Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_1/V11_132.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

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/kZy:L=200VcJA4Y05s>;
          Sat, 10 Mar 90 01:59:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 01:58:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #132

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 132

Today's Topics:
            Re: Galileo Update - 03/05/90
        Jonathan's Space Report Rides Again...
             Re: SR-71 and dates
             Re: SR-71 and dates
             Re: Challenger's Last Words
             Kennedy Space Center
           Re: space news from Jan 22 AW&ST
             Re: Challenger's Last Words
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 90 17:17:28 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!forsight!jato!mars![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Galileo Update - 03/05/90

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jamie Woods) writes:
>
>How protected is the Galileo Probe agaisnst Solar Flares from the sun?
>Will it come close enough to the sun to worry about theis?

When the VEEGA maneuver for Galileo was developed, there was the problem
of how to protect Galileo from its closer approach to the sun. So heat
shields were added on to the spacecraft and its larger main antenna
(often referred to as the High Gain Antenna) was to remained furled up
and faced away from the sun until it leaves the inner solar system.
An additional Low Gain Antenna was added on to  the opposite side of
the spacecraft to be used when Galileo is in closer to the sun.

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

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

Date: 9 Mar 90 17:04:02 GMT
From: frooz!cfa250![e-mail]  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Jonathan's Space Report Rides Again...

Jonathan's Space Report

Mar 9, 1990 (no.32)
Jonathan emerges from a winter work crisis hibernation...
--------------------------------------------------------

Columbia was launched on mission STS-32 on January 9; it deployed the
Syncom IV-5 (Leasat 5) comsat for Hughes Communications.  Hughes leases
the use of the satellite to the US Navy.  Columbia then retrieved the
Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) and returned it to Earth.  The
mission was the longest flight to date (261 hrs 1 min).  Columbia is in
the Orbiter Processing Facility being prepared for the STS-35 Astro-1
flight, which will make UV and X-ray observations of stars and galaxies,
including a few of my favorite quasars.

Atlantis was launched on mission STS-36 on March 4; it deployed the
AFP-731 imaging and signals intelligence satellite into a 62 degree
orbit.  This is the highest inclination flight to date in the US piloted
space program.  (Soviet flights have gone up to 65 degrees). The mission
lasted 106 hr 18 min. Atlantis is at Edwards AFB being prepared
for return to Kennedy.

Discovery is in the Vehicle Assembly Building at KSC, being prepared for
the STS-31 mission due for launch Apr 12.  This mission will deploy the
Hubble Space Telescope.  (The Space Telescope Science Institute has held
a series of annual "only two years till launch" parties during the past
decade; I hope they're having a "one month to launch" party next week!
Good luck, folks..)

The Mir orbital complex is crewed by Anatoli Solov'yov (Komandir) and
Aleksandr Balandin (Bortinzhener), who are unloading the Progress M-3
freighter.  The current configuration of Mir is

Mir Port 1:     Soyuz TM-9 ferry
Mir Port 2:     Kvant astrophysical module (Port 1)
Mir Port 3:    Kvant-2 airlock module
Mir Port 4:     (docking cone ready for Kristall module)
Kvant Port 2:     Progress M-3 cargo craft

Progress M undocked from Port 1 on Dec 1 and was deorbited.  Kvant-2
docked on Dec 6 at Port 1 and was rotated to Port 3 on Dec 8; Viktorenko
and Serebrov moved Soyuz TM-8 from Port 2 to Port 1 on Dec 12.  Progress
M-2 was launched on Dec 20 and docked at Port 2 on Dec 22.  Viktorenko
and Serebrov made EVAs on Jan 8 and Jan 11 from one of the Mir ports to
carry out maintenance and upgrades on Kvant; then on Jan 26 they used
the new main airlock on Kvant-2 for the first time to carry out preps
for the test flights of the SPK (Sredstvo Peredvizheniya Kosmonavtov)
manoeuvring unit.  The SPK tethered test flights were carried out on Feb
1 and 5.  Progress M-2 undocked from Port 2 on Feb 9 and was deorbited
over the Pacific.  Solov'yov and Balandin were launched in Soyuz TM-9 on
Feb 11 and docked at Kvant Port 2 on Feb 13.  Viktorenko and Serebrov
handed over command of the complex and prepared to return to Soyuz TM-8.
TM-8 undocked from Port 1 and landed in the Arkalyk recovery zone on Feb
19.  Solov'yov and Balandin flew Soyuz TM-9 round from Kvant Port 2 to
Mir Port 1 a few days later. Progress M-3 was launched on Feb 28 and
docked at Kvant Port 2 on Mar 3.  Sometime in late March, Progress M-3
will undock and the crew will move Soyuz TM-9 back from Port 1 to Kvant
Port 2.  The Kristall module will then be launched and will dock at Port
1, and then be rotated to occupy Port 4.  Progress M-4 will then follow;
it may dock at either Port 1 or K-Port 2, depending on whether the crew
move Soyuz TM-9 yet again!

