Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_5/V9_564.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

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/MYoH4Zu00UkV87Ok4e>;
          Sat, 29 Jul 89 00:23:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 89 00:22:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #564

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 564

Today's Topics:
              Re: Apollo Ascent Modules
              Re: Apollo Ascent Modules
               breaking up NASA
              Lagrangian Points
                  Sci.Astro
        A&E Rebroadcast of NBC Apollo coverage
         Re: Frequently asked SPACE questions
            NASA funding is not transitive
          Re: NASA funding is not transitive
Apollo-era technology spinoffs continue to enhance human life (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 19:14:54 GMT
From: att!chinet![e-mail]  (John Mundt)
Subject: Re: Apollo Ascent Modules

In article <[e-mail]> pnet01!pro-sol!pro-newfrontier!pro-nfmail01!pro-harvest![e-mail] writes:
>The ascent modules, of the Apollo lunar landing missions, were abandoned to
>orbit the moon once the astronauts had transferred back to the command module.
>Are any of the ascent modules still in orbit about Luna?  Or have they all
>fallen to ground since then?


Later flights had the ascent modules purposely were impacted into the surface of
the moon to test seismic recording devices with a known force.  When the first
one was done that way, geologists reported that the moon rang like a bell,
demonstrating that the moon had a solid core, rather than a liquid one.

I believe that the orbits of later flights were also less stable than that
of Apollo 11.  The later flights used the command module to change to a
10 x 60 mile high orbit before the lander separated, while on 11 I think
that the command module stayed in a circular orbit.  (Corrections, not
flames if I'm wrong, please.)
--
---------------------
John Mundt   Teachers' Aide, Inc.  P.O. Box 1666  Highland Park, IL
[e-mail]
[phone] (Day voice) || -432-8860 (Answer Mach) && -432-5386 Modem

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

Date: 17 Jul 89 20:26:51 GMT
From: frooz!cfa250![e-mail]  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Apollo Ascent Modules

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Norman C. Kluksdahl):
> The ascent stage of Eagle was left in orbit; I believe that most (if not all)
> excepting Apollo 13's LEM ascent stage were deliberately crashed into the
> surface to get seismic data from the experiment packages left on the moon.

The ascent stage of Orion (Apollo 16 LM) was left in lunar orbit rather than
impacted. It too has probably decayed by now. Pedant's note: NASA abandoned
the abbreviation LEM in the mid sixties, before Apollo flew. The official
abbreviation since then has been LM for Lunar Module. (The E was for Excursion).

I believe the Apollo 10 LM AS (Snoopy) was sent into solar orbit after it
was jettisoned; the descent stage was left in lunar orbit.

Jonathan McDowell

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

Date: 18 Jul 89 02:29:46 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: breaking up NASA

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:
>>One thing I miss from this list is space technology research -- the space
>>equivalent of the aeronautical research.  That's the single most important
>>contribution NASA could make to spaceflight.  NACA enormously speeded up
>>progress in aviation; we're overdue for the same thing in spaceflight.
>
>I can, like, totally dig this scene, man. :-)
>
>It does sound like a natural for NASA/NARA/whatever, but it should be
>picked at a bit more closely, like artichoke stew.  In the first place,
>a well defined MISSION should always come first, and NASA/etc should be
>carefully evaluated in each case as to whether it's the right agency for
>the job.
>
>Take high angle of attack (HAA) aircraft research for example - Henry
>and I both see AvWeek pix of this about every other week.  Why are they
>doing it?  Because EXISTING flight modes and missions need better HAA
>performance.  What do they need to do it?  One or two old planes and
>some wind tunnel time.  How's it going?  Great.  How potentially
>beneficial for the dollars spent?  Very.
>
>Now take the laughable supposed "mission" of lowering launch costs.  Has
>NASA got any damn business being involved?  Snort!  Let Boeing or
>someone with a *stake* in lower launch costs do it.

Uh, ever heard of winglets?  Supercritical wings?  Energy-efficient jet
engines?  Compression lift?  Practical transonic wind tunnels?  These
things were *not* invented by Boeing or those other people "with a stake
in lower flying costs".  They were invented by NACA/NASA, in pursuit of
its general mission of improving aeronautical technology.  A lot of the
launch-costs problem is bureaucratic and political and financial, but
better technology *always* helps.  And NASA has been doing pretty much
diddly-squat about it for the last couple of decades, despite it clearly
being part of their mission.

