Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_0/V13_080.TXT

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/Qbcc1e200WBwIsjk4U>;
          Sun, 27 Jan 91 02:25:30 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 02:25:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #080

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 13 : Issue 80

Today's Topics:
           Payload Status for 01/23/91 (Forwarded)
           Re: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST
               Re: Firm Fred Decisions
    Re: Why man rate? (was: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST)
           Question concerning black hole creation
              Ulysses Update - 01/21/91
               Satalite/IS Probe manual
             Re: Ultimate Weapon

Administrivia:

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

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

Date: 23 Jan 91 20:35:21 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 01/23/91 (Forwarded)


    Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 01-23-91


    -    STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at VAB)

    Freon servicing GSE preps and validations continue today
    along with DDU troubleshooting and MMSE preps for payload
    removal from the orbiter.


    -    STS-39 AFP-675/IBSS/STP-01 (at VPF)

    CIRRIS and SPAS cryo servicing will be performed today along
    with payload closeouts.


    -    STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C)

    PR work-off and CITE closeouts will continue today.


    -    STS-37 GRO (at PHSF)

    At the VPF, facility preps continue.


    -    STS-42 IML-1 (at O&C)

    Troubleshooting of cable interferences which is constraining
    experiment train installation into the module continues.


    -    STS-45 Atlas-1 (at O&C)

    Experiment and pallet staging continue.


    -    STS-46 TSS-1 (at O&C)

    Pallet staging continues along with sets off-line
    operations.


    -    STS-47 Spacelab-J (at O&C)

    Rack 7 and 12 integration continues.


    -    STS-50 USML (at O&C)

    Rack 6 structural modifications will be active today.


    -    STS-62 LITE-1 (at O&C)

    Pallet cleaning continues.

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

Date: 24 Jan 91 17:05:24 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!freedom![e-mail]  (David Cornutt)
Subject: Re: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST

[e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>:
>>I also don't think it would cost that much to man-rate one of the more
>>reliable, smaller launchers such as the Delta,

>It shouldn't cost anything more.

It would cost substantially more.  First of all, you'd have to develop
a capsule, with attendent redundant flight controls, life support,
heat shields, adaptors and fairings, etc.  Then, you'd have to upgrade
the engine controls and launch support systems, etc.  The costs just
go on and on.  By the time all the necessary junk was added, I'm not
sure the Delta would even have enough payload capacity left to do
anything useful.

>Actually, the operational record of the Delta, Titan, and Atlas is BETTER
>than the operational record of the Shuttle. Realistic Shuttle failure rate
>estimates show the Shuttle is no safer than an expendable.

I just got out some Martin Marietta literature on the Delta.  In it they
advertise a launch success rate of 93.9%.  That's about one failure about
every 18 launches.  Although it's hard to quantify due to the small sample
size, the Shuttle over several hundred flights should do substantially
better than that (if that many flights were made), and I daresay that if it
didn't, it would be canned pronto.  (Note that I'm not picking on Martin
Marietta here -- the Delta is a fine launch vehicle.  It's just that you
can't ask it to do something that it was never intended to do.  If you
don't believe me, ask some of the folks who worked on man-rating the
Atlas back in the '60s.)

>This calls into question the entire 'man rating' process. Why add all that
>expense when it doesn't add to safety?

Because it does.  Just to make the thing man-capable at all is a
substantial expense.  If the manned program had failure rates
no better than the unmanned launchers, there would be no manned
program (at least not in the U.S.) today.

--
David Cornutt, New Technology Inc., Huntsville, AL  [phone]
([e-mail]; some insane route applies)
"The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer,
not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary."

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 14:31:39 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Firm Fred Decisions
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]>:

> [MTC only for Freedom]

I wonder if we are seeing the first results of Staffords Synthesis Group
here? Augustine worked very closely with the administration and maybe
Stafford did as well. Just as the 92 budget reflects the Augustine
results maybe Freedom reflects Satfford results.

Congress said they wanted Freedom to be a microgravity facility first.
This decision will result is Freedom becomming a first rate facility
for that area of research. Then when Stafford's commission presents
their architectures for Earth Moon Mars infastructure there will be no
baggage getting in the way.

>I wish I could tell you more, but my ears are on the rail listening
>for the train, at any rate.

