Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_2/V13_276.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 15KB

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/gbsQ2L600WBwA7sE4=>;
          Sat, 16 Mar 91 01:52:07 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 91 01:52:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #276

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 276

Today's Topics:
           Shuttle Status for 03/14/91 (Forwarded)
           Re: Pioneer 11 Update - 03/01/91
              looking for a NASA report
        Re: Value per pound vs. cost per pound
         Re: New World Profits (was Re: Space Profits
        Re: Value per pound vs. cost per pound
               Re: space shuttle design
Re: Names of notable women to be proposed for Venus features (Forwarded)
            Re: Magellan Update - 03/11/91

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: 14 Mar 91 16:21:25 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Shuttle Status for 03/14/91 (Forwarded)


          KSC SHUTTLE STATUS REPORT - THURSDAY, MAR. 14, 1991 - 9:30 a.m.

               STS-37/GAMMA RAY OBSERVATORY - ATLANTIS (OV 104) - VAB
                                   LAUNCH - APRIL

          WORK IN PROGRESS:
          - Preparations for roll out to Launch Pad 39-B with first  motion
          targeted for 12:01 a.m. Friday.
          - Orbiter power down.
          - Moving access platforms away from the vehicle.

          WORK COMPLETED:
          - Retest of the aerosurface amplifier electronic box.
          - Bond verifications of 4 tiles around the nose area.

          WORK SCHEDULED:
          - Countdown Demonstration Test March 19-20.
          - Launch Readiness Review March 21.

                        STS-39/DoD - DISCOVERY (OV 103) - VAB
                           LAUNCH - LATE APRIL, EARLY MAY

          WORK IN PROGRESS:
          -  Installing  the roll around tires in place of the nose landing
          gear flight tires.
          - Preparations for tow to the OPF about midday.

          WORK COMPLETED:
          - Demate Discovery from the external tank and lower to the trans-
          fer aisle.

          WORK SCHEDULED:
          - Removal of the external tank door hinge drive  mechanism  hous-
          ings beginning Sunday.

           STS-40/SPACELAB LIFE SCIENCES 1 - COLUMBIA (OV 102) - OPF BAY 1
                                    LAUNCH - MAY

          WORK IN PROGRESS:
          - Tests of the power reactant storage and distribution system.
          - Potable water servicing.
          -  Replacement  of the helium check valves in the main propulsion
          system.
          - Second hot oil flush of the auxiliary power units.
          - Cycles of the landing gear.
          - Auxiliary power unit functional tests.
          - Orbital maneuvering system pod functional tests.
          - Water spray boiler leak and functional test.

      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab |
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | Change is constant.
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      |

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

Date: 11 Mar 91 15:44:38 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!harrier.ukc.ac.uk![e-mail]  (S.S.Sturrock)
Subject: Re: Pioneer 11 Update - 03/01/91

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel Fischer) writes:
>scan across the solar system and take another
>shot of the kind Voyager 1 sent a year ago?
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Missed that one, anyone know how I might get a look at it, or if not, at
least tell me what it showed?

Shane Sturrock, Biol Lab.  Canterbury, Kent, Great Britain.

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

Date: 11 Mar 91 17:51:36 GMT
From: haven!cs.wvu.wvnet.edu![e-mail]  (James D Mooney)
Subject: looking for a NASA report

(I am posting this query for my 10th grade daughter):

I've been referred to a study identifying the economic benefits of NASA
technology Spinoffs for a research project I am conducting on these
benefits.  I understand that the NASA Scientific and Technical Information
Facility in Baltimore has copies of this study, and I wrote to them several
weeks ago.  I have gotten no response.  I need a copy of this study as soon
as possible, and any shortcuts you may know of in getting a hold of one
would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks.

                    Tara Mooney

--
Jim Mooney                Dept. of Stat. & Computer Science
[phone]                West Virginia University
                    Morgantown, WV 26506
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 14 Mar 91 17:46:18 GMT
From: isis!isis![e-mail]  (Glenn A. Serre)
Subject: Re: Value per pound vs. cost per pound


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:

   at the statistics of jet airplanes vs. rockets, for example fuel per pound
   of payload, structural mass per pound of fuel, maximum speed, etc., you
   will find that chemical rockets are stretched farther to the limits than

You find that chemical rockets are different from airplanes.  How are you
defining "limits"?  Yes, ELVs are designed to lower factors of safety than
airplanes, but rockets don't have too much trouble with fatigue, either.

   airplanes.  The cost of building jet airplanes has flattened out, and I
   expect the cost of building chemical rockets has or soon will do likewise,
   at similar per vehicle levels for freight ELV's, and much higher levels for
   reusable passenger vehicles.

Why?  Jet Airplanes are more complex than rockets (at least, more complex
than rockets have to be).  Many airplanes get builts at one time, rockets
are built a few at a time.

Henry wrote:
   >As a case in point, almost every launcher designer uses 3 or even 4 stages
   >to get to orbit, when Atlas did it with 1.5 over thirty years ago.  There
   >are large margins of performance available if environmental constraints
   >become serious enough to justify major redesign.

   It doesn't seem that Atlas has significantly reduced launch costs.

The point is, ELVs are not pushing their technical limits.  Your comment
seems to support the use of low-tech solutions (Like BDB) instead of high-
tech solutions (reusable vehicles).


