Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_1/V11_166.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/sa1mwC200VcJAK1U5f>;
          Wed, 21 Mar 90 02:36:50 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 02:35:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #166

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 166

Today's Topics:
             Re: Intelsat / Titan failure
             Re: SR-71:  LA to DC
             Re: Shuttle Escapes
             Re: Shuttle Escapes
         Re: Another SR-71 comes to NASA Ames-Dryden
              Space White Paper
              The Amazing Flying Coilgun
              Re: Sandia Railgun
             Re: Shuttle Escapes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 20 Mar 90 9:21:42 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Intelsat / Titan failure

I had expected there to be more discussion of this on the SPACE list, but
reviewing the recent Digests show relatively little on the subject.
Therefore, I feel free to jump in with both feet on this topic... :-)

By the way, on the VOA's "Communications World" program on Saturday (17 Mar)
there was an interview with an Intelsat representative about this mishap.
He seemed remarkably sanguine about it... (I guess because the cost wasn't
coming out of *his* pocket... :-) He stated that the decision to
self-insure had been made long ago (a year or so) so it was not based on
the higher insurance rates after the recent Ariane failure. [Actually,
if they had bought insurance, wouldn't the rates have been determined back
then a year ago, and not be variable up to the moment of launch?] He said
they expected a certain amount of failures in their launches, and this
was just one of them. In his shoes, I don't think I'd be quite as calm...
I tend to climb walls at much-less-expensive mishaps.

Anyway, to enter speculative net-discussion mode:

After the Intelsat was finally separated from the upper stage and left in
the low "useless" orbit [see * note below on this], there was frequent
news-report speculation on it being capable of being rescued by the
Shuttle. (This was not mentioned in the interview cited above.) That is
what I would like to blue-sky about. The obvious thing that comes to
mind is the upcoming HST launch. Here's a shuttle going up full and
coming back empty -- what an opportunity! But is it possible?

I can see several aspects of the question need to be addressd:

1) Physical capability of the shuttle
2) Physical capability of the orbit
3) Safety
4) Administrative issues

1) So, the shuttle carrying HST into orbit has fittings installed to
support HST. Would those same fittings interfere with or be usable for
loading the Intelsat into the payload bay after the HST was out? Will
the Intelsat fit in the payload bay? Have antennae and solar panels,
etc., already deployed on the Intelsat that make it too big or too
awkward to be put into the Shuttle, or can such things be refurled or
disconnected and discarded in a reasonable fashion?

2) Is it possible for the shuttle that releases HST to get to the
location of the Intelsat at correct relative speeds, or are we talking
"apples and oranges" in terms of orbits here? Is the orbit the Intelsat
is in one that ANY shuttle launch will be likely to coincide with, or
would any such rendezvous require a specific dedicated launch for that
purpose?

3) Is it safe to get the Intelsat? I gather from news stories that all
the onboard fuel is used up -- I am thinking that was stationkeeping
fuel for the satellite's thrusters. Is there still an unlit booster
stage hung off this satellite, or was that separated from it? [What I
heard of the mishap was that the satellite did not separate from the
final stage of the launch vehicle, but then the technicians eventually
were able to detach it. Does that mean they detached the satellite
itself from its final-kick-to-GEO-booster and used the thrusters to
separate it from that, which was still hung on the final stage of the
Titan, or what?] If there isn't any fuel or an armed booster there, it
should be a fairly safe inert body to retrieve. But can it be retrieved?
Does it have handles or hooks the arm can latch onto? Is it rotating?
Any other safety-related issues?

4) Administrative -- all the above are fun speculations, but this is the
nitty-gritty. Here we have an already-detailed-planned mission only a
few weeks away and we are talking about adding a MAJOR new task, if
possible. I like to think the old American "can-do" spirit would say
"Sure, we can do it..." and figure out jury-rigs and lash-ups and
manage. But that isn't how NASA operates. (Probably we should be glad
about that...) Anything done in orbit is practiced over and over
beforehand in tanks and other test sites on the ground. There would NOT
be time to do that. There probably wouldn't be time to get the hundreds
of sign-offs required to even begin the training, much less DO anything!
Even if it is physically possible, and the astronauts say "We want to do
it", and Bush says "Do it" for national-prestige reasons, could it be done?

As a side issue, a philosophical query -- do we want this capability? Do
we want to make a space program that can DO things on short notice and
respond to emergency situations or sudden requirements? Not only would
this require money, but it needs a basic change in the philosophy of
operations -- its not the same as having a space program that can do
things over a five or ten-year period, and I don't know if the two
different approaches even *could* coexist.

Take it from here and wing it -- there is a lot I've not covered, of
course. The basic question of whether a government-sponsored space
program should even consider coming to the rescue of a private-enterprise
space misadventure hasn't been addressed. Maybe NASA should go get the
Intelsat as salvage, and sell it back to them and make a profit?

