Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_4/V10_411.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 22KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from sushi.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/4Zf2aNe00WCN8Alk44>;
          Thu, 11 Jan 90 01:37:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 01:37:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #411

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 411

Today's Topics:
           Payload Status for 01/10/90 (Forwarded)
           Red Shifts through Random Media
           Frequently asked SPACE questions
            Re: Big Bang:  Did it happen?
              Galileo Update - 02/10/90
          Still more HR2674 testimony (part 2 of 2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 90 21:11:13 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 01/10/90 (Forwarded)

Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 01-10-90


- STS-31R HST (at VPF) -

HST high gain antenna pre load checks and MUE validation was
worked yesterday.  HST high gain antenna hat coupler
installation was completed last night.  One more connection
will be made this morning after access is established before
beginning the HST functional testing.

- STS-32R SYNCOM (at Pad A) -

With the launch of STS-32R the final planning for download
of LDEF and SYNCOM ASE are now being put together.  The
SYNCOM GSE was disconnected yesterday and will be removed
from the pad today.

- STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at O&C) -

Yesterday cotter pin encapsulation and safety wire trunnion
bolts (both crew alerts) were completed.  Igloo tilt device
hoist and setup to cite and igloo tilt is complete.  SPDB
change out is complete.  Fuse holder that was discovered
broken on "J" box has been replaced and addition fuse holder
protection is to be put in place this morning.  BBXRT was
powered up yesterday and IPR troubleshooting was performed.

- STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) -

Racks 7 and 11 weight and CG were performed.  Cabin fan
assembly Pyrell replacement worked yesterday.  MVAK training
pre ops commenced and will continue through the week.

- STS-42 IML (at O&C) -

Structural mods (upper mods) for rack 9 and 11 were worked
yesterday.

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

Date: 10 Jan 90 22:16:29 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!emory!hubcap![e-mail]  (Robert M. Panoff)
Subject: Red Shifts through Random Media


Help!  I need a reference to some very recent work that I have only
heard about:  apparently if light is passed through a random medium,
and this experiment has been done in some labs already, the light is red
shifted.  Naturally, this has consequences for interpreting red shifts
from "distant, fast moving" galaxies as possibly being closer, but the
light passes through the interstellar media, which is random.  Anybody
have a definite pointer to authors, papers, workers?  Thanks in
advance.
--
rmp, for the Bob's of the World

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 04:00:19 PST
From: Eugene Miya <[e-mail]>
Subject: Frequently asked SPACE questions

This list does change.

This is a list of frequently asked questions on SPACE (which goes back
before 1980).  It is in development.  Good summaries will be accepted
in place of the answers given here.  The point of this is to circulate
existing information, and avoid rehashing old answers.  Better to
build on top than start again.  Nothing more depressing than rehashing
old topics for the 100th time.  References are provided because they
give more complete information than any short generalization.

Questions fall into three basic types:
1) Where do I find some information about space?
Try you local public library first.  You do know how to use a library, don't
you?  Can't tell these days.  The net is not a good place to ask for
general information.  Ask individuals if you must.  There are other sources,
use them, too.  The net is a place for open ended discussion.

2) I have an idea which would improve space flight?
Hope you aren't surprised but 9,999 out of 10,000 have usually been
thought of before.  Again, contact a direct individual source for
evaluation.  NASA fields thousands of these each day.

3) Miscellanous queries.  Sorry, have to take them case by case.

Initially, this message will be automatically posted once per month
and hopefully, we can cut it back to quarterly.  In time questions and
good answers will be added (and maybe removed, nah).

1) What happen to Saturn V plans? What about reviving the Saturn V
as a heavy-lift launcher?

Possible but very expensive -- tools, subcontractors, plans, facilities
are gone or converted for the shuttle, and would need rebuilding,
re-testing, or even total redesign.

2) Where can I learn about space computers: shuttle, programming,
core memories?

%J Communications of the ACM
%V 27
%N 9
%D September 1984
%K Special issue on space [shuttle] computers

Other various AIAA and IEEE publications.

Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience
James E.  Tomayko
1988?

3) SETI computation articles?

