Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V12_6/V12_633.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/0bLoUdS00VcJQGbE4Q>;
          Fri,  7 Dec 1990 02:43:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri,  7 Dec 1990 02:42:38 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #633

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 633

Today's Topics:
      Re: Two questions:  Lunar shuttle missions, pseudo-gravity
        Re: Translunar/interplanetary shuttle?
        HUT Status for 12/05/90 [1900 CST] (Forwarded)
                  NASA BBS ?
          Correction to my list of Firsts...
     ASTRO-1 and WUPPE update - Dec. 3, 1990 (forwarded)
              Re: Another Russian first
             Sending Sen. Garn into space
           Re: space news from Oct 6 AW&ST
           Re: Sending Sen. Garn into space
              Re: Another Russian first
                Pseudo-gravity

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: 5 Dec 90 17:33:59 GMT
From: sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Two questions:  Lunar shuttle missions, pseudo-gravity

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>1.  With regard to the discussion of lunar shuttle missions... is it
>feasible to carry a CSM/LM -type combination up in the shuttle bay,
>using the shuttle in place of the lower stages of the Saturn? ...

Yes, although it will be an interesting packaging job to make it fit,
and it will have to be much lighter than the Apollo hardware if you
want to do it in one launch.  In-orbit assembly, perhaps with the heavy
loads launched by Titan, is a better idea.

>2.  Pseudogravity:  Could someone give me an equation to calculate a
>rate of spin for an object, given the dimensions of the object and
>the desired "gravity," necessary to simulate that gravity?  And how
>noticeable would the Coriolis "force" be?

acceleration = ( 4 * pi^2 * radius ) / rotation_period^2

Coriolis force and related problems will be significant over 1RPM and
probably intolerable over 3-5RPM.  Yes, this means a long radius.
--
"The average pointer, statistically,    |Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
points somewhere in X." -Hugh Redelmeier| [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 5 Dec 90 17:04:58 GMT
From: eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!cam-eng![e-mail]  (D.S.C.Yap)
Subject: Re: Translunar/interplanetary shuttle?

Well, a solar sail will do the trick!  IMHO they're much more graceful than
anything that spits things out its backside :-), and I happen to _know_ that
at least one solar sail will 'fly' within five years.  Laugh if you will, it's
nice to have skeptics, but time will tell.

I'm working on the dynamics of one solar sail design for my Ph.D.

Cheers, Davin


          .oO tuohtiw esoth fo noitanigami eht ot gnihton evael Oo.

[e-mail]     \ Davin Yap
                        \ University Engineering Department
                         \ Cambridge, CB2 1PZ, ENGLAND

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

Date: 6 Dec 90 03:56:05 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: HUT Status for 12/05/90 [1900 CST] (Forwarded)


      HUT Status Report 3
      7 p.m. Dec. 5, 1990
      Spacelab Mission Operations Control
      Marshall Space Flight Center
      Huntsville, AL


      The Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope team today observed one of its top
      10 targets, 3C273, the brightest quasar in the sky.  Dr. Arthur
      Davidsen, principal investigator of the HUT team, made the first
      ultraviolet observation ever of a quasar when he observed 3C273 in
      1977.  He has waited more than 13 years for a second look.

      His name was first linked with 3C273 when a telescope aboard a
      sounding rocket collected 250 seconds of data on the quasar; today
      HUT observed the quasar for 30 minutes.

      3C273 is located in the constellation Virgo, but is about 1 billion
      light-years beyond the edge of the Milky Way.  Scientists believe
      the enormous energy radiating from these luminous objects results
      from matter being pulled into a super-massive black hole.  Davidsen
      hopes to find evidence in 3C273's spectrum to support his theory.
      He also will use the observation to explore the intergalactic
      medium, a very tenuous gas which is believed to fill the void of
      space between the galaxies.

      However, he said after the observation that he would have to analyze
      the data before he could draw any conclusions about the physical
      conditions in the quasar.  He hopes to collect another hour of data
      on 3C273 before the end of the mission.

      Payload specialist Samuel Durrance helped HUT lock onto the quasar.
      After the observation, Davidsen sent Durrance his thanks and
      congratulations.

      "I've been waiting for 13 1/2 years --  that's along time,"
      Davidsen said as data from the telescope began to arrive.

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

Date: 5 Dec 90 15:27:03 GMT
From: eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!cc.ic.ac.uk![e-mail]  (M.S.Bennett Supvs= Prof Pendry)
Subject: NASA BBS ?

NASA BBS - how do I connect to that?

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

Date: 4 Dec 90 23:57:55 GMT
From: att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]  (Steve "il-Manhous" Norton)
Subject: Correction to my list of Firsts...

Allright, allright, I withdraw my list of Firsts!!!!!!
Sheesh, that's the last time I criticize NASA in a public group!!!!!

