Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_5/V9_512.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 16KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/IYdRVCy00UkVIKZU5P>;
          Mon, 26 Jun 89 03:16:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 89 03:16:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #512

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 512

Today's Topics:
           SCI.GEO voting results -- FAILED
               Saturn V/Adv. Propulsion
           Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth
              Re: Don't mess with NASA?
Re: Contractors selected for Advanced Launch System studies (Forwarded)
              Re: Super strings
           Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth
          US vs. USSR space program budget.
     Re: Magellan Status for week of 06/20/89 (Forwarded)
             Rocket Fuel Queries
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 89 20:12:40 GMT
From: leah![e-mail]  (Steven H Schimmrich)
Subject: SCI.GEO voting results -- FAILED


   The attempt to create a  SCI.GEO  newsgroup  has  failed  due to a lack  of
interest. The final vote tally was 61 for and 9 against.  A list of the voters
is included below.

                  YES votes
                  ---------

1 - [e-mail] - Beverly Erlebacher
2 - [e-mail] - Mark Robert Smith
3 - uvm-gen!tnl![e-mail] - Garret Wollman
4 - [e-mail] - Bertil Paulsson
5 - [e-mail] - Todd McComb
6 - [e-mail] - Bill Jefferys
7 - [e-mail] - Todd Nelson
8 - marque!lakesys![e-mail] - Dave Kraft
9 - [e-mail] - John Platt
10 - [e-mail] - Ellen Metzger
11 - [e-mail] - Anton Rang
12 - [e-mail]
13 - [e-mail] - Dave Alexander
14 - [e-mail] - Doug Mercer
15 - [e-mail] - R. Timothy Smith
16 - [e-mail] - Tero Siili
17 - [e-mail] - Peter Knoop
18 - [e-mail] - Alan M Stanier
19 - uwmcsd1!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uunet!RELAY.CS.NET.todd!reed! - Todd Ellner
20 - uwmcsd1!uunet.UU.NET!ficc!peter - Peter da Silva
21 - [e-mail] - Joe Dellinger
22 - @MCC.COM:[e-mail] - John Arisco
23 - [e-mail] - Kenneth H. Lee
24 - [e-mail] - Yaron Sheffer
25 - [e-mail] - Carrick Talmadge
26 - naucse![e-mail] - Robert Wier
27 - [e-mail] - Debra Lenard
28 - [e-mail] - Richard Lammers
29 - [e-mail] - David Meile
30 - [e-mail] - Erik
31 - bnewsl![e-mail] - Stuart Warmink
32 - @CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:[e-mail] - Kim Sullivan
33 - [e-mail] - Richard Welty
34 - [e-mail] - Lawrence T. LeMay
35 - apollo![e-mail] - Patrick Catapano
36 - [e-mail] - Phil Howard
37 - @CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:[e-mail] - Jean-Luc Loizeau
38 - [e-mail] - Paul F. Dietz
39 - van-bc!rsoft!mindlink![e-mail] - Jono Moore
40 - [e-mail] - Paul Cartwright
41 - visdc![e-mail] - John E. Van Deusen III
42 - [e-mail] - Eric W. Tilenius
43 - ficc![e-mail] - Jeff Daiell
44 - elf115![e-mail] - Roger Critchlow
45 - [e-mail] - Kenneth B. Streeter
46 - inmet![e-mail] - Tom Yelton
47 - uwmcsd1!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!jwl - James Wilbur Lewis
48 - [e-mail] - Gregory A. Nowak
49 - cbnews![e-mail] - William B. Thacker
50 - [e-mail] - Patricia Roberts
51 - [e-mail] - Bruce Bathhurst
52 - [e-mail] - Woodstock
53 - dciem!nrcaer!cognos!alzabo![e-mail] - Krishna E. Bera
54 - somewhere![e-mail] - Gary A. Kern
55 - [e-mail] - Paul W. Kasameyer
56 - [e-mail] - Paul O,Neill
57 - @CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:[e-mail]
58 - [e-mail] - Wing Chiu Peter Leung
59 - @RELAY.CS.NET:[e-mail] - Tim Veerkamp
60 - [e-mail] - Mohib N. Durrani
61 - @po2.andrew.cmu.edu:[e-mail] - Joe Keane

                   NO votes
                   --------

1 - [e-mail] - David Mark
2 - [e-mail] - Eliot Lear
3 - [e-mail] - Una Smith
4 - [e-mail] - Graig E. Ward
5 - [e-mail] - J. A. Biep Durieux
6 - [e-mail] - Nelson Broat
7 - [e-mail] - Jeffrey J. B. Carpenter
8 - [e-mail] - Matt S. Wartell
9 - oucsace![e-mail] - Paul J. Mech

 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
| Steven H. Schimmrich                    | Internet : [e-mail] |
| Department of Geological Sciences       |  "The Rock Men are very primitive |
| State University of New York at Albany  | Flash, they have no science."     |
| Albany, New York 12222  [phone]  |                      Dr. Zarkhov. |
 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

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

Date: 21 Jun 89 21:44:49 GMT
From: oliveb!mipos3!omepd!mipon2![e-mail]  (Larry Smith)
Subject: Saturn V/Adv. Propulsion


Several postings recently have been on the Saturn V.

