Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_2/V11_234.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/ga7gzZ:00VcJQCQE4i>;
          Sun,  8 Apr 90 01:45:10 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun,  8 Apr 90 01:44:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #234

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 234

Today's Topics:
              Re: Quick launches
               Re: Pegasus Stats Repost
             The Threat of Peace
               Re: Pegasus Stats Repost
                 Re: Pegasus
            Re: orbit definitions
        Re: HST Image Status for 04/01/90 (Forwarded)
               Re: The Threat of Peace
              Re: SPACE Digest V11 #231
              Re: South Atlantic Anomaly
          Re: Quick launches ( was: Intelsat
         Launch of 7th Block II GPS Satellite
            Re: orbit definitions
        Re: HST Image Status for 04/01/90 (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 90 21:16:54 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!qucdn![e-mail]  (Arnold G. Gill)
Subject: Re: Quick launches

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says:
>
>/* Written  8:00 am  Apr  5, 1990 by [e-mail] in
>uxa.cso.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
>
>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
>   ^^^^^^^^
>This is silly.  Our strategic deterrence relies on the ability to use
>our Minutemen and the desire to do so.
     I had a very good laugh when I read that line, because there is so little
meaning in it.  The way I would answer that statement is by saying that the
defense relies rather on the ability to con the so-called enemy into believing
the propaganda that is disemminated to the masses.

     By the way, don't take this as me actually believing that the silly
missiles are incapable of being used as designed.  I am sure that they are
quite capable of exploding wherever they are aimed.

     Personally, I think that the original poster is probably correct.  They
test launched the missiles, then exploded them shortly afterwards so that they
wouldn't appear on too many radar screens and spy-sats.  The explosions were
planned, not because the missiles themselves were defective (other than in
concept).
-------
 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|  Arnold Gill                        |                                     |
|  Queen's University at Kingston     |     If I hadn't wanted it heard,    |
|  BITNET   : gilla@qucdn             |       I wouldn't have said it.      |
|  X-400    : [e-mail]  |                                     |
|  INTERNET : [e-mail]  |                                     |
 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

Date: 7 Apr 90 21:58:20 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Pegasus Stats Repost

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Feulner ... Matt Feulner) writes:
>If it's about the same size as the X-15, is the payload high enough to support
>a person and all the life support equipment?  Would this be a worthwile
>concept for the future? ...

Pegasus might be able to fly manned, although I believe there are no plans
to man-rate it.  The payload shroud is awfully small and the accelerations
near stage burnout looked kind of high, based on some rough calculations
I did when it was first announced, but it's not fundamentally impossible.
Nobody has ever built a manned capsule small enough and light enough, but
I suspect it's possible if you try hard.

Certainly it would be a good deal easier with a somewhat larger launcher.
--
Apollo @ 8yrs: one small step.|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Space station @ 8yrs:        .| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date:         Fri, 06 Apr 90 23:52:03 PLT
From: Wayne Fellows <[e-mail]>
Subject:      The Threat of Peace

Can't all these poor unemployed engineers go do something useful instead of try
ing to find better ways to nuke the planet?  Maybe start their own companies an
d design new and innovative products?

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

Date: 7 Apr 90 16:23:30 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx![e-mail]  (Feulner ... Matt Feulner)
Subject: Re: Pegasus Stats Repost

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>
>The vehicle itself is 49.2 feet long, with a diameter of 48 inches and a
>wingspan of 22 feet.  It weighs 40,000 pounds at launch and is about the
>same shape and size as X-15 rocketplane, which was also launched from the
>B-52.  The payload fairing is 46" diameter by 72" long.

If it's about the same size as the X-15, is the payload high enough to support
a person and all the life support equipment?  Would this be a worthwile
concept for the future?  I realize that now we have no need to get one person
up at a time, but maybe later?  I guess it would have to have some sort of
space lock which would eat up payload.

Matthew Feulner

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

Date: 7 Apr 90 16:47:40 GMT
From: nuchat![e-mail]  (Steve Nuchia)
Subject: Re: Pegasus

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Vincent Cate) writes:
>Anyway, the Pegasus $6,000 is really only good in comparison to other small
>payload launch vehicles.  They are able to keep the price per lb down
>while doing a small payload.

According to friday's Wall Street Journal, that price is a sweetheart
deal with DoD and others who made long-lead-time deposits.  The spot
price is expected to be 30% higher or more.

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

Date: 7 Apr 90 21:46:06 GMT
From: samsung!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: orbit definitions

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Tilque) writes:
>The orbit is 24-hour but has a non-zero inclination.  From the ground
>it would appear to move up and down on a daily basis while staying over
>the same meridian.