%A D. K. Cullers
%A Ivan R. Linscott
%A Bernard M. Oliver
%T Signal Processing in SETI
%J Communications of the ACM
%V 28
%N 11
%D November 1984
%P 1151-1163
%K CR Categories and Subject Descriptors: D.4.1 [Operating Systems]:
Process Management - concurrency; I.5.4 [Pattern Recognition]:
Applications - signal processing; J.2 [Phsyical Sciences and Engineering]:
astronomy
General Terms: Design
Additional Key Words and Phrases: digital Fourier transforms,
finite impulse-response filters, interstellar communications,
Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence, signal detection,
spectrum analysis

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 09:15:58 PST
From: [e-mail] (Peter Scott)
Subject: Re: Big Bang:  Did it happen?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James P. Galasyn) writes:
>
> I just heard from a fairly reliable source that CalTech has demonstrated
> the Big Bang never happened.

Actually it has just been postponed until a more suitable date.

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

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

Date: 11 Jan 90 01:11:05 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 02/10/90


                   GALILEO MISSION STATUS
                      January 10, 1990

          Today the Galileo spacecraft is 15.6 million miles
from Earth; round-trip light time is 2-3/4 minutes.  It has
traveled 128.5 million miles along the first leg of its
trajectory, with a current heliocentric velocity of about
73,000 mph.  The total trajectory distance traveled will be
185 million miles at Galileo's Venus flyby February 9, 1990,
and 2.4 billion miles at Jupiter arrival December 7, 1995.

          The spacecraft is in "dual spin" mode, with the
upper part spinning at 3.15 rpm and the lower part non-
spinning with gyro-based control.  All temperatures and
pressures are within acceptable limits; telemetry is being
sent via the second low-gain antenna (mounted below a power
generator boom) at 1,200 bits per second. The spacecraft
attitude sun point angle is 1.96 degrees.

          Data from the four-day checkout of science
instruments, concluded December 30, are still being studied.
Because of very high winds at the Deep Space Network tracking
station in Goldstone, California, some data were lost during
the checkout operations but not enough to compromise the
checkout.  The heavy ion counter, magnetometer, dust
detector, ultraviolet and extreme ultraviolet instruments
remain powered on.

          Some of the memory in the extreme ultraviolet
instrument's microprocessor was found to be corrupted; it was
reloaded without incident and the instrument is now operating
nominally, and being watched.  Covers on the near-infrared
mapping spectrometer (NIMS), both ultraviolet instruments and the
dust detector were removed on schedule during the checkout.
The infrared instrument appeared to be cooling more slowly
than expected after the cover was removed from its cooling
radiator. Yesterday a nearby heater, switched on earlier,
was turned off and the cooling rate improved. Based on this,
it was concluded that the NIMS radiator cover was fully deployed.

          The AC imbalance measurements reached a level which
indicated a "hard" short chassis. The measurement remained at
this level throughout the tracking pass. The DC imbalance
measurement continued to slowly increase from about 20 volts
to 20.6 volts and remained stable.

          The spacecraft is normally executing the block of
commands designated Earth-Venus #5, which began Monday and
will last until February 5.

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

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

Date: 10 Jan 90 15:11:57 GMT
From: mailrus!sharkey!itivax!vax3![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Still more HR2674 testimony (part 2 of 2)


STATEMENT OF DONALD K. SLAYTON
PRESIDENT
SPACE SERVICES INCORPORATED OF AMERICA
Before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APLICATIONS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 10, 1989

Mr. Chairman:

Although I am President of an entrepreneurial small launch
vehicle company, Space Services Inc., Today I am acting as
the witness for the Commerical Space Transportation
Advisory Committee which reports to the Secretary of
Transportation.  COMSTAC - as it is called - has members
representing the launch vehicle industry, the satellite
industry, insurance companies, engineering firms, and
others.  Dr.  Alan Lovelace is the current Chairman of
COMSTAC and regrets tat he is unable to appear bedcause
this hearing today conflicts with a very important
Corporate meeting.  As Vice Chairman of this committee, I
am please to act as its representative.

COMSTAC agrees with the intent of this bill.  It is not
easy to change the proven way that the government has used
to get its satellites into orbit with expendable launch
vehicles over the more than thirty years there has been a
space business.  But there are certain truths today: (a)
the U.S.  industry is unquestionably capable of providing
reliable and cost effective transportation into space; (b)
commercial ELV launch services are available to government
users today from at least seven U.S.  companies whose
performance capabilities cover almost the total spectrum of
payload weights; and (c) procurement of these commercial
services can result in significant cost savings to the
Federal Government.