The LACE and RME satellites launched by Delta 6920 on Feb 14 are SDIO
payloads to study the effects of ground-based lasers.  USAF Block II
NavStar GPS satellites were launched by Delta 6925 on Dec 11 and Jan 24.

The first commercial Titan 3 launch ocurred 7 minutes into the new year
(GMT) with the launch of the UK Ministry of Defense's Skynet 4A comsat
and a commercial Japanese comsat, JCSAT 2 belonging to Japan
Communications Satellite Corp.

The French SPOT-2 remote sensing satellite was launched on Jan 22 by
Ariane V35 into polar orbit.  Six "microsat" amateur radio satellites
were launched along with SPOT: the University of Surrey's UoSAT 3 and
UoSAT 4; AMSAT North America (AMSAT-NA)'s PACSAT; AMSAT-NA and Weber
State College's WEBERSAT; AMSAT-NA and AMSAT-Brazil's DOVE (Digital
Orbiting Voice Encoder); and AMSAT-LU's LUSAT.  (I don't know what LU
stands for. Anyone who can enlighten me, please do so!)

The loss of Ariane V36 on Feb 22 resulted in the destruction of two
Japanese commerical comsats.  Superbird B belonged to Japan Space
Communications Corp.  (do not confuse with JCSAT) , and GE Astro Space's
BS-2X had been ordered by NHK television as an interim supplement to
NASDA's BS-2 satellites.  An as yet unknown malfunction in the Ariane
1st stage caused one main engine to partially fail seconds after launch,
and two minutes later the vehicle exploded.

The Japanese ISAS space agency launched the MUSES-A space probe on Jan
24.  The probe is a technology test which will fly past the Moon and
attempt to insert a subsatellite in lunar orbit.  The other Japanese
space agency, NASDA, launched a marine observation satellite, Momo-2, on
Feb 7 with the H-I vehicle.  Two small payloads were orbited at the same
time: NASDA'S Orizuru space technology experiment which tests deployable
structures, and the Japanese amateur radio satellite Fuji-2 (Oscar-20).

The Chinasat 3 comsat was launched by Chang Zheng (Long March) 3 on Feb 4
into geostationary orbit.

A Molniya-3 comsat was launched on Jan 23; two Raduga comsats were put in
geostationary orbit by Proton on Dec 15 and Feb 15.

A Nadezhda Transit-class civilian navigation satellite was launched by Kosmos
launch vehicle on Feb 27.

An Okean oceanographic research satellite was launched by Tsiklon from
Plesetsk on Feb 28.

Kosmos-2051, launched from Baykonur on Nov 24, is unusual.  It appears
to be an EORSAT (Electronic intelligence Ocean Recon satellite) for
tracking US ships.  These satellites are usually placed in a 120 km x
420 km transfer orbit which is circularized the same day at about
405x415 km.  Kosmos-2051 went into a 280x420 km orbit, which it slowly
raised over the next 3 weeks to the canonical 405x415 km orbit which it
is maintaining with occasional small burns.  Presumably it suffered a
propulsion failure during the launch phase, and the on-board orbit
adjust system was used to raise the orbit.  This confirms that this
class of satellite has two propulsion systems, a conventional apogee
motor in addition to the low thrust stationkeeping system.

