Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_1/V10_126.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 15KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.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/AZA4SVS00VcJ0K6U4z>;
          Mon,  9 Oct 89 03:24:18 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon,  9 Oct 89 03:23:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #126

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 126

Today's Topics:
        Re: What to do with the $30 billion (missions)
                 CSA
        Re: X-30, Space Station Strangles NASP
                   Re: GIFs
              Thermoelectric generation
            News of the Week, Oct 6, 1989
               Re: Astronaut Selection
     space station power (was Re: hum on airliner transmissions)
            Spher. Geom. reference request
             Re: Shuttle-Centaur
         Re: American Rocket Co. launch date and time
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 89 19:55:43 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: What to do with the $30 billion (missions)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (nick szabo) writes:
>
>1) The list only included missions to be performed by the U.S., before the
>year 2000, with funds formerly targetted towards the Space Station.
>Non-U.S. missions, missions performed after 2000, and missions performed
>with funding beyond Space Station level not included.
>
>2) The main purpose of the list was to point out the gross inefficiency
>inherent in the Station.  It was not meant to be a definitive Plan.  If you
>don't agree with some of the details, fine, substitute your own wishlist
>of missions, and see how they compare.

>4) The first space settlement may not be on either the Moon or an asteroid;
>it may be on Mars, on a comet, on a Galilean moon, or out in free space
>using resources from any of those.  "Moon or asteroids" is almost as narrow
>as "Moon or Mars".

I agree completely, but in reality the question may center around the
"p-word" -- politics.  We may agree that it would be better to spend
$30G exploring the solar system than building Freedom, but is there
any way to guarantee that if Freedom is killed, the $30G will go
towards space probes rather than into some HUD contractor's back
pocket?

Is NASA funding really a value which is independent of specific
programs?  If so, then it makes sense to argue Freedom vs.
CRAF/ARCF/Cassini/Jovian System Probes.  Otherwise...?

It would seem reasonable that if Congress is willing to spend $30G on
Freedom, they should be willing to spend $30G on JPL -- but remember,
we're not talking about reasonable human beings, we're talking about
Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

Date:  5 Oct 89 20:36 -0600
From: bradley thompson <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: CSA

Perhaps the people looking at the Corporate Space Administration
should coordinate with the Canadian Space Agency as to who gets to
be the CSA.

I also got a letter from the GAS payload people the other day informing
me that there are three 12 GAS payload racks now manifested for flight
before the end of '91.


Brad Thompson
ARC

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

Date: 6 Oct 89 01:26:29 GMT
From: usc!venera.isi.edu![e-mail]  (Paul Raveling)
Subject: Re: X-30, Space Station Strangles NASP

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Spencer Garrett) writes:
>
> The Shuttle uses *two* glidepaths on final.  They fly most of the
> approach on a 17 degree (as I recall) glideslope, then make an
> abrupt pitch up to the normal 3 degree glideslope.  It looks
> like the two intersect right off the end of the runway (where
> "right off" may be a mile or two at these speeds) and they only
> spend a few seconds (10 or 15?) on the 3 degree slope before
> starting the flare.

    That's about right, but I'm not convinced there's really
    a 3-degree portion.  The approach profile is just about
    like the X-15's speed-brakes-inadvertently-extended approach,
    where the flare was a 2G pullup ending essentially on the deck.
    The end of this approach went like this:


    Time   Altitude    Speed                Event
    (sec)  (ft MSL)   (knots)
    -----  --------   -------   --------------------------------

     23      5,200      325     Roll out onto runway heading
     18      3,900      325     Begin flare (2G pullout)
    ~10      .....      ...     Lower flaps
      8      .....      275     Flare completed:  Drop gear,
                                jetisson ventral fin
      0      2,200      180     Touchdown

    BTW, earlier I cited a 300 knot approach speed.  That's
    for a normal approach and for the 1st 2/3 of this emergency
    approach; procedure for this one calls for accellerating to
    325 knots when approaching the 90-degree key point, which in
    a rectangular pattern would be the middle of the base leg.

    Note the level flight deceleration -- 95 knots in 8 seconds,
    about 20 ft/sec**2, or 2/3 G.

