Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V12_5/V12_511.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 17KB

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/8bCYwU200VcJM2E05o>;
          Fri,  9 Nov 1990 01:39:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri,  9 Nov 1990 01:38:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #511

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 511

Today's Topics:
     Monthly space flight briefing set for November 1 (Forwarded)
             Re: Theory for Life
              HST dynamic range
Re: LLNL Great Exploration (was Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station...)
    One Small Step for a Space Activist...  Vol. 1 No. 10
                 X-15
        Re: A great idea on how to fund NASA!
             Re: Antenna heating
               Re: X-15 (and the X-20)

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: 30 Oct 90 00:00:41 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Monthly space flight briefing set for November 1 (Forwarded)

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   October 29, 1990
(Phone:  [phone])


EDITORS NOTE:  N90-84

MONTHLY SPACE FLIGHT BRIEFING SET FOR NOVEMBER 1


     The Office of Space Flight monthly press briefing will be
held Thursday, November 1, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST.
Participating in the briefings will be Dr. William Lenoir,
Associate Administrator For Space Flight; Robert Crippen,
Director, Space Shuttle; and Richard Kohrs, Director, Space
Station Freedom.  The briefing will be held in the video
teleconference facility, Room 531, in NASA Bldg. 10-B, 600
Independence Ave., S.W.

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

Date: 30 Oct 90 01:32:16 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax![e-mail]  (Larry Wall)
Subject: Re: Theory for Life

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Palmer) writes:
: Obviously, the next step in evolution is to shed symmetry altogether.

I'd give my right arm for that.

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

Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 17:01:32 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: HST dynamic range


>From: phoenix![e-mail]  (Michael Woodhams)
>Subject: Re: HST summary 10/22/90

>From the WF/PC instrument handbook:
>Table 2.2.1 WF/PC Dynamic Range within Single Exposure

>                                  Min V       Max V
>Configuration  Exposure (sec)   Magnitude   Magnitude

>Wide Field       0.11             9.3          16.6
>Wide Field       3000            20.4          27.5
>Planetary        0.11             8.4          16.0
>Planetary        3000            19.5          27.0

>This was published in 1985, and refers to WF/PC I. The overall
>configuration of WF/PC II is very similar to WF/PC I. I expect the
>major changes will be better electronics and lower chip readout noise,
>and of course corrective optics. So these numbers should be pretty
>close to what WF/PC II will do.

Several people have pointed out how far solid state imaging has advanced
since WF/PC I was designed. Unless there is some reason not to, I expect
they will make the image sensor much more sensitive. Of course, that might
not make a difference of more than a magnitude or so.

I think somebody also wrote that the sky always has a background glow, even
where HST is. Is that the limiting factor other than imager sensitivity?
       John Roberts
       [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 20:26:36 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LLNL Great Exploration (was Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station...)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]>:
>   If it does work, we will have a space station in three years

>Actually, the article in AW&ST (Jan 22, 1990) says that if Great
>Exploration is started this year, we could have both the Earth station
>and the gas station in orbit by mid-1991.

I read that as well. I suspect it is an error because the HLV wouldn't
be ready on time. The schedule presented to the NRC on Jan 17, 1990
has the Earth Station launched at the end of 92. They will be building
(and orbiting) a prototype for testing around that time however.

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

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

Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 10:40:46 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: One Small Step for a Space Activist...  Vol. 1 No. 10


           One Small Step for a Space Activist...
                                by
                    Allen Sherzer & Tim Kyger

The big news this month is the budget situation. At this writing, a budget
agreement has been reached but its passage through Congress is not clear.
Despite this, we can see what the general end result will be. For NASA,
the upshot is that their funding will remain at about $14 billion for the
next several years. Doubling the NASA budget for SEI just isn't going to
happen. This, however, is very good news if space activists are prepared to
take advantage of it.

A flat NASA budget makes all their programs zero sum games. The only way
for a program to get more money is for another program to cough it up. Going
to Congress for more won't work. This means that NASA will be highly motivated
to work harder and smarter with the money they do get. We've been saying this
for years and now there may be little choice for NASA but to follow up on it.

Fourteen billion will be just barely enough to build Freedom as currently
designed. Future cost increases (which are almost inevitable) will push it
over the edge. The danger is that NASA may just slip schedules, adding to
lifecycle cost. The end result of this is that Freedom dies a slow and very
painful death. Not only will this put off a space station for another decade
but it could kill whatever credibility we have left with the international
partners.

