Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_5/V9_566.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/0YoLNzu00UkVM7pU50>;
          Sat, 29 Jul 89 05:18:56 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 89 05:18:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #566

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 566

Today's Topics:
Re: NASA exhibit at EAA focuses on "Investing in the future"  (Forwarded)
       Re: Station alternatives, What do WE have to do with it
                 Re: Moonwalk
           Request for more info on ozone depletion
               Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10
            Re: Questions about Apollo 11
               Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10
         Re: Magellan Status for 07/17/89 (Forwarded)
               Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10
               Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10
                 Re: Moonwalk
            Re: Questions about Apollo 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 09:05:42 GMT
From: agate![e-mail]  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: NASA exhibit at EAA focuses on "Investing in the future"  (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]>, yee@trident (Peter E. Yee) forwards:
>Mary Sandy
>Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      July 13, 1989
>
>Linda S. Ellis
>Lewis Research Center, Cleveland
>
>
>RELEASE:  89-116
>
>NASA EXHIBIT AT EAA FOCUSES ON "INVESTING IN THE FUTURE"
>
>
>      In the 20 years since man first stepped on the moon, NASA
>has taken bold strides toward even greater achievements in space
>science and exploration.

Bold strides backwards: increasing the complexity of launch systems to
previously unheard of levels, decrease in launch rate, decrease in
number of science missions, increase in dependence on the shuttle since
Challenger.

>               In addition to launching three major
>space science missions this year, NASA stands on the brink of
>establishing a permanent manned presence in space aboard Space
>Station Freedom.

So "on the brink" means within 6 years at the cost of $60 billion
dollars, assuming full funding, and that all 70 shuttle flights between
now and then will go off on schedule and without failure.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN NOW AND SCREAM AT HIM UNTIL HE AGREES THAT ONLY
NASA COULD HAVE DEVELOPED CORDLESS POWER TOOLS, AND THEREFORE THEY
DESERVE FULL FUNDING FOR THE SPACE STATION.

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

Date: 17 Jul 89 07:31:34 GMT
From: agate![e-mail]  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: Station alternatives, What do WE have to do with it

In article <[e-mail]>, leech@Apple (Jonathan Patrick Leech) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Baxter) writes:
>>So, what are the appropriate alternatives?  Or should we refrain from
>>offering any so that when the money is taken from NASA we can blame all
>>future space program woes on the congress?
>
>    What do "we" have to do with it, anyway?

We (or you) have nothing to do with it unless we provide input.  Read
the Congressional Record.  The committees that determine NASA funding
don't get much input from outside NASA.  They need coherent
alternatives, not just people telling them they are bums for questioning
the glorious and inevitable benefits of a NASA dominated space program.

Rumor has it that our elected officials are supposed to represent us.
On that basis it is perfectly reasonable to go to them and ask for their
support on an issue that you feel is important.

My congressman is Ron Dellums.  He is a cosponsor of the Space
Transportation Services Purchase Act (Formerly the Launch Services
Purchase Act).  Who is your congressman?  When did you last visit his
office?  Have you asked him to support the STSPA?

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

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

Date: 17 Jul 89 14:34:09 GMT
From: shlump.dec.com!hiatus.dec.com!moon.dec.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Moonwalk


Douglas Krouse asks, "how did the camera that was left behind on the Moon
track the LM taking off, and how did they get the film back"

They did not and it did not.  The picture you saw was not Apollo XI.  It was
XVI or XVII.  There was not picture from the outside of XI taking off.  In the
later flights which had a Lunar Rover, the rover was parked a little ways from
the LM and its camera was focused on the LM.  Ground controllers manuvered the
camera by remote control.  Must have been interesting trying to do that with
a 2-second delay.  (They must have had it preprogrammed).  In any case, this
was not the first rover flight, because they did not try to track the LM
liftoff.  The pitch on the camera was a bit flakey and they did not want to get
it stuck pointing up in the air since they wanted to use it later.  Thus,
it must have been one of the later flights.  Anyone out there who could tell
by the terrain (er selain??)?

BTW, I'm quite angry at CBS for trying to pull this one over on us.  Give us
back Uncle Walter!

