Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_1/V11_170.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 16KB

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/Aa1nz3a00VcJEKM05C>;
          Wed, 21 Mar 90 03:48:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 03:47:21 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #170

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 170

Today's Topics:
             Re: Shuttle Escapes
             Re: Shuttle Escapes
         Re: Another SR-71 comes to NASA Ames-Dryden
     Re: Coilgun on a 747 - supplies to orbit at $20/lb?
         AIAA design project and shuttle info
         Re: Another SR-71 comes to NASA Ames-Dryden
         Re: Another SR-71 comes to NASA Ames-Dryden
        Re: What was Challenger really up to?
         NASA Headline News for 03/19/90 (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 90 03:23:55 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Mary Shafer (OFV))
Subject: Re: Shuttle Escapes

In article <5A031213361D0126-MTABWIDENER*DXANDY@widener> [e-mail] writes:

>  As a fan of single seater autoracing (Formula One, Indy and the like) I have
>seen plently of incidents involving high speed collisions and fire.  The vast
>majority of these incidents involve no, or little, injury to the driver.

Awesome, aren't they?

>  Modern racing cars have carbon fibre tub in which the drivers sit.  This tub
>provides a great deal of protection.  It seems to me that if the Shuttle
>cockpit was designed in a similar fashion, it wouldn't matter if the rest of
>the shuttle had disintegrated, as long as the section containing the
>astronauts was relatively intact.  A small drogue 'chute could prevent the
>cockpit section from tumbling wildly and slow it sufficiently to enable a
>survivable impact with the sea.  If this approach was used, then you wouldn't
>need an array of fancy explosive bolts and associated equipment that could
>go off when you didn't need it.

There are two problems with this approach.  First, you can't just have a
structure around the astronauts, you have to have a pressure vessel.  They
tell us, at the altitude chamber, that blood will boil and you will die
at 50,000 ft if you lose pressurization.

Next, a small drogue chute won't slow the cockpit enough to enable a
survivable impact with the sea, let alone the ground.  As the F-111
community can tell you, their relatively small, two-man cockpit has a
big chute that doesn't guarantee a survivable impact.  (Fortunately
most are survivable, but usually with serious injuries.)

> It seems that everyone wants to spend tremendous amounts of cash on massively
>difficult projects that have a miniscule chance of being useful.  Why not try
>something simple for a change.

Because simple isn't always sufficient.  To take the race car analogy--
you don't have to insure the integrity of a pressure vessel because
the car is always at about one atmosphere.

I've heard that the same arguments were advanced when ejection seats
were proposed.  Why do something so expensive and difficult when you
have a minimal chance of survival (which was true with the early
e-seats) when bailing out over the side with a parachute is so simple
and proven.

It's my belief, however, that nothing is absolutely safe, particularly
flight.  If informed people wish to assume the risk, that's their
right and their decision.  Nobody is forced to fly in the Shuttle,
nobody is forced to fly in fighters or bombers or airliners.  We're
all volunteers.  As long as we really understand the risk we're taking,
what's the problem?

--

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: 19 Mar 90 20:09:14 GMT
From: psuvm![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Shuttle Escapes

In article <5A031213361D0126-MTABWIDENER*DXANDY@widener>, [e-mail]
says:
>
>   As a fan of single seater autoracing (Formula One, Indy and the like) I
>have
>seen plently of incidents involving high speed collisions and fire.  The vast
>majority of these incidents involve no, or little, injury to the driver.
>  Modern racing cars have carbon fibre tub in which the drivers sit.  This tub
>provides a great deal of protection.  It seems to me that if the Shuttle
>cockpit was designed in a similar fashion, it wouldn't matter if the rest of
>the shuttle had disintegrated, as long as the section containing the
>astronauts was relatively intact.

This approach was investigated (according to a NASA guy who gave a pre
sentation on the current escape system). It was abandoned because the
cockpit was too flimsy and needed too much support equipment- the modifications
cut the useful cargo to orbit mass in half.

Mike Williams
[e-mail]

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

Date: 20 Mar 90 02:43:41 GMT
From: samsung!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Another SR-71 comes to NASA Ames-Dryden

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer (OFV)) writes:
>And everybody troops back into the building on this beautiful spring
>day, exhilerated by the flyby.

