Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_2/V10_221.TXT

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

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/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/gZJy9JO00VcJ8NxU4M>;
          Wed,  8 Nov 89 03:22:45 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  8 Nov 89 03:22:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #221

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 221

Today's Topics:
            Probes in Solar Orbit
               Re: Voyager's last photo
              Re: galileo and me
           Re: Tracking Military Satellites
               ATMOS Experiment
         KSC Space Shuttle Report (Forwarded)
              Re: Antique Probes
               Re: Voyager's last photo
            Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 89 16:16:24 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Probes in Solar Orbit

I'm a little curious about planetary probes now said to be "in solar
orbit."  These orbits -- aren't they often Earth approaching?

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

Date: 7 Nov 89 20:19:10 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!pequod.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]  (Andrew Higgins)
Subject: Re: Voyager's last photo


In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John H. Kim)
writes:

>>Mercury will be too close to the Sun to distinguish, and Pluto is
>>too faint/dark, but all the others should be imaged. The inner planets
>>will be point sources, but the giants will be two or three pixels across.
>
>It seems to me that this "family portrait" is going to be a big
>disappointment for the vast majority of naive space enthusiasts
>(like those who still think asteroid belts need to be dodged).
>Any similar opinions?

Agreed.  I was recently talking to a member of the JPL Voyager navigation
team about this (his name escapes me at the moment), and he had a rather
clever idea:  instead of one "over the shoulder" shot of the solar system,
take an entire series at regular intervals, then piece them together to get
an animation of the planets moving about their primary.

--
 Andrew J. Higgins              |     Illini Space Development Society
 [e-mail]              |     a chapter of the National Space Society
 phone: [phone]-1608   |     at the University of Illinois
          P.O. Box 2255 - Station A, Champaign, IL  61825
"Someone once defined a crank as an enthusiast without a sense of humor, and
 I have always believed that nothing is so important that you cannot make
 fun of it."                - Arthur C. Clarke

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

Date: 7 Nov 89 16:11:17 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: galileo and me

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael F Lawson) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Phillipson 5-0134) writes:
>>It was a thrill to watch the launch and I would work for free to get into
>>space (or at least for room and board)...
>
>Isn't this sad.  There are so many of us who would give up most of our free
>time to work toward getting into space.  ...

I do hate to have to drag messy ol' reality into this sobfest,
but astronaut salaries are NOT the problem.  They spend far more
*training* the crew than they do writing its paychecks.  :-)

--
'The Nazis have no sense of humor, so why   -|  Tom Neff
should they want television?' -- Phil Dick  |-  [e-mail]

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

Date:        Tue, 07 Nov 89 09:29:10 AST
From: [e-mail]
Subject:     Re: Tracking Military Satellites

>
> Date: 6 Nov 89 22:39:55 GMT
> From: pikes!udenva!isis!scicom![e-mail]  (Bruce
> Watson) Subject: Tracking Military Satellites
> Who on the net has seen this one?  Mike, Jim, Nick, Warren?

From the October 1989 issue of Amateur Satellite Obervers:

FLASHER
This story was well reported in the Oct. 9th issue of AW&ST.  And
there is a photograph that shows the flash.  Intelligence sources
admit that there was some malfunction after its deployment from
Columbia but now it's working.  The article draws no conclusion
itself, but banners: Secret CIA Satellite Observed "Tumbling" by
Astronomers in 7 countries.
Several ASO readers are now timing 89-61B and communicate with Ted
Molczan [I have his address and phone # if anyone is interested - RBL]
directly.  These observers have worked out independent flash periods
that are within .05 seconds of each other.  Curtis Haase of Dallas, Tx
counted 39 flashes in 41.06 sec. (1.05), and Mike McCants of Austin,
Tx. counted 30 flashes in 30 sec. on the evening of 9 Oct.  The flasher
is a nice gold color and its flashes are mostly 3-5th mag. but can be
brighter than 1st magnitude.

Also in the ASO bulletin are the following Keplerian elements for
89 61B aka "Flasher":
89 260.864827 0.00012778
56.9707 231.3055 0.0026748 29.1563 330.9928 15.38408536
in the usual NASA format.


