Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_2/V11_225.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/oa72m2S00VcJE:l05U>;
          Fri,  6 Apr 90 01:43:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri,  6 Apr 90 01:43:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #225

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 225

Today's Topics:
     Re: Quick launches ( was: Intelsat / Titan Failure )
     Re: Quick launches ( was: Intelsat / Titan Failure )
          Re: Observations of STS 36 and its Payload
               THREAT OF PEACE
               THREAT OF PEACE
                 Galileo info
          Re: Will we lose another orbiter?
            National Space Society
              Re: Pegasus scrub
          Re: Observations of STS 36 and its Payload
       Re: Reports of Io's vulcanism before VOYAGER 1?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 90 13:00:48 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!watyew![e-mail]  (Brian or James)
Subject: Re: Quick launches ( was: Intelsat / Titan Failure )


 I don't know if MX missiles suffer from this, but isn't there a
problem with launching minutemen from silos? I recall there was
a series of launches in the seventies in which the only Minuteman
that actually left its silo malfunctioned in the first kilometer
of the boost phase. I have no idea what the problem was or if it
got fixed [If you don't plan to actually use it, who cares if it
works, right?, but if the problem was with the missile rather than
the launch site, ICBMs might not be reliable launch vehicles. I
believe tests of the Minutemen worked OK out west [At Vandenburg?],
so perhaps the difficulty is easily fixed by only launching under the
proper conditions.
                        JDN

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

Date: 5 Apr 90 16:04:06 GMT
From: idacrd![e-mail]  (Robert McGwier)
Subject: Re: Quick launches ( was: Intelsat / Titan Failure )

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Fraering Philip):
> About quick launches: I thought the obstacle to fast launches on many of
>


I think the primary obstacle to quick launches is the required international
filings with regulatory bodies.  The U.S. has not yet abrogated this treaty
and I hope they do not.

Bob

--
____________________________________________________________________________
    My opinions are my own no matter    |    Robert W. McGwier, N4HY
    who I work for! ;-)            |    CCR, AMSAT, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 5 Apr 90 14:28:54 GMT
From: unmvax!nmtsun![e-mail]  (Daniel Briggs)
Subject: Re: Observations of STS 36 and its Payload

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel Fischer) writes:
>
>  I haven't seen a reply to Roy Smith's question <16 Mar 90 14:31 GMT> so far,
>           but I think it deserves further thoughts. He had asked:
>> ... an object about 100 feet long and about 100 miles up should subtend about
>> half a minute of arc... With a good scope under good conditions I would guess
>> you should be able to clearly see gross features on the shuttle... one might
>> even be able to peek inside the cargo bay and see what they've got in there.
>
> [Daniel derives a tracking rate of 1.5 degrees/sec...]

Well, the original article is long since history at our site, so I don't know
if he was talking about professional or amateur observers.  I do know that
this is done by the pros all the time.  Remember the problem with shuttle
tiles coming off during the early missions?  At the time, we were led to
believe that they were imaged with space based satellites.  I just recently
learned (via the local grape vine), that the telescope resonsible for many
of those images was just down the road a piece, at White Sands.  This is a
dedicated instument for imaging satellites, and it does indeed have a very
specialized mount for the high tracking rates required.

-----
This is a shared guest account, please send replies to
[e-mail] (Internet)
Dan Briggs / NRAO / P.O. Box O / Socorro, NM / 87801  (U.S. Snail)

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

Date: 6 Apr 90 03:12:36 GMT
From: csusac![e-mail]  (Doug Martin)
Subject: THREAT OF PEACE




    Recently I read an article in the september issue of
IEEE's Spectrum titled The Threat Of Peace.  The article was
very interesting to me because, as an EE major attending CSUS
, the cuts in defense spending could greatly decrease the
number of available jobs for EEs.  I plan to give a speech on
the subject, and would appreciate any information relating to
the following questions:

    - Effects on EEs and other segments of the economy.

     - What aid are companies providing for laid off
       employees?

     - What are the feelings of EEs in jobs specific/
       not specific to defence projects?

     - What are a few dual-use industries, such as fiber
       optics, software development, and polymer matrix
       composites, that are relevant to defense and
       civil applications?

     - Where should money no longer allocated to defense
       be concentrated?

     - What are the chances/realities of reduction in
       defense spending?

     - What are some further sources of information on
       these topics?

    Although I have no real concept of the current and future
problems that EEs may face, the statistics I've seen seem to
indicate that it is more than speculation.  Here are some stats
I have relating to job layoffs:

     - In the past five years, 80,000 U.S. companies
       have dropped out of the defense industry.

