Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_5/V9_532.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

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/8Yg3i0y00UkV8TkE4u>;
          Tue,  4 Jul 89 00:22:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue,  4 Jul 89 00:22:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #532

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 532

Today's Topics:
             space news from May 22 AW&ST
NASA selects science experiments for Space Station Freedom (Forwarded)
           Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth
             Re: new space goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Jul 89 01:33:37 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from May 22 AW&ST

[Cover on this one, by the way, is Mary Shafer's pet F-18, part of the
high-angle-of-attack research program at Dryden.]

NASA to close tracking stations at Guam, Santiago, Ascension, Dakar, and
Hawaii, now that the third TDRS is operational.

Second-stage motor for Pegasus fired successfully May 12 at Hercules.
Third-stage motor was fired a couple of months ago; first-stage motor
to fire June 20.

Truly, in his first week as (acting) NASA Admin., names new heads for
space-station program, after two successive station chiefs quit in two
weeks.  William B. Lenoir, ex-astronaut, is now boss.  Truly wants to
merge station and shuttle management at least partially, as the current
completely-separate managements require Truly himself to referee even
minor disagreements.

National Space Council's first formal meeting comes down very strongly in
favor of continued government support for Landsat 4/5 operations and
Landsat 6 construction, ending uncertainties about Landsat's near-term
future.  What happens after Landsat 6 is still vague, though.

Soviet scientists are grumbling loudly about the compartmentalization of
the Soviet space program.  They blame the Phobos losses, in particular,
on the refusal of the satellite builders to give the science team a role
in design.  [This sounds a bit strong to me... I think it may be just a
matter of seizing a convenient but irrelevant problem as a way of getting
some action on bad organizational structure.]  Both Soviet and US scientists
are unhappy that the 1994 Mars lander/balloon mission is still somewhat
ill-defined and not completely approved, with only five years to go before
launch.  [Sigh, there was a time when five years would not have been thought
a short time in which to build a planetary probe...]

"Brilliant pebbles" funding to rise sharply, as technical doubts begin to
be raised.  For example, there was supposed to be some b-p hardware aboard
the Delta Star satellite launched in March, but it wasn't ready, leading
to suspicion that Lawrence Livermore is overselling its rate of progress
on the crucial technologies.  There is also debate over the degree of
autonomy b-p interceptors should have; Livermore proposes near-total
independence, with the interceptors completely on their own after launch
until an "open fire" command arrives, but the USAF wants business-as-usual,
with constant command and control from the ground -- which would increase
communications requirements and thus weight and cost.  Industry people
involved with more conventional space-based interceptors complain that
a lot of b-p funding seems to be going to educate the Livermore people
about basic space engineering, such as the amount of laser power needed
for reliable laser communications.  Many people are also unhappy that cost
estimates for b-p hardware vary by a factor of four depending on who's
doing the estimating and when.

SDI funding cutbacks delay possible deployment of near-term operational
hardware several years.  Longer-term projects are also hurt, notably the
free-electron laser project, whose priority appears to have dropped and
whose output-power spec has been cut just before the contract was to be
awarded.  [This is more significant than it might sound, because the
FEL is the #1 choice to power a laser-launcher system, and Jordin Kare's
laser-launcher group is relying on SDI for laser development.]

Major changes may be in store for the space-based parts of SDI's Phase 1
design; in particular, there is concern that there are too few tracking
satellites and that they are too vulnerable to attack.

NASA revises shuttle schedule, slipping Hubble telescope to next year
and putting LDEF retrieval dangerously late in the year.  [NASA's big
priorities right now are getting Columbia flying again and getting
Galileo off on time, and things were just looking a bit crowded this
autumn.]

GE signs with Arianespace to launch Satcom C-1 on Ariane in 1991, with
options on launches for C-2 and C-4.

Space Vacuum Epitaxy Center at U of Houston gets NASA contract to build
a "wake shield facility" for the shuttle:  a 10-ft-dia shield to be held
"upstream" of experiments by the shuttle arm, giving materials-processing
experiments an extra-good vacuum.  Space Industries Inc. has been hired
to do most of the design and construction.

Pratt&Whitney says that public support for Aerospace Plane is suffering
because of the secrecy surrounding it.

Data-transmission tests between European Space Operations Center and
NASA's Deep Space Network tracking stations successful, clearing the way
for attempted revival of Giotto next year.  Giotto is far away right now
but will pass moderately close to Earth next summer; the revival attempt
will be made early next year.  If revival is successful, if Giotto is
in good shape, and if funding appears adequate, Giotto will be maneuvered
to make a close Earth flyby, aiming it at another comet.  Grigg-Skjellerup
is a possible target, and could be encountered in summer 1992.

Letter from Charles Scott MacGillivray, observing that quite a bit of
space-station funding could probably be had by selling advertising space
on it.