Please keep us posted, just don't get hit by the train :-)

  Allen

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer | America does best when it accepts a challenging mission. |
|   [e-mail]   | We invent well under pressure. Conversely, we stagnate   |
|                 | when caution prevails.   -- Buzz Aldrin                  |

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

Date: 25 Jan 91 05:58:17 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!sol![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: Why man rate? (was: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:
   > It's just that you
   >can't ask it to do something that it was never intended to do.  If you
   >don't believe me, ask some of the folks who worked on man-rating the
   >Atlas back in the '60s.)

   There is no need to ask them. We HAVE sent people up on Delta's. Funny
   how they managed to make it do something it was never intended to do :-).

I was under the impression that Redstones and Atlases were used for
Mercury, and Titans were used for Gemini (and of course Saturns for
Apollo and Skylab) -- am I missing something?

Or did you mean to say Atlases?
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Date: 21 Jan 91 23:32:18 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Matthew L. Demsey)
Subject: Question concerning black hole creation


  Excuse me if this is daft, but i'm a math major and have never been
on this conference before...

   Fine, fine, a star goes super nova and then begin collapsing upon
itself, until it becomes a black hole...  but the question of the day
is at what point in this scenario is the body no longer a collapsing
star and is a full fledged black hole - i.e. what changes have occured
- in formula form, naturally...

Thanks to all who aid.  Loki
([e-mail])

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

Date: 22 Jan 91 16:51:20 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Ulysses Update - 01/21/91


                             ULYSSES STATUS REPORT
                               January 21, 1991

     As of 9 AM (PST), Monday, January 21, 1991, the following data was
taken on the Ulysses spacecraft:

        Distance from Earth             81,720,857 miles (131,516,971 km)
        Distance from Jupiter          336,977,589 miles (542,312,861 km)
        Velocity relative to the Sun        66,223 mph      (106,756 kph)
        Velocity relative to the Earth      59,425 mph      ( 95,637 kph)

     Tape recorder operations based on recovering data acquired during the 16
hours out of view periods are continuing on a routine scheduled basis.
Experiment reconfigurations are carried out as required.  The 24th Science
Working Team meeting took place on January 15, 16 and 17 at JPL.

     No special operations are planned during the next week.  However, it is
possible that the nutation will return since the Solar Aspect Angle has now
increased to the value which sustained nutation prior to Opposition 1.  A close
watch is being kept on the situation and procedures are available to control
the nutation if it should occur.  Routine data gathering operations will
continue together with experiment reconfiguratons as required.

     The ground segment has been nominal during the past week.  Heavy rain in
Spain degraded performance during one tracking pass.  Other than that pass,
there were no significant anomalies.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | [e-mail]
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |

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

Date: 22 Jan 91 15:44:22 GMT
From: unmvax!uokmax!d.cs.okstate.edu![e-mail]  (Roland Stolfa)
Subject: Satalite/IS Probe manual

Hello,

I am interested in many of the terms and processes that have been talked
about in reguards to the various space probes (Magellon, Pioner, Viking, etc.),
and have several questions:

1.    Is there a "manual" that describes what kinds of things a space
    probe must be capable of in order to maintain trajectory?
    I understand star-fixing, but some of this stuff about de-saturations,
    etc., I don't.  I am not wanting anything so specific as the
    actual hardware/software/optics descriptions of a specific probe,
    but rather the kind of things in general that are needed.

2.    Are there actual "manufactures" of space probes?  By this I mean
    is there any company that might just have a manual on how to "harden"
    a space craft for flight, what kind of redundancy is needed, etc.
    or is all of that kind of information classified beyond the reach
    of the average mear-mortal?  :-)

3.    I seem to remember that some of the earlier space probes had
    core memory and 9-track tape players in them.  Are current probes
    still using this kind of stuff for some "hardening" reason, or is
    it out of vogue?

4.    I have never seen referenced what kind of (and or quanity for that
    matter) processors are on space probes.  Do any of them use stock
    CPU's or are they more likely to use custom units and why?

5.    Are there any design documents on the types of transmittion
    protocols that are used?  When your transmition time is very
    long, I realize that "simple" things are no longer useful, but
    what is considered "sufficient"?

Just currious...  If there are any such references, please send them to me
directly at the address below.

