Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_1/V11_122.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

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/0ZxTkUi00VcJ4QeU4u>;
          Thu,  8 Mar 90 01:30:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu,  8 Mar 90 01:30:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #122

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 122

Today's Topics:
            Re: Ulysses Update - 03/06/90
             Re: Large antennas in orbit
           Re: space news from Jan 22 AW&ST
         Re: Payload Status for 02/27/90 (Forwarded)
               SR-71:  LA to DC
    NASA hosts 21ST Lunar/Planetary Science Conference (Fowarded)
  Peterson named Deputy Director of Ames Research Center (Forwarded)
             Re: SR-71:  LA to DC
         Re: space news from Jan 29 AW&ST etc
                Re: Space poem
            Re: Ulysses Update - 03/06/90
            Re: Galileo Camera 'Blemishes'
      Re: Space capsules (was Re: space news from Jan 22 AW&ST)
      Re: Fun Space Fact #1: Launcher Development Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 90 18:05:29 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!yunexus!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Ulysses Update - 03/06/90

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (S. Khai Mong) writes:
>>   It is interesting to point out that Ulysses will arrive at Jupiter before
>>   Galileo.
>
>How does the payload weight of Ulysses and Gallileo compare?

Ulysses is much lighter, partly because there were originally going to be
a pair of them -- one European, one US -- on the same Shuttle-Centaur launch.
(The US reneged on its half of the deal.)
--
MSDOS, abbrev:  Maybe SomeDay |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
an Operating System.          | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Mar 90 03:54:44 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!b-tech!kitenet![e-mail]  (Russ Cage)
Subject: Re: Large antennas in orbit

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>object to get meters per second squared. Thus for LEO, the gravitational
>gradient is about 2.7E-6 s^-2. (Does anybody have a more exact figure?)
>This is not a strong gradient, but it is enough to eventually force elongated
>objects to point toward the center of the earth. Pointing a very large
>antenna might be difficult if it is not carefully balanced.

Tidal torques can only act on an object with a dipole asymmetry.
If you design your antenna so that it has no such asymmetry (equal
moments of inertia around all 3 axes), then you'll get no torques.

Also, tidal torques fall off with the cube of distance; in GEO, the
gradient is only about 1/250 as large as in LEO.  At L4 or L5, they
will be negligible.  For radio astronomy, going further away from
Terra's noise may very well be worth the expense.
--
  I am paid to write all of RSI's opinions.  Want me to write some for you?
[phone]        Forewarned is half an octopus.
Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc.            [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Mar 90 19:45:38 GMT
From: sei![e-mail]  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: space news from Jan 22 AW&ST

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

>Feature article on Lawrence Livermore's "Great Exploration" proposal,
>doing Moon and Mars bases by the year 2000 for total cost of about $10G
>(compared to NASA's 25 years and $400G).  It's caught the eye of a lot
>of people; NASA's response has been very negative.  The primary authors
>are Lowell Wood, Rod Hyde, and Yuki Ishikawa.

Good grief, these people are offering essentially a duplicate mission
at 2.5% - ONE FORTIETH - of the cost of the primary.  If it looks even
remotely feasible, surely it should be funded at once, not as an
alternative to NASA, but as a parallel effort.  This must be close
to the cheapest risk reduction exercise in the history of technology.

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

Date: 6 Mar 90 23:31:48 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!haven!grebyn![e-mail]  (Pat Bahn)
Subject: Re: Payload Status for 02/27/90 (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 02-27-90
>- STS-32R SYNCOM/LDEF (at SAEF-2)
>LDEF deintegration continues.
>

You know   Shouldn't the correct term be disintegration?


>- STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at O&C) -
>
>Today velcro patch installations, and payload envelope

Also are the satellites really held together in part with velcro?

sorry, but I couldn't resist the first one.

--
=============================================================================
Pat @ grebyn.com  | If the human mind was simple enough to understand,
301-948-8142      | We'd be too simple to understand it.
=============================================================================

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

Date: 6 Mar 90 19:59:12 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur![e-mail]  (John H. Kim)
Subject: SR-71:  LA to DC

Just heard this on the news this morning.  The SR-71 for the
Smithsonian made the trip from Los Angeles to Washington DC
in 68 min, 15 sec.  The target time was 64 minutes.  Does anyone
have any more info like exact distance travelled, altitude, etc?
--
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
[e-mail] | think of something very clever
uunet!muddcs!jarthur!jokim  | to use as a disclaimer)

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

Date: 6 Mar 90 20:12:56 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA hosts 21ST Lunar/Planetary Science Conference (Fowarded)

Charles Redmond
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      March 6, 1990

Pam Alloway
Johnson Space Center, Houston

RELEASE:  N90-14

EDITORS NOTE:  NASA HOSTS 21ST LUNAR/PLANETARY SCIENCE CONFERENCE

     Some 750 scientists from around the world are expected to
attend the 21st Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, March 12-
16, at the Johnson Space Center, Houston.