--

--Glenn Serre
[e-mail]
--

--Glenn Serre
[e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Mar 91 11:58:47 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!gecrdvm1![e-mail]
Subject: Re: New World Profits (was Re: Space Profits

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dan Tilque) says:
>
>[e-mail] (Jack Dietz) writes:
>>
>>In article <[e-mail]> Dan Tilque writes:
>>
>>>slower rate or even halted altogether.  However, Columbus knew
>>>this and kept exploring until he had at least something valuable to
>>>show for his trip.
>>
>>This implies that Columbus was exploring what he thought was unprofitable
>>land.  In other words, he was using the money of the Spanish crown in
>>order to satisfy his desire to explore, not in the interests of the
>>royal pair.
>
>
>>Interesting.  If only our explorers could pull something like that
>>off, leading Congress on while they encourage exploitation...
>
>NASA administrators are good at something like this.  It's a required
>ability of higher level bureaucrats.
>
>---
It's the state of R&D in the US:  Bullshit about what you've "almost"
got your hands on, and get the company (or even better-the gov't)
to pay for the next "trip" (also known as next years budget). the
name of the game isn't to invent, but to spend money and write
papers.  Doesn't matter if you invent, the company usually doesn't
know what to do with it anyway!
Pete (I damn well better put a disclaimer on this one) Gipp
all opinions here are mine and do not reflect the views of any
company I work for or know of

"nobody knows anyone at all, strangers in paradise down at the mall,
everybody needs a home"....Iggy

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

Date: 11 Mar 91 18:34:41 GMT
From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Value per pound vs. cost per pound

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Glenn A. Serre) writes:
>Henry says:
>>...There may be a slight constraint to avoid major releases
>>into sensitive regions of the upper atmosphere, but I can't imagine this
>>having much impact, given that launchers climb through those regions
>>very quickly for other reasons already.
>
>Nick:
>This "coasting phase to protect the ozone" is yet another constraint that
>must be imposed on a system already strained to its technical limits.
>
>Me:
>Who mentioned a "coasting phase"?  Just don't use solid fuel boosters that
>produce Chlorine compounds, use rp1-lox, lh2-lox, or NO4-N2H2.

Actually, the possibility of a coasting phase came up in private mail, so
it's not *quite* out of left field.  There may be some concern about release
of even water vapor into sensitive regions.

Nick's problem here is that he doesn't know much about launcher design,
or he wouldn't make ridiculous statements like "already strained to its
technical limits".  Launcher designers commonly trade off performance for
reliability, ease of handling, use of existing hardware, etc.; you would
not find such tradeoffs in systems that were stretched to their limits.
As a case in point, almost every launcher designer uses 3 or even 4 stages
to get to orbit, when Atlas did it with 1.5 over thirty years ago.  There
are large margins of performance available if environmental constraints
become serious enough to justify major redesign.
--
"But this *is* the simplified version   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
for the general public."     -S. Harris |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 11 Mar 91 18:24:17 GMT
From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space shuttle design

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Blase) writes:
>... Lubkin describes the findings of William McInnis,
>a "high-level engineer at Marshall", and Ali AbuTaha, who did a separate
>investigation of the disaster...
>Any comments?

McInnis I'm not familiar with, but AbuTaha is basically a crank.  He came
up with a steady series of offbeat theories about the Challenger failure,
some of which NASA took seriously enough to check (results negative).

There is really no need to invoke new failure mechanisms and sinister
coverups.  The Rogers Commission's account of the mechanism of the disaster
stands up quite well, is amply confirmed by the camera films and data, and
pointed to real and verifiable weaknesses in the design.  By far the
simplest explanation is that it happened exactly the way they said it did.
--
"But this *is* the simplified version   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
for the general public."     -S. Harris |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 11 Mar 91 20:55:38 GMT
From: pasteur!agate!bionet!uwm.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: Names of notable women to be proposed for Venus features (Forwarded)

Looking at the surface of Venus, maybe we should save the names of prominent
women for the surfaces of comets or for specific rings in the rings of Saturn
and so on...

Phil Fraering
[e-mail]

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

Date: 14 Mar 91 04:17:43 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!kksys!wd0gol!newave![e-mail]  (John A. Weeks III)
Subject: Re: Magellan Update - 03/11/91

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Brooks) writes:
>In many articles, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>|>      The Magellan spacecraft is performing nominally...
>|>      The Galileo spacecraft health continues to be excellent....

> Is nominal != excellent, or are we simply seeing the different
> approaches to PR by different writers?  (not a flame; just curious).

I think that they used "nominal" to imply that Magellan is doing very
well considering the situation.  While Magellan has returned a ton of
great data and has shead a new light on our view of Venus, the craft
has experienced a few problems.  The location of Venus, the Sun, and
Earth have contributed to an expected onboard temperature surge.  This
has required some creative orbit work to try to balance the temperature
of the various spacecraft components.  In the process, it was discovered
that some type of temperature shield has not been working as well as
planned, which has lead to an even higher temperature.  Then there are
the sporadic computer glitches.  And one of the gyros failed just before
Magellan entered orbit around Venus.  As always, the brilliant people
at JPL and NASA have found ways to keep Magellan running while maximizing
the amount of data collected.

Keep in mind that just one or two strips of radar data from Magellan would
have been enough to make Magellan a major success considering the amount
of new information contained in those first high resolution glimpses of
Venus.

Galileo, on the other hand, has been using fuel at a lower than projected
rate.  This leaves a large enough fuel margin to make a second asteriod
fly-by.  Someone must have been paying attention to the decimal places!
And the pictures from the southern pole and far side of the Moon are
a nice bonus.  There is one nagging problem that Galileo's keepers are
watching--an AC/DC bus voltage inbalance.  While I am not an expert, it
looks like there is small leakage path somewhere between two wires.  So
far this has caused no operational problems, and Galileo continues to
perform as well as or better than expected.

-john-

--
===============================================================================
John A. Weeks III               [phone]               [e-mail]
NeWave Communications                 ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john
===============================================================================

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #276
*******************