NACA's contribution to aeronautics, and in particular to lowering the cost
of flying, is almost beyond measuring.  It is difficult to find any major
development in wing cross-section design, for example, that *didn't* come
from NACA or the aeronautics side of NASA.  These things, by and large,
were *not* done in pursuit of specific missions.  And in particular, they
were *not* done because NACA wanted them for its own use.  The technology
side of NASA needs to be *less* focused on specific missions and vehicles
(like one we could name), not more.

>There's no doubt that if you DEFINE an international Mars mission, for
>instance, NASA needs to be tasked with inventing the craft needed...

NO!!!  Absolutely 100% wrong!!  NASA needs to be tasked with making sure
the necessary technology is there.  Not the same thing at all.  NASA is
no longer capable of designing and building vehicles economically; this
isn't all NASA's fault but is nevertheless true.  NASA should be helping
other people build vehicles, the same way NACA helped other people build
aircraft.  That approach just seems to work a whole lot better.

(Actually, part of the problem is that NASA itself is no longer capable
of building vehicles *at all*.  Few people now seem to appreciate the
extent to which NASA's biggest success story -- the Saturns -- relied
on NASA's own manufacturing facilities.  The contractor for the Saturn I
wasn't even *chosen* until after the first flight -- that bird was built
at Marshall Spaceflight Center, by NASA engineers under Wernher von Braun,
not by a contractor on a cost-plus contract.  The Saturn V was a more
cooperative venture, but the first few were still built at Marshall, by
a mixed NASA/industry crew under von Braun.  Industry deeply resented this
way of doing things, and it was the first capability NASA lost in the
post-Apollo cutbacks.  With results that we all know.  However, I am not
suggesting bringing this approach back, unless we can find someone like
von Braun to run it.  That one man made quite a difference.)
--
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Jul 89 00:28:37 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu![e-mail]  (Chandrasekhara Sudhama)
Subject: Lagrangian Points

Hello, this is my first posting. Would someone please explain
(either on this network or in private email) the stability of the
equilibrium points in the Earth - Moon system? That is, why are
points #1 and #2 in stable equilibrium? If I remember right, they
are 60 degrees ahead of and behind the moon in her path. Any info
on the other points is also welcome.


                         #4

                        MOON

             #1                        #2

                         #3


                       EARTH

                         #5


       Thanks,
           sudhama

[e-mail]
                             "Cold hearted orb that rules the night
                                Removes the colours from our sight"
                                                 - The Moody Blues

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

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 89 16:51 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Sci.Astro

Please, where is Sci.Astro ?
Which is its email adress ?
Thanks !

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

Date: 11 Jul 89 20:42:00 GMT
From: frog![e-mail]  (John Woods)
Subject: A&E Rebroadcast of NBC Apollo coverage

Someone asked about "some cable network rebroadcasting NBC's Apollo coverage".
Here's the scoop.  All times are given in EDT.

Arts and Entertainment (A&E) cable network will be rebroadcasting the NBC
live news coverage 20 years after the original at the following times:

Liftoff        Sunday 16 July        9:20AM - 11:00 AM

Moonwalk    Thursday 20 July    10:30PM - 2:00 AM
(and again on    Sunday 23 July        2:30PM - 6PM)

Splashdown    Monday 24 July        1:30PM - 3:00PM


--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, [phone]
...!decvax!frog!john, [e-mail], ...!mit-eddie!jfw, [e-mail]
    People...How you gonna FIGURE 'em?
    Don't bother, S.L.--Just stand back and enjoy the EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS...

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

Date: 11 Jul 89 22:11:13 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Frequently asked SPACE questions

>1) What happen to Saturn V plans?
>
>Underconstruction by Henry.

Wow, so THAT'S where they went!  How does this man find the time,
with C news and everything. :-)

PS I hope Toronto has adequate barge facilities...

--
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\    Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\    uunet!bfmny0!tneff

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

Date: 12 Jul 89 06:51:51 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: NASA funding is not transitive

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Baxter) writes:
>...  The cuts Eric describes would result in a
>$1.2 billion surplus for other programs if the space station is cancelled.

    The other programs may not have anything to do with space,
however.
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

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

Date: 13 Jul 89 03:02:01 GMT
From: grits![e-mail]  (Doug Davey)
Subject: Re: NASA funding is not transitive

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:
> The time has come to abolish NASA.  (It probably came in 1980, but
> better late than never).  In the true 80's corporate raider spirit of
> Gordon Gekko, we should spin it off into its components.
>
>     * Aeronautical research - a strong, important and well managed
>       program dating back to the 40's.  Retain present structure
>       intact and rename National Aeronautics Research Authority
>       (NARA).  Keep those high angle of attack planes flying!