     Scientists and scholars will present approximately 375
papers covering such subjects as a Venus overview prior to
Magellan; lunar meteorites, geology and resource utilization;
cosmic rays; comets and orbital dust collection; the outer solar
system; Martian geophysical and tectonic evolution, volcanic
evolution, climate histories and craters; solar nebula and
planetary origins; heavy metal meteorites; Triton and Phobos and
planetary geological processes.

     There will be two public sessions including a March 12
discussion of President Bush's Moon/Mars exploration initiative
featuring JSC Director Aaron Cohen and a March 14 special Voyager
2 session featuring the California Institute of Technology's
Andrew Ingersoll.  The Voyager 2 spacecraft in August 1989 sent
back data and images of Neptune.  Both programs will begin at 8
p.m. in Teague auditorium in Bldg. 2 and are free of charge.

     An 8:30 a.m., March 14 technical session will feature
discussions on interplanetary dust and LDEF findings.

     Concurrent sessions are scheduled each day at 8:30 a.m. and
1:30 p.m.  On March 16, sessions are scheduled for 8:30 a.m. and
10:15 a.m. in the JSC Gilruth Center.

     Media interested in covering the conference should register
in the Gilruth Center, Room 216, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. March 12-
15 or in the morning of March 16.  Conference abstract volumes of
several scientists' papers will be available at the Gilruth
Center or on request from JSC's newsroom.  All times are EST.

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

Date: 6 Mar 90 20:15:19 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Peterson named Deputy Director of Ames Research Center (Forwarded)

Mary Sandy
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   March 6, 1990

Del Harding
Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.


RELEASE:  90-36

PETERSON NAMED DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AMES RESEARCH CENTER


     Dr. Dale L. Compton, Director of NASA's Ames Research
Center, Mountain View, Calif., today named Victor L. Peterson,
Deputy Director of the Center.

     Peterson, 55, has served as Ames' Director of Aerophysics
from 1984 and as the Center's Acting Deputy Director since
1988.  He has held various positions at Ames, including Research
Scientist, Chief of the Aerodynamics Branch and Chief of the
Thermo and Gas Dynamics Division.  He was one of the originators
of the NASA initiative to develop the Numerical Aerodynamic
Simulation System, the leading computational resource for the
nation's aerospace program.

     Peterson joined Ames in 1956 after receiving a bachelor's
degree in aeronautical engineering from Oregon State
University.  He also holds a master's degree in aeronautics and
astronautics sciences from Stanford University and a master's
degree in management from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, where he was an Alfred P. Sloan Fellow.

     Peterson has served on many national boards and committees,
including a National Science Foundation committee chartered to
assist with the creation of national supercomputer centers at
several universities.  He has written about 50 technical papers
and reports in the fields of fluid and flight mechanics and on
the use of supercomputers in science and engineering.  He was
awarded the NASA Outstanding Leadership Medal in 1984 and was
elected a Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics in 1986.

     A native of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, Peterson and
his wife, Jacqueline Dianne, reside in Los Altos, Calif.  They
have three children.

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

Date: 7 Mar 90 13:29:48 GMT
From: mstar!mstar.morningstar.com![e-mail]  (Bob Sutterfield)
Subject: Re: SR-71:  LA to DC

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John H. Kim) writes:
   ...SR-71... LA to DC in 01:08:15... target time was 01:04:00...

Yeah, those darned unforecast headwinds mess up my leg times, too :-)

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

Date: 6 Mar 90 18:07:48 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!turnkey!orchard.la.locus.com!prodnet.la.locus.com![e-mail]  (Todd Johnson)
Subject: Re: space news from Jan 29 AW&ST etc

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>Truly recommends to Space Council that "the first decade of the 21st
>century" be the target goal for a lunar base.  [Call it 19 years.
>Apollo took 8.  I'm not impressed.]

We have paid for that 8 year leap every day since then. The quick 8 years
was a "go there and do it" plan, it did not have the staying power
required for a permanent manned presence (or a permanent observing
presence, let alone manned).  I suspect that the 19 years includes
building up an infrastructure and producing maintainability.


>MSDOS, abbrev:  Maybe SomeDay
>an Operating System.

Or is it: Maybe SomeDay OS/2?