Richard B. Langley                BITnet:  [e-mail] or [e-mail]
Assoc. Prof.                      Phone:   [phone]
Geodetic Research Laboratory      Telex:   014-46202
Dept. of Surveying Engineering    FAX:     [phone]
University of New Brunswick
Fredericton, N.B., Canada
E3B 5A3

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

Date: Tue, 7 Nov 89 08:33:37 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ken Ellis)
Subject: ATMOS Experiment

Does anyone know what happened to the Atmospheric Trace Molecular
Spectroscopy (ATMOS) experiment? Last I heard it flew on Spacelab 3
and experienced a failure in flight after collecting quite a bit of
data. It was supposed to fly once a year for ten years in order to
obtain long term data on the chemistry of the upper atmosphere.

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

Date: 7 Nov 89 17:25:44 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: KSC Space Shuttle Report (Forwarded)


                     Tuesday November 7, 1989 (as of 9:30 a.m.)

                     KSC Space Shuttle Processing Status Report

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

                     STS-33  --  Discovery (OV 103)  -  Pad 39-B

               Overnight, the helium signature test was completed
          successfully. Though there was a slight misalignment in one of
          the pressurized hoses, the problem was quickly corrected and the
          test was completed on schedule. Also in process is work to
          replenish the liquid oxygen tanks. LOX replenishment is scheduled
          for completion today. The Modular Auxiliary Data Systems (MADS)
          recorder will be retested today. Heat shield installation on main
          engines two and three has been completed. Tomorrow, the Flight
          Readiness Test will be performed on the shuttle main engines.

               Today, shuttle managers are concluding their meeting at KSC
          for the Flight Readiness Review. This meeting is to assess the
          STS-33 launch, mission, landing and recovery teams' readiness for
          a safe and successful mission. A launch date and launch period is
          expected to be announced following the meeting later this
          afternoon.

                     STS-32  --  Columbia (OV 102)  -  OPF Bay 2

               Power on testing on the orbiter Columbia began this morning
          in the Orbiter Processing Facility with power up occuring at 7:00
          a.m. In addition, the external tank door latch pull test was
          completed Monday and the shuttle main engines hot gas leak checks
          were finished overnight. Heat shields will be installed on main
          engine number two later today.     Payload bay closeouts and
          inspections are continuing. Work flows are on schedule for the
          orbiter to be rolled over to the VAB November 13. Columbia is
          scheduled for mission STS-32 on which the SYNCOM satellite will
          be deployed and the LDEF satellite now in Earth orbit will be
          retrieved and returned to KSC. Launch is scheduled for December
          1989 from pad 39-A.

                     STS-36  --  Atlantis (OV 104)  -  OPF Bay 1

               The orbiter Atlantis is scheduled to be powered up at 11:00
          a.m. today. Yesterday, the orbiter's power system was validated
          and the RTG systems installed for the deployment of the Galileo
          spacecraft will be disconnected later this week.  Atlantis is
          currently scheduled for mission STS-36, a Department of Defense
          dedicated mission to be launched in February 1990.

                  STS-32 Solid Rocket Boosters/External Tank  - VAB

               Connections between the external tank and solid rocket
          boosters are being completed and testing of the connections are
          underway. The orbiter will be mated to the stack following
          rollover planned for next week.


 Ron Baalke                       |    [phone] x260
 Jet Propulsion Lab  M/S 301-355  |    [e-mail]
 4800 Oak Grove Dr.               |
 Pasadena, CA 91109               |

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

Date: 7 Nov 89 17:59:04 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Antique Probes

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lance Michel) writes:
>    Viking 1,2    1975    Still sending any signals?

Nope.  The orbiters stopped when they ran out of attitude-control fuel
a year or two after arrival (which was 1976).  Viking Lander 2 hit some
sort of problem and went silent not long thereafter.  Lander 1 went on
for quite some time, to the point where there was some concern that it
might get shut down -- like the Apollo seismograph network -- while it
was still sending good data.  Human error on the ground eventually (1981?)
shut it down inadvertently.

>    Mariner 1,2    1962    Did we get any data?

For shame.  Mariner 2 was the first unquestionably successful planetary
probe.  (Mariner 1 was a launch failure.)  Long silent, though; it just
barely made Venus encounter, with numerous equipment problems.  (The fact
that it was put together in under a year, from back-of-the-envelope sketch
to launch, may have had something to do with this.)

>        3-7    1963+    Do we even know where they are?

Sure:  in the ocean or in solar orbit.  3 was a launch failure, 4 got the
first decent closeups of Mars, 5 went to Venus successfully, 6 and 7 were
more Mars flybys.

>        8        Crashed in the ocean right?

