Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_3/V11_376.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/EaFv8o600VcJEErU40>;
          Wed,  9 May 90 02:01:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  9 May 90 02:00:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #376

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 376

Today's Topics:
                 Re: CD-ROMs
                Re: Apollo 12
            Jonathan's Space Report, May 8
                Re: Apollo 12
             Re: Manned mission to Venus
               Re: French art in orbit?
                Re: Apollo 12
                Re: Apollo 12
           Hubble Space Telescope Update - 05/08/90
             Re: Manned mission to Venus
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 May 90 16:58:21 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!alberta!arcsun.arc.ab.ca!calgary!cpsc![e-mail]  (Darik Datta)
Subject: Re: CD-ROMs


I have another question about the CD-ROMS from the National Space Science
Data Center.  In an effort to get a hold of them, I called information in
Greenbelt, but they never heard of them.  Could anyone please mail me the
address of the NSSDC.

  Thanx,
     Darik Datta

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

Date: 8 May 90 15:12:13 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Apollo 12

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Smith) writes:
>... I have seen Pete Conrad
>on TV discussing the flight decision and its consequences...
>... He said that if they put off
>the launch, they would have to wait a month -- not several months.

In general, the Apollo launch windows were about a month apart, since it
was the position of the Moon that mostly dictated the windows.  Second-
order effects meant that some windows were better than others, though.
I don't know what the situation was for Apollo 12, but I doubt very much
that the second lunar landing would be pushing the window so hard that
it would have to slip several months waiting for another good one.
--
If OSI is the answer, what is |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the question?? -Rolf Nordhagen| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 8 May 90 15:00:27 GMT
From: frooz!cfa250![e-mail]  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Jonathan's Space Report, May 8

Jonathan's Space Report

May 8 1990 (no.38)
----------------------------------------------------

The Hubble Space Telescope is in its Orbital Verification phase.  A
large (6 arcsec/min) oscillation has been found by the Fine Guidance
Sensors.  First out-of-focus images are expected this week.

Launch of STS-35/Columbia is due for May 17.

Anatoli Solov'yov (Komandir) and Aleksandr Balandin (Bortinzhener)
continue in orbit aboard the Mir complex.  The Soyuz TM-9 transport and
the Progress-42 freighter are currently at the station.  The Progress
M-3 freighter undocked and was deorbited to destruction over the Pacific
on Apr 28.  Progress 42 was launched on May 5 to bring more supplies to
the station, and according to Glenn Chapman it docked on May 8.
Solov'yov and Balandin have been in space for 85 days, breaking the US
record of 83 days in 1974.  The Soviet record is 1 year.

The Foton materials processing satellite and the Kosmos-2073 recon
satellite landed in Kazakhstan on Apr 27 and Apr 28.

Two Soviet Air Defense satellites were launched on Apr 25 and Apr 28,
the Kosmos-2075 radar calibration satellite and the Kosmos-2076
missile early warning satellite.

Topic of the Week
---------------------------------------------------------------
Protivo-Vosdushnaya Oborona - Soviet Air Defense Command

The space activities of the PVO began in 1968 with the
antisatellite program. In this program, a satellite filled
with high explosive manoeuvred next to a target satellite
and exploded, damaging the target with shrapnel.

There have been no launches in the ASAT program since 1982, but a series
of satellites with orbital characteristics similar to the old target
satellites continues.  This series, which began with Kosmos-752 in 1975,
was initially puzzling.  Were the Soviets launching targets and then
forgetting to launch the ASATs at them? Worse, the targets seemed to be
disintegrating anyway! Many fragments were being cataloged in orbit with
them.  Were they being attacked with secret laser weapons? Eventually it
was realized that some of the K-752 series were periodically releasing
groups of 25-30 small objects into orbit to simulate missile attacks, so
that Soviet defense radars could be tested.  The K752 series continues
with the launch of Kosmos-2075 on a Kosmos launch vehicle from Plesetsk,
but this launch vehicle is being phased out and a replacement series
using the Tsiklon launch vehicle began with Kosmos-1985 in 1988.  Not
all of the satellites release extra objects tracked in orbit; why is
unclear.  For instance, Kosmos-1960 in 1988 released 28 objects, while
Kosmos-2027 launched into an identical orbit a year later has released
none.

Currently, the calibration satellite program sees one Tsiklon-class
launch per year each December, one Kosmos-class launch into elliptical
orbit in February, and one Kosmos-class launch into circular orbit in
mid-year.  All launches are from Plesetsk, except occasional Kosmos
circular orbit missions from Kapustin Yar.

The PVO is also believed to operate the missile early warning
program, with spacecraft in similar orbits to the Molniya satellites.
Kosmos-2076 is the 63rd launch in the program, and the second this
year. A constellation of satellites in 9 orbital planes is maintained.
After many early failures, the satellites seem to be operating
more reliably in recent years.