There will be a paper entitled "History in the Making - The
Mighty F-1 Rocket Engine" presented at the AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE
25th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit on Monday morning
July 10, 1989 at the Monterey Convention Center, Monterey, CA.
The author of the paper is D. Warren, from Rockwell
International (the parent company of Rocketdyne, the
developer of the F-1). There will be other papers that morning on
the LEM descent engine, the Apollo Reaction Control System,
the Titan liquid engines, the Agena engine,
and perspectives on propulsion for the Viking Mars-Lander.
There may also be a paper on Liquid Propulsion in the USSR.
All of the above papers are called Session 21 and entitled
LP2: Liquid Propulsion History. Each paper should take
approx. 1/2 hour including questions (not much time I agree).
The above talks are currently scheduled for the Steinbeck Forum
room at the Convention Center. The F-1 paper is currently
scheduled to be presented at 11:30 AM. The first paper is at
9:30 AM. This session runs till 1:30 PM.

Registration will be at the Convention Center on Sunday, 4-7pm
and Mon-Thurs from 7:30am till close. On-Site fees are:
AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE Member    $225
AIAA Student Member        $0
Student Nonmember        $12

Copies of papers are available after the conference from
AIAA Library at 212-247-6500. Costs: $3.50 members,
$4.50 nonmembers per paper. I would expect the entire
conference proceedings on microfiche to be the cheapest
way to go (when this is available). The F-1 paper is
AIAA number 89-2387.

The complete list of sessions/papers can be obtained from
the May 89 issue of Aerospace America magazine.

By the way, this conference is one of the major conferences
on state of the art aerospace propulsion concepts in the world.
The F-1 was a great engine, and the future concepts that were being
proposed based on F-1/Saturn technology in the mid 60's
(ie: NOVA, Saturn V Cluster, Multiple F-1 cumbustors
per engine, etc ...) were really exciting, even though
they got killed. However, today, there is even more going on
to be excited about in terms of high performance aerospace
propulsion versus the F-1 days. And today, its not all located
in the U.S. either. So in my opinion, lets not resurrect the F-1,
lets fund and develop whats being researched today.
See my recent posting to sci.space on LACE rocket engines for
just one example.

Larry Smith

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

Date: 21 Jun 89 18:34:50 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Sims) writes:

>However, if you deploy it at maximum altitude (with such a light payload),
>you can't get back to it again with ANY payload, since rendevous is a LOT
>more expensive than just tossing something over the side wherever you happen
>to be at the time. This means that if something goes wrong (don't _even_ think
>about it), you have to wait for the orbit to decay to a sufficiently low
>altitude to go fix it. (If we can't even get into orbit, the chances of NASA
>flying a mission with NO payload just to fix up the HST are minimal to nil)

Does this mean that after something goes wrong, the orbit decays, and we
launch a shuttle to fix it, we can't reboost it to the original high
orbit?

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Jun 89 18:58:27 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

Don't get any ideas: I'm only rebuilding a .newsrc file so I am
temporarily reading certain old groups along the way.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Hix) writes:
>On my way into work this morning, as I passed Moffett Field,
>I noticed a NASA helicopter hovering about the active runway.
>
>What use could they have for a Bell HueyCobra (AH-1<mumble>)?
>
>(I know, it's probably a testbed for some new rotor design,
>but, on the other hand, perhaps someone is getting tired of
>vocal critics... :} )

General rotorcraft design.  The converted Cobra gunship is a high performance
design.  We have to put up with with the racket outside our office window.
Very distracting.  I have promised the Ride of the Valkries for my officemate.

On a more serious note: I was driving 880 in Fremont when I noticed our
Chinook had gone down in a field (there were mechanics working on
it).  Where ever you can set down.......  You just have to look carefully.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, [e-mail]
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
                  Live free or die.