Some sort of failure anyway; 8 and 9 were twins but only 9 made it.

>        9    1971    What was the mission?

Again, for shame.  The first successful planetary orbiter, if you don't
count the lunar missions.  Drastically revised our view of Mars.

>        10    1973    Venus.  Any data?

Venus and Mercury.  Some Venus data, followed by three flybys of Mercury,
lots of pictures, probably the only ones this century.

>        ??        That's all of them Right?

Unless you count the Voyagers, which were originally Mariners 11 and 12.

>    Pioneer    1-3        Failed moon trajectories?

1-4 actually I think.  Not very specifically lunar; just generic deep-space
missions incorporating attempts at lunar flybys.  Not wonderfully successful.

>        4-9        All Moon related?

No.  5-9 were solar-orbit fields-and-particles birds which had no planetary
mission.  6 is still operating, as are (I think) 8 and 9.

>        10,11        Jupiter,Saturn Still operating?

Precursors to the Voyagers.  Still operating, on their way out of the solar
system.

>    Pioneer
>    Venus    1    1978    Where are they now? How do you know?
>    Venus    2        Probes released? What about them?

Don't know why they didn't simply number these 12 and 13.  (Superstition
about `13', perhaps...?)  The PV Orbiter is still operating and sending
back data occasionally, last I heard.  It was used to observe Halley's
Comet, among other things.  The PV Probe Carrier committed suicide in
the atmosphere after releasing its probes.  The probes worked, but nothing
lives on the surface of Venus for more than an hour or so.

>    Ranger    3-9    1965+    All Moon related?  Any data coming in?

Rangers 1-2 were engineering tests, not too successful.  3-5 were attempts
at hard-landing a small seismograph capsule, all failures.  6-9 were
kamikaze lunar photography missions, 6 unsuccessful, 7-9 successful, all
dead by lunar impact.

>    Lunar Orbiter        ???? What was this for?

Detailed closeup photography of most of the Moon, specifically the Apollo
landing areas.  5 missions, all successful, long dead and crashed now.
(The Moon's gravitational field is very lumpy, and nothing stays in orbit
for very long without course corrections.)

>    Surveyor    1968    Just for landing site research?

General lunar science, plus basic feasibility tests (e.g. surface firm
enough to support a lander) for Apollo.  7 missions; 2 and 4 failures.
(Actually 4 may have landed successfully, but its transmitters failed
en route so nobody knows.)  All dead now; most lasted only 1-2 lunar days.

>    SOVIET PROBES:  Any info at all would be interesting.
>                Luna
>                Venera
>                Mars

Don't have details on hand.  Luna missions generally unsuccessful or
minimally successful (one or two photos from the Luna 9 hard-lander,
for example), except for a few unmanned sample-return missions in the
early 70s, plus the Lunokhod lunar rovers.  Mars missions few and
mostly unsuccessful.  Some success on Venus missions, notably recently.
--
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Nov 89 16:39:12 GMT
From: deimos.cis.ksu.edu!uafcveg!uafhcx![e-mail]  (Allan R Baker)
Subject: Re: Voyager's last photo


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John H. Kim) writes:
> It seems to me that this "family portrait" is going to be a big
> disappointment for the vast majority of naive space enthusiasts
> (like those who still think asteroid belts need to be dodged).
> Any similar opinions?
>
Could you explain why asteroid belts don't need to be dodged.
I've often wondered.

Allan R Baker
[e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Nov 89 16:56:52 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks?

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

>As I've commented in the past, for an unprotected human, the survival time
>in a -40C Saskatchewan blizzard is not much longer than on the surface of
>the Moon.  I grew up there.  Schoolkids safely cope with that environment.

And as I've commented before "how many seconds you can survive in your
birthday suit" is a silly way to measure the difficulty of surviving
in a particular environment.  A better measure is "how many dollars worth
of equipment are necessary for long-term survival?"  By this measure,
Saskatechwan is much more habitable than the moon.

In Saskatchewan, you need an insulated, heated building.  Water and
air are plentiful on this planet.  Waste products are recycled
naturally by a large ecosystem.  Food is easily grown.

On the moon, you need an insulated, heated, airtight, pressurized,
radiation shielded building.  You must make your own air.  You need
pressurized, shielded, climate controlled structures for growing food.
You must recycle your water and waste products with high efficiency.

As a reality check, remember that neolithic groups have thrived in the
arctic for centuries.  Could they have done so on the moon?

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #221
*******************