Unfortunately, this destroys the major advantage of Clarke orbit:  the
ability to point an antenna at the satellite *once* and just leave it
pointed there.  If you have to have continuous tracking, you might as
well forget the 24-hour orbit entirely, avoiding collision risks and other
complications (and, if you move further out, reducing radiation-hardening
requirements and increasing solar-cell life substantially).
--
Apollo @ 8yrs: one small step.|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Space station @ 8yrs:        .| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Apr 90 18:44:00 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!aries![e-mail]  (Doug McDonald)
Subject: Re: HST Image Status for 04/01/90 (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joe Dellinger) writes:
>
>Last year I digitized some of Voyager II's raw pictures of Neptune off the TV
>as they came in real time on the Stanford Cable Network, and made the best
>ones available via anonymous ftp. The response was incredible! Many thousands
>of ftp connections in a few days! (Needless to say, my advisor wasn't too
>happy when we momentarily hit a load of 15 due to ftpd.) And then I followed
>the progress of the images across the net as they were converted into almost
>every imaginable format over the next few days.
>
>Wow, I thought, there's really a big demand for these things. Here's my
>chance to help JPL get a lot of free publicity at universities all over
>the country, where publicity could really do them a lot of good! So I asked
>Miya (of course!) whom at JPL to contact. He gave me a name and phone number,
>and I called.... Well, THAT person had been dead for three years, but there
>was somebody at the number still, and they got me through to the correct
>person.
>
>So I told them how there was this tremendous demand for space program
>pictures in digital form, they could get all this wonderful free publicity,
>etc, etc. They didn't believe me. I talked with them for about half an hour,
>explained how they could do it very easily, we'd just want a very few pictures
>of the sort that their own people already had made for their own Sun
>backgrounds internally, etc, how all they had to do was give me a few bitmaps
>and the images would distribute themselves, how it would be such great
>publicity for them at Universities, etc, etc...
>
>Result?
>
>Well, they weren't too happy that I had distributed the Neptune pictures,
>although since they were no better than what people could have videotaped
>off TV anyway they didn't mind _too_ much.
>
>Anyway, I tried. I really did. >>>> Forget it. <<<<
>
>As near as I can tell, NASA and JPL have NO interest in releasing digital
>images of anything except for the official complete data sets intended for
>strictly scientific use. Those they will only release after the data is a
>year old. The JPL public relations guy said if I wanted to add more images
>to my archive the only way would be to digitize them myself off public-
>relations photos.
>
>This really boggles my mind. I guess I'm not surprised now that JPL couldn't
>get money to send a probe to Halley, and it's hard to feel very sorry for them.
>

I tried also. These people are completely uninterested in getting stuff to
the people who pay for their operations. I suggest that you do what I am going
to do: call your congressperson and request that they make it a
legel requirement that they make available promptly (i.e. within
a few weeks) samples of all images they get.

In the meantime, how does one file a Freedom on Information Act
request? I think it time these folks get prodded a bit. Frankly,
I think they are acting like jerks.

Doug McDonald

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

Date: 7 Apr 90 21:49:12 GMT
From: wuarchive!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: The Threat of Peace

In article <Added.sa7Mw0S00Ui30k=[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wayne Fellows) writes:
>Can't all these poor unemployed engineers go do something useful instead of try
>ing to find better ways to nuke the planet?  Maybe start their own companies an
>d design new and innovative products?

Working for the government (or working for a company working for the
government) rots the brain. :-)  Making the transition from cost-is-no-
object if-it-meets-specs-it-doesn't-have-to-work-well high-tech to something
that will sell is not easy.
--
Apollo @ 8yrs: one small step.|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Space station @ 8yrs:        .| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 1990 15:49-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V11 #231

Initial offering off OSC stock was withdrawn at the last possible
moment due to some negative publicity. I do not known the precise
nature of the news that caused the withdrawal, but it was evidentaly
some investment news letter and OSC took it seriously enough to make
sure they answered the critique first (so I have heard from an Merrill
Lynch broker who checked into for me)

I wish I'd had stock BEFORE the launch. sigh.

                from the Emerald Isle,
                Dale Amon

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

Date: 7 Apr 90 19:56:49 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: South Atlantic Anomaly

[e-mail] (Mark Perew) writes:

>The press release for the Hubble Space Telescope mentions something
>called the "South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA)".
>
>What is this?

The South Atlantic Anomaly is the place where the Van Allen Belts, regions
of high radiation trapped by the magnetosphere, come closest to Earth.