Letter of the week, from David M. Hoerr:

    "According to acting NASA Administrator Dale Myers, the
    fundamental purpose of the space station is `to inspire young
    people and provide incentives for engineering education'.

    "Does he really expect young people to be inspired by a slow-
    paced, bureaucracy-bound program with uncertain purposes and
    an even more uncertain future?  How ironic that NASA has done
    its best to stifle real innovation and pioneering in space, as
    represented by the efforts of numerous struggling private
    space companies that would really inspire..."
--
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Jun 89 19:38:48 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA selects science experiments for Space Station Freedom (Forwarded)

Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      June 29, 1989


RELEASE:  89-104

NASA SELECTS SCIENCE EXPERIMENTS FOR SPACE STATION FREEDOM

     NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications today
announced the selection of 27 flight experiments, or concept
studies leading to experiments, that will fly aboard the Space
Station Freedom.

     The selections fall into two categories.  The flight
category is for attached scientific experiments that can be
mounted aboard elements of Freedom's structure during its
assembly and outfitting phase.  The 14 investigations selected in
this category will be the first performed aboard Freedom.  Flight
proposals were solicited that would be limited in weight and make
only modest demands on station resources, such as power, cooling
and crew availability, during the busy assembly phase.

     The concept study category is for studies that may lead to
flight experiments after the assembly phase.  These proposals
were solicited for more advanced ideas that could be implemented
after station assembly when additional resources, such as higher
power and data-handling capabilities, will be available.

     Some of the 14 flight experiments and 13 concept studies
call upon two facilities the Office of Space Science and
Applications has indicated would be built for Freedom.  These are
Astromag, a cryogenically-cooled superconducting electromagnet to
measure cosmic rays, and the Cosmic Dust Collection Facility,
which will capture and record the direction and velocity of
cosmic dust particles for further analysis.

     The 27 selections were made from responses to two NASA
announcements of opportunity issued in 1988.  The first, issued
in January, was for the Earth Observing System (EOS) and
solicited proposals for both the unmanned NASA Polar Orbiting
Platform and the permanently manned Space Station Freedom.  The
second was issued in July and was specifically for scientific and
technological payloads in other scientific disciplines to be
attached to Freedom.  Eight of the nine Earth science
investigations selected as attached payloads involve copies of
EOS Polar Platform instruments.

     The investigations include participants from about 50
organizations representing NASA and other government and private
research centers, U.S. universities and five foreign countries.
The selected experiments and concepts represent a wide range of
scientific disciplines including space physics, solar and
planetary physics, exobiology, astrophysics, Earth and
environmental science and communications technology.  They
involve nearly 130 scientists.

     Selection of the flight experiments was predicated on their
ability to meet a timetable for the design, development and
assembly of Freedom elements.  The earliest expected flight date
for any of the experiments is 1996.  The Freedom Station will
provide physical attachment points, power, cooling, data
communications and pointing for certain instruments.

     The Attached Payload Program is managed by the Office of
Space Science and Applications, Flight Systems Division.  Program
manager is Dr. Philip J. Cressy, and program scientist is Dr.
Stanley C. Freden, both at NASA Headquarters.

     The following individuals have been selected for funding for
experiments and concept studies in response to the January 1988
announcement:

Dr. Robert M. Walker, McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences,
Washington University, St. Louis, Cosmic Dust Experiment, flight
experiment.

Dr. Michael Fitzmaurice, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt,
Md., Laser Communications Transceiver, flight experiment.

Dr. Paul Gorenstein, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory,
Cambridge, Mass., Large Area Modular Array of Reflectors/High
Throughput X-Ray Astronomy Instrument, flight experiment.

Dr. Thomas A. Parnell, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville,
Ala., Spectra, Composition and Interactions of Nuclei above 10
TeV, Astromag experiment, flight experiment.

Dr. Jonathan F. Ormes, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt,
Md., Large Isotope Spectrometer for Astromag, flight experiment.

Dr. Glenn C. Carle, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
Exobiology Intact Capture Experiment, flight experiment.

Dr. Siegfried Auer, Applied Research Corporation, Landover, Md.,
Cosmic Dust Orbit and Capture Experiment, flight experiment.

Dr. Robert L. Golden, Particle Astrophysics Laboratory, New
Mexico State University, Las Cruces, Measurement of Cosmic Rays
including Anti-protons, Positrons, Anti-nuclei and a Search for
Primordial Antimatter, Astromag experiment, flight experiment.

Dr. Arthur B. Walker, Jr., Center for Space Science and
Astrophysics, Stanford University, Calif., Ultra-High Resolution
XUV Spectroheliograph, flight experiment.

Dr. W. T. Sanders, Space Science and Engineering Center,
University of Wisconsin at Madison, X-ray Background Survey
Spectrometer, flight experiment.