Roland Stolfa                Internet:    [e-mail]
Computer Science Department        Disclaimer:    You've lost your mind
219 Math Sciences Building                if you think anyone
Oklahoma State University                speaks for this place!

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

Date: 23 Jan 91 01:51:04 GMT
From: mindcraft.com![e-mail]  (Ronnie Kon)
Subject: Re: Ultimate Weapon


    Well I'm no physicist, but I won't let that stop me from shooting my
mouth off.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roland Stolfa) writes:
>Fellow spacers, lend me your eyes for a few seconds...ok, minutes.
>I would like to ask a few questions about black holes.  As this progresses,
>you will see how it relates to my subject line.
>
>1.    Are black holes stationary in space.  Ie, if you have a black hole
>    next to a star, does the black hole move at all, or does the
>    star just revolve around the black hole?  Further, can a black
>    hole move?

    This is a meaningless question.  In the black hole's frame of
reference the black hole is stationary.  In all other frames of reference (as
a practical matter) the black hole moves.

>
>2.    Do we have any theories about how much matter you would have to
>    have in any one place to generate a black hole?

    There is a theory that at quantum distances (10^-33 cm), the amount
of energy "borrowed" from a neighboring quantum exceeds that necessary to
create a (very small) black hole, which lasts for a very short time.  This
makes space discontinuous at 10^-33 cm.  This could be the way to reconcile
Einsteinian gravity with quantum gravity.

>
>If both of the two previous questions can be answered "yes", then consider
>the following Ultimate Weapon.
>
>A.    Take two areas and collect in each one half of a black hole's mass.
>    These two areas should be far enough appart that they will not be
>    pulling each other together, yet.
>
>B.    Once the mass has been achieved, start both pieces in motion
>    towards an "enemy", while also moving the pieces towards each
>    other (see below).
>
>        1/2 bh\
>               \
>            >bh------> enemy
>               /
>        1/2 bh/
>
>C.    Arrange it so that the two pieces collide and form our black
>    hole before reaching the "enemy", hopefully far enough away
>    from "us" to not cause us any problems.  If it needs some energy,
>    make the collision point some star that already has a good
>    chunk of the mass, as well as the energy that might be needed.
>
>D.    Once the black hole has been formed, it could travel along
>    (Newtons's law ???), and quite simply suck the entire solar
>    system of the "enemy" to oblivion.

    A black hole may have done just this over Siberia in the early part
of this century.  I forget the name of the area.

    You would have to accelerate the black hole a lot, as you really
don't want it spending more than a couple of microseconds within the Earth's
atmosphere (remember that air is matter, and will accrete onto the black
hole).  It could well turn into a massive suicide weapon.

    Question: if a really small black hole were formed on Earth, would it
continue to accrete matter from the air/ground/nearby scientists until it
swallowed up the entire Earth?  It seems to me that it would quickly drop to
the center of the Earth and begin to grow from the matter at the center.


>
>Advantages:
>    Something so massive would probably not be too easy to stop,
>    it would be un-defuseable (unlike a bomb), would be fairly hard
>    to detect (unless you were looking for it), and might even
>    do the job.
>
>Disadvantages:
>    For the time being, impossible to accomplish (let's hope it
>    stays that way).
>
>Another question,
>
>3.    Would this be a way of forcing a "worm hole" in space?  In other
>    words, from the point at which the black hole became a singularity,
>    as it travels, would it permanently warp space, or would such
>    a massive object only affect it's own local environment?

    Worm holes, as I understand them, are more useful to sci-fi than to
science.  The idea that there is only one singularity, and all black holes
lead to it, may be correct but you would have to go through the event horizon
to use it and it will be quite a while before you come out the other end.  :-)

    A black hole would only warp space in its local area.  Space does not
have a memory.

>
>Interested minds, fuzzy with physics, want to know.  :-)
>
>Roland Stolfa                Internet:    [e-mail]
>Computer Science Department        Disclaimer:    You've lost your mind
>219 Math Sciences Building                if you think anyone
>Oklahoma State University                speaks for this place!


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronnie B. Kon                    |  "I don't know about your brain, but
[e-mail]       |  mine is really bossy."
...!{decwrl,ames}!mindcrf!ronnie |               -- Laurie Anderson

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #080
*******************