Followed by the sound of several thousand people elsewhere on the net
turning green with jealousy... :-[
--
MSDOS, abbrev:  Maybe SomeDay |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
an Operating System.          | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 20 Mar 90 04:53:50 GMT
From: sam.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]  (Vincent Cate)
Subject: Re: Coilgun on a 747 - supplies to orbit at $20/lb?


Mike Upton:
>(the record is currently held by the soviet AN225, their shuttle carrying plane
>at 1.2 million lbs. AN225 is 250ft long)
>both items from AvLeak.

What are the empty weight, payload, and fuel capacities of the AN225?

>3) The service ceiling for a 747 is much heigher than 40000ft. 36K ft is
>simply the most economical cruise altitude. The pegasus launch will be from
>a B52 at ?48000 ft?.

What is the service ceiling for a 747?

Someone said they can get up to 44,000 feet, again cruise.  I wonder how
much higher they could get with a maneuver just designed to gain altitude.
If we had a pilot who was willing to try anything (no fear of things like
being in an airplane that has come to a dead stop, in thin air, with its
nose pointing straight up), could we get to over 60,000 feet? (not fully
loaded)

How high can they get in level flight with half a tank of gas and half
of their maximum payload?

Anyone have access to one of those 747 pilot training simulators that
have hydraulics that tilt a full sized cockpit?  It would be interesting
to see how high those simulators think you could get if you really tried.

Any pilots who are willing to speculate?

I can just see this 747 doing all it can to get really high, firing
one projectile at this height, then going back down to gain speed
and do it all again.

We might want 100 kg projectiles so that there was 10 minutes
between firings.  If we can do 25 kg projectiles with a gun attached to
the frame, I'll bet we can do 100 kg projectiles with a gun that can recoil.
Only question is energy storage.

   -- Vince

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

Date: 20 Mar 90 14:13:11 GMT
From: samsung!umich!umeecs!dip.eecs.umich.edu![e-mail]  (Keith Amidon)
Subject: AIAA design project and shuttle info

Hi everyone.  I'm afraid I used to read this newsgroup regularly,
but lately I just haven't had the time to contribute.  However, I
would really appreciate it if someone in the know could provide me
with some information about the space shuttle and current design
of the space station.  I am a member of a team of students at the
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.  We are working on a design
project for the AIAA which involves designing a "GeoShack", a manned
satallite repair facility to be placed in geosynchronous orbit.  In
order to come up with the best design possible for the project, we
are interested in any information on the list of things at the
end of this message.  We would especially appreciate it if you
could site references for the information.

Here are the questions:
     1)  Is there a published power consumption breakdown for
          various subsystems in the space shuttle?
     2)  Dimensions of the airlock for the space station.
     3)  Dimensions of hatches between nodes on the space station.
     4)  Energy requirements for pump/pressure fuel system on
         the shuttle OMS and RCS engines.

Any information you could provide would be greatly appreciated.
Please send your replies via e-mail to:
        [e-mail]  OR   [e-mail].

Thanks very much for your help .....   Keith Amidon

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

Date: 20 Mar 90 17:09:46 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Mary Shafer (OFV))
Subject: Re: Another SR-71 comes to NASA Ames-Dryden

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

   Mary Shafer writes about the SR-71 flyby:
   < [...]
   < And back he did indeed come.  Straight at us, no more than 100 ft AGL.
   < Look at the smoke.  Come on, burner, burner, burner!  Burner light!
   < OH, WOW.  Did you feel that?  My whole body is resonating.  Look at
   < the burners.  OH, WOW.  Is he going to do another one?

   Uh, Mary, perhaps this belongs in alt.sex?    :-)

Of course not.  It goes in alt.sex.bondage; the crew is _strapped_ in.

--

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 05:48:49 GMT
From: mtndew![e-mail]  (Steve Friedl)
Subject: Re: Another SR-71 comes to NASA Ames-Dryden

Mary Shafer writes about the SR-71 flyby:
< [...]
< And back he did indeed come.  Straight at us, no more than 100 ft AGL.
< Look at the smoke.  Come on, burner, burner, burner!  Burner light!
< OH, WOW.  Did you feel that?  My whole body is resonating.  Look at
< the burners.  OH, WOW.  Is he going to do another one?

