Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_1/V13_160.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 18KB

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/QbjBr6C00WBwI6Uk4d>;
          Sat, 16 Feb 91 02:22:46 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 02:22:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #160

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 160

Today's Topics:
        Re: Confusion regarding "Firm Fred Decisions"
            Re: Ulysses Update - 02/12/91
            Re: Magellan Update - 02/14/91
       Looking for a good job in digital tevevision R&D
                   UOSAT 2
        Re: "Magnum" Electronic Intelligence Satellite
           Augustine's Space Program Report
Mobile Launch Complex (MLC) (was Re: List of Frequently-Seen Acronyms)
              NASA Tech Briefs overseas
               Re: ET Use  (Was:<None>)

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]

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 7 Feb 91 13:37:39 GMT
From: rex!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!engine.engin.umich.edu![e-mail]  (Ken Sheppardson)
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Subject: Re: Confusion regarding "Firm Fred Decisions"
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>
     [e-mail] writes:

>Any confusion resulting from the posting "Firm Fred Decisions" I will take
>the blame for.  It turns out that I had correct information, but not
>comprehensive information.

   Let me just point out that the orinal list included...

     "o the budget is now for man-tended capability (MTC) only"

     "o a lab module will exist only at MTC"

     "o there will be no habitation module or nodes"

     "o no [PMC] equipment or growth planned"

>Here is the skinny:
>
>o  The SSF program is being divided into three stand-alone phases, for
>   budget purposes: man-tended capability (MTC), permanently-manned
>   capability (PMC), and EMCC, whatever that stands for.  The term "stand-
>   alone" I think means that each phase will be funded separately, with
>   the results of the first being used to determine whether/for how much
>   the subsequent phases will be funded, etc.

   Hopefully this bullet will clear up any confusion resulting from
   the original list. There are, in fact, plans to go beyond MTC;there
   will, in fact, be additional lab space beyond MTC;there will be hab
   space and nodes;PMC is still part of the program.

   [ EMCC - Eight-Man Crew Capability ]

>o  Solar Dynamic and FTS have been stopped, as I stated before.

   I don't believe Solar Dynamic was part of the baseline (post-ISPDR)
   program to begin with, was it ? We've [almost] always used it in growth
   configurations beyond the baseline AC 75 kW, but since growth beyond
   AC hasn't been a requirement (for the last few years) was SD beyond
   the 'technology development' phase ?

   Is the $10M for solar dynamic power research set aside in the '91
   budget [Source: VA/HUD/IA House-Senate Conference Report HR101-900]
   an increase or decrease from '90 funding ?

   Of course the same report lists $106.3M for FTS, so those numberse
   could be out-the-window by now.

>o  The 18.75 kW power capability at MTC I mentioned previously is a number
>   recommended for five years after beginning-of-life (BOL).  At BOL, they
>   think 37.5 kW will be achieved.

   Is this a change from baseline ? Hasn't BOL power always been greater
   than the 18.75/37.5/75 kW available at MTC/PMC/AC respectively ? Do you
   have before/after Restructuring number to compare with?

   ('available' => power available at DDCU [DC/DC Conversion Unit ?] output,
    right ?. Actual power off the PVs is significantly greater, isn't it ?
    Do you happen to have the overall efficiency number ? BTW, do you happen
    to know how much the PVs were widened/lengthened as a result of Turbo ?)

>o  The truss is to be pre-integrated (PIT), saving mucho EVA during assembly.

   Just to avoid confusion, PIT -> Pre-Integrated Truss.