> Now for the questions!  Is "coming feet dry" the same as extending
> the landing gear?

    I think Mary was referring to the point where the shuttle
    crosses the coastline.


----------------
Paul Raveling
[e-mail]

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

Date: 3 Oct 89 14:49:26 GMT
From: mailrus!sharkey!cfctech!ttardis![e-mail]  (Chad Childers)
Subject: Re: GIFs

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Stephen Brent Houchen) writes:
>I got some of the GIFs of Gabriell and Hugo from 128.174.5.98.  They
>were pretty nice.  Does anyone know of a place to get GIFs from NASA?
>I'd like to see picture from Voyager, or shuttle launches, shuttle
>landings...  You know what I mean.  (Color ones would be
>extra-special.)  Thanks in advance!

I actually logged on to Compuserve because of a shuttle launch GIF I saw
reproduced in their magazine... COMING.GIF... I believe they have a special
graphics library set aside for space GIFs in the art gallery, also check the
SPACE SIG.  Coming is 256 color, 640 pixels across, so it looks best if you
view it a little at a time with CSHOW or similar...



Chad Childers               UUCP: ...uunet!edsews!rel!ttardis!cbc
               CI$: 73615,543    Fido: 1:120/13    PLink: MTN-EER

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

Date:         Thu, 05 Oct 89 11:29:06 EST
From: "S.K. Whiteman" <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Thermoelectric generation

To: Whom it may consern:

     I would be interested in receiving information pertaining to theromelectric
generators.  I am given to understand that these devices are simiconductors
that when heated produce an electric current; and contrawise when an electric
current is applied will cool. I suspect that these are used in RTGs aboard
various spacecraft.  They sound interesting for many applications. Please
include source information, manufacturer if possible.

                                             Thanx in advance,
                                             S. K. Whiteman@IPFWVM

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

Date: 5 Oct 89 17:50:20 GMT
From: frooz!cfa250![e-mail]  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: News of the Week, Oct 6, 1989

Jonathan's Space Report

Oct 6,1989 (no.27)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Atlantis/STS-34/Galileo is scheduled for launch on Oct 12, but
legal challenges to RTG launch safety will be heard in court Oct 10.

Modul' "D" is due for launch to Mir on Oct 16 by Proton from Baykonur.
Viktorenko and Serebrov continue to work on the Soyuz TM-8/Mir/Progress M
complex.

The Interkosmos-24 satellite was launched on Sep 28 from Plesetsk, with
western press in attendance.  The satellite is part of the Aktivniy-IK
magnetospheric research program.  A small Czechoslovak subsatellite,
Magion-2, will be released from Interkosmos-24 within a few weeks.

A Gorizont TV broadcast satellite was launched by Proton on Sep 28;
a Molniya-1 government communications relay satellite was launched
on Sep 27.

Kosmos-2045, launched on Sep 22, is a GRU photo recon satellite.
Kosmos-2046, launched on Sep 27, is a Soviet Naval Intelligence
electronic ocean surveillance satellite.

In historical news (if you'll excuse the oxymoron), the race to the Moon
was finally acknowledged in August by the Soviet government newspaper
Izvestiya.  An article describes Korolev's N-I lunar launch vehicle,
which was designed to send two cosmonauts to the Moon.  One was to orbit
and another to land on the surface alone.  Four flight tests of the
booster, in 1969-1972, all ended in failure.  Development of the lunar
spacecraft, based on Soyuz-Zond, also suffered repeated setbacks.  The
program was finally abandoned in 1975.  So after 20 years we finally
know for sure: there really was a race, right up to the finishing line.


(c) 1989 Jonathan McDowell

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

Date: 5 Oct 89 15:15:49 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Astronaut Selection

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (NUTSY FAGEN) writes:
>>>>>  I'd like to know how one goes about becoming an astronaut...
>>

>>Q. How do I become an astronaut?

>>    Be in good physical condition, with good eyesight.
>>    (DO NOT get a radial keratomy in an attempt to improve your vision;
>>    its long-term effects are poorly understood.