Regards, Will
[e-mail] OR [e-mail]

[* Note on "useless" orbit, above: The news reports continually used the
term "useless" when referring to the orbit the Intelsat is now in. I got
the impression it is in a standard LEO that won't decay for a while. It
sure seems that *some* use could be gotten out of this expensive toy no
matter where in the sky it is. Couldn't it be used as a super-OSCAR by
hams? If it can't be rescued, Intelsat should donate it to AMSAT for
their use. All they'd have to do is tell them the secret codes to use to
turn it on and make it work, right? Even if not geostationary, it could
be of *some* use for communications in some form. It should be a fun
hobbyist toy. Without stationkeeping fuel it wouldn't hold position, but
that should make using it a good challenge for hams!]

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

Date: 16 Mar 90 22:05:55 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!IDA.ORG!pbs![e-mail]  (Dark Star)
Subject: Re: SR-71:  LA to DC

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (S. Khai Mong) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Krause) writes:
>>   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kral) writes:
>>   #Their flight path was such that they watched the sun rise and set 3 times
>>   #(this from an interview with the pilot).  A truley awsome experience.
>>
>>   How is this possible?  The only thing I can think of is that they
>>   were constantly changing their altitude.

As I recall they got a 'running start' so they may have taken off eastward
and seen a sunrise, then looped back westward over the ocean to be going at
full speed when then passed over LA.

That would give 2 sunrises.  So maybe an airborne refueling and some other
manuvering before the start of the record setting run could have led to
another.  I don't think the quoted 1 hour flight time is from runway to runway.

--
Bruce Hall                            ...{csed-1,ida.org,vrdxhq}!pbs!bhall
Public Broadcasting Service           703/739-5048

"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes" - Oscar Wilde

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

Date: 20 Mar 90 18:45:30 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Mary Shafer (OFV))
Subject: Re: Shuttle Escapes

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (A J Cunningham) writes:

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer (OFV)) writes:
   #nobody is forced to fly in fighters or bombers or airliners.  We're

           Unless of course they are unlucky enough to be drafted. (No :-))

The Air Force, Navy, and Marines did NOT draft people.  Army troops
(who may have been drafted) rode in helicopters flown by pilots who
had volunteered.  (Yes, this latter is hair-splitting.)  Even in World
War II, all air crew were volunteers.

The same is true, I understand, of the Royal Air Force, the Royal
Navy, and the Royal Marines--National Service was in the British Army.
--

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: 20 Mar 90 21:15:36 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Escapes

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer (OFV)) writes:

>The Air Force, Navy, and Marines did NOT draft people.  Army troops
>(who may have been drafted) rode in helicopters flown by pilots who
>had volunteered.  (Yes, this latter is hair-splitting.)  Even in World
>War II, all air crew were volunteers.
>
If I remember right, wasn't the baseball player Ted Williams drafted twice?
We was a pilot for the Navy. In fact, we was even shot down one time. He was
drafted once in WWII and another time for Korea. He definitely didn't
volunteer for either time; he ended up losing 5 years of his playing career.
In his book "My Turn At Bat", he complained how unfair it was for him to
be drafted twice.

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

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

Date: 20 Mar 90 23:23:48 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: Another SR-71 comes to NASA Ames-Dryden

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Hix) writes:

>Microscopically moderated by one person on the net remembering *his*
>(only) SR-71 flyby many years ago while in high school.  (Armed Forces Day,
>1967, Pt. Mugu, CA.  Two passes.  :} :} )

>Mary and Albion had better seats, though.

BTW, the tail number on our new aquisition is 64-17971.  Just went out
to see it.  It too is leaving its mark on the hangar floor with little
pools of JP-7, just like 64-17980.  One interesting feature is that
all the inlet, exhaust and canopy covers (plus all the `remove before
flight flags') have the YF-12A tail number on them (60-06935).

--
Albion H. Bowers  [e-mail]  ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!bowers
         NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
                  Aerodynamics: The ONLY way to fly!

                     Live to ski, ski to live...

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

Date: 21 Mar 90 00:02:56 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!srcsip!jhereg!kksys![e-mail]  (Mike Bird)
Subject: Space White Paper

My brother is announcing that he will run for the U. S. Senate in Alaska
tomorrow.  He is running as a Republican against an incumbent Republican,
so he'll probably get blown out of the water.

However, he has asked me to give him a "White Paper" on what the U. S.
policy on space should be.  He has described a White Paper as being a
position paper of 2 or 3 pages length.  I have agreed to do this, and I'd
like some input from y'all.  (O.K., let me clear out 20Mb or so on my hard
disk...)

