
the WCS vaccum line (even in space you sometimes have to jiggle the
handle to make the toilet stop running).  The OMS crossfeed line A
heater failed off (apparently due to a thermostat failure), and the
line has been isolated (there's a backup).  The pressure 'ducer on the
RAHF (the rat-rack) water supply has failed, but the POCC will
determine water useage indirectly by using the Lixit counts from
individual cages along with pre-launch calibrations (which means that
someone, somewhere has a fairly precise number for the value of a rats
lick). Some problems with the Obriter Refridgerator/Freezer (ORF) have
caused it to be shut down, and several short IFMs have been done to
try to isolate the cause.  Similar problems appeared on the S/L fridge
on FD1, but went away, so there's no risk to the samples.  Also, a
strange smell has been coming fromthe ORF (the crew reports that it
smells like aldehyde), which is suspected to be acetic acid ougassing
from the silicone seals - toxicology says there's no risk to the crew.
One of the LIOH storage locker doors jammed on FD1, and the crew had
to pry it open, but it's been left open since then, and will be shut
for structural reasons just after the deorbit burn. The IV pump
experinent was having some problems on FD1, but the IFM guys had the
crew wrap a blood pressure cuff around the intake bag to provide
suffient head pressure (this one has to be my personal favorite
IFM...), and it's working fine.  The GAMS 1 experiment (I have no idea
what that is...) has been causing some problems, but the crew's been
using the backup without any problems, and will probably try an IFM on
the last flight day.  There have been some problems with one of the
video cameras, but I haven't been following them.

The rats seem to be enjoying themselves (they don't know what's in
store for them once they get back), and the jellyfish are healthy but
somewhat confused (probably a natural state in something with a
nervous system only slightly better than that of a slime mold, but
they've been swimming in circles).

No one had a chance to make a visual on the soviet MIR station on
either opportunity yesterday.  Current consummable levels are good for
a 9+2 mission, with LIOH being the limiting factor.

Proper NASA terminology is "nominal" for the mission, but I prefer
"fan-dam-tastic".  Considering the number of things that can go wrong,
I'm still astounded when things go this right.  All that planning and
care really means a lot when it gets around to flight time.  I wish
the news media had shown those views of the lower equipment bay that
came down yesterday.  It's really sobering to think how many pieces in
there could cause a loss of *at least* mission success, and to realize
that this mission is coming off so well.

                                  | This information is unclassified.
Lou Adornato                      | Material herein not cleared by the Public 
NASA/JSC Engineering Directorate  | Affairs Office. Opinions and attitudes do
Flight Data Systems Division      | not reflect those of NASA.  NASA takes no
Flight Software Branch (EK2)      | responsibility for inaccuracies in my data.

--
Mary Shafer  shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov  ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
           NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
                     Of course I don't speak for NASA
            "Turn to kill, not to engage."  CDR Willie Driscoll

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 91 00:57:57 GMT
From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa!3001crad@ucsd.edu  (Charles Frank Radley)
Subject: Re: Traxler says:  WAKE UP!!!!


ahem, Freedom is hardly a 60's vintage tin can......
It is the latest in the state of the art, and wil be the most
advanced spacecraft ever flown ( at least in the unclassified
arena - which is all I know about ).

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 91 05:53:00 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Fred's Operatic Death

In article <1991Jun8.065311.28270@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes:
>Henry, I agree with you that EOS is also oversized, but a <$10 
>billion program just does not produce the same kind of threat
>as a $120 billion program.  When Fred is finished, I'll have a go
>at turning EOS into something more efficient.
>
You are using lifetime costs of two programs of VERY different lengths.
Freedom will (so they say...) cost $120 billion over the next 37 years,
(30-year life starting in 1999). If I recall correctly, the EOS program
as it is now budgeted will not run nearly this long. A better comparison
would be the cost of ALL the EOS-type research that will be done over the
next 4 decades.

					  Frank Crary

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 91 00:30:11 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!think.com!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!lethe!telly!moore!eastern!egsgate!Uucp@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (George William Herbert)
Subject: Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch?


