Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_1/V13_103.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 19KB

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/gbeZv6q00WBwM7Pk4A>;
          Sat,  2 Feb 91 01:40:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat,  2 Feb 91 01:40:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #103

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 103

Today's Topics:
              Vangaurd/Apollo questions
               Re: Star/Crescent symbol
              Re: Why man rate?
               Re: Firm Fred Decisions
              Re: Why man rate?
            Re: liquid SCUBA -- possible?
           How to built it in time and under budget
              Re: decimal to hexadecimal
               Re: Firm Fred Decisions
               Re: Firm Fred Decisions

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: 29 Jan 91 15:03:03 GMT
From: julius.cs.uiuc.edu!rpi!uupsi!cci632![e-mail]  (Lance Michel)
Subject: Vangaurd/Apollo questions



In completing a database which lists several NASA related events,
I've come across a few facts which need some verification.  If you have the
answers to any of the following questions please fill me in...

    NASM: "Vangaurd, launched in 1958 is expected to survive for
        240 years."  Is it still 'alive'?  Does it 'ping'?
        What frequency is it transmitting on?

    _Pictorial History of NASA_: "...A cabin fire caused the death of
        three astronauts during a simulation in the Apollo Command Module.
        Two hatches, each requiring 90 seconds to operate were determined
        to be insufficient for quick escape..."
    Kind of a morbid question; But how close did Grissom, White and
        Chaffee come to getting the hatch open?

    Anyone know where I can find a resource which gives great detail
        regarding the launch procedure for Apollo?  Something equivilent
        to the _Space Shuttle Operator's Manual_ would be perfect.  Also
        a diagram of the cockpit/cabin would be of great help.

The answer to the questions are important, but the resource is even more
important.  'I can't tell the museum that the data is accurate because
Henry told me so..'  Even though -I- know Henry know's this stuff cold. :-)

Thanx again.

 ___________________________________________________________________________
|   "Storms have come, rains wash the Earth away.        |  Lance Michel    |
|    Dark skys fall now, into another day."              |  [e-mail] |
|________________________________________________enya____|__________________|
          (Song stuck in my head at the moment)

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

Date: 29 Jan 91 16:58:25 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!sun4![e-mail]  (James W. Meritt)
Subject: Re: Star/Crescent symbol

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Nudelman) writes:
}In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ted Holden) writes:
}> as seen from a planet orbiting a small, ringed
}> star, the north pole of the planet pointed straight at the small star;
}> this explains the universal insistence in ancient literature that
}> seasons did not exist prior to the flood.  It explains as well the giant
}> animals of past ages, which felt the gravity of the star as well as that
}> of the planet, living only on the side which permanently faced the star.
}
}Ted, there are at least two problems with this scenario:
}
}1. The felt effect of gravity on the side facing the star could not
}   be strong enough to make a noticable difference without producing
}   drastic tidal forces which would probably rip the planet apart.

I've thought this myself.  I believe you would get the same "felt gravity"
on farside as well.  Also the minor nit that the atmosphere would
leave (escape velocity for nitrogen & oxygen has been posted to t.o)
and the oceans would try to submerge it (the surface of an ocean is a
gravitationally equipotential surface unless disturbed)

}2. More important, planets CANNOT ORBIT THIS WAY.  A planet whose
}   orbit is tipped close to 90 degrees (like Uranus) orbits with
}   its axis stationary (except for precession) with respect to the
}   fixed stars, NOT with respect to the sun.  This is true for all
}   planets, including the earth; the earth's 23 degree axis tilt
}   does not rotate throughout the year to remain constant with
}   respect to the sun.  A planet cannot orbit with one pole
}   constantly facing its primary.

Well, maybe with a tidal lock such that the axis of rotation is a
radial of the orbit.  But then the only places with a reduced "felt
gravity" (assuming some magic trick could hold the planet together, and
keep the atmosphere from being ripped off, and keep the oceans from
submerging it as they try for a equipotential surface) would be the
near-pole (hotter than mercury sunside) and farpole (colder than pluto).

Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily
represent those opinions of this or any other organization.  The facts,
however, simply are and do not "belong" to anyone.
    [e-mail] or [e-mail] or meritt%aplvm.BITNET

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

Date: 29 Jan 91 17:33:17 GMT
From: ub!ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu![e-mail]  (Craig L Cole)
Subject: Re: Why man rate?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Glenn A. Serre) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Cornutt) writes:

>3) The Titan II was man-rated, and the Titan IV is a Titan II that's been
>modded.