My basic position is that NASA should concentrate on R&D, just like it does
in the Aeronautics arena and should off-load the operational stuff to either
a private contractor, or else a new government agency should be set up to
handle shuttle and satellite activities.  SDI, Space station, the Deep Space
Network and probes, would still fall under NASA.

I also think it's time to get some "new blood" into the space contracting
side.  Most of the large contractors (Martin Marietta (sp?), Lockheed,
Rockwell, etc.) have, IMHO, a hardening of the arteries due to being so
large.  They're almost as bureaucratic as NASA.  As a result, in both the
government (NASA) and private sectors, new, risky, ideas are passed over for
tried-and-true methods.  This has caused (also IMHO) a stagnation in our
space efforts.  Money has a lot to do with it as well.

So, please e-mail me your opinions by March 28th, 1990.  Anything sent after
that will not get consideration.  When I have the thing keyed in, I will
send a copy to all contributors.  No input, no copy (this is called
"incentive").  I *will* listen to views which conflict with mine, but it
will have to be convincing.  Flames (and anything with profane language in
it) will *not* be considered or copied.  And may prejudice (sp?) me against
the (presumably conflicting) viewpoint even more.

Thanks for the netbandwidth.

P.S.  Postings (as opposed to e-mail) may be considered, but won't be
copied.
--
==============================================================================
Mike Bird - B. Dalton, Bookseller                         [e-mail]
Helen Bird - Hummingbird Tailors                         [e-mail]
Laid off in 1990                    All opinions void where prohibited by law!

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

Date: 19 Mar 90 01:54:38 GMT
From: MATHOM.GANDALF.CS.CMU.EDU![e-mail]  (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: The Amazing Flying Coilgun

In article <60300001@suna5> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Vincent Cate) writes:
>>...a coilgun on a high flying 747...
>Interesting idea, but I think you need a high-altitude, hypersonic
>aircraft for your first stage.

Intesting idea, but really, not imaginative enough (-:

Has anyone seen the cartoon of the electric bus with the power cord?
That IS the obvious solution to the power supply problem.  Soooo...
hang the gun (vertically, of course) from a suitable suite of
balloons.

This has the nice advantage that the power comes from any cost-
effective ground station, such as a retired nuclear carrier.
Balloons really can lift large weights, you know: they're scalable.
The main drawbacks would probably be in the areas of aiming, flexing,
and weather susceptibility. Flex is fixed with mass. Aiming ... maybe
add propellors (ie blimps not balloons). Weather: you'd have to be
able to reel it all in and hangar it on reasonable notice.

As engineering projects go, this one has a certain snigger factor.
But it sounds a lot more scalable than any solution with wings.



--
Don        D.C.Lindsay     Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

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

Date: 19 Mar 90 21:33:46 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!samsung!umich!umeecs!itivax!vax3![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Sandia Railgun

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

>Admittedly, there is the question of whether you want to build all your
>space hardware to withstand gun launches.  Probably you don't.  But it can
>be done for most things.  If gun launch is sufficiently cheaper than using
>rockets, it may be worthwhile.

Perhaps you should just send up the hardward and do integration on a
space station. That way they could also fix them if they fail and do
other repair. I wonder if the reduction in needed reliability would
offset the cost of the people? If so, at what point?

  Allen

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Allen W. Sherzer |Archie: These guys are terrorists. Know what that means?|
|   [e-mail]    |Lorenzo: No prisoners!                                  |
|                  |Recce: You say that like there was some other way.      |

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

Date: 19 Mar 90 23:56:08 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!physics.utoronto.ca![e-mail]  (Christopher Neufeld)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Escapes

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Hogg) writes:
>However, a ``reasonably well protected human'' needn't wear a spacecraft.
>Station crew-escape systems have been proposed which amount to a
>spacesuit, a retrorocket pack, a heatshield, and a parachute.  The
>advantages of such a system include simplicity and light weight.
>Unfortunately, an astronaut needing an escape system is quite likely
>to be ill or injured, and a stripped-down suit-shield-chute package
>is not an ideal ambulance.  It still sounds worth developing.
>
   You mean this is a real idea??? I saw this described in the SF novel
_Orbital Decay_ by Allen Steele and brushed it off as a fabrication by
the author.
   You might be able to convince me to sit on top of a tank of fuel and
oxidizer, but you'd have a much harder time getting me to jump out of
the space station with the intention of soft-landing on the ground!

>---
>John Hogg                | As engineering projects go,
>[e-mail]            | this one has a certain snigger
>Department of Computer Science        | factor.
>University of Toronto            |         -- Don Lindsay, CMU


--
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | "I always think there's
 [e-mail]              | a band."
 [e-mail]          Ad astra! |   Prof. Harold Hill
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |   (The Music Man)

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #166
*******************