   Another language change: The 'Transverse Boom' shall from this date
   forward be refered to as the 'Transverse BEAM'. [Source: presentations
   given by Bensimon and Moorehead to Lenoir in late January]

>o  Some component and acceptance testing in the Electrical Power System (EPS)
>   is to be deleted.  If anybody cares, I'll get back to you on that.
>
>o  In the six-year period from fiscal 1991-96, a program cost reduction of
>   ~$6 billion is anticipated.
>
>Posted with minimal comment by RG

  Unsolicited comments added by:

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

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 14 Feb 91 18:33:25 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!convex![e-mail]  (Dave Dodson)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation; Richardson, TX
Subject: Re: Ulysses Update - 02/12/91
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Cronau/10000) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>Following the declaration a
>>suggestion was received from a JPL telecommunications expert that it may be
>>necessary to apply a Doppler correction to the command sub-carrier uplink
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>frequency due to the current velocity of the spacecraft relative to the Earth
>
>Are you really transmitting commands to the spacecraft at that *low* of a
>frequency? 16000Hz? Are you sure that isn't 16000 Mhz? Just curious.

Note that the 16000Hz is the sub-carrier frequency.  According to standard
usage of the term sub-carrier, the radio signal is at a high frequency, and
is modulated with the sub-carrier.

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

Dave Dodson                                     [e-mail]
Convex Computer Corporation      Richardson, Texas      [phone]

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 14 Feb 91 20:37:31 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.
Subject: Re: Magellan Update - 02/14/91
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (25362-roe mcburnett) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>
> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>
>> MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT February 14, 1991
>[...]
>>     The strategy of shortening the mapping pass by ten minutes cuts 26
>>degrees of latitude off the southern end of the delayed image swaths.  Over
>>the 17 to 21 days that this this strategy will be used for temperature control,
>>the loss of image area will be less than 1% of the Venus surface.
>
>Ron,
>
>Will the orbiter be able to scan this area of the surface later on in
>the mission??  Or are we going to be missing some of the surface forever?
>

In the extended mission, Magellan will go back over the planet again and
pick up any areas it missed on the first go around.  Venus rotates underneath
the spacecraft every 243 days.

      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab | Is it mind over matter,
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | or matter over mind?
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | Never mind.
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | It doesn't matter.

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 10 Feb 91 21:01:15 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!linus!philabs!briar![e-mail]  (Robert Casey)
Subject: Looking for a good job in digital tevevision R&D
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

Hi.  Just a quick note that I am looking for a good job in the digital TV
area.
Find my resume in   misc.jobs.resumes

I got caught in Philips' reduction in force.  Philips is in bad fincinal
shape.

Anyway, call me at 201-261-4066.  Point any and all headhunters my way.
don't try to e-mail, as my account may be deleted soon.  Suprised that it
still exists.

Thanks

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 11 Feb 91 16:04:06 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!mucs!liv-cs!liv![e-mail]  (Andrew Hartridge)
Organization: University of Liverpool
Subject: UOSAT 2
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

Can anyone tell me the frequency that UOSAT 2 transmits on ??
Also does UOSAT 1 still exist or did that decay ages ago ??

                        Thanks in Advance
Andrew Hartridge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dept. Electrical Eng.     /     UUCP: !mcvax!ukc!uk.ac.liv!eeet176  /
| University of Liverpool, /    LOCAL: eeet176 @ uxa                 /
| Brownlow Hill,          /    JANET: eeet176 @ uk.ac.liverpool.ibm /
| Liverpool,             /           andrewh @ uk.ac.nsfnet-relay  /
| ENGLAND.              / INTERNET: andrewh @ mole.ai.mit.edu     /
|                      /           an808   @ cwns16.ins.cwru.edu /
-----------------------------------------------------------------

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 5 Feb 91 16:24:19 GMT
From: att!linac!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: "Magnum" Electronic Intelligence Satellite
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Smith) writes:
>I saw a mention in Time of a satellite named "Magnum" which is supposed to
>be used for electronic eavesdropping.  The blurb said that it had an
>antenna "the size of a baseball field."  This sounds like a really large
>structure to be deploying automatically.  Does anyone have any info
>on this beasty?

What you've just said -- it's called "Magnum", it's an eavesdropping
satellite, and it probably has a big deployable antenna -- is just about
the sum total of unclassified knowledge about it.
--
"Maybe we should tell the truth?"      | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
"Surely we aren't that desperate yet." |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 13 Feb 91 14:45:57 GMT
From: o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!sei![e-mail]  (Michael Gagliardi)
Organization: Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA
Subject: Augustine's Space Program Report
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]


    Does anyone know how to obtain a copy of "Summary and Principal
    Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S.
    Space Program"?