BTW, If I may point out something to all of the most kind people who have
responded:  The Hubble does not do what it was designed to do.  It fails
to do so because it has flaws.  Consequently, I called it broken.
I'm entirely aware that the Hubble might be brought up to speed sometime
in 1993, but that does not make it any less flawed.

I would also like to say that the Hubble has been a fisasco.  Setback after
setback after setback and over-budget expenses every year for the past
15 years, enhanced by poor management and overall lack of intelligence have
plagued the program.  I think it is extremely unfortunate that an organization
like NASA should be responsible for the US's future in space when there is
so much to accomplish.  (And dont try to pull this Pegasus crap on me, JS,
I'm well aware what percentage of the launching industry is supplied by
the OSC i.e. much less than 1%.)

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

Date: 4 Dec 90 19:18:57 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!larry![e-mail]  (Tim Roberts)
Subject: ASTRO-1 and WUPPE update - Dec. 3, 1990 (forwarded)

date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 09:35:15 CST
From: Karen Bjorkman (Cloud-Gazer Extraordinaire)
Subject: better news for WUPPE

Well, gang, today's news is a bit better than yesterday's (is it
day, or night?  I'm confused....).  After a long, harrowing, and
ultimately exhilarating night of troubleshooting, we have managed
to raise WUPPE from the potential ashes.  Maybe we should rename
it Lazarus!  We have indeed completely lost one DEP - the reasons
why will have to wait for another time, as it is a long and painful
story.  Suffice to say, the loss of the DEP was not due to a WUPPE
problem but rather to a SpaceLab problem which "bit" us just as we
were burning our EPROMs (gulp), causing our DEP to become corrupted.
The result was that our DEP crashed (in a very dangerous way, I might
add) and is now unrecoverable.  When I went on shift last night it
looked very grim, as our second (and of course last) DEP seemed to
be having problems as well.

After some terrific troubleshooting by Scott Vangen, our KSC engineer
and my ops partner on the red shift, and a lot of caucusing by all
the folks on the WUPPE team, we developed a theory about what had
gone wrong and why.  We were extremely nervous about powering down
our DEP because had there been a problem we would have been "dead
in the water".  But after we tried a lot of other things and beat
our brains out for 5-6 hours, (not to mention waking up the PI at
3 am for a goahead), we concluded that the only recourse to clearing
up the problem was to take the risk and do exactly that.  So very
carefully, and with a *BIG* gulp, we powered the DEP down.  When we
brought it back up, things were working much better and when I left
we had successfully completed our test lamp observation and were
starting on focus and alignment.  Given the problems that the
IPS is having, we may well be fully up and running by the time the
IPS problems have been cured enough to observe.  Of course, we have
completely lost all redundacy of DEP and some other things, but
we have to hope that we will at least now have a chance.

The IPS is having problems with acquiring and tracking on faint stars.
The IPS folks are working a software patch now to try and fix some
of the problems, and a big troubleshooting effort is underway.  At
present, the IPS isn't stable enough to really observe, so those
problems will have to be ironed out before real science can begin.
However, they seem to have a handle on the problems, and I suspect
things will improve soon.

The only other problem (and it is turning out to be a royal pain) is
that the crew has lost one of the data display units on the aft
flight deck.  This means that the MS (mission specialist) and PS
(payload specialist) have to share one DDU, which slows things
down immensely.  This is an especially bad problem when all the
teams and the IPS are trying to troubleshoot at the same time.
We decided to do some ground commanding to ease that problem a
bit.

Well, it is time for me to call it a day (or night...).  Stay tuned
for more episodes of "How the Astro turns..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy P. P. Roberts     Tat tvam asi, svatekatu.  (That thou art, boy!)

[e-mail]   or   WISP::Roberts
[phone] (home)  [phone] (work)

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

Date: 5 Dec 90 07:37:40 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi![e-mail]  (Jim Kasprzak)
Subject: Re: Another Russian first

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Frank G. Dahncke) writes...
>>Now the USSR even has had the first paying passenger in a spacecraft.
>>Actually, I would have expected this feat to be performed by the US.
>>Are there any other spaceflight "firsts" that the USA has achived exept
>>for the first man on the moon ?
>
>    Most definitely! We are the first (and still the only) to send probes to
>the outer planets of Jupiter,Saturn,Uranus,and Neptune. We had the first space
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>station (Skylab),and of course the first shuttle launch.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 Bzzzt! You were doing fine up till here.

 Salyut 1 predates Skylab by at least a couple of years. I think it was
launched in 1971.