The difficulty in having all government officials embrace
the concepts contained in this bill is at least three-fold.
Some opponents feel that their responsibility fopr doing
everything possible to ensure that their satellite has a
reliable launch demands the strong government of the past.
Some understandably, see a negative effect on their
organization if its responsibilities are lessened.
Probably most important is that procurement officials are
reluctant because the existing Federal Acquisition
Regulations do not encourage innovation on the part of the
person who signs hsi name as a contracting officer.  The
later leads to retention of clauses that are not
appropriate.  A recent Request for Proposal required a
detailed plan on how labor rates were to be controlled and
yet it was for a fixed-price contract!

COMSTAC has been concerned about these problems for the
past two years and established a procurement subcommittee
to address the question of how the government could procure
commercial launch services.  Every U.S.  launch services
company was represented on this subcommittee.  A report was
prepared containing a policy statement, a sample RFP, and a
Model Contract.  The report was approved by the whole
COMSTAC committee and submitted to the Secretary of
Transportation with the recommendation that it be
distributed to DoD, NASA, NOAA, OMB, and other relevant
departments.

There has to be an abrupt change in mentality for
government officials to shift from buying of launch
vehicles as in the past to just buying of transportation
services.  The government buys all kinds of commercial
transportation services wherein the vehicles are trucks and
trains and ships and airplanes.  The cargo might be
extremely valuable just as are satellites.  These services
are nearly always fixed pricee and the vehicles are not
usually built to a large set of government specs with
stringent government oversight during construction.  The
launch industry has readched a state of maturity that it
can be treated similarly.  The risks can be placed with the
commercial provider, not retained with the government.  The
conclusion has been reached in the commercial satellite
industry where spacecraft valued at up to $100M are now
routinely launched by the commercial launch services
industry.  We recognize, as does this bill, the need for
exceptions to commercial buys such as high valued national
security payloads.

COMSTAC agrees with the bill's provision that U.S.
government payloads be assigned to U.S.  launch vehicles.
The worldwide commercial launch service market is thin.
There are many payloads in Europe, China, and the Soviet
Union which are not accessible to U.S.  launch providers.
The competition for our government payloads should be among
the U.S.  launch providers if we are to ensure a robust
commercial launch industry.  A similar benefit is enjoyed
by Ariane for ESA payloads.

International competition from the non-market economy
contries, China and USSR is a very serious concern of our
launch industry.  We cannot compete against contries who
are willing to offer the same services at a fraction of the
price of the Western market.  If this is allowed without
constraints there will be NO U.S.  commercial launch
industry - at least this would be true among the major
players, General Dynamics, Martin Marietta, and McDonnell
Douglas.  Our communications satellite industry will be
completely dependent on foreign launch vehicles.  The next
phase is likely to be the loss of our satellite industry
also.  As the bill states the U.S.  commercial space
transportation industry is an essential component of
national efforts to assure access to space for government
and commercial users.

A potential role for the Federal Government which is
touched upon in the findings of this bill relates to the
development of commercial launch facilities.  The big three
launch providers are operating out of the national ranges
in Florida and California.  The smaller vehicles are
looking primarily at those same ranges plus Wallops Island
and White Sands.  The Cape and Vandenberg ranges are
approaching saturation.  The need for development of one or
more commercial launch sites in the future seems likely.  A
very big deterrence to this happening is the high cost of
thte infrastructure needed for such a facility.  Range
safety and other tracking capabilities are good examples of
the infrastructure needs.  Government support for such
infrastructure improvements seem as logical here as FAA
stations for air transportation.

The commercial launch industry is able to compete fairly
well with its European competitor.  One of the reasons is
that our three major vehicle companies have put over $500M
of corporate funds in improvements to the vehicles and
facilities to date.  But COMSTAC is concerned about our
ability to compete in the future faced with the European
development of Ariane V, with the arrival to the market of
the Japanese H-2, plus the Chinese Long March and Soviet
Zenit.  We formed a component technology subcommittee to
address this problem.  We have recommended that NASA meet
with this group and listen to the needs of industry in
order to maintain our competitiveness, as they plan the
expenditure of their supporting research and technology
funds.  This is industry support similar to that given by
NASA's predecessor agency NACA, whose outstanding
assistance led to U.S.  preeminence in aviation.  While
this could be quite supportive in the near term, it may not
be enough over the longer term -- say after 1995.  Consider
Ariane V.  The development is funded completely by the
European Space Agency.  It is designed to launch Hermes, to
carry scientific payloads, and to be be *the* commerical
launch vehicle of the future.  Arianspace has already
started marketing the Ariane V at prices that we expect are
very attractive because Arianespace does not have to
recover the development costs as our industry would.  It
remains to be seen whether or not our government, in order
to support our international competitiveness, would be
willing to support the development of a new launch vehicle,
such as a version of the ALS, whose major role would be the
support of commercial needs.  This is one of the important
questions that needs to be addressed in the forthcoming
study to be performed by the National Space Council.