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

Date: 21 Jun 89 19:49:00 GMT
From: deimos.cis.ksu.edu!ceres![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Contractors selected for Advanced Launch System studies (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
> Jim Cast
> Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
>
> Jerry Berg
> Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.
>
>
> RELEASE:  89-99
>
> CONTRACTORS SELECTED FOR ADVANCED LAUNCH SYSTEM STUDIES
>
>
>      The Advanced Launch System is intended to provide, by the
> 1998-2000 time period, a dependable, reliable, high-capacity
> national launch capability while reducing by a factor of 10 the
> cost of placing payloads in Earth orbit.

Oh no, didn't we hear this about the Space Shuttle about a
decade or so ago?

-- Joe

"Those who would sacrifice **  I disclaim none of my opinions.
liberty for security,      **
deserve neither."          **       CERES::TJL
 B. Franklin               **       [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Jun 89 17:53:34 GMT
From: hubcap!ncrcae!ncrlnk!ncrcce![e-mail]  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Super strings

In article <Added.kYbaa6S00Ui3QEak9=@andrew.cmu.edu> [e-mail] writes:
>Does anyone have some informations (books, articles, scripts) about the
>super string theory?

There was a front cover article in Discover a couple months (maybe a year) back.

Sorry but I don't have the exact reference here.
--
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) [e-mail] or
Roseville MN 55113                    [e-mail]
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

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

Date: 21 Jun 89 02:12:25 GMT
From: stsci![e-mail]  (Jim Sims)
Subject: Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth


 The issue/problem of what altitude to deploy HST is currently under study.
The problem is not quite as simple as it sounds (ie. put it as high as you can
 just _won't_ cut it)

 THere are several competing factors:

 To get maximal performance, only HST and IMAX are onboard.
 Deployment is currently set for 310-330 nm.
 This allows _minimal_ contingency fuel for 2 re-visits during deployment
    for problem resolution (and return of the shuttle 1/2 ;-) )
    (conservative estimate of RCS fuel remaining = 0 !!! lbs (of 25000))

 Since HST is relatively light (25,000 lbs) but HUGE, the shuttle can put it
_way_ up there ("we could put it a _lot_ higher, but we couldn't get back" -
pilot at deployment crew visit at the 'tute last month - "and we _really_
don't want the record _that_ bad...")

However, if you deploy it at maximum altitude (with such a light payload),
you can't get back to it again with ANY payload, since rendevous is a LOT
more expensive than just tossing something over the side wherever you happen
to be at the time. This means that if something goes wrong (don't _even_ think
about it), you have to wait for the orbit to decay to a sufficiently low
altitude to go fix it. (If we can't even get into orbit, the chances of NASA
flying a mission with NO payload just to fix up the HST are minimal to nil)


clearer?

jim
--
    Jim Sims      Space Telescope Science Institute      Baltimore, MD
             UUCP:  {arizona,decvax,hao,ihnp4}!noao!stsci!sims
    ARPA:  [e-mail]                           SPAM:  STOSC::SIMS

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

Date: 21 Jun 89 21:48:54 GMT
From: rti!xyzzy!dg-rtp.dg.com![e-mail]  (Allen Briggs VPI intern)
Subject: US vs. USSR space program budget.

The difference between the budget of the space programs in the US and in the
USSR cannot be measured only in dollars.  The Russian space program is
designed around improving existing technology.  Instead, the US tends to
start from scratch on each project.
    Does anyone have any figures on what percentages of the two budgets
go _directly_ to R&D?

Allen Briggs
    [e-mail]
    ... !mcnc!rti!dg-rtp!briggs

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

Date: 21 Jun 89 20:54:25 GMT
From: sgi!daisy![e-mail]  (Mike Wooding)
Subject: Re: Magellan Status for week of 06/20/89 (Forwarded)

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee):
>      SPACECRAFT
>      Distance From Earth (mi)                    6,324,124
>
>      Velocity Geocentric                         5,064 mph
>               Heliocentric                      62,493 mph
>
>      One Way Light Time                           33.3 sec

 Would anyone care to explain Geocentric vs Heliocentric velocity
 of the Magellan? I've noticed that the GV is slowly diminishing
 while the HV is increasing.

 Just curious - m woding

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

Date: 23 Jun 89 02:57:21 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Bill Ganoe)
Subject: Rocket Fuel Queries

I've been mulling over (yet again) the cost of getting off the planet.
I've seen several references to the cost of equivalent electrical
energy to get to orbit in a hypothetical situation, but I've never
seen any figures for what real LOX, LH2, N2O2, etc. would cost a
real launch operator in today's real world.  Can anyone out there
provide some price quotes?

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #512
*******************