Burns

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

Date: 18 Jul 89 16:04:01 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce![e-mail]  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Request for more info on ozone depletion

About a month ago, I heard a news story on how NASA scientists had
discovered a relationship between the loss of the ozone layer and
the bombardment of the layer by electrons originating in the magnetosphere(sp?)

A friend of mine has asked me if I can get more information on this subject.
Can anyone point me to an authorative reference for this, possible a NASA
publication or published paper? Please mail replies. Thanks in advance.
--
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: 19 Jul 89 00:54:49 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Corsetti) writes:
>I remember Apollo 8 as being the first time men orbitted the moon.  They
>had no LM for that mission.  If I remember right, 10 was the first test
>of the LM, and it was done in Earth Orbit.  Please correct me if I am
>wrong.  I can't for the life of me remember what Apollo 9 accomplished.

After Apollo 7, there was some uncertainty about what to do.  The LM was
badly behind schedule.  The original plans provided for the possibility of
a second Earth-orbit mission by just a CSM, and required an Earth-orbit
test of the full (CSM+LM) Apollo before any lunar missions were flown.
However, the LM was not going to be ready for months, and nobody could see
much point in just repeating Apollo 7.  So why not fly the CSM around
the Moon?  The second LMless Earth-orbit flight was changed to a lunar
mission and was moved up to precede the Earth-orbit LM test.  So Apollo 8
flew around the Moon with just the CSM, Apollo 9 tested the LM in Earth
orbit, Apollo 10 flew a dress rehearsal of the landing (including LM
descent to 10 miles above the Moon), and Apollo 11 was the big one.

There was some discussion about whether Apollo 10 was really needed; why
get to within 10 miles of the lunar surface and then go home?  But a lot
of people felt that an all-up test, including a real lunar-orbit rendezvous,
was a good idea before landing.  What finally settled the matter was that
Apollo 10's LM was overweight and could not have flown a complete landing
mission.
--
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 19 Jul 89 16:40:12 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce![e-mail]  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Questions about Apollo 11

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (dbp) writes:
>
>
>I watched the CBS special about Apollo 11 last night.
>(Thanks to whoever posted the notice; I wouldn't have known
>about it otherwise.)  Can anybody answer two questions?
>
The one thing that stuck me was the pictures of the LEM lifting off.  And
in color at that.  If I remember right, the first color TV camera was on
Apollo 12, and I thing this was also the first time that they left the
camera on for lift off.
--
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: 19 Jul 89 13:46:48 GMT
From: grits![e-mail]  (Doug Davey)
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> orbit, Apollo 10 flew a dress rehearsal of the landing (including LM
> descent to 10 miles above the Moon), and Apollo 11 was the big one.

The line that sticks in my mind from Apollo 10 was:

    "We're really down among 'em!"

It must have been quite a sight to be in orbit, but be only 10 miles
above the surface.

Does anybody remember whether the ascent or descent engine was used
during Apollo 10's return from low orbit to rendezvous with the CSM?
Either option seems difficult.  On the one hand, I would not expect
the descent engine to be restartable.  On the other, firing the
ascent engine and getting the ascent stage cleanly separated from the
descent stage would be tricky since the descent stage was deigned to
be firmly on the lunar surface during this operation.

                                  |     ___  ___         ___ ___  __   ___
Doug Davey                        |    /__/ /__ /   /   /   /  / /__) /__
bellcore!rruxi!ddavey             |   /__/ /__ /__ /__ /__ /__/ /  \ /__
                                  |

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

Date: 19 Jul 89 12:21:02 GMT
From: mcvax!hp4nl!eutrc3![e-mail]  (h.munk)
Subject: Re: Magellan Status for 07/17/89 (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
> continues to perform twice daily momentum wheel desaturations
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Forive me my ignorance, but what is "momentum wheel desaturation",
and why is it done ?