    - 1989 Grumman Corp., Bethpage, N.Y., expected to
       to lose a total of 300 engineering position.

     - Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Kent, Wash.,
       announced in August that 800 or its 22,000
       employees would be cut.

     - Northrop Research and Technology Center Palos
       Verdes, Calif., layed off 15 of the 170 people
       at their research center in 1986.

    Are these only isolated or insignificant figures?  Are the
threats real?  How can they be avoided, or offset?

    I may not be able to read all postings, so if you have any
comments please E-Mail them to me; posting a copy if you feel it
is relevant to the subject matter covered in this group.

    Great thanks in advance,

    Doug Martin.


P.S. Most information I presented was gain through my reading of
THE THREAT OF PEACE in Spectrum magazine.

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

Date: 6 Apr 90 03:04:32 GMT
From: csusac![e-mail]  (Doug Martin)
Subject: THREAT OF PEACE




    Recently I read an article in the september issue of
IEEE's Spectrum titled The Threat Of Peace.  The article was
very interesting to me because, as an EE major attending CSUS
, the cuts in defense spending could greatly decrease the
number of available jobs for EEs.  I plan to give a speech on
the subject, and would appreciate any information relating to
the following questions:

    - Effects on EEs and other segments of the economy.

     - What aid are companies providing for laid off
       employees?

     - What are the feelings of EEs in jobs specific/
       not specific to defence projects?

     - What are a few dual-use industries, such as fiber
       optics, software development, and polymer matrix
       composites, that are relevant to defense and
       civil applications?

     - Where should money no longer allocated to defense
       be concentrated?

     - What are the chances/realities of reduction in
       defense spending?

     - What are some further sources of information on
       these topics?

    Although I have no real concept of the current and future
problems that EEs may face, the statistics I've seen seem to
indicate that it is more than speculation.  Here are some stats
I have relating to job layoffs:

     - In the past five years, 80,000 U.S. companies
       have dropped out of the defense industry.

    - 1989 Grumman Corp., Bethpage, N.Y., expected to
       to lose a total of 300 engineering position.

     - Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Kent, Wash.,
       announced in August that 800 or its 22,000
       employees would be cut.

     - Northrop Research and Technology Center Palos
       Verdes, Calif., layed off 15 of the 170 people
       at their research center in 1986.

    Are these only isolated or insignificant figures?  Are the
threats real?  How can they be avoided, or offset?

    I may not be able to read all postings, so if you have any
comments please E-Mail them to me; posting a copy if you feel it
is relevant to the subject matter covered in this group.

    Great thanks in advance,

    Doug Martin.


P.S. Most information I presented was gain through my reading of
THE THREAT OF PEACE in Spectrum magazine.

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

Date: 5 Apr 90 18:30:09 GMT
From: psuvm![e-mail]  (Zaphod Beeblebrox)
Subject: Galileo info

I need some info about the initial launch of the probe from the shuttle. . .
or more helpful would be the final position of the probe after its
booster rocket gave out. . like position and velocity. . .any help out there?

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

Date: 5 Apr 90 13:27:22 GMT
From: pilchuck!seahcx!phred![e-mail]  (Pete Jarvis)
Subject: Re: Will we lose another orbiter?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wayne D. Johnson) writes:
>
>the number of parts that may fail.  By having 3 redundant engines, failure of
>1 critical part in 1 engine will not cause a "failure".  You probably know all
>

"3 redundant engines"?  All engines on the vehicle are necessary to
achieve proper orbit. Lose an engine early and you may not get to
orbit at all. As for losing 1 critical part in 1 engine not causing a
"failure", if that part happened to be the high-speed turbo-pump, you
you will lose the the whole vehicle.

Peter Jarvis - Physio-Control, Redmond, WA.

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

Date: 5 Apr 90 20:55:42 GMT
From: network.ucsd.edu!celit![e-mail]  (Dave Smith)
Subject: National Space Society

I got a "survey" from the National Space Society today that really annoyed
me for a number of reasons.  For starters, the questions were coached in
such a way that, given you'd accepted the information in the question,
there was only one way you could answer.

A sample question:

Over the years, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has
been responsible for virtually every facet of America's space program,
including such success stories as Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and the Space
Shuttle.  What is your assement of the job NASA has done?  Do you:

Strongly approve
Approve
Disapprove

Of course, the final question is whether you would be willing to spend
"pennies" a day to support the NSS.

