Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V12_4/V12_466.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 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/Ib7dpJ200VcJ0WzE5a>;
          Fri, 19 Oct 1990 02:29:41 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 1990 02:28:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #466

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 466

Today's Topics:
               Homebuilt Manned Rockets
        Re: Hubble Space Telescope (revisited)
              Galileo Update - 10/18/90
              Ulysses Update - 10/18/90
         Re: Flames in 0g and Venusian dunes
            more talk about space stations
          Re: more talk about space stations
        Re: Man-rated SRBs (was Re: Junk the shuttle?)
                  Re: Hubble
                  Re: Hubble

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 05:38:03 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!sol![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Homebuilt Manned Rockets


About a year ago, I remember reading an article in Popular Mechanics
about someone who had built a supersonic jet (a single-seater, I
believe, which looked something like a mini-F-15) and was planning to
sell it in kit form.  He had previously sold a number of subsonic
homebuilt jet airplane kits.

Is there anything inherently more complex about building a manned
(suborbital) rocket than building a manned supersonic jet?  Would it
be possible for a wealthy individual with the appropriate skills (or a
wealthy individual + people with the appropriate skills -- say, EAA
members, aerospace engineers, etc.) to do so?  I'm not talking about
the space shuttle, but something more like Mercury or Gemini.

If so, then does anyone have a guess as to how much this would cost?

If not, then what specific technical problems would be show-stoppers?

(Followups are directed to sci.space.)

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

Date: 18 Oct 90 07:27:25 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!yarra!melba.bby.oz.au![e-mail]  (Gregory N. Bond)
Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope (revisited)


Zerxes> You see...  We've already paid for it.  It's up there right now, viewing
Zerxes> the Universe.  The government is collecting more information on
Zerxes> extra-terrestrial life than ever before, but we are not told of this,
Zerxes> since the telescope supposedly, does not work.

Nah, not the gummint's fault.

Them space-aliens went and smudged the mirror so we couldn't look
through the peepholes on the spacecraft.  (Seems they installed
transparent shower curtains as an economy drive).

And Elvis had to point out which one was the telescope.

And I got PROOF!  It was in this magazine, fergit what its called...
Nashnul something-or-other...

--
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: 18 Oct 90 22:58:45 GMT
From: snorkelwacker!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 10/18/90


                         Galileo Status Report
                           October 18, 1990

     Today marks the one year anniversary of the Galileo deployment from the
Space Shuttle.  Today at the beginning of the DSN (Deep Space Network) track,
CDS (Command Data Subsystem) telemetry showed a recurrence of the despun
Critical Controller A POR (Power On Reset) telemetry indication.  This same
telemetry signature has been observed several times in the past and was
reset successfully by ground command.  The observed indication may be the
result of a faulty telemetry indicator circuit.  There is no loss in CDS
functionality as a consequence of this event and the spacecraft continues to
perform normally.  Ground controllers will send the same commands as
before to reset the telemetry indication.

     Part I of the VE-9 (Venus-Earth) sequence memory load which controls
spacecraft activities from October 22 to December 7 will be transmitted to the
spacecraft today.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | [e-mail]
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |

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

Date: 18 Oct 90 23:01:43 GMT
From: pasteur!agate!bionet!uwm.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!forsight!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Ulysses Update - 10/18/90


                     ULYSSES MISSION STATUS
                        October 18, 1990

     Today Ulysses will execute the final thruster firings
in its trajectory correction maneuver this week.  Flight
controllers are sending the spacecraft commands to execute a main
burn of about 48 minutes, followed several hours later by a
"touch-up" burn of about 6 to 7 minutes.

     A second trajectory correction maneuver is scheduled to
be performed on Friday, November 2.  A final trajectory
correction will then be made shortly before the spacecraft's
February 8, 1992, encounter with Jupiter.