Harm Munk

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

Date: 19 Jul 89 21:15:46 GMT
From: ames.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Davey) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> orbit, Apollo 10 flew a dress rehearsal of the landing (including LM
>> descent to 10 miles above the Moon), and Apollo 11 was the big one.
>
>Does anybody remember whether the ascent or descent engine was used
>during Apollo 10's return from low orbit to rendezvous with the CSM?
>Either option seems difficult.  On the one hand, I would not expect
>the descent engine to be restartable.  On the other, firing the
>ascent engine and getting the ascent stage cleanly separated from the
>descent stage would be tricky since the descent stage was deigned to
>be firmly on the lunar surface during this operation.

Since the Apollo 10 was a full dress-rehersal for Apollo 11 it did
everything 11 would do, except land. This flying under the same lighting
conditions as 11 to take landing site pictures, establish landmarks, etc.

This included staging and returning to high-orbit using the ascent stage,
much as was done on Apollo 9 two months before. So they were doing nothing
really new, just verifying the LMs capabilities in the Lunar environment.
The notable thing that happened on Apollo 10 was at the point of staging when
one of the crew accedentally switched the computer from "attitude hold", over
to a mode that told it to start hunting for the CM. Since the CM was nowhere
to be found the LM went into a wild dance. Stafford hit the abort button
(what Armstrong would've done if the 1202 and 1201 alarms were too serious
to ignore), staged and everything calmed down. They were at an altitude of
about 8 1/2 NM (at least according to the Flight Plan), and were coming up
to a mountain that was 3 miles high. Pretty dramatic stuff.



          *** mike (still looking for a publisher) smithwick ***

"Los Angeles : Where neon goes to die"
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

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

Date: 19 Jul 89 23:06:26 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Davey) writes:
>... On the other, firing the
>ascent engine and getting the ascent stage cleanly separated from the
>descent stage would be tricky since the descent stage was deigned to
>be firmly on the lunar surface during this operation.

No, there were various abort possibilities (including running out of
descent-stage fuel while trying to find a smooth spot to land) that
required in-flight separation.  I *think* Apollo 10 tested it.
--
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 19 Jul 89 16:34:24 GMT
From: shlump.dec.com!hiatus.dec.com!moon.dec.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Moonwalk

Distribution: na
Organization: VMS DECwindows Development


Just out of curiosity, did the Apollo 17 tape that CBS "confused" with
the Apollo 11
version also have audio?  In other words, were we listening to the
mission control
callouts from 17 or 11?

Burns

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

Date: 19 Jul 89 21:31:03 GMT
From: ames.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Questions about Apollo 11

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (dbp) writes:
>>
>>
>>I watched the CBS special about Apollo 11 last night.
>>(Thanks to whoever posted the notice; I wouldn't have known
>>about it otherwise.)  Can anybody answer two questions?
>>
>The one thing that stuck me was the pictures of the LEM lifting off.  And
>in color at that.  If I remember right, the first color TV camera was on
>Apollo 12, and I thing this was also the first time that they left the
>camera on for lift off.
>--

The Apollo 12 camera was burned out by Al Bean about 45 minutes into the
EVA. Even had the camera lasted, it could not have shown the liftoff since
it was powered by the LM, and had no remote control facility. The first
liftoff views came from Apollo 15 since the TV was controlled by earth, and
being on the rover it was completely independent  of the LM.

Due to Bean's screwup, Apollo 13 and 14 carried a backup black and white
camera (similar to the Apollo 11 model), and were instructed to cover
up the lens whenever it was moved. The thing I wonder about is why no-one
caught Bean's error before it was too late. It took about 25 or 30 seconds
before it was killed, plenty of time for someone on the ground to say
"hey you idiot, aim the camera down!!". What was interesting is that
at one point after the burnout there was a brief flash of the LM that
was visible.

On the Emmy awards later on, the crew was given a special award, and
on it was inscribed something like "never before have so many watched
for so long for so little".

The Apollo 12 crew was known to be rather clumsy. In "Chariots for
Apollo" they told about a sim in a real LM on the ground with Bean and
Conrad. The LM's cabin was banged around pretty bad. Whereas, I think
it was the Apollo 9 crew, which were so careful they left the cabin neater
then when they arrived.




          *** mike (still looking for a publisher) smithwick ***

"Los Angeles : Where neon goes to die"
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #566
*******************