Kosmos-2052, launched by Soyuz from Plesetsk on Nov 30, was a GRU photo
recon satellite.  It landed on Jan 23 and was replaced by Kosmos-2057.

Kosmos-2053, launched by Tsiklon from Plesetsk on Dec 27,
is a radar test satellite for the PVO (Soviet Air Defense Force).

Kosmos-2054, launched by Proton from Baykonur on Dec 27 into
geostationary orbit, is probably a communications satellite of some
kind, either technology development or military.

Kosmos-2055, launched by Soyuz from Plesetsk on Jan 17, was a Vostok
class GRU recon satellite. It landed after 12 days in orbit.

Kosmos-2056, launched by Kosmos from Plesetsk on Jan 18, is believed
to be a communications relay in low orbit, possibly for the KGB.

Kosmos-2057, launched by Soyuz from Plesetsk on Jan 25, is a GRU photo
recon satellite with an expected life of 2 months.

Kosmos-2058, launched by Tsiklon from Plesetsk on Jan 30, is a GRU
signals intelligence satellite.

Kosmos-2059, launched by Kosmos from Plesetsk on Feb 6, is probably a
small military research satellite.

Kosmos-58 reentered on Feb 25; Kosmos-103 reentered on Jan 2; Kosmos-1979
reentered on Dec 25; a Molniya-1 satellite (1979-31A) reentered on Dec 9.

(c) 1990 Jonathan McDowell
 .----------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell       |  phone : [phone]              |
 |  Center for Astrophysics | uucp: husc6!harvard!cfa200!mcdowell |
 |  60 Garden Street        | bitnet : [e-mail]        |
 |  Cambridge  MA 02138     |  inter : [e-mail]   |
 |  USA                     |   span : cfa::mcdowell     (6699::) |
 |                          |  telex : 92148 SATELLITE CAM      |
 |                          |    FAX : [phone]              |
 '----------------------------------------------------------------'

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

Date: 9 Mar 90 17:36:06 GMT
From: nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SR-71 and dates

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Commander Krugannal) writes:
>   [D-21] It was mounted on a fin above the tail
>   area of the SR-71.  It seems the Pegasus vehichle is about
>   the same size, so I think that it could be done if it was at a
>   all  cost effective.

Don't forget why launching the D-21 from the Blackbird was abandoned:
an early launch failed disastrously and both drone and launch aircraft
were lost.  Even disregarding other problems, I think NASA would react,
um, *negatively* to the prospect of losing one of their SR-71s...
--
MSDOS, abbrev:  Maybe SomeDay |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
an Operating System.          | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 9 Mar 90 19:54:08 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Mary Shafer (OFV))
Subject: Re: SR-71 and dates

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes (in response to a proposal that Pegasus be launched from the SR-71):

   Don't forget why launching the D-21 from the Blackbird was abandoned:
   an early launch failed disastrously and both drone and launch aircraft
   were lost.  Even disregarding other problems, I think NASA would react,
   um, *negatively* to the prospect of losing one of their SR-71s...

Can you say "lynch mob"?

The engineers, crews, and pilots get attached to our aircraft.  You
come around with this idea and we'll probably get a little testy.

:-), of course.
--

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

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

Date: 9 Mar 90 04:52:45 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au!ditmela!yarra!melba.bby.oz.au!leo![e-mail]  (Gregory N. Bond)
Subject: Re: Challenger's Last Words

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

      The F-111
   has an ejection capsule, which is theoretically operational but has had
   somewhat mixed results in practice.  I believe there have been successful
   ejections with it, but it seems to be a rather unreliable system.

Well, the Australian air force has F-111s.  There have been numerous
prangs over the last 10 years (including several in the space of a few
months, some time back, that started a whole wave of F-111 jokes).  I
don't remember any loss of life, so I guess the ejection system worked
well enough.  The navy rescue services and the salvage teams got quite
good at fishing bits of F-111 out of the pacific...

