Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_2/V10_230.TXT

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

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/sZKcM7a00VcJMTqE5o>;
          Fri, 10 Nov 89 03:25:44 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 89 03:25:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #230

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 230

Today's Topics:
          Provisional Launch Scheme ESA / ARIANSPACE
               Re: Design for Luna City
              Re: Manned Jupiter Mission
         Re: Design for L.C. and Space Hotel
     Why Sun synchronous (was: Re: COBE Press Kit (long))
         Re: Atomic weapon/power demographics
               RE: Space Digest
         Re: Atomic weapon/power demographics
         KSC Space Shuttle Report (Forwarded)
            Re: More Info on NASP
            Re: More Info on NASP
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Thu, 09 Nov 89 09:19:12 EST
Resent-From: Harold Pritchett <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: Space discussion group <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 89 10:10 N
From: "Rob A. Vingerhoeds / Ghent State University" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Provisional Launch Scheme ESA / ARIANSPACE

From Flight International (November 4th, 1989):

ARIANESPACE provisional manifest:

V35     December 1989     Spot 2 (plus six sub-satellites)      Ariane 40
V36     January  1990     Superbird B/BS2X                      Ariane 44L
V37     March             TDF 2/Kopernikus 2                    Ariane 44L
V38     April             Eutelsat II/MOP 2                     Ariane 44L
V39     May               Skynet 4C/G Star IV                   Ariane 44P
V40     June              SBS-6/Galaxy 6                        Ariane 44L
V41     September         Eutelsat II/Italsat(*)                Ariane 44L
V42     October           ERS 1(*)                              Ariane 40
V43     November          Satcom K3/Inmarsat II F3(*)           Ariane 44L
V44     December          Anik E1                               Ariane 44P


***************************************************************************
* Rob A. Vingerhoeds                        Ghent State University        *
* member scientific staff                   Automatic Control Laboratory  *
*                                           Computer Science              *
*                                                                         *
* Grotesteenweg Noord 2                     tel: [phone] ext 320  *
* 9710 GENT - Zwijnaarde                    fax: [phone]          *
* Belgium                                   email: [e-mail] *
***************************************************************************

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

Date: 9 Nov 89 18:01:57 GMT
From: sgi![e-mail]  (Archer Sully)
Subject: Re: Design for Luna City

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Laurie Kleiner) writes:
>
> I could almost swear that somebody has written about this.  Heinlein in _The
> Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ maybe?  (I automatically think of Heinlein as
> the first to write about anything ... so this probably isn't right.)
>

Close.  In 'Its Great to be Back' he postulated that the environment
'in the Moon' would be pretty well scrubbed and free of atmospheric
bugs. When Loonies came back to Earth they all got horrible colds.

That's as close as he came on that mark, as far as I know.

--
Archer Sully ([e-mail])

"Blood, your precious Blood!"

    -- Nosferatu

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

Date: 9 Nov 89 03:35:24 GMT
From: att!dptg!pegasus![e-mail]  (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Subject: Re: Manned Jupiter Mission

What has gone before:  The Jovian Van Allen radiation belts would be a
serious threat to a manned* mission to Jupiter.  Magnetic shields would
be useful for getting rid of the high-energy betas and alphas, but
you'd still need lots of mass between you and the outside (both to
shield against the low-energy stuff, and so you don't die immediately
if your "force field" goes down).  Everybody's bummed -- carrying the
shield with you will greatly lengthen the journey, requiring lots more
supplies, or a recycling system with more 9's in the efficiency (or
most likely, both).

(*An equivalent non-sexist term would be "staffed".  Hmmm.  "Staffed
space flight."  "The staffed space program."  I don't think I'm quite
ready for this one, and I talk about waitpersons and female actors.
Needless to say, this is only my opinion, and does not necessarily
reflect the equal opportunity policies of my employer.)

If you've got a lot of time for planning, this isn't necessary.  The
crew of Discovery II will need a shield in the Jovian system, but not
for the whole trip.  So build a big shield (ideally, out of lunar or
other non-terrestrial material, to reduce launch costs), and send it on
a cheap route to high Jovian orbit.  Then wait (or more likely, turn
your attention to the manned spacecraft).  Add crew and volatiles, and
launch your vehicle to rendezvous with the shield, far away from the
radiation belts.  Dock, attach firmly but gently, and head into danger
and excitement.