Not that I have anything against Titans, but why was it man-rated? Did
they ever expect to launch capsules?

Craig Cole
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Jan 91 19:18:47 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]  (Doug McDonald)
Subject: Re: Firm Fred Decisions


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Palmer) writes:
>In article <800^Z4&@rpi.edu>:
>
>>I have been reading with interest Ken's descriptions of the emerging
>>space station design.  There is one point which puzzles me, however.  When
>>did the idea of a robust station die?  What I mean is, when did we decide
>>that Freedom was only going to be a limited station and that it would do
>>only one type of research.
>
>If you spend too much money on hardware, that cuts into the budget
>for administration.  (after all, the proper emphasis is nasA, not
>naSa or even NASA).


You forgot that Nasa (*N*asa) is also important: the pork must be spread
around - at least around the coasts, if not out into the heartland.

Doug McDonald

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

Date: 29 Jan 91 19:42:18 GMT
From: usc!samsung!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: Why man rate?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig L Cole) writes:

>Not that I have anything against Titans, but why was it man-rated? Did
>they ever expect to launch capsules?

 They did, way back when, launch capsules on Titans. I forget whether this
was before or after The War of Northern Agression ;-) Check the appropriate
history books on either side.

Phil

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

Date: 29 Jan 91 19:04:36 GMT
From: usc!samsung!interlan.InterLan.COM!interlan.interlan.com![e-mail]  (Mike Yetsko)
Subject: Re: liquid SCUBA -- possible?

I've seen experiments with this but restricted to mice and other rodents.

I've HEARD that it was proposed for testing with cyctic fibrosis patients,
but other that rumors and urban legends, I hae not heard of any real
attempts or experiments.

Could YOU handle being held down in a tank under fluids?

Don't know how they suppressed the gag reflex in the rats, if they did
at all, and/or how it would be done with humans.  The one experiment with
the rat I saw the rodent was weighted and just plain dropped into the
liquid.  (Reminded me of a cheap mobster movie!)

Mike Yetsko
InterLan

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

Date: 29 Jan 91 05:22:05 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!hydra![e-mail]  (Francis Vaughan)
Subject: How to built it in time and under budget



Next to the display describing the U-2 and SR-71 planes
at the Smithsonian Aerospace Museum is a copy of the rules
covering the managment of the projects. I finally got around
to typing them in. I don't think much more comment is needed.

                    Francis Vaughan.



         Basic Operating Rules of the Lockheed Skunk Works.

1. The Skunk Works manager must be delegated practically complete
   control of his program in all aspects. He should report to a
   division president or higher.

2. Strong _but_small_ project offices must be provided both by the
   military and industry.

3. The number of people having any connection with the project must be
   restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good
   people (10% to 25% compared to the so-called normal systems.)

4. A very simple drawing and drawing release system with great
   flexibility for making changes must be provided.

5. There must be a minumum number of reports required, but _important_
   work must be recorded thoroughly.

6. There must be a monthly cost review covering not only what has been
   spent and committed but also projected costs to the conclusion of the
   program. Don't have the books ninety days late and don't surprise the
   customer with sudden overruns.

7. The contractor must be delegated and must assume more then _normal_
   responsibility to get good vendor bids for subcontract work on the
   project. Competitive bid procedures are very often beter than military
   ones.

8. The inspection system currently used by the Advanced Development
   Projects should be used. Push more basic inspection back to the
   vendors. Don't pay for pieces that don't work! Don't duplicate so much
   inspection.

9. The contractor _must_ be delegated the authority to test his final
   product in flight. He can and must test it in the initial stages. If
   he doesn't he rapidly loses his competency to design other vehicles.

10. The specifications applying to the project must be agreed to in
    _advance_ of contracting. Be sure there is mutual understanding in
    this field before proceeding: otherwise it takes a mammoth contracting
    department to unscramble the mess that normally develops.

11. Funding a project must be _timely_ so that the contractor doesn't
    have to keep running to the bank to support government projects.

12. The must be mutual trust between the military project organization
    and the contractor, with very close co-operation and liaison on a day
    to day basis. This cuts down misunderstanding and correspondence to an
    absolute minimum.

13. Access to outsiders to the project and its personnel must be
    strictly controlled by appropriate security measures.

14. Because only a few people will be used in engineering and most
    other areas, ways must be provided to reward good performance by
    _pay_not_based_on_the_number_of_personnel_supervised_.