Now is the time to push for a small, inexpensive, and growable space station.
The political, budget, and technical realities open up a window which will
allow this idea to pass. If we wait too long, the momentum for change will
be lost and we won't get anything.

Several ideas exist to get this started as I am sure you are aware. We have
External Tank-based stations, LLNL inflatable 'community spacesuit', Spacelab
based modules, and a host of others. Which do you like best? Write your
Congresscritters and let them know.

There is however, a dark cloud on the horizon: the Earth Observation System.
EOS is very popular in Congress. It will be funded before almost anything
else. It has already killed funding for both SEI and CRAF this year. As
long as it stays in the NASA budget, money (more and more of it) will flow
away from space science and toward it. Moving this program out of NASA and
into another better suited agency (like NOAA) must be a high priority.

                       Legislative Roundup

Election day is either soon or will have recently passed when you read this.
A good way to make a big impact on a freshman representative is to write him
or her about space. If you have a freshman Senator or Representative in your
state, why not drop him or her a line and tell them how you feel about space.
They probably know very little now and your letter will help set their
perspective on the role of space in our lives.

         Space Transportation Services Purchase Act (HR 2674)

A lot happened last month. The House and Senate have both passed versions of
a NASA Authorization bill. Title II of the House bill is likely to survive
the conference and become law. The House is making passage of Title II a
major issue.

As of now, the Senate wants to exempt suborbital flights and weaken other
parts. Currently, it looks like Title II will survive and become law, but
with a few loopholes. This is a big victory for space activists despite the
loopholes. Sources say that next year legislation will be introduced to close
the loopholes (if Title II passes) or to reintroduce the full Space
Transportation Services Purchase Act (if Title II doesn't pass).

Things you should do are:
1. Take a break; you deserve it. Get ready for the fight next year to close
the loopholes. If Title II doesn't pass, get ready to do it all again one more
time.

Either way, it'll be a LOT easier the second time around. Some important
opponents will not be in Congress to oppose it and some important supports
may become a lot more powerful. The groundwork is done and the staffers are
all set to work on it. We have a good base to work from and can count on
making a lot more  progress next year.

                   The Great Exploration

The Senate has appointed members of the conference committee which will decide
the DoE Appropriation for next year. The IR&D money needs to be restored so
that LLNL can begin work on their tests of inflatable space structures.

As stated above, the NASA budget will be tight for the next few years.
Supporting the Great Exploration will broaden our base of support and open up
new sources of funds to develop space based infrastructure.

Things you should do are:
1. Write your Congresscritter. Ask them to restore the IR&D money in the DoE
appropriation. Tell them you think a little competition would do NASA some
good.

2. Write to the Senators on the Appropriations Conference. Ask them to restore
the IR&D funds and support the Great Exploration. Members of the conference
are: Johnston (D-LA), Byrd (D-WV), Hollins (D-CA), Burdick (D-SD), Sasser (D-
TN), DeConcini (D-AZ), Reid (D-NV), Hatfield (R-OR), McCloure (R-ID), Garn (R-
UT), Cochran (R-MS), Domenici (R-NM), Specter (R-PA). They can be reached at

       Senator <name>
       US Senate
       Washington DC 20510

                       Space Exploration Initiative

The House NASA Authorization bill has some money for SEI. It Authorizes $444M
in fiscal year 1992, and $649M for 1993. This shows some support, but it won't
last. Those parts of the Authorization bill have already been cut out in the
Conference.

Allen Sherzer: [phone] (work) [phone] (home) [e-mail] (net)
Tim Kyger: [phone] (work) [phone] (home)

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

Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 17:16:38 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thanistha Phrasavath)

please delete me from the list SPACE DIGEST. Thanks.
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Oct 90 08:15:09 GMT
From: eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!axion!derby![e-mail]  (alan pengelly)
Subject: X-15



 I've just read a very interesting book on the evolution
of the USA's winged spacecraft program (X-1 to Shuttle).
What strikes me most was the X-15 programme, which
was a fine piece of research, and which to me seemed to
be under exploited. In particular the decision not to
go for an uprated version (delta-winged + more power).
Given the X-20 cancellation as well, it seems to me that
the US was well ahead in this field quite early on, but
seemed to back-off. Was it money, was it apollo? Does
any one know what the capabilities of the uprated X-15
were to be, ie speed and altitude? Also given what is
known now, would the X-20 have worked?