In article <852@newave.UUCP> john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>
>If you are interested in this type of information, consider subscribing
>to the paranet mailing list.

	Since this newsgroup is sci.space, I would encourage those who want
to post Paranet's stuff (and other second-source material) to think long
and hard about wether it's up to any scientific standards.  Hoagland's isn't
really (and don't start on me why; I talked to him myself, as well as the
NASA people who can debunk him, and the reason that he's still around is 
mostly that the scientists were PR idiots and never published a negative-
results paper and sat on their enhanced and second-angle data).

	The Lunar stuff was, however, appropriate.

-george william herbert
gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 91 11:02:04 GMT
From: eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!amelia!eugene@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: [l/m 7/11] Frequently asked SPACE questions

This list does change.  Slowly.  It only changes when the members
of s.s. have something to add, correct, etc.  I no longer have time to
read s.s., and the SNR is too low.  So if this
does not change it is more a reflection of the other people
you are reading, and not me.  Think about that for a moment.
You make the difference.
	"It's not a message.  I think it's a warning." -- Ripley

This is a list of frequently asked questions on SPACE (which goes back
before 1980).  It is developing.  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

%A Myron Kayton
%T Avionics for Manned Spacecraft
%J IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems
%V 25
%N 6
%D November 1989
%P 786-827

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

You can make it change.  Just discuss the changes on the net, then mail the
resolution to me.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 91 20:44:09 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!isi.edu!cew@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Craig E. Ward)
Subject: Re: L-5 Society is now National Space Society (NSS)

In article <13906@goofy.Apple.COM> leech@Apple.COM (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>In article <18178@venera.isi.edu> cew@venera.isi.edu (Craig E. Ward) writes:
>>NSS offers a variety of ways to get involved and make a difference in
>>creating "a spacefaring civilization with communities beyond the Earth."
>
>    What might they be?  L-5 planned to dissolve in a meeting at L-5.

To me, it means that traveling to anywhere in the Solar System isn't any more
difficult than going anywhere on this planet is today.  I don't know if the
"dissolve at L5" is still on the books, but I see no reason why not.

>NSS is an unabashed NASA supporter which doesn't look beyond Freedom,
>and its brand of 'getting involved' seems to be 'lobbying for whatever
>NASA asks for.' 

This just does not stand up to critical examination.  Last year, NSS was
instrumental in passing the Patents in Space Act that added space-developed
products to US patent law and NSS chapters were instrumental in passing the
Launch Services Purchase Act that aims to take NASA out of the launch
business.  NSS Legislative Committee chair Glenn Reynolds has accused NASA
of trying to kill SEI by coming out with a silly implementation plan.  Not
exactly buddy-buddy, but when NASA goals match NSS, we work with them.

>It sends out 'space policy surveys' that are already
>slanted to give the answers NSS wants.

This has been covered before in this group.  Surveys sent to potential
members are recruiting tools and using them is a standard, effective practice
for all activist organizations.  The survey sent to members is designed to
ascertain what members think about the issues.  One of the toughest gives the
respondent $100 and asks how it would be divided between six or eight
potential projects.

>...Feh.  I retain my
>NSS membership, for some reason, but the Space Studies Institute has
>my loyalty.  They're *really* making a difference, and if the 'L-5
>spirit' still exists anywhere, it's there.

You probably maintain your membership because deep down you realize that even
if you were the Absolute Ruler of the organization, it *still* wouldn't do
what you wanted all the time and what NSS does is worth the basic membership
to you.  Giving more to SSI is fine.  They too do good things and are
deserving.

I go through a similar exercise with the Planetary Society.  Their leadership
does things I know are politically dumb, but on the whole, I support the
programs emphasized by PS.  They're still worth the basic membership;
although I give more to NSS.

All activist organizations must balance a variety of factors and the National
Space Society is no exception.
-- 
Craig E. Ward <cew@venera.isi.edu> 	Slogan:	"nemo me impune lacessit"
USPS:	USC/Information Sciences Institute
	4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1200
	Marina del Rey, CA 90292

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V13 #719
*******************