(c) 1990 Jonathan McDowell

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

Date: 9 May 90 02:55:12 GMT
From: usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!ditmela!yarra!melba.bby.oz.au![e-mail]  (Gregory N. Bond)
Subject: Re: Apollo 12

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Mosley III) writes:
>  ...as I recall, it was the last launch window for the DECADE. The decision to
>  launch despite the weather came down from high up (read: The Trickster) as
>  a way of adding insult to injury towards a certain Communist government
>  over who beat who to the moon first.>
>
>  ...The next launch window was sometime in March of 1970, which I believe
>  was the window that Apollo 13 used.

I have a question about launch windows.

For things like planetary probes I can understand how the window opens
and closes, depending on the relative motions of planets.

But for moon shots, well, it seems the moon is always in the same
relative orbit, so a direct earth-moon window would happen once per
day (as the earth rotated to the correct spot for launch).  So why is
the window only open a few days per month?

And, given that the launch was to LEO and then boost into lunar
transfer orbit, then why have a window at all, seeing the eject point
from LEO will come around once every orbit (a couple hours, max).

And why is there any launch window at all for satelites, shuttles and
stuff?  An orbit is an orbit, and the only reference point is the
earth, no?

I am obviously missing _something_....

Greg.
--
Gregory Bond, Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd, Melbourne, Australia
Internet: [e-mail]    non-MX: [e-mail]
Uucp: {uunet,pyramid,ubc-cs,ukc,mcvax,prlb2,nttlab...}!munnari!melba.bby.oz!gnb

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

Date: 8 May 90 16:49:53 GMT
From: uc!shamash!timbuk![e-mail]  (Lou Adornato)
Subject: Re: Manned mission to Venus

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian L. McCormick) writes:
> Anyway, given all of these factors, here is my thousand-year plan.  Note
> that just because I suggest a way of terraforming Venus does not mean that
> I approve of it.  Actually, I think it is A Bad Idea.

Mind if I ask why?

>
>     1.  Orbit large numbers of reflecting panels above the planet.  These
>     panels would be constructed from lunar materials (note: assumes
>     thriving lunar outpost) or asteroidal materials and would be intended
>     to reduce the total amount of solar radiation reaching the planet.
>     This would (hopefully) result in the cooling of the planet.  The
>     cooling rate could be accelerated by making the reflecting panels
>     transparent when they are on the night side of the planet, thus
>     allowing more heat to escape.
>

Making them become transparent to IR would involve some pretty exotic
(expensive) materials.  How about this:

Imagine a structure that's gravity gradient stabilised, with two big
rectangular solar sails connected to a hinge along the centerline.
While on the day side, light pressure will push the sails down into a
closed position.  As the structure crosses the terminator (the
day/night line), sunlight will breifly strike it from underneath, and
push the sails up into the (not quite completely) open position .  (It
helps if you visualize the way a butterflys wings are hung).

Note that once these things where in orbit, they'd never need fuel or
human intervention.  Just throw them into orbit and come back a decade or
two later.

Anyone out there up to calculating how much of the surface area of the
planet will have to be shaded for how long to bring the surface temperature
down to something we could work with?

Lou Adornato    |  Statements herein do not represent the opinions or
Cray Research   |  attitudes of Cray Research, Inc. or its subsidiaries.
[e-mail]    |       (...yet)

P.S.
I hate to bring this up, but I think I've just invented Venusian blinds.

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

Date: 4 May 90 21:56:54 GMT
From: mcsun!inria!axis!axis!coms![e-mail]  (John H)
Subject: Re: French art in orbit?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Andrew Salamon) writes:
> I recently heard that someone from France was planning/is planning to launch
> a sattelite that consists of mylar balloons strung in a circle.  Something
> large enough to be seen from the ground.
>
> How old is this news?  What became of the idea?  Were the perpetrators shot
> or just imprisoned?

Welcome to 1989.  Or is that 1789?  Anyway, this was a proposal for the
celebration of the 200th aniversary of the revolution that was soon dropped!!!

(There are astronomers in France as well!)

Instead we got a bear ice skating (USSR), some people dancing in the rain (UK),
a high school marching band (USA) and more boring, badly organised shit than
I can bear to think about.

Oh well, I only had to pay for it, watching it was volantary!

>
> Thanks.
>
> (there should probably be a smiley on that last question, guess slipped.)

Smile!  You want to smile!!??!?!??!??!

>
> Magic in my Mind                     |   /Andrew/
> Music in my Heart                    |   soi-disant Bleydion op Rhys
> Laughter in my Soul                  |   [e-mail]
> And...A Sword in my Fist (sigh)      |

John Hughes, refugee from Thatcherism, under the yoke of Chirac & Francois!
(yeah, ok but they're more fun)

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

Date: 9 May 90 00:54:48 GMT
From: hplabsb![e-mail]  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Apollo 12

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Mosley III) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Smith) writes:
>> Can you cite any authority for these statements?
>...first off, a flame - I've always hated it when someone pops off with
>"can you site sources? Huh? Huh?". It sounds too much like "oh yeah?
>I bet...prove it!". A little more discretion next time, eh?