I really dislike such childish attempts to manipulate me into sending money.
This kind of "survey" is best aimed at the people who answer Ed McMahon's
letters and think they will win something.  It was just like every one
of the other stupid pieces of junk mail I get every day complete down
to the "personal" note from Chuck Walker and the sticker.  All it lacked
was scratch-'n-sniff boxes.

Additionally, in the survey and in the accompanying literature, the NSS came
off as a cheerleading organization for NASA, not an organization
designed to push space exploration and provide some good, critical comment
to NASA and the government.  I filled out the survey with answers showing
a support for space exploration and a vote of "no confidence" for NASA,
(sorry NASA people, but NASA needs a good swift kick to get it back on track,
not a cheering section) added some remarks down at the bottom and sent it
back to them.

Of course, my survey results will be disregarded as a "statistical abberation"
when the NSS decides to bolster a position with their survey.

So, my advice to the NSS, if they're serious about getting intelligent
people to join, is to drop the cheesy advertising agency they have
orchestrating this direct mail campaign, and put together some real,
less childishly manipulative stuff and send it out.  Of course,
if they're really just looking for herd animals to pay the bills, this
campaign hits it right on the button.

--
David L. Smith
FPS Computing, San Diego
ucsd!celerity!dave or [e-mail]
"What does this Notme guy look like and why does he work at my company?"

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

Date: 6 Apr 90 01:37:51 GMT
From: ccncsu!longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu![e-mail]  (Lee Jarvie)
Subject: Re: Pegasus scrub

>I just heard that todays launch of Pegasus was scrubbed because of the weather.
>Does anyone know when the next attempt is scheduled?
>
>Ben Reytblat


Well, I realize this is a little late, but it launched today (4-5-90)
and from what I heard earlier today it was still working fine.  Anyway,
the launch looked pretty good.

Lee

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

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 12:29:12 +0200
From: [e-mail] (Daniel Fischer)
Subject: Re: Observations of STS 36 and its Payload
Cc: [e-mail]

  I haven't seen a reply to Roy Smith's question <16 Mar 90 14:31 GMT> so far,
           but I think it deserves further thoughts. He had asked:
> ... an object about 100 feet long and about 100 miles up should subtend about
> half a minute of arc... With a good scope under good conditions I would guess
> you should be able to clearly see gross features on the shuttle... one might
> even be able to peek inside the cargo bay and see what they've got in there...
On the optical side you are right, the shuttle (or Mir, BTW) should make a nice
planet-size target. But the big problem is the apparent angular velocity. Here
are some more 'back-of-the-envelope' calculations. Lets have the shuttle at
7000 km from the center of the earth -> its orbit's circumference is 44000 km.
It takes 90 minutes for that -> 490km/min or 8 km/s. Now at 300km altitude
directly overhead, you see it go with arctan(8/300)=1.5 degrees per second.
That means that the shuttle travels 1 arc min in 1/100 sec through your field
of view or takes about   1 / 2 5 0  s e c  to travel its own length! One would
have to build a special tracking device to follow it, as no one can track a
100'/s-target manually at the x100+ magnification needed. But shouldn't that be
possible with the current state-of-the-art of amateur telescope making and the
availibility of precise orbital elements? Has someone tried to do that already?

+- [e-mail] --- Daniel Fischer --- [e-mail] -+
| Max-Planck-Institut f. Radioastronomie, Auf dem Huegel 69, D-5300 Bonn 1,FRG |
+----- Enjoy the Universe - it's the only one you're likely to experience -----+

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

Date: 5 Apr 90 13:20:32 GMT
From: nih-csl!csl-sun3.dcrt.nih.gov![e-mail]  (Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Reports of Io's vulcanism before VOYAGER 1?

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (N = R*fgfpneflfifaL 04-Apr-1990 0856) writes:
|>
|>        Were there any science reports, or even science fiction stories,
|>    which "anticipated" volcanic activity on Jupiter's Galilean moon Io
|>    *before* the flyby of VOYAGER 1 in 1979?  Please give details and
|>    sources, thanks.

    I do remember that a paper was published or released just
    before Voyager got to Jupiter that predicted volcanic activity
    based on the tidal forces on Io.  It evidently was not something
    NASA was actively looking for though as I remember.  Sorry, I
    don't have any sources.  I remember a reporter discribing this
    during a special report on Voyager 1's flyby.  I think the
    paper was written by some folks at NASA.

                    Jim Sullivan
                    [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #225
*******************