Dr. Peter B. Price, Space Science Laboratory, University of
California at Berkeley, Heavy Nucleus Collector, flight
experiment.

Dr. Peter M. Banks, STAR Laboratory, Department of Electrical
Engineering, Stanford University, Calif., Plasma Interactions
Experiment, concept study.

Dr. Michael Shao, Optical Sciences and Applications Section, Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., Orbiting Stellar
Interferometer, concept study.

Dr. Robert D. Reasenberg, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory,
Cambridge, Mass., Precision Optical Interferometry in Space
Study, concept study.

Dr. Jonathan E. Grindlay, Harvard College Observatory, Harvard-
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass., Energetic
X-ray Observatory for Space Station, concept study.

Dr. Robert L. Brown, National Radio Astronomy Observatory,
Charlottesville, Va., High-Resolution Imaging Spectroscopy at
Tera Hertz Frequencies, concept study.

Dr. Hugh S. Hudson, Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences,
University of California, San Diego, Pinhole/Occulter Facility,
concept study.

Dr. Guy Fogleman, SETI Institute, Ames Research Center, Moffett
Field, Calif., Study to Develop an Active Collector of Cosmic
Dust, concept study.


The following investigators were selected from responses to the
July 1988 announcement:

Dr. M. Patrick McCormick, Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.,
Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment III, flight experiment.

Dr. Hugh Christian, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville,
Ala., Lightning Imaging Sensor, flight experiment.

Dr. Bruce Barkstrom, Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.,
Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System, flight experiment.

Dr. William L. Barnes, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt,
Md., Tropical Region Imaging Spectrometer, concept study.

Dr. Michael H. Freilach, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena,
Calif., Advanced Scatterometer for Studies in Meteorology and
Oceanography, concept study.

Dr. Tiruvalam Krishnamurti, Florida State University,
Tallahassee, an experiment similar to the Laser Atmospheric Wind
Sounder, one of six facility instruments included in the Polar
Platform proposal, concept study.

Dr. William G. Melbourne, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena,
Calif., Global Positioning System Geoscience Instrument, concept
study.

Dr. Gerald R. North, Texas A&M University, College Station,
Tropical Rain Mapping Radar, concept study.

Dr. Roy Spencer, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.,
Tropical Geophysical Information Retrieval with a High Resolution
Microwave Spectrometer Sounder, concept study.

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

Date: 29 Jun 89 14:45:55 GMT
From: asuvax!anasaz![e-mail]  (Scott Gibson)
Subject: Re: HST update - from the horse's mouth

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Sims) writes:
>>EVA if you want to reboost (to replace the solar panels). ugly. THIS is just
>>ONE good reason we need a space station - drop by _anytime_ & fix the sucker..
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>In general, this is not such a good reason.  Many scientific satellites are
>in polar orbits, and other satellites are in awkward orbits, such as
>Molniya (highly elliptic) and geosynchronous (a ways further up the gravity
>well, and more exposed to energetic particles in the magnetosphere).  If you
>wanted to get something in polar orbit, starting from equatorial orbit, you
>would have to change your velocity by at least 40% more than a ground launch.


This is certainly true; my question, however, is that whether the energy
expended to do this exceeds that required by a ground launch.  Seems to me
that a good argument could be made for the efficiency of object repair and
retrieval from an existing orbital platform; ie: the space station.

The real cost seems to be in enabling such a procedure; that is, building
the hardware necessary to adopt such a practice, and getting it where it
needs to be [ie: in orbit].  Seems like we have to do most of this, anyway.
In the short term, it is probably cheaper and easier to build ground launch
vehicles [or use existing ones].  At some point, however, we have to *stop*
thinking about the short term.

This is just my own opinion; I don't really KNOW anything anyway....



Scott

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

Date: 29 Jun 89 16:35:59 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: new space goals

In article <[e-mail]> I wrote:
>>Let's do it cooperatively -- US, USSR, EEC, Japan, India, Israel, Indonesia
>>et cetera...
>
>Let's see...  The USSR does the heavylift boosters and nuclear-electric
>space propulsion, since they already have most of that done or in the
>works.  Japan does the electronics, of course.  ESA builds the crew
>quarters, based on Spacelab experience.  The US does... um... well...

Before too many people grump at me for this, I should say that this was
meant somewhat rhetorically; I can actually think of one or two things
that the US is well-suited to do.  (Tracking and telemetry is an obvious
one, as is the Mars lander.)  The point is, the US has let its space
technology slip to the point where the list of plausible US contributions
is shorter than you'd think.

There is also often a quiet assumption, when "international cooperation"
is discussed, that the US is the obvious choice for project leader.  Just
to be heretical :-), I would offer the suggestion that based on recent
performance, almost any other country would be better, since space-program
management in the US has been a disaster area of late.
--
NASA is to spaceflight as the  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
US government is to freedom.   | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #532
*******************