>The following information is second-hand, but I've heard that there is
>a new process called laser ablatement cornea sculpting which has
>acheived much better results than radial keritonomy.  It's currently
>in the evaluation stage, but should be commercially available in
>around five years.  And evidently, it results in flawless corrections
>to nearsightedness, farsightedness, and some astigmatisms.

>Does NASA have any official policy on using eye surgery to meet vision
>requirements?

Yes.  The policy is _NO_.  This applies to the flight physicals for
test pilots and other flight crew.  (This is because the FAA says no
and we use the FAA standards.  The military uses the same rule.)  If
they won't let an aircraft backseater do it in the atmosphere there's
no way they'll let a shuttle backseater (mission specialist) do it in
space.

This policy will change if the FAA accepts RK, etc, but probably not
immediately, based on what I've heard about the JSC flight surgeons.
I was astounded that they let Rhea Seddon fly around in the T-38s
until she got so pregnant that she could barely get into a flight suit
(actually, she quit flying at about 6 months) and so was everybody
who'd ever dealt with the JSC flight surgeons.

>>      For that matter, avoid
>>    any other significant medical unknowns.)

>Or not :-).  Seems like a matter of individual choice to me.

JSC has thousands of well-qualified people burning to become astronauts,
so they don't need to wonder if some medical procedure will render you
vulnerable in space--they just get someone else.

Henry's posting mentioned that NASA is very image conscious and this
is quite true.  How would it look if someone had a RK, went into
space, got exposed to reduced pressure, and blew their eyeballs out?
(This reduced pressure scenario is, I understand, the explanation of
the FAA's hesitancy on RKs.)



--
Mary Shafer   [e-mail]  ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
         NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
                    Of course I don't speak for NASA

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

Date: 5 Oct 89 13:50:37 GMT
From: usc!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!swbatl!texbell!sugar!splut![e-mail]  (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Subject: space station power (was Re: hum on airliner transmissions)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andy Stadler) writes:
>  Yes, 400 Hz is still a widely-used AC power frequency.  Except on
>  the space station Freedom....

...which is being designed to use _DC_ power distribution.

I understand, though, that JSC is raising unholy cain about that, and it
may yet get changed to something sensible.

--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL   | Never ascribe to malice that which can
[e-mail]       (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
               America works less when you say..."Union Yes!"

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

Date: 4 Oct 89 22:03:05 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!psueea!parsely!agora![e-mail]  (Rick Coates)
Subject: Spher. Geom. reference request


I would like to get a general text on spherical geometry to help me
solve some problems without re-inventing the whole thing each time.
I am interested in algorithms, not proofs or derivations (see
sample problems at end).

Any references you have would be much appreciated.

Sample problems:

1. Given two points, return the coordinate of a point on a great
   circle between the points as a function of r where 0.0 < r < 1.0
   defines the entire great circle.

2. Given a single point, return the coordinates of a point on a circle
   at a distance r from the given point, as a function of a where
   0.0 < a < 2pi defines the entire circle.

Many thanks in advance,

Rick Coates

...!tektronix!tessi!agora!rickc

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

Date: 5 Oct 89 14:16:47 GMT
From: hsi!mfci![e-mail]  (Paul Rodman)
Subject: Re: Shuttle-Centaur

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Agreed that there were safety problems with Shuttle-Centaur.  What I find
>bizarre is the assertion that these problems could not be solved, given
>some time (like, say, 2.5 years of no shuttle flights) and effort.

I heard the original plan had DUMP VALVES for the Centaur fuel (which
put the craft over landing weight if you had to abort)!

pkr

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

Date: 6 Oct 89 01:38:59 GMT
From: thorin!grover![e-mail]  (David Becker)
Subject: Re: American Rocket Co. launch date and time

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas F. Smith) writes:
>The AMROC launch of the "Koopman Express"
>is currently scheduled for 5 OCT 89,

Well, as you have all heard, it just sat and burned.  Ah for the good old
days when men were men and engineers blew up rockets.  Not much of a
memorial for Koopman however :-(

What sort of success rate did Von Braun an Co. have?  Have that many
lessons been forgotten or is Amroc using an innovative design?

David Becker  [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #126
*******************