Greg.
--
Gregory Bond, Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd, Melbourne, Australia
Internet: [e-mail]    non-MX: [e-mail]
Uucp: {uunet,pyramid,ubc-cs,ukc,mcvax,prlb2,nttlab...}!munnari!melba.bby.oz!gnb
--
Gregory Bond, Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd, Melbourne, Australia
Internet: [e-mail]    non-MX: [e-mail]
Uucp: {uunet,pyramid,ubc-cs,ukc,mcvax,prlb2,nttlab...}!munnari!melba.bby.oz!gnb

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

Date: 9 Mar 90 19:45:27 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Charles Bouschor II)
Subject: Kennedy Space Center

I was wondering if anybody out there had any suggestions on sights to
see, concerning space stuff in Florida.  I'm a novice as to what is down
there and I plan to be in the area from April 1st - 14th.

Can anyone give me information on what to see at Kennedy Space Center,
Please include any hours of operation.

Are there any shuttle flights planned during this time?

Any "Must See" sights for space junkies?

Please email your replys to me.  If interested I will post a summary.

Thanks for your help.

Charles Bouschor II
[e-mail]

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

Date: 9 Mar 90 19:52:30 GMT
From: ccncsu!ncr-fc![e-mail]  (Mike McManus)
Subject: Re: space news from Jan 22 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>   One minor incident occurred late in the mission, when radio interference
>   slightly scrambled a state-vector update command sent up from the ground,
>   and Columbia began rotating slowly (peak rate about 0.5 RPM).  The crew
>   was asleep at the time, but mission control woke them up and they sorted
>   it out.

I remain amazed, as I was when something similar happened on the last mission,
that such things can actually occur!  Do they not use such things as data check
sums, echo-and-confirm, etc.?  I would think that would be SOP.  Sorry if
someone replied with an explanation last time this happened, but I never saw
one.
--
Disclaimer: All spelling and/or grammer in this document are guaranteed to be
            correct; any exseptions is the is wurk uv intter-net deemuns.

Mike McManus ([e-mail])
NCR Microelectronics
2001 Danfield Ct.                   ncr-fc![e-mail], or
Ft. Collins,  Colorado              ncr-fc![e-mail], or
[phone]   Ext. 360           uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!ncr-fc!garage!mikemc

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

Date: 9 Mar 90 09:12:51 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au![e-mail]  (Francis Vaughan)
Subject: Re: Challenger's Last Words

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Gregory N. Bond):
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>         The F-111
>    has an ejection capsule, which is theoretically operational but has had
>    somewhat mixed results in practice.  I believe there have been successful
>    ejections with it, but it seems to be a rather unreliable system.
>
> Well, the Australian air force has F-111s.  There have been numerous
> prangs over the last 10 years (including several in the space of a few
> months, some time back, that started a whole wave of F-111 jokes).  I
> don't remember any loss of life, so I guess the ejection system worked
> well enough.
> Greg.

From memory this is not quite accurate. We lost one crew when a pelican
came though the windshield on a low level run. I have also been told that
an ejection from an F-111 is a quick way to loose your jet rating. It seems
that the the parachute landing in the ejection module is VERY bumpy. So
much so that most crew suffer some back damage and are no longer considered
fit to fly high speed fighters. However I can't recall any deaths after the
ejection system was activated (which is probably what Greg meant by no loss
of life). Ejection systems seem to be pretty violent affairs at the best.

Full pod systems do at least protect the occupants form sliptream, low
pressure, and maybe some effects of explosions (however at the speeds
involved they may well be some distance form the explosion by then).
Looking at pictures of a shuttle under constructuion I notice that the
crew compartment is a complete module fitted into the fuselage. I don't
know how strong it is, but if it were possible to separate the top skin
over the cabin (which seems to be a seperate entity) from the bottom it
might be possible to get this stucture down to a reasonable altitude
and speed (perhaps on a small parachute) that a conventional ejection
system would work. (Probably need to cut the first 'cute away and the eject
from free fall a short time later. It seems to me that it should be
possible to get the stucture to fall without tumbling with a bit of care,
at least for long enough for the ejection systems to work.)


                                        Francis Vaughan
                                        [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #132
*******************