     Plans are on schedule to begin turning on Ulysses's
nine science instruments beginning Friday, October 19.  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.  In addition, heaters for
the Solar-Wind Ion-Composition Spectrometer will be started in
preparation for that instrument to be turned on Saturday, October
20.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | [e-mail]
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |

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

Date: 16 Oct 90 17:26:00 GMT
From: eagle![e-mail]  (Karen J. Rensberger (SVER))
Subject: Re: Flames in 0g and Venusian dunes

>    I heard on CNN that one of the experiments performed on
>Discovery was on the effects of 0g on flames. Anyone know what was observed
>and if it was compatible with what was discussed here recently?
>
>Sushil Louis
>[e-mail]


The experiment performed on Discovery was the burning of a piece
of ashless filter paper in an environment of 50% oxygen and 50%
nitrogen at 1.5 atmospheres.  The paper was ignited by a hot wire
and burned for about 50 seconds down its length of 10 cm.  The
flame appeared to be very dim blue and symmetrical, in contrast to
the appearance of the flame on earth, which has a lot of soot.  The
data collected included thermocouple readings and movie film
recordings of the side and edge on views.  The film was developed
after the shuttle landing and developed immediately afterwards.
The principal investigator of the experiment is Prof. Altenkirch
at U. Mississippi; NASA project scientist is Kurt Sacksteder at
NASA Lewis Research Center.  This experiment is the first
controlled combustion experiment to be done on the shuttle.

Karen Weiland, NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio
Microgravity Combustion Branch
Space Experiments Division

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

Date: 18 Oct 90 15:12:58 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!uwm.edu!rpi!crdgw1!gecrdvm1![e-mail]
Subject: more talk about space stations

in the latest issue of Ad Astra, there were two short articles which I
found interesting.  The first was about Rep. Green (R-NY) advocating the
the cessation of funding for Freedom, which he claims will cost $500
million to shut off the tap, but might as well cut losses. Instead, he
proposes building a Skylab II. the first Skylab, he says, cost us $9 billion
in 1990 dollars (including costs for the three missions).  Seems to me,
the cost of the skylab facility alone was 1.5-2 billion back then, or about
5-6 billion now. since Skylab was basically a sealed tin can with life support,
how can we expect to get a useful station (life sciences,material sciences, etc
for anything less? the barb here is to the initial estimate of 8 bil for
freedom. obviously, it was well known that this was BS, so why set up the
agency for bad press when the costs "skyrocket" up to a reasonable figure?
 note for AWS: Allen, before you jump in with the amazing LLNL inflatable
station for only .5 bil, save it, unless you have something new to add.
please take no offense, but until LLNL gets reasonable on cost figures, no
one is going to take them seriously. it will probably cost them .5 bil just
for paperwork to get it going.
   The other article was on a proposal for space station Independance,
which is basically a spacelab module, a logistics/support module and
an orbital manuevering system of the type proposed by TRW. It's purpose
is to get us a station while we wait for the bickering on Freedom to die,
and then complement it when Freedom is in orbit :-). It is to be serviced
by an extended mission shuttle, or by (with an eye for AWS) a Soyuz, and
eventually by Hermes. Though no cost was mentioned, It seemed to make sense
to me. why not learn how to stay in orbit while worrying about how to get
there and do material science?
   Last, and this one has been touched on before (but I missed the answer),
what is the problem with simply adding logistics/support to a new shuttle
that has the entire cargo bay as a lab (as opposed to retrofitting with
spacelab) and blasting the sucker permenantly into orbit?  Sounds stupid
(and probably is), but since an orbiter replacement is only $2 billion,
why not build one dedicated to staying in orbit, and having new supplies/fuel
shipped up on another orbiter/capsule/drone?
Pete

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

Date: Thu, 18 Oct 90 13:10:44 -0400
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: more talk about space stations
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]>
>in 1990 dollars (including costs for the three missions).  Seems to me,
>the cost of the skylab facility alone was 1.5-2 billion back then, or about
>5-6 billion now. since Skylab was basically a sealed tin can with life support,
>how can we expect to get a useful station (life sciences, material sciences,
>etc) for anything less?