The Van Allen Belts are rotationally symetric about Earth's magnetic axis,
which is tilted and offset from Earth's rotational axis.  The offset is
in the direction away from the South Atlantic.  This means that
the circular belt reaches down to the thicker parts of Earth's atmosphere
at the SAA, but is high above Low Earth Orbit elsewhere.

--
        David Palmer
        [e-mail]
        ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer
       Meanwhile, on eng.string.floss, the waxed vs. unwaxed flamewar continues.

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

Date: 7 Apr 90 16:39:37 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Quick launches ( was: Intelsat


/* Written  8:00 am  Apr  5, 1990 by [e-mail] in uxa.cso.uiuc.edu:sci.space */

 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
   ^^^^^^^^
I refuse to believe that the Air Force would not quickly correct
any problem with their Minutemen.  Any program that receives every dollar
it requests surely would not have the problems that uninformed people
might speculate.
   vvvvvvvv
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
   ^^^^^^^^
This is silly.  Our strategic deterrence relies on the ability to use
our Minutemen and the desire to do so.  I assure you that military planners
did not build the MM for the purpose of not using it.
   vvvvvvvv
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
/* End of text from uxa.cso.uiuc.edu:sci.space */

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

Date:        Sat, 07 Apr 90 10:32:37 ADT
From: [e-mail]
Subject:     Launch of 7th Block II GPS Satellite

7th Block II Global Positioning System Satellite Launched
---------------------------------------------------------
The 7th Block II GPS satellite was launched on 26 March 1990 at 02:45
UT.  PRN and SVN numbers are both 20.  The international identifier
for the satellite is 1990-25A and the NASA/NORAD catalogue number is
20533.  Preliminary orbital elements for the satellite in NASA 2-line
format are as follows:

GPS BII-07
1 20533U          90 92.14180368 -.00000032                   0    90
2 20533  55.0584  18.9949 0027907  68.4700 291.8780  2.01118258    72

Note that the orbit has probably been adjusted slightly with respect
to these initial elements.  Nevertheless, the satellite does appear to
be in the B-plane.

(Sources:  NASA Headline News; USNO; TS Kelso, AFIT; J. McDowell, CfA)

========================================================================
Richard B. Langley                  BITnet:  [e-mail] or [e-mail]
Geodetic Research Laboratory        Phone:   [phone]
Dept. of Surveying Engineering      Telex:   014-46202
University of New Brunswick         FAX:     [phone]
Fredericton, N.B., Canada  E3B 5A3
========================================================================

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

Date: 8 Apr 90 00:26:56 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: orbit definitions

[ Talking about nonzero inclination geosynch orbits, so that the ground
track is a figure 8 centered on the equator ]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Unfortunately, this destroys the major advantage of Clarke orbit:  the
>ability to point an antenna at the satellite *once* and just leave it
>pointed there.

You lose that, but you gain something new: the ability to reach higher
latitudes (N and S) with a reasonable apparent altitude above the
horizon -- and using a usably narrow beam -- on a predictable daily
basis.  Geostationary coverage in the Arctic and Antarctic, for
instance, is very difficult: the dishes have to aim horizontally
through all kinds of clutter and most transponders aren't aimed up
there.  One strategy is to use an inclined Clarke orbit for a
once-daily downlink at the "end of the 8."  You can get maybe an hour
or two of coverage this way.

I know the Russians did this for a while.  For some reason I remember
the Japanese trying it too.  Someone can probably fill in the details.

Of course if your job is weather or other observation, rather than
comsatting, inclined geosynch is terrific because your total coverage
area is bigger while downlink times stay regular.
--
"Take off your engineering hat   = "The filter has      | Tom Neff
and put on your management hat." = discreting sources." | [e-mail]

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

Date: 8 Apr 90 01:21:29 GMT
From: shelby!helens!hanauma![e-mail]  (Joe Dellinger)
Subject: Re: HST Image Status for 04/01/90 (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug McDonald) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joe Dellinger) writes:
>... call your congressperson and request that they make it a
>legal requirement that they [JPL] make available promptly (i.e. within
>a few weeks) samples of all images they get.
>
>Doug McDonald

Well, I can understand a year of exclusive use of the raw data for the
principal researchers. These guys often sacrifice most of their professional
lives to get that data; they deserve something for that.

However, it seems rather ridiculous to extend that reasonable limitation to
PR-type photos, especially since it is against their own interests!
\    /\    /\    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________
 \  /  \  /  \  /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___
  \/    \/    \/Joe Dellinger [e-mail]  apple!hanauma!joe\/\.-._
************** Drive Friendly, Y'all! ******************************************

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #234
*******************