Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V12_4/V12_465.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 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/ob7dXTe00VcJMWsU4i>;
          Fri, 19 Oct 1990 02:10:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 1990 02:09:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #465

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 465

Today's Topics:
          Hubble Space Telescope (revisited)
          Pioneer 10 & 11 Update - 10/16/90
            Re: best of all worlds
             Galileo Update #2 - 10/17/90
                  Re: Hubble
                  Re: Hubble
             Re: Voyager question
                Hubble
              Re: Launch cost per pound
        Re: Man-rated SRBs (was Re: Junk the shuttle?)
              Ulysses Update - 10/16/90

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Oct 90 01:25:28 GMT
From: usc!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu![e-mail]  (Zerxes Bhagalia)
Subject: Hubble Space Telescope (revisited)

At one time, I can remember having only the greatest of faith for the
government of our nation.  But as I grew older, this faith has wained,
and now, I have emerged more intelligent, perhaps wiser, and very much
skeptical of our government - what they tell us, and what they do, and
most importantly, why.

Not long ago, our nation's National Aeronatics & Space Administration,
launched a very interesting piece of equipment into an orbit about the
planet upon which we live.  It was often said that the equipment would
revolutionize the way we look at ourselves, our world, and the cosmos.
"It would allow us to see to the very edge of the universe," our great
scientists told us.  "It might even unfold the mysteries of life!" one
other scientist grasped.  It had cost us, the tax-paying people of the
nation, the grand total sum of one billion dollars.  It was the Hubble
Space Telescope.

Once it was in place, in orbit about Earth, scientists and technicians
of NASA came to the unfortunate discovery that despite all of the work
and rigorous testing involved in creation of this very expensive piece
of equipment, something was wrong with the telescope.  It simply would
not focus correctly, as there was a flaw in one of the lenses.  Then a
report was made that moreover, the lense could not be repaired or even
replaced.  "How unfortunate," we were told, "one billion dollars, down
the tube."

I think not.  Although my ideas are at best extreme on this point, all
I ask of you, is to merely listen to my words.  Consider this:

    * It can be argued and supported that for many years our
      government has witheld information from the people,
      concerning extra-terrestrial life.

    * As NASA is subordinate to the government, would not the
      government and its officials extend their veil of secrecy
      over findings from NASA, if those findings could reveal
      information concerning extra-terrestrial life?

    * And if NASA had developed a project, in which the equipment
      involved could, without a doubt, expose such findings,
          would it not be in the goverment's interest and power to
      conceal any compromising information on the subject?

    * If such were the case, would not the developments of the
      Hubble Space Telescope been precisely the same?

You see...  We've already paid for it.  It's up there right now, viewing
the Universe.  The government is collecting more information on
extra-terrestrial life than ever before, but we are not told of this,
since the telescope supposedly, does not work.  They have even given
us reasons as to why it can't be fixed.  So, just to keep us happy,
the government releases a few fuzzy pictures to the public every once
in awhile.  A perfect scam, wouldn't you say?  Indeed, a scam to rival
even the Iran-Contra Scandal.

Now I'm not saying this is true, or that I have evidence to prove that
it is...  I am just making you aware of the possibilties - and to make
you think.

/==============================================================================\
| Provocative Ideas & Theories: The Hubble Space Telescope (revisited)         |
| Replies & Thoughts to       : [e-mail] (Zerxes Bhagalia)        |
| "In times like these, it helps to recall that there have always been times   |
|  like these" - Paul Harvey                               |
\==============================================================================/

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

Date: 16 Oct 90 16:25:06 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!caen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Pioneer 10 & 11 Update - 10/16/90


                      Pioneer 10 & 11 Update
                         October 16, 1990

     Ames Research Center Pioneer operations engineers report separate
anomalies to the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft .  Pioneer 10
telemetry appears to indicate a slight decline in thruster gas
pressure.  The thrusters are used to perform alignment maneuvers to
maintain the Pioneer's high gain antenna pointing toward Earth.
They are not used for spacecraft stabilization.  There appears to be
no impact resulting from the low thruster gas pressure.  Pioneer 10
should have enough pressure for several more years' worth of
operations.

     The anomaly on Pioneer 11 is that its radio signal has become
variable.  This situation is being further investigated, but could be a
failure in a driver amplifier feeding the transmitter traveling wave
tube.  It is not believed to be in the transmitter tube itself.  Ames
Pioneer engineers and Headquarters Solar System Exploration
Division officials are investigating this situation.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | [e-mail]
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |

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

Date: 16 Oct 90 11:49:35 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: best of all worlds

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Theora Jones, In Person!) writes:
> I would think that the moon has very few advantages over the earth
>scientifically...

