Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_1/V11_197.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 11KB

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/Aa4PVqu00VcJ84PU5Z>;
          Thu, 29 Mar 90 02:25:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 02:25:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #197

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 197

Today's Topics:
             Re: Shuttle Escapes
       Re: Did SEASAT See More Than It Was Supposed To?
     "Brilliant Pebbles" vs. "Smart Rocks" (was Re: Railgun ...)
            Re: Challenger Report question
             Re: Shuttle Escapes
    Discovery's Spin in 2010 (Was Re: Artificial gravity)
          Re: Will we lose another orbiter?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 90 21:24:50 GMT
From: concertina![e-mail]  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Escapes

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Al Bowers) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (ken_scofield) writes:
> >  Oh, I dunno...  I'm a skydiver, and I think a jump from the space station
> >  would just be the ultimate jump!  ;-)  The lift rates would be a little
> >  high, though.  8-()
>
> As I recall Joe Kittenger (the renowned balloonist) still holds the
> record for the longest freefall (with a drougue chute though) and the
> highest bailout (intentional or otherwise).  I seem to remeber it was
> at 101,000 ft. and the freefall took 8 or 9 minutes with a max
> velocity of ~700mph.  I believe he did this in the late 50's or early
> 60's.

1961, 104,000'+.

Some ride...

------------
"...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_

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

Date: 15 Mar 90 17:26:47 GMT
From: mitel!sce!cognos!geovision![e-mail]  (Paul Tomblin)
Subject: Re: Did SEASAT See More Than It Was Supposed To?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
#In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Watkins) writes:
#>2) There have been rumours (e.g. a piece by Nicholas Booth in, I think,
#>the British "Sunday Correspondent") saying that SEASAT did not fail but
#>was killed as a result of the DoD exercising its prerogative. Is this
#>just paranoia or is it likely to have any basis in fact?
#
#I haven't heard anything I would call evidence for this.  It strikes me
#as implausible that it could stay secret for over a decade, especially
#since I don't think DoD has any "prerogative" over civilian research
#satellites.

I seem to recall that a recent test of an SDI or ASAT weapon (sorry I forget
deatils, just the uproar) was carried out on a perfectly good 'civilian'
research satellite because DOD's target didn't reach orbit.  At the time,
DOD claimed it was obsolete, but several researchers were pretty pissed off
about it.

If my memory is correct, doesn't this show that DOD does have some 'back-
room' influence or perogative over NASA?
--
Paul Tomblin nrcaer!cognos!geovision!pt or uunet!geovision!pt
Life: Loath it or ignore it, you can't like it.  (Marvin)
(My employer may not agree with my opinions, especially my .signature)

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

Date: 28 Mar 90 21:42:00 GMT
From: nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!caen.engin.umich.edu!srvr1![e-mail]  (Mike Pelletier)
Subject: "Brilliant Pebbles" vs. "Smart Rocks" (was Re: Railgun ...)


 [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>
>The proposed EML in Hawaii wouldn't launch into polar orbits, I
>believe, but rather into somewhat less highly inclined orbits.  The
>purpose would be to park large numbers of "Brilliant Pebbles" in
>orbits that pass over the Soviet Union, where they could be used for
>boost-phase intercept.
>

Whence this silly nomenclature "Brilliant Pebbles"?  Whatever happened
to the succinct, professional sounding "Smart Rocks"?  Sounds like
some sci-fi writer took out a trade-mark on the latter, so the SDI
boys had to come up with something new.  Any clues, anyone?

--
Michael V. Peltier        | "We live our lives with our hands on the
 CAEN UseNet News Administrator    |  rear-view mirror, striving to get a better
 Systems Group Programmer    |  view of the road behind us.  Imagine what's
                |  possible if we look ahead and steer..."

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

Date: 27 Mar 90 08:53:19 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!stc!root44!hrc63!mrcu![e-mail]  (Paul Johnson)
Subject: Re: Challenger Report question

>I understand that Feynman wrote an addendum to the report that
>put stronger blame on the parties involved.  I recently checked
>the Challenger Commission report out of the library and Feynman's
>addendum was not in it.  Does anyone know where I could find it?