Well, you could cut out the material science and use co-orbiting platforms
for that. That would produce better science (better microgravity environment)
and provide for incrimental growth.

>the barb here is to the initial estimate of 8 bil for
>freedom. obviously, it was well known that this was BS, so why set up the
>agency for bad press when the costs "skyrocket" up to a reasonable figure?

Freedom could have been done for 8B. The original Freedom (as sold to
Congress) was a small microgravity facility. When Congress funded that,
NASA began adding stuff (because Freedom was a 'safe' program funding
wise). It was a combination of adding all this and poor management which
caused costs to go up.

> note for AWS: Allen, before you jump in with the amazing LLNL inflatable
>station for only .5 bil, save it, unless you have something new to add.

May I correct a misstatement? The cost of the Earth Station is closer
to 1 to 2 billion.

>please take no offense, but until LLNL gets reasonable on cost figures,

First of all, no offense taken. Second of all, what would you consider
reasonable cost figures? Can you tell me just why the current figures
are out of line? No offense intended but I wish you could be more specific.

>no one is going to take them seriously.

On the contrary, they are being taken very seriously by many people in
Congress, NASA, and the Space Council.

>it will probably cost them .5 bil just for paperwork to get it going.

Under the FAR's I would believe that. However, a major aspect of the
Great Exploration is that is is done outside the FAR's. This is the
most important aspect of the program.

Again, a more detailed justification for your concern would be appreciated.
What major risk areas are there which are not adaquatly addressed?

>   The other article was on a proposal for space station Independance,
>which is basically a spacelab module, a logistics/support module and
>an orbital manuevering system of the type proposed by TRW. It's purpose
>is to get us a station while we wait for the bickering on Freedom to die,
>and then complement it when Freedom is in orbit :-).

I like this idea. This way we will have a decent microgravity environment
no matter what happens to Freedom.

>It is to be serviced
>by an extended mission shuttle, or by (with an eye for AWS) a Soyuz, and
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I apologize for wanting to save money.

    Allen
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer      |         What should man do but dare?            |
|   [e-mail]         |             - Sir Gawain                        |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 17 Oct 90 03:49:14 GMT
From: julius.cs.uiuc.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Man-rated SRBs (was Re: Junk the shuttle?)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian or James) writes:
>    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 don't have numbers... but beware of comparing statistics for small
one-piece solid motors with statistics for large segmented ones.  Many
problems which are trivial for a hundred-kilo motor are rather more
troublesome in a million-kilo motor.
--
"...the i860 is a wonderful source     | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
of thesis topics."    --Preston Briggs |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 17 Oct 90 18:58:02 GMT
From: lib![e-mail]  (Jay Maynard)
Subject: Re: Hubble

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Henry Spencer) writes, about the Hubble Space Telescope:
>It's working.  They're still sorting out the optics, but they've already
>gotten some very encouraging results from the combination of the existing
>optics and image enhancement; the cameras are not as useless as some
>people thought.

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

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

--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
[e-mail]  | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"It's a hardware bug!" "It's a    +---------------------------------------
software bug!" "It's two...two...two bugs in one!" - _Engineer's Rap_

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

Date: 18 Oct 90 15:49:12 GMT
From: usc!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Hubble

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jay Maynard) writes:
>...or were led to think by biased, NASA-bashing news coverage. In fact, the
>last word I heard was that the HST would meet - but not exceed - its design
>specs with the existing optics.

Well, no, not really, except in favorable conditions.  For bright objects,
they can come pretty close using image enhancement.  For faint objects --
and a major part of Hubble's mission was looking at things that are too
faint for Earthbound observers -- forget it.
--
"...the i860 is a wonderful source     | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
of thesis topics."    --Preston Briggs |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #466
*******************