The only problem I see off-hand is that you can't aerobrake the manned
spacecraft.  Is that serious?  Any other objections?

Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!pegasus!psrc, [e-mail], AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.

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

Date: 9 Nov 89 20:51:09 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Design for L.C. and Space Hotel

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Todd Wilson) writes:
>... lives might be prolonged considerably
>should they make such a move.  Younger people would probably also get
>a similar effect...

This is not clear at all.  The long-term biological effects of low gravity
are simply unknown.  I seem to recall that animals living in centrifuges
at (somewhat) high gravity actually have *longer* lifespans than their
counterparts at one gee.
--
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 9 Nov 89 19:23:19 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl![e-mail]  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Why Sun synchronous (was: Re: COBE Press Kit (long))

Tom Neff writes:
> Neither this press kit nor the AvWeek article satisfactorily explains
> a basic question:  Why does COBE need that sun synchronous orbit?
> Why isn't an ordinary equatorial orbit good enough?

In COBE's sun synchronous orbit, it always faces away from the Earth and
at roughly 90 degrees from the sun. As COBE orbits the Earth and the Earth
orbits the sun, the sensors will automatically scan all of the sky - at
least twice per year - without any special pointing of the satellite or
sensors (other than the "fixed" orientation, that is).

In an equatorial orbit however, the sensors would have to be deliberately
pointed to scan the whole sky - and great care would have to be taken
to avoid the Earth and the sun in the process! Also, a low orbit would
result in the satellite experiencing relatively long sun occultation
periods, which would increase the satellite's mass because of the
addition of additional solar cells and batteries - but this might be
worth it as an equatorial orbit allows for a heavier payload...but
more complexity...

NASA doesn't want COBE to bang into any coms satellites, either :-)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA  |  [e-mail]  |  Pretentious? Moi?
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

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

Date: 9 Nov 89 14:53:18 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Atomic weapon/power demographics

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Scott) writes:
>It occurred to me (in a blazing flash of light...) just now that the
>number of lives saved by the invention of atomic power must be much
>greater than the number of lives taken by atomic weapons ...

(A) Not every life saved using atomic technology is unsavable otherwise

(B) The ready expansion potential is entirely in the other direction

(C) We could easily have invented one without the other

(D) This is not a sci.space topic

--
"We plan absentee ownership.  I'll stick to       `o'   Tom Neff
 building ships." -- George Steinbrenner, 1973    o"o   [e-mail]

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

Date: 9 Nov 89 15:20:00 GMT
From: vax5![e-mail]
Subject: RE: Space Digest

To whom it may concern:

Please add me to the Space Digest mailing list.  Thank you.

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

Date: 9 Nov 89 20:47:16 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Atomic weapon/power demographics

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Scott) writes:
>It occurred to me (in a blazing flash of light...) just now that the
>number of lives saved by the invention of atomic power must be much
>greater than the number of lives taken by atomic weapons...  This would make
>a heck of a bargaining point the next time one of us has to debate one
>of them to garner support for something like Galileo...

You're assuming these people are rational.  This appears to be an unsound
assumption.  In any case, their most probable reply would be "so what?",
since the issue at hand is not whether we should ban anything containing
the word "nuclear".
--
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 9 Nov 89 19:53:11 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: KSC Space Shuttle Report (Forwarded)


            KSC SPACE SHUTTLE PROCESSING REPORT - THURSDAY, NOV. 9, 1989

                     STS-33  -  DISCOVERY (OV 103)  -  PAD 39-B

               As planned, a flight readiness test of the three main
          engines was completed early this morning. Closeouts of the aft
          compartment for flight have started along with checks of the
          regulators for the forward reaction control system. Installation
          of the extravehicular mobility units, or spacesuits, is scheduled
          for Friday.

               Activities scheduled this weekend include a hot fire of the
          solid rocket booster hydraulic power units, final ordnance
          operations, pressurizing the orbital maneuvering system and
          reaction control system tanks for flight and loading storage
          tanks on the launch tower with liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen
          propellants.

               Launch of mission STS-33 is scheduled for Monday, Nov. 20
          during a four-hour launch period that begins at 6:30 p.m. EST.