--
 Jim Kasprzak          [e-mail] (internet)
 RPI, Troy, NY         [e-mail]
 "A spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission."  -Rush

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

Date: 4 Dec 90 16:31:41 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!crdgw1!ge-dab.ge.com!sundae9![e-mail]  (Richard Coleman)
Subject: Sending Sen. Garn into space

|> Actually, WE (the taxpayers) paid for that one.  It's a shame that
|> money earmarked for space exploration wasn't spent on something more
|> worthwhile than Senator Garn's ego.

I don't think it was a bad idea.  Hasn't Senator Garn been
a big supporter of the space program.  If we could send every
senator up on the shuttle just once, I bet that the funding for
the space program would get a BIG boost.
--

     Richard Coleman
     G.E. Simulation & Control Systems
     [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Dec 90 04:27:30 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: space news from Oct 6 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>Planetary Soviety invitation-only meeting to "critique" the current space
>station concludes that the current design is not viable even if nothing
>goes wrong with the shuttle, citing persistent reliance on unrealistic
>shuttle launch rates, inflexibility due to trying to meet too many users'
>needs, and inadequate consideration of alternatives.  (On the other hand,
>some of the attendees commented that the deck was stacked:  the choice
>of participants seemed to be deliberately aimed at such a conclusion.)

Isn't "invitation only" also true of NASA commitees, the Space Council,
NSS commitees, etc.?  Your biases are showing, Henry.  :-)

It is about time the man-in-space people started listening to the
Planetary Society folks.  While NASA has wasted most of its money on
earth-orbiting manned projects, the Planetary Society (many of them
ex-Voyager and Viking project people) have quietly pushed the
continuation of our U.S. program that has explored most of the planets
and moons in the solar system, with only a tiny fraction of NASA's
budget.  This, and the development of the first and largest commercial space
industry (unmanned communication satellites) have put the U.S. far
ahead of any other country in space, yet we squander this with attention
and money lavished on dead-end manned projects.

Nobody wants "Fred" anymore.  The microgravity scientists want to
get off of Fred to save their labs from vibration.  The astronauts
and deep space mission planners think Fred is useless as a "staging base".
The Fred engineers are tired of developing a reputation for bad
design that will haunt them the rest of their careers (would you hire
an engineer who got paid for ten years of making nothing?).  The taxpayers
don't want to waste more billions on paper redesigns and fancy graphics.
We are coming to the realization that the "space station" concept is an
obsolete 19th-century idea that has nothing to do with successful 20th-
and 21st-century space exploration and industry.  The sooner "Fred" goes,
the sooner the U.S. can devote its attention to the real space program,
the real business of exploring space and developing industries that pay
for themselves.

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

Date: 5 Dec 90 01:46:08 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuha![e-mail]  (Bob Campbell)
Subject: Re: Sending Sen. Garn into space

>|> Actually, WE (the taxpayers) paid for that one.  It's a shame that
>|> money earmarked for space exploration wasn't spent on something more
>|> worthwhile than Senator Garn's ego.

>I don't think it was a bad idea.  Hasn't Senator Garn been
>a big supporter of the space program.  If we could send every
>senator up on the shuttle just once, I bet that the funding for
>the space program would get a BIG boost.

Oh it was a horrid idea.  But any of us would have done the same
if we were in a position to do so.

From what I heard at the time (my Purdue landlord was trying for that
seat :-( ) he was fondly referred to as Barfin' Jake.  So at least we
have that for comfort . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Campbell                Some times I wish that I could stop you from
[e-mail]    talking, when I hear the silly things you say.
Hewlett Packard                                    - Elvis Costello

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

Date: 4 Dec 90 18:00:13 GMT
From: lib!mdaali.cancer.utexas.edu![e-mail]  (David Gutierrez)
Subject: Re: Another Russian first

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Scott Cromar) writes:
> ; Consider Jake Garn.
> ;
> ; David Gutierrez
> ; [e-mail]
>
> Actually, WE (the taxpayers) paid for that one.  It's a shame that
> money earmarked for space exploration wasn't spent on something more
> worthwhile than Senator Garn's ego.

My point exactly. I believe that Garn was sitting on a committee at the
time that was related to funding for NASA. The whole deal seemed to me
that there was an unmentioned quid pro quo involved. Besides, NASA at
least got to try to see if anything could turn a senator's stomach.

David Gutierrez
[e-mail]

"Only fools are positive." - Moe Howard

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

Date: 5 Dec 90 13:54:53 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu![e-mail]  (Matthew T Velazquez)
Subject: Pseudo-gravity

The "pseudo-gravity" effected by spinning an object is given by

    F= mr(omega squared)

where omega is angular velocity. This force acts radially inward (i.e.,
you must exert the same force outward, simulating gravity).
Oh yeah. Little r is the radius to the CM. There is also a force tangential to
the direction of rotation given by

    Ftangential = mr(alpha)

where alpha is angular acceleration ( this would only apply during the spinup
of the body).

            T Velazquez
            MIT
            [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #633
*******************