One somewhat surprising advantage is in neutrino astronomy.  On earth,
there is a significant background in neutrino detectors from neutrinos
produced in cosmic ray interactions, primarily from the production
and decay of muons.  On the moon, the muon precursors, pions, are
also produced by cosmic rays, but most of them get absorbed in
the rock rather than decay.  The pions produced on earth are in
the upper atmosphere, so they have a good chance to decay to muons
before colliding again.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 17 Oct 90 23:28:45 GMT
From: julius.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update #2 - 10/17/90


                     GALILEO MISSION STATUS
                        October 17, 1990

     One year after its successful launch by STS-34 Atlantis and
an IUS rocket, the Galileo spacecraft is "only" 27.9 million
miles from Earth, although it has traveled more than 569 million
miles around the Sun and past Venus in the last year to reach
this point.  Its present speed in solar orbit is 54,112 mph;
round-trip communication time is five minutes.

     The spacecraft executed its sixth trajectory-correction
maneuver last Tuesday (October 9), achieving a velocity change of
0.51 meter per second (about 1.1 mph) and moving the December 8
Earth closest-approach point to about 2,000 miles above the
surface.  Another maneuver in November will adjust the altitude
to the final desired value of about 600 miles; one more maneuver
is planned, if needed, to remove any small residual error.

     Spacecraft health and performance during and since last
week's maneuver are excellent.  The decreasing distance from
Earth has permitted the telemetry rate to be stepped up this week
from 40 to 1200 bits per second, for the first time since last
February.

     The current operating sequence, which has been
controlling routine spacecraft activities since June, is
nearing completion.  The next sequence, covering spacecraft
activities through December 7, will be sent up to Galileo
today.  It includes the next two scheduled maneuvers, Venus
data playback, preparation for and the start of Earth science
data acquisition, and checkout of the atmospheric probe.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | [e-mail]
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |

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

Date: 18 Oct 90 18:34:34 GMT
From: rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: Hubble

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jay Maynard) writes:

Henry Spencer writes:
   (Henry Spencer) writes, about the Hubble Space Telescope:
hs>gotten some very encouraging results from the combination of the existing
hs>optics and image enhancement; the cameras are not as useless as some
hs>people thought.

And Jay Maynard replies:

jm>...or were led to think by biased, NASA-bashing news coverage. In fact, the
jm>last word I heard was that the HST would meet - but not exceed - its design
jm>specs with the existing optics.

jm>Of course, the media NASA-bashers didn't want _this_ to get out; it would
jm>get in the way of their crusade. The fact that the HST's real capabilities
jm>haven't gotten the coverage that the early troubles did is an eloquent
jm>comment on just how the media manipulates the public.

Not quite. The plain fact of the matter is that they can recover
brighter, high contrast objects with both image deconvolution
and doubling the exposure time on the object.
(Which comes to keeping the same capabilities and
cutting the available observing time in half on some objects,
and losing the imaging capabilities on the failtfaint extended objects).

In short, it will be a succesful instrument, but for what the public
was sold on as its primary purpose, seeing faint objects at the end of
the universe, it will probably be overtaken by the approximately
$ 150 million Keck 10-meter telescope.

And finally, a personal note: the people bashing NASA here are not
doing so out of personal pleasure or profit; legislatively it is a lot
easier just to get your congressman to fund your special interest than
to cut someone else's. We don't dance in the streets when we see
NASA's latest failure to do whatever, we want it to succeed. And the
fact that NASA has some very successful programs and some very
unsuccessful programs, but that the programs which are a failure,
such as the shuttle, seem to be used mainly as grounds to keep NASA
from spending money on anything (except the shuttle, which is such
a piece of pork if NASA deceided to cancel it it probrably couldn't).

That the shuttle does keep back the rest of the program is easily seen:
if the shuttle had worked as advertised, Hubble would have been launched
in '85 at the latest, and the optical problems fixed by '87. And we would
have saved enough money to build multiple replacements if it got blown
up by a rogue piece of space junk or hit by the upper stage payload shroud
from a flying saucer :-).

Phil

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

Date: 18 Oct 90 11:39:45 GMT
From: ksr![e-mail]  (Chris Jones)
Subject: Re: Hubble

In article <[e-mail]>, jmaynard@thesis1 (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>(Henry Spencer) writes, about the Hubble Space Telescope:
>>It's working.
                the cameras are not as useless as some
>>people thought.
>
>...or were led to think by biased, NASA-bashing news coverage.
>
>Of course, the media NASA-bashers didn't want _this_ to get out; it would
>get in the way of their crusade.