Dunno if you can get it in the US, though I expect you can.  Find a
copy of "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" which is a
collection of anecdotes told by Feynman to his friend Ralph Leighton.
It includes the report and also the story "Mr Feynman Goes To
Washington" which tells of his experiences while on the Rogers
commission.  (you might also look out for "Surely You're Joking Mr
Feynman", which should be next to it).  You might have to look under
Feynman or Leigton (I think I spelt his name right).

I am disappointed but not too surprised to hear that the Feynman
appendix has been removed from the report.  According to Feynman in
WDYCWOPT, Rogers did not want it in there in the first place and tried
all sorts of tricks to get it out or at least toned down.  Only when
Feynman threatened to refuse to sign the report did Rogers back down.

Paul.

--
Paul Johnson                               UUCP: <world>!mcvax!ukc!gec-mrc!paj
--------------------------------!-------------------------|-------------------
GEC-Marconi Research is not     | Telex: 995016 GECRES G  | Tel: [phone]
responsible for my opinions.    | Inet: [e-mail]-mrc | Fax: [phone]

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

Date: 28 Mar 90 20:10:37 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Escapes

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (ken_scofield) 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
>>
>> You mean this is a real idea??? ...
>> 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!

>  Oh, I dunno...  I'm a skydiver, and I think a jump from the space station
>  would just be the ultimate jump!  ;-)  The lift rates would be a little
>  high, though.  8-()

As I recall Joe Kittenger (the renowned balloonist) still holds the
record for the longest freefall (with a drougue chute though) and the
highest bailout (intentional or otherwise).  I seem to remeber it was
at 101,000 ft. and the freefall took 8 or 9 minutes with a max
velocity of ~700mph.  I believe he did this in the late 50's or early
60's.

--
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: 28 Mar 90 14:35:53 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma![e-mail]  (Nick Watkins)
Subject: Discovery's Spin in 2010 (Was Re: Artificial gravity)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>In contrast to the clever special effects of "2001", in "2010" ...
>I suppose it must have been pushed through by some scriptwriter who claimed
>"It's a great special effect, and nobody will notice the inconsistency."
Worse is the fact that "Discovery" is found tumbling end over end,
purportedly due to the gyros seizing. The carousel could not have been
spinning in that plane however, so the angular momentum has somehow been
transfered through 90 degrees with no external torque. This strikes me
as a nice trick if you can do it, but I don't think you can, am I wrong?

Nick


--
Dr. Nick Watkins, Space & Plasma Physics Group, School of Mathematical
& Physical Sciences, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton, E.Sussex, BN1 9QH, ENGLAND
JANET: [e-mail]   BITNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 28 Mar 90 22:58:19 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: Will we lose another orbiter?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Al Bowers) writes:

>>As I said before losses must be expected, and I am sorry that you feel
>>that way about NASA.  I am proud of the work I perform for the
>>taxpayers as are most of us here and if we have dissappointed you we
>>are all sorry.

>I don't want perfection, Al.  I don't expect there to never be cost
>overruns, or delays, or innocent errors, or even total failures.  What
>I *do* want is honesty.  NASA (read: upper level NASA bureaucracy)
>wasn't being honest with the public about the shuttle's expected
>failure rate or reasonable flight rate.  Lou's attempt to blame the
>defrauded public for this was shameful.

I guess I misunderstood your posting.  I would like to say that the
last estimates I heard on the STS had a 90% chance of failure before
the end of the program.  As each orbiter is good for 25 flights and
each engine is good for 10 I would say that replacement had better
start before Endeavour flies.  Here at Edwards I have seen 5 aircraft
lost in 7 years.  2 were NASA planes and in one instance a pilot was
lost (proficiency flight).  The other was one of our F-18 chase planes
on a HARV research flight (I was in the control room at the time and
it scared the living daylights out of me).  That one incident still
stands out in my mind.  BTW, that means we only have 4 F-18s now.
Losses must be expected despite what the politicians say about
`operationl' vehicles.

--
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...

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #197
*******************