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

Date: 25 Jan 91 18:21:47 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!csn!ub!dsinc!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss![e-mail]  (Paul Blase)
Subject: Re: decimal to hexadecimal


 EW> Could someone give me a quick lesson ({r equation) on how
 EW> to conver{ decimal numbers to hexadecimal? Thanx in advance!

Basically, you have to do it iteratively - rather like making change for
a purchase from a large bill.
1) Find the largest power (p) of 16 that is less than the original number
2) This power indicates the leftmost numeral position in your hex number.
   (the p+1 place - remember that the rightmost integer indicates 16^0,
   or the one's column.)
3) Find the largest integer that you can multiply 16^p by and not exceed
   your original number.  This becomes your leftmost digit (n).
4) Subtract n*16^p from your original number.
5) Using the remainder from step 4, start again at step 1.  Repeat until
   the remainder is 0.

Example:
    Decimal number (remainder)         p   n   n*16^p      Hex  number
    5000                               3   1    4096          1XXX
     904                               2   3     796          11XX
     136                               1   8     128          118X
       8                               0   8       8          1188

Alternatively, if you want to work in base 16:
 - take each digit, multiply it by the appropriate power of 10 (working in
   base 16) and add all of the products together.

Example
    Decimal number
    1234      =   1*1000 + 2*100 + 3*10 + 4
              =   1 * 3E8(hex) + 2*64(hex) + 3*A(hex) + 4
              =  3E8 + B8 + 1E + 4
              =  4C2

This last method is most effective when writing computer programs,
when you can store the powers of ten in look-up tables.

--- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR]
--
Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Jan 91 18:10:47 GMT
From: usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!rpi![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Firm Fred Decisions

I have been reading with interest Ken's descriptions of the emerging
space station design.  There is one point which puzzles me, however.  When
did the idea of a robust station die?  What I mean is, when did we decide
that Freedom was only going to be a limited station and that it would do
only one type of research.
     As of about 1.5 years ago, Freedom was going to consist of four parts.
There was the permanently manned facility, orinially holding a crew of 8,
there were both American and European man-tended free-fliers, co-orbiting
with the manned facility and prividing "high quality" microgravity but still
allowing for the exchange of equipment and experiments.  Finally, there was
the American polar platform, an Earth-observing platform in polar orbit.
This was transferred to EOS, as I understand.
     My question: what happened to the man-tended free flyer and the Columbus
co-orbiting platform?  It seems the permanently manned facility evolved into
this -- why?
     If anyone has a timeline or a recent history of these changes, I'd
greatly appreciate hearing from them.
From: [e-mail] (Michael V. Kent)
Path: mvk

Michael Kent                                           [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Jan 91 13:38:19 GMT
From: usc!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!caen!blue.engin.umich.edu![e-mail]  (Ken Sheppardson)
Subject: Re: Firm Fred Decisions

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:
>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.

   The current restructuring effort is a result of congressional requests
   to cut the price of station. There has been little or no conscious effort
   to incorporate the suggestions of the Augustine committee. During
   Augustine's testimony before the house (I forget the exact name of the
   committee) one of the representatives read a quote from Moorehead which
   said something like "we believe the [restructured station concept] we
   have now is 98% [complete]" and asked Augustine if that view was consistent
   with what the Augustine group had in mind. Augustine's respnse was that
   while he couldn't know exactly to what Moorehead was refering, the
   restructuring concepts he (Augustine) had seen where not necessarily
   consistent with the groups recommendations.

   I would also add that (in my opinion) if you're trying to incorporate
   Stafford's sugestions, stopping at MTC isn't the way to do it. The
   current evolution concepts for Freedom include dual keels to support
   vehicles and additional truss outboard of the alpha joints to support
   additional power generation capability to allow life science research
   in support of lunar/mars manned exploration efforts. Since congress
   gives every indication of not wanting to fund _TWO_ stations, it seems
   that whatever we build will have to support lunar/mars exploration.
   You can't do that by stopping at MTC.

>
>Congress said they wanted Freedom to be a microgravity facility first.
>

   And the Augustine group felt life sciences should be emphasized.

   Truly responded to Augustine's recommendations by saying that the
   restructured station would emphasize microgravity and life sciences.

>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.

   A lunar/mars initiative will require a significant amount of life
   sciences research: life support system development and investigation
   of the long-term effects of space flight (which can't be done on
   a man-tended station). As a side note, vehicle assembly plays havoc
   with a micro-g environment.


--
===============================================================================
 Ken Sheppardson                                  Email: [e-mail]
 Space Station Freedom Advanced Programs Office   Phone: [phone]
 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA         FAX:   [phone]
===============================================================================

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #103
*******************