Back to the 40's!?  Try 1917.  The NARA that you propose existed from
1917 to 1958.  It was called the National Advisory Council on Aeronautics
i.e. NACA (pronounced en ay cee ay, never as a word).
I agree with your point, but your history is a little off.  It was World
War 1 (not 2) that got the government heavily into aeronautical research.
Langley Research Center in Hampton, VA (the original NACA center, now
a NASA center) celebrated its 70th anniversary in 1987.  NASA was created
from NACA.

> Phone Tree Alert! (the sci.space equivalent of Attention K-Mart Shoppers!
> <grin>)  Let's get the above passed right away.  Comments?
> --
> "My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\    Tom Neff
> want me to launch -- next April?"  \\    uunet!bfmny0!tneff

                                  |     ___  ___         ___ ___  __   ___
Doug Davey                        |    /__/ /__ /   /   /   /  / /__) /__
bellcore!rruxi!ddavey             |   /__/ /__ /__ /__ /__ /__/ /  \ /__
(ex-NASA Langley employee)        |

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

Date: 15 Jul 89 06:47:57 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Apollo-era technology spinoffs continue to enhance human life (Forwarded)

Jim Ball
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     July 13, 1989


RELEASE:  89-117

APOLLO-ERA TECHNOLOGY SPINOFFS CONTINUE TO ENHANCE HUMAN LIFE


     Twenty years after the triumph of America's first lunar
landing, the technologies developed to enable manned spaceflights
and exploration of the moon continue to enhance human life here
on Earth through technology spinoffs to the fields of health,
safety, comfort and enjoyment of life.

     The achievement of the national commitment to land U.S.
astronauts on the moon and return them safely to Earth spurred
major advances in emerging technologies, such as computers, which
became smaller, lighter, and more efficient to meet the
requirements for manned spacecraft.

     Some specific examples of everyday products that employ
technology from the Apollo program:

     * The lunar roving vehicle, developed for use by the Apollo
astronauts to venture several miles away from their landing base,
was the source of a unistix controller now used by severely
handicapped people to accelerate, brake and steer a typical
passenger vehicle on the highway.  The vehicle's rubber tires,
which had to have low temperature pliability, were developed for
NASA by Goodyear, which used the technology to produce an all-
weather winter radial tire for use on automobiles.

     * Scratch resistant sunglass lenses were derived from a
highly abrasion-resistant coating developed to protect, from
harsh environments, the plastic surfaces of aerospace equipment
like the helmet visors worn by moon-walking astronauts.

     * A collection of cordless tools -- such as drills and dust
vacuums -- were derived from tools developed for the astronauts
to use on the moon while collecting surface and subsurface lunar
soil samples.

     * Patient monitoring equipment, commonly used today at
nurses stations to monitor the heart rate and other physiological
signs of hospital patients, employs the same technology that was
developed to monitor astronaut vital signs during spaceflight.

     * A special fabric developed for Apollo spacesuits, with the
qualities of being thin, light, flexible, yet durable and non-
combustible, provided the technology basis for heavier material
used for constructing fabric roofs on structures like Michigan's
silverdome.

     * For moonwalking safety and comfort, the Apollo astronauts
wore lunar boots which featured a three-dimensional "spacer "
material for cushioning and ventilation.  The material has been
modified for use today in a popular line of athletic shoes
designed for improved shock absorption and reduced foot fatigue.

     * Hundreds of lives have been saved through a widely used
commercial raft that will not capsize in heavy seas.  The raft
employs a NASA-patented water ballast stabilization system used
in rafts developed for the returning Apollo astronauts after
their splashdown.

     * An electrical power controller, developed for use on the
Saturn rocket to conserve energy, has been widely used to reduce
energy consumption in electrical motors.

     * A 3M-designed, meal-heating unit developed for Apollo
spacecraft crews served as the basis for an electronic food
warming system used in hospitals.

     * The inorganic coatings developed to provide corrosion
protection to the seaside launch gantries used for Apollo-Saturn
missions have seen widespread industrial use on coastal and ocean
structures such as bridges, pipelines, ships and oil rigs.

     * Insulation technology developed for the Saturn V booster
fuel tanks by Rockwell International provided an improved
insulation for the wells holding fresh-caught fish on tuna boats.

     These are but a few of the spinoffs, estimated to number in
the thousands, which can be traced directly to the technology
that launched and landed Americans on the moon in July 1969.

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #564
*******************