It seems to me that the NASA-bashing in this forum has been much more
vitriolic, one-sided, and unreasoned than what I observed on the part of
journalists.  Of course, the Usenet media-bashers didn't want _this_ to get
out; it would get in the way of their crusade.
--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]    {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj

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

Date: 17 Oct 90 17:17:44 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Voyager question

[e-mail] (Dave Jerzycki) writes:
>
>  Ron,
>   Just a few quick questions regarding the Voyager spacecraft...
>
>    1) What is the approx. location of Voyager 1? Voyager 2?

       Voyager 1 is south of the ecliptic plane, leaving the solar system
       at a 35 degree angle.  Voyager 2 left south at a 48 degree angle.

>    2) What is the approx. transmit/receive time of the commands relayed to/
>       from the spacecraft?

          Round trip light time - Voyager 1 -> 12 hours 6 minutes
                                  Voyager 2 -> 9 hours 18 minutes

>    3) How long before we lose contact with them?

          Until the year 2019.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | [e-mail]
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |

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

Date: 17 Oct 90 04:59:53 GMT
From: beguine![e-mail]  (Bill Green)
Subject: Hubble

So, what's the status of the Hubble telescope?  I haven't seen anything posted recently
and haven't heard much about it on the news.  Anyone have a current update?

--

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

Date: 15 Oct 90 23:18:06 GMT
From: abvax!iccgcc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Launch cost per pound

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>
> I think we're agreed that the highest priority for pro-space-commercialization
> people should be to see to it that NASA has no significant ability to hamper
> commercial space activity. If this can be accomplished, many of the other
> criticisms become moot. A possible second priority is to use commercial
> services as much as possible for government-sponsored launches, to provide
> business for the commercial launchers and encourage the industry. More
> controversial is legislation to protect startup US launch companies from
> foreign competition until they are self-sufficient.
>             John Roberts
>             [e-mail]

I thought NASA was ordered by a president to leave those big shuttle
tanks in orbit for somebody to use.  Did that disappear in the
Challenger problems or is it still pending or has it been stomped
out of existence?

dan herrick

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

Date: 16 Oct 90 13:48:03 GMT
From: ubc-cs!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!watyew![e-mail]  (Brian or James)
Subject: Re: Man-rated SRBs (was Re: Junk the shuttle?)


    Anyone out there know if the failure rate for solid boosters
used in weapons systems like TOW missiles or Phoenix C missiles
is comparable to the failure rate for SRBs used to launch things
to orbit, and if not, why?
    I can think of a few right now; the TOW missile's operational
life is much shorter than the SRBs [a few seconds compared to minutes]
and perhaps they don't have as much time for things to disasterously
wrong. I'd be a bit hesitant fire a missile if I thought it had a
.02 chance of destroying myself and the plane I launched it from,
but I suppose the risks from *not* firing are much larger :)

                            James Nicoll

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

Date: 17 Oct 90 00:30:45 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Ulysses Update - 10/16/90


                     ULYSSES MISSION STATUS
                        October 16, 1990

     The Trajectory Correction Maneuver that Ulysses is executing
this week has been going so smoothly that the series of
operations involved in the maneuver have been simplified.

     In the Trajectory Correction Maneuver, Ulysses is
firing its thrusters to adjust the aim point for its closest
approach to the planet Jupiter and to speed itself up by 99
meters per second (about 220 miles per hour).  When designing the
maneuver -- originally planned to span four days -- the flight
team built in ample time to readjust the spacecraft's spin rate
after periods of thruster firing.  Ulysses spins at about 5
revolutions per minute (rpm) as it moves through space.

     As the trajectory maneuver has been executed, however,
flight controllers found that the spin rate was not affected as
much by thruster firing as originally thought possible.  Thus the
number of the spin rate adjustments could be reduced.  The
trajectory maneuver will conclude Thursday morning, October 18,
Pacific Daylight Time.

     On Friday, October 19, flight controllers will begin to
turn on Ulysses's nine science instruments.  All covers on the
science instruments will be released with the exception of the
HISCALE (Heliospheric Instrument for Spectra, Composition and
Anisotropy at Low Energies) instrument.  The first instrument to
be turned on will be the Energetic-Particle Composition and
Neutral Gas instrument.

     All onboard systems were operating normally.

     The five-year mission to study the Sun's poles and
interstellar space beyond the poles is conducted jointly by
NASA/JPL and the European Space Agency.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | [e-mail]
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #465
*******************