My challenge was stated about as softly as it could be.  Serious
accusations demand credible evidence.  So far, you have only resorted to
bald assertion, whining, and vague references that cannot be checked.
Your accusations of "the Trickster" and the "Oval Orafice" [sic] undermine
your credibility, as they suggest you simply have a political axe to grind.

By the way, the launch window had to do with the phase of the moon, which
cycles once a month.  One month was as good as another.  Nothing Apollo 12
could do would top the Soviets' mortification over Luna 15 crashing in the
Sea of Crises just before Apollo 11 landed in the Sea of Tranquility.
--
    David R. Smith, HP Labs
    [e-mail]
    [phone]

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

Date: 8 May 90 07:34:56 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!milano!peyote![e-mail]  (Bob Mosley III)
Subject: Re: Apollo 12

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Smith) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Mosley III) writes:
> > The decision to
> >launch despite the weather came down from high up (read: The Trickster) as
> >
> >...The next launch window was sometime in March of 1970, which I believe
> >was the window that Apollo 13 used.
>
> Can you cite any authority for these statements?  I have seen Pete Conrad
> on TV discussing the flight decision and its consequences.  He had the
> final decision on whether to go ahead.  He said nothing about anyone
> outside NASA, or political considerations.  He said that if they put off
> the launch, they would have to wait a month -- not several months.
> about

...first off, a flame - I've always hated it when someone pops off with
"can you site sources? Huh? Huh?". It sounds too much like "oh yeah?
I bet...prove it!". A little more discretion next time, eh?

...now, to the meat of the matter. The sources I cite are past issues of
Air Force, Aviation Week & Space Technology, and a commentary from Art
Bozlee. All sources stated that according to some NASA officials
(including a memo from the late Chris Craft) that while Conrad did in
fact "give the go-ahead", there was pressure being applied from the
Oval Orafice that would have curcumvented a no-go by Conrad.

...and, after checking into launch window information for that time,
while there was a window available in mid-December of 1969, the
window was not as promising as the one in march of the next year.
Again, the pressure to add insult to injury to the Reds effectively
nullified concerns about the weather for that particular flight.


                        OM

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

Date: 8 May 90 20:38:34 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Hubble Space Telescope Update - 05/08/90


                  Hubble Space Telescope Update
                         May 8, 1990

     As the HST begins its third week in orbit, operators
from the Space Telescope Operations Control Center at Goddard are
continuing the process to activate and "tune" the telescope before
handing it over to the Space Telescope Science Institute in
Baltimore, MD.  At this time the telescope systems are healthy, in
proper working order, with only occasional, minor anomalies to
report.  A fine guidance sensor star pattern match test was
unsuccessful yesterday morning due to the scarcity of higher
magnitude stars in the sensors' fields of view.  Operators are not
overly concerned since other pattern matches have been successful.

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

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

Date: 8 May 90 21:26:25 GMT
From: deimos.cis.ksu.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!uafhp![e-mail]  (Brian L. McCormick)
Subject: Re: Manned mission to Venus


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lou Adornato) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian L. McCormick) writes:
> > Anyway, given all of these factors, here is my thousand-year plan.  Note
> > that just because I suggest a way of terraforming Venus does not mean that
> > I approve of it.  Actually, I think it is A Bad Idea.
>
> Mind if I ask why?
>
I think it's a bad idea because I feel that it would be difficult, expensive,
and time consuming and would not provide what a future civilization would
need.  What people who would want to terraform Venus really want is another
Earth.  I really don't think that a civilization advanced enough to do the
work involved would want another Earth.  Earth has some big disadvatages
as a base for a space based civilization:  a deep gravity well, a dense
atmosphere, and (dare I say it) a fragile environment.  A terraformed
Venus would have the same disadvantage.  Resources could be better acquired
where the gravity is low and the atmosphere is thin (or nonexistant).

[stuff zapped]
>
> Making them become transparent to IR would involve some pretty exotic
> (expensive) materials.  How about this:
>
> Imagine a structure that's gravity gradient stabilised, with two big
> rectangular solar sails connected to a hinge along the centerline.
> While on the day side, light pressure will push the sails down into a
> closed position.  As the structure crosses the terminator (the
> day/night line), sunlight will breifly strike it from underneath, and
> push the sails up into the (not quite completely) open position .  (It
> helps if you visualize the way a butterflys wings are hung).
>
This is nice, although I had simple venetian blinds in mind.  Perhaps
this would be a use for Nitinol (spelling?), the wonder metal that changes
shape when its temperature changes.  Your idea of calling them Venusian
blinds [zapped below] sounds nice though...

[remainder zapped]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
(|||)  Brian McCormick     a.k.a.     [e-mail]  (|||)
 |||   - I deny being in any way affiliated with engineering -  |||
(|||)     Any disclaimer you can think of probably applies.    (|||)
--------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #376
*******************