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

Date: 29 Oct 90 16:52:47 GMT
From: att!cbnewsj![e-mail]  (david.e.wexelblat)
Subject: Re: A great idea on how to fund NASA!

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
> >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Peterson) writes:
> >>I have an idea that I think could fund a major portion of NASA's budget
    ...
> >>     On one of the shuttle missions, send up thousands of tiny glass
> >>spheres with small holes in them.  Once in space, expose the spheres to
> >>the vacuum of space and then seal them.  Bring them back to earth
> >>and sell them to people.  Everyone can own their own piece of space!
    ...
>    A glass ball with a vacuum inside is a bad thing to have around. If
> it is broken it implodes, and the pieces fly through the centre of the
> sphere, and on across the room at high speed. People doing vacuum
> experiments prefer metal containers whenever possible to prevent the
> formation of shrapnel. You'd need a plexiglass shield around the vacuum
> sphere to make it safe.
    ...
>
> --
>  Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | "The pizza was just a
>  [e-mail]    Ad astra! | detonator; I mean, if
>  cneufeld@{pnet91,pro-micol}.cts.com             | it had set off the
>  "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" | hams...." Downtown Brown

I didn't see a smiley on that followup, so:  Hey -- have you ever heard
of a light-bulb?  How about a CRT?  Lots of people handle vacuum (or
mostly-vacuum) containing objects without the slightest injury.  Get
a grip.  As if this would be the most hazardous think people would buy
as a novelty item.

Besides, I'm sure the original poster was only moderately serious.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
David Wexelblat             | [e-mail]    | They recommended
AT&T Bell Laboratories      | ...!att!mtgzx!dwex    |    euthanasia
200 Laurel Ave - 4B-421     |                       | For nonconformists
Middletown, NJ  07748       | [phone]        |    everywhere

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

Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 13:28:41 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: Antenna heating


>From: att!cbnewsl![e-mail]  (Stuart Warmink)
>Subject: Re: Magellan Update - 10/26/90

>As the Sun lies pretty much in between Magellan and Earth, won't the
>dish antenna be rather effective at focussing the Sun's light and heat
>at the secondary reflector and perhaps even the receiver/transmitter?
>I guess it all depends on how good the dish's surface is at reflecting
>those wavelenghts without scattering. Is the surface shiny?

My boss says this problem can also affect satellite dishes, at least a few
days per year. Note that burning or melting is not the only problem: high
temperatures can shorten the lifetime of electronics (by encouraging the
migration of substances that shouldn't migrate?)
        John Roberts
        [e-mail]

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

Date: 30 Oct 90 05:11:18 GMT
From: att!watmath!watserv1!watcgl![e-mail]  (Alan Wm Paeth)
Subject: Re: X-15 (and the X-20)

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (alan pengelly):
>
> I've just read a very interesting book on the evolution
>of the USA's winged spacecraft program (X-1 to Shuttle)...
>Given the X-20 cancellation as well, it seems to me that
>the US was well ahead in this field quite early on, but
>seemed to back-off. Was it money, was it apollo?...
>Also given what is known now, would the X-20 have worked?

The X-20 was canned by US Defense Secretary McNamara. He and a contemporary
(the late) Canadian Prime Minister Dieffenbaker of Avro Arrow (in)famy would
both have done well to field test the business end of a Saturn V. (Flame off).

I've also recently read a new book, put out by IEEE press (select reprints).
Excerpted from

  NAVIGATION: Land, Sea, Air & Space

  ...[Mercury's] Landing dispersions were 4.5 to 200nm suggesting that the X-20
  Dynasoar would have been premature in the late 1960s without a precise
  navigation system...the X-15 which flew from 1959 to 1968...was a precursor
  of the Shuttle in glide landing, fly-by-oil flight control, split-rudder,
  speed-brake, and a blended-reaction/aerodynamic controls...The X-15 could not
  have evolved into the Space Shuttle until fault-tolerant navigation and
  control technologies were developed in the late 1960s, because precision
  navigation is essential for flight safety...


    /Alan Paeth
    Computer Graphics Laboratory
    University of Waterloo

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #511
*******************