Uh, Mary, perhaps this belongs in alt.sex?    :-)

--
Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / Software Consultant / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy
[phone] voice   /   [e-mail]   /   {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl

"How could anybody look at Miss April and *not* believe in a God?" - me

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

Date: 19 Mar 90 16:33:10 GMT
From: csusac!csuchico.edu!petunia!jarthur![e-mail]  (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: What was Challenger really up to?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Arnold G. Gill) writes:
>
>     I heard the following story from a friend, and ...
> [story about military laser causing Challenger go boom]
> ...
>In addition, the fact that the cabin of the Challenger was
>not located for a month, even though it was in the shallowest water around.
>This was done to make sure that everybody on board was actually dead.

In many ways, it is easier to find something hundreds of miles up in
space than something a few hundred feet underwater.  An article in
National Geographic on "Doc" Edgerton (some month in 1987) published
the sonar image that turned out to be the Challenger crew cabin.  It
was just a bump on the bottom--there were no details that would let
you say "yes, this is the crew cabin," it could just as easily have
turned out to be a rock.  (I'm sure the CG and Navy investigated lots
of rocks before finding the cabin.)

Sonar is a tricky thing.  Sometimes, if the currents are right, you
can't even register the bottom in a few hundred feet of water (good
submarine hiding trick).  I was rather surprised when it took them
*only* a month to find the cabin.  Of course, they did have half the
Navy looking for the thing...
--
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: 19 Mar 90 19:56:28 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Headline News for 03/19/90 (Forwarded)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, March 19, 1990                        Audio: 202/755-1788
-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is NASA Headline News for Monday, March 19......



The Countdown Demonstration Test...a dress rehearsal...for the
next Space Shuttle mission is underway today at Kennedy Space
Center.  The crew arrived at the Cape Sunday noon.  The countdown
test is scheduled to conclude at 11:00 A.M., Eastern time,
Tuesday.

Because of the dress rehearsal being rescheduled, the STS-31
mission briefings and crew news conference originally scheduled
for today will be held Thursday, March 22.  NASA Select TV will
carry the briefings and news conference beginning at 9:30 A.M.,
Eastern time.

The STS-31 mission will deploy the Hubble Space Telescope into
Earth orbit.  The launch target date for the mission remains at
April 12.


Spacecraft controllers at Intelsat have been able to boost the
Intelsat 6 into a higher orbit.  It's now in a 160 by 278 mile
high orbit and can remain in Earth orbit for at least a year.
Informal discussions between Intelsat and NASA will be held to
discuss the possible recovery of the large communications
satellite sometime in the near future.


Meanwhile, engineers at Martin-Marietta say a wiring problem is
believed to have been the cause of the failure to properly deploy
the Intelsat 6 from the Titan 3 upper stage booster on March 14.
The company says new procedures will be developed to prevent a
repeat of the problem.


Jet Propulsion Laboratory director Dr. Lew Allen will receive the
Dr. Robert H. Goddard memorial trophy at a formal White House
ceremony today.  Vice President Dan quayle will make the
preesentation.  Allen was recognized for his leadership at the
Goddard memorial dinner held in Washington last Friday night.




                   * * * * * * * *






-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA
Select TV.  All times are Eastern.

Tuesday, March 20....

     6:30 A.M.      Terminal Coundtdown Demonstration Test
                    conclusion from KSC.


Wednesday, March 21......

     1:00 P.M.      Total Quality Management in Action
                    Colloquium


Thursday, March 22.......

      9:30 A.M.      STS-31 flight directors briefing

     10:30 A.M.      Secondary payloads briefing

     11:30 A.M.      STS-31 crew news conference

      1:00 P.M.      NASA Update will be transmitted

All events and times are subject to change without notice.
----------------------------------------------------------------
These reports are filed daily, Monday throught Friday, at 12
noon, Eastern time.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A service of the Internal Communications Branch, NASA HQ.

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #170
*******************