Mr.  Chairman, COMSTAC applauds the spirit and intent of
this bill.  It puts some teeth into the broad policy
statements of the past several years.  It will help
stabilize the commercial launch industry and it will help
the Federal Government lower its cost of space
transportation.

This concludes my testimony on behalf of the COMSTAC.
While I have the floor, and with you permission Mr.
Chairman, I'd like to respond to your request for our
analysis of the effectiveness of existing legislation based
on our experience.  We believe the Commercial Space Launch
Act of 1984, its 1988 amendment, and the President's Space
Policy NSDD of 1988 are all excellent documents and lay a
good foundation for the commercial launch industry.  There
are a couple areas involving definitions and juridictions
that require clarification, amendment and/or enforcement.
I believe the problems relate more to implementation than
direction.  We have our Flight Readiness Review tomorrow
for a 15 November launch of our second Starfire launch
which coincidentally is the nation's second commercial
suborbital flight.  A week ago we were threatened with a
shutdown of our WSMR range operations because of a
difference of opinion between Washington and the field.
DOT believes it has the authority to issue launch licenses
and set insurance requirements for all commercial launches.
As of last week there are others who don't agree with
either the scope of the launch license *or* the insurance
orders.  This was also true on the first launch.  As a
small entrepreneurial company we are in a nutcracker,
poorly equipped to adjudicate these honest differences of
opinion between and within Federal agencies.  Therefore we
are carrying double the liability and four times the
property insurance required by our DOT license.  Our MOA
witht the USN purports to supercede the launch license
where differences occur.  These jursdictional disputes need
to be settled and maybe this bill is an appropriate
mechanism to do it.  A key issue is what are licensed
versus unlicensed operations on a government range.

Another discrepancy is the acceptance of the definition of
expendable launch vehicles (ELV's).  The Space Act clearly
defines launch vehicles to include
"any suborbital rocket." The NSDD of January 1988
encourages reliance on private launch services and
prohibits NASA from maintining an ELV adjunct to the STS.
However, with the exception of support for the NASA CCDS,
all government (and some non-government) suborbital flights
are being done and are planned to continue being done *by*
the government.  This act defines a space launch as flight
above 70 km which is fine b4ecause it clarifies the
definition of suborbital vehicles.  However, it has the
same probability of being ignored as previous legislation
and executive direction on the subject.  It would seem
either some teeth to encourage implementation of current
direction ore an exception to acknowledge and concur in
non-implementation might be in order.  The Delta is the
onlyl other vehicle launched under the Commercial Space
Launch Act to date.  Their experience is similar to ours.

1.  Top level policy and directions are fine.  There are
still some problems with implementation at the lower
levels.  The policy has not flowed down or been totally
accepted.  I believe this is partly resistance to change
and losing turf and partly a real problem with existing
FAR's, etc.  needing changes.

2.  DoD security requrements on the range are excessive for
commercial operations and cause operational problems.

3.  Clearing foreign nationals onto the range who may be
customers or participants is a tedious and time consuming
process not conductive to good comercial marketing
practices.

4.  The range is unable to configure from one vehicle type
to another in a timely fashion.  This impacts launch
schedules.

Thank you.  We are available for questions at your
discretion.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to Catherine Rawlings for sending me all the HR2674
hearings testimony (she's Packard's aide for the Space
Science and Applications Subcommitee), and to the
Industrial Technology Institute for letting me type this in
during my lunch hour on a Lisp machine with a decent editor
(what a waste, but it sure beats banging away at 1200 baud
on my home laptop).
------------------------------Tihamer Toth-Fejel [e-mail]----






----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Allen W. Sherzer                    |  Is the local cluster the result   |
|  [e-mail]                        |  of gerrymandering?                |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #411
*******************