  Thanks,
    Mike

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 14 Feb 91 02:11:46 GMT
From: mintaka!ogicse!uwm.edu!caen!blue.engin.umich.edu![e-mail]  (Ken Sheppardson)
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Subject: Mobile Launch Complex (MLC) (was Re: List of Frequently-Seen Acronyms)
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Foster):
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Bradford):
>>
>>SIRTF: Space InfraRed Telescope Facility
>>SME: Solar Mesosphere Explorer
>
>You forgot:
>
>SLC: Space Launch Complex
>
>As you included VAFB (Vandenberg Air Force Base), I figured you wouldn't
>forget the famous (infamous?) SLC-6 (pronounced Slick-Six), the west coast
>Shuttle launch complex now in Mothballs.

   Mothballs ? I thought it was just outside Lompoc, just north of Santa
   Barbara. Did they just move the entire base or just the SLC ?

   And where exactly is Mothballs ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Quote of the Week:

               "Where are your troops and can I go count them ?"

                                     - Iraqi Reporter during Pentagon
                                       Briefing skit, SNL, 2/9/91
--
===============================================================================
 Ken Sheppardson                                  Email: [e-mail]
 Space Station Freedom Advanced Programs Office   Phone: [phone]
 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA         FAX:   [phone]
===============================================================================

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 7 Feb 91 03:12:25 GMT
From: milton!sumax!amc-gw!thebes!polari![e-mail]  (Charles Radley)
Organization: Seattle Online Public Unix [phone]
Subject: NASA Tech Briefs overseas
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]


I have received a package from NASA which says Tech Briefs is
Now available  for the first time outside the United States...
Subscription is  $ 150 US for one year ( $ 188 for 2 years ).  One
year  rates in non-US currency are:  $ 180 Australian, 18000
Austrian  Schillings, 85 pounds sterling, $ 175 Canadian, 950 Danish
Kroener, 800  French francs, $ 1200 Hong kong, 90 Irish punts, 22000
Japanese Yen, 275  Dutch Guilders, 250 New Zealand dollars (?), 925
Norwegian Kroener, 900  Swedish Kroener, 200 Swiss Francs, 250 German
deutschemarks, 5000 Belgian  francs, $ 300 Singapore.  Monthly
issues, includes air mail postage.    Or failing that, you can pay by
Visa Card, Mastercard or American Express,  provide card number abd
exipration date, name and signature. (you wll  probably be billed in
US $ at the prevaling exchange rate ).  And if you do  not like it
you can terminate the subscription at any time and receive a  refund
of the unused balance.    Checks payable to   NASA Tech Briefs.  Mail
to NASA Tech Briefs, 41 East  42 nd Street - Suite 921,   New York,
NY 10017-5391, USA.
   telephone +-1-212-490-3999 , fax = +-1-212-986-7864.
Remember to include your mailing address to which the magazine is
to be sent

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 14 Feb 91 15:46:10 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu![e-mail]  (Craig L Cole)
Organization: University at Buffalo
Subject: Re: ET Use  (Was:<None>)
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ken  Sheppardson) writes...
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Frank Radley):
>>
>>     The External Tank idea is seriously oversold...
>
>    I've heard several folks involved with shuttle explain that one
>    of the most serious problems associated with ET retrofitting is
>    a result of the basic nature of the tank: it's a large cryogenic
>    tank, covered with insulation. The insulation is what gives the tank
>    it's orange color. Normally the ET is dropped early enough that it
>    quickly drops out of orbit. If it were carried higher and left to
>    become part of a station, insulation flaking off the ET could
>    cause serious orbital debris problems.

Just my $0.02:

What do you do with a room when you can't keep the paint from
cracking and peeling?

You wallpaper it.

Can the ET be "wallpapered" with something, to keep it from flaking?
Some EVA'ing astronauts could do it after they're in orbit.

Maybe some kind of foil for reflection of heat or something...

No flames, just an idea.

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

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #160
*******************