                     STS-36  -  ATLANTIS (0V 104)  -  OPF BAY 1

               Sniff checks of the fuel motor valves in the orbital
          maneuvering system were completed and checks of the oxidizer
          valves are planned today. Heat shields and engine domes are being
          removed in preparation for engine removals scheduled for this
          weekend and early next week. A functional test of the startracker
          is planned today and an inspection of the 17-inch flapper valve
          is scheduled.

                     STS-32  -  COLUMBIA (OV 102)  -  OPF BAY 2

               Final cleaning of the payload bay began early this morning
          and closure of the doors is planned for later today. Closeouts of
          the vehicle for the move to the Vehicle Assembly Building are
          underway. The landing gears are being prepared for flight. The
          orbiter transporter will be used to transfer the orbiter from the
          OPF to the Vehicle Assembly Building at 12:01 a.m. November 16.

                 STS-32 SOLID ROCKET BOOSTERS/EXTERNAL TANK  -  VAB

               Installation of ordnance devices is planned for Friday.
          Connections between the external tank and solid rocket boosters
          are continuing. The orbiter is scheduled to be mated next week.

                         STS-36 SOLID ROCKET BOOSTERS - RPSF

               Yesterday, the left aft center segment was transferred to
          the VAB and stacking preparations are underway. Next week, the
          left forward center segment will be transferred to the VAB and
          stacked.


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

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

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 89 09:57:31 PST
From: mordor!lll-tis!oodis01!riacs!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: ucsd!nosc!crash![e-mail]
Subject: Re: More Info on NASP

Larry Smith writes:

>DAMN IT JIM !!  I'M A SPACE NERD,  NOT  AN  ACTIVIST !!!

Well, I'm glad we clarified THAT!  :-)

>Anyway, being a supporter of X-30, the current program
>is the only game in town that I have !!

It is the only game in town quite by design.  Rather than picking
up on the necessary hypersonics research which they abandoned with the
X-15 program, NASA shouted "WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY" claiming that
if Congress would just fork over a real whole lot of money right now,
the US could just build an operational vehicle right away.  This
was a lie, as is evidenced by the redefinition of NASP as a research
program at this stage.  However, it DID ensure that all funding for
hypersonics would be funneled through NASA's NASP manager, who could
then use that funding to buy political support for himself from
scientists who want to do hypersonics research.

Now, do I think it is a Bad Thing that NASA is finally doing some
hypersonics research after 20 years of doing basically nothing?

No.

Do I think it is a Bad Thing that there is only one source of funding
for hypersonics research and it is going through a bureaucracy that
is managed by individuals who have demonstrated little real technical
capability and who have lied to Congress in order to get their funding?

Yes.

Research is fragile -- it needs a measured lack of direction,
redundancy, intellectual competition and replication of results.
The aeronautics office of NASA, the Air Force, perhaps a special
"NASP" office in DARPA and maybe even a government subsidized
industry RESEARCH center, should ALL be dividing up the funding for
hypersonics research and acting pretty independently to ensure
we don't lock ourselves into one good ole boys net -- or one development
line when there are lots of good ideas and good young people that have
cropped up during the last 20 years that need to be given a chance!
(eg: The basic system design based on the SCRAM engine has been around
  since 1964.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      PHONE: [phone]     BE A SPACE ACTIVIST
PO Box 1981            GET OFF THE NET AND SET UP AN APPOINTMENT WITH YOUR
La Jolla, CA 92038                         CONGRESSMAN!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 9 Nov 89 15:02:11 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: More Info on NASP

It's great that the NASP/X-30 development funding has driven these areas
of research.  (What Larry's too shy to tell, AvWeek will fill in for
you.)  However producing and flying the plane is another story.
Bowery's probably right, in this budget climate I can't see Congress
letting NASP launch.  All these fascinating and rewarding research
spinoffs will do nothing but convince committee members that the
program's yielded its primary benefits WITHOUT the huge expense of
actually building and flying a plane.

Which is probably just as well, because if we let NASA and Congress
dance around a production schedule for a few years, it'll probably end
up as a coal-burning plane with "reduced viewports" and non reusable
wings. :-)
--
"The country couldn't run without Prohibition.       ][  Tom Neff
 That is the industrial fact." -- Henry Ford, 1929   ][  [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #230
*******************