--
lcc![e-mail]
{randvax,sdcrdcf,ucbvax}!ucla-se!lcc!todd
{gryphon,turnkey,attunix,oblio}!lcc!todd

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

Date: 7 Mar 90 23:06:58 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!daver!lynx![e-mail]  (Vikram Sohal)
Subject: Re: Space poem

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ( Jeff Cook) writes:
>At the end of the ABC movie about Challenger, they recited a poem that
>begins with (something like):
>
>"I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth..."
>
>Can someone e-mail me the text of this poem, and the name of its author?
>I'll post the reply.
>
>--
>

The author is John Gillspie Magee Jr. and the poem is called "High Flight"
It is actually my favorite poem, and i'll try to post the text as soon as
I find it in this electronic toybox...

Regards,

Vic Sohal

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

Date: 7 Mar 90 03:20:12 GMT
From: pasteur!helios.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!umich!sharkey!amara![e-mail]  (S. Khai Mong)
Subject: Re: Ulysses Update - 03/06/90

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>   Earth-Jupiter transfer orbit. Ulysses will arrive at Jupiter in March 1992.
>   It is interesting to point out that Ulysses will arrive at Jupiter before
>   Galileo.

How does the payload weight of Ulysses and Gallileo compare?
--
Sao Khai Mong:   Applied Dynamics, 3800 Stone School Road, Ann Arbor, Mi48108
[phone] (uunet|sharkey)!amara!khai  [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Mar 90 21:54:16 GMT
From: snorkelwacker!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!uniblab![e-mail]  (Steve Groom)
Subject: Re: Galileo Camera 'Blemishes'

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel Fischer) writes:

>The Venus shot by the Galileo spacecraft in Av.Week 19 Feb. p.25 shows
>"several ring-shaped shadows" - who knows what precisely has caused them?
>I recall the same phenomenon from Viking Orbiter pictures and from Voyager 2's
>camera. In the latter case the rings were seen only in highly enhanced images
>(like of Uranus' disk), but the defective Galileo frame doesn't look much
>processed.
>  Will it be possible to suppress these "blemishes" (AW&ST) by use of a
>suitable flatfield or will they spoil every Galileo picture ? I was always a
>bit scared by the fact that there's just   o n e   camera going on this big
>journey, compared to the 4 cameras on the two Voyagers.
>
>   Daniel Fischer, Max Pl. Inst. Radioastron., FRG   [[e-mail]]

That problem is currently being worked on here.  The rings are shadows
created but dust particles and/or defects in the camera.  These things
are normal, i.e. it's unusual not to have any.  These are normally
compensated for during systematic ground processing because their effect can
be calculated in advance during calibration.  However, it seems that
some of the Galileo calibration is still a little bit off, and the
effects were overcompensated for.  Work is underway to determine the
exact source of the problem and fix it.

The raw data is not affected by this problem.  It has rings in it, and
there's nothing that can be done to prevent them.  The problems here
have been in the processing of that data and overcompensating for the
rings.  There is nothing wrong with the camera.

    (I am not personally working on the Galileo imagery.  This is what I
    understand from my colleagues here.)

--
Steve Groom, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
[e-mail]  {ames,usc}!elroy!stevo

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

Date: 7 Mar 90 17:23:57 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!yunexus!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space capsules (was Re: space news from Jan 22 AW&ST)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Tilque) writes:
>>    - Reliance on existing technology...
>>    No new launchers:  hardware goes up on Titan 4s and Deltas,
>>    people on the shuttle or in Apollo-type capsules...
>
>I'm not sure that Apollo-type capsules can be considered existing
>technology, unless they're Russian capsules.  Also, I don't think any of
>the current expendables are man-rated ...

Apollo-type capsules are sort of loosely current technology, in the sense
that we could build one in fairly short order and be confident that it
worked.  (Of course it would take NASA ten years, but that's another
story...)  Man-rated versions of both Titan and Atlas have existed in
the past, and it probably wouldn't be too hard to man-rate them now,
especially with a bit more acceptance of risk than usual.
--
MSDOS, abbrev:  Maybe SomeDay |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
an Operating System.          | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Mar 90 19:57:02 GMT
From: concertina![e-mail]  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Fun Space Fact #1: Launcher Development Costs

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> >> uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]
> >> But I don't think the 747's safety margins are much smaller than
> >> those of a Cessna; if anything, it has to meet rather tougher
> >> standards.
> And is the 747 also no more complex than the Cesna?  Complexity is
> swapped off with the stress the parts have to take.  That's what
> that redesign you say is necessary *does*.
>
> [The 747 also requires significantly more maintenance hours than a
> Cesna, I suspect.  Which was my point in the first place.]

Assuming 300 passengers in the B-747, its maintainance requirements
in man-hours/passenger-mile probably isn't any more than the 150 Cessna
152's that would be needed to carry the same number of people.  Likely
quite a bit less.

------------
"...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise
anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear
and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..."   Plato, _Phaedrus_

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #122
*******************