Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_599.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-05 | 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/YcH80P:00WBw4cfE4e>;
          Wed,  5 Jun 91 02:09:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  5 Jun 91 02:09:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #599

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 599

Today's Topics:
       Re: NASA Headline News for 05/20/91 (Forwarded)
               More on Committee Action
          Re: SPACE station or NOTHING!!!!!
           Re: Existing investments and technology
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
        Re: Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?
          Re: Huh? Space Station Cancelled?
            Re: Shuttle=>Space piggyback?
           Re: Existing investments and technology
           Galileo Status for 05/15/91 (Forwarded)

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: 21 May 91 01:24:17 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ra!uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU![e-mail]  (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 05/20/91 (Forwarded)

Douglas Creel writes:
#Here are two examples of how good science and manned spaceflight are not
#mutually exclusive. Neither of these two science missions could have
#been accomplished using unmanned spacecraft.

I do not think that this is the case. While ASTRO as currently built
cannot be done without the shuttle, very similar missions COULD be
done, and almost anyone in the projects would prefer not using the
shuttle. The only real need for the shuttle in ASTRO is that the
Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope needs to be returned since the data is
recorded on 70mm Kodak IIaO film. Both WUPPE and HUT are a bit large
to be Explorer class instruments (WUPPE started out in life as an
Explorer class, but got too big for a Delta) but could be. The
proposed follow on to UIT, the Large Ultraviolet Explorer (LUX) would
have used CCD's which would have meant that no film needed to be
returned.

Thus the shuttle is not *needed* for these scientific instruments.
However, I am *VERY* happy that Astro will fly again. These three UV
instruments give unique science, and we know that they work.

By the way, the first paper of results from Astro-1 is in this weeks
Nature, by Dr. Arthur Davidson, et. al., on the non-detection of the
decay of neutrinos, from Dennis Sciama's interesting new theory. The
results basically shoot down the theory, which is sad in a way, since
the theory was one of the more interesting ones that I have heard of
for a while.


--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      [e-mail]
 UUCP:        ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

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

Date: 18 May 91 09:52:15 GMT
From: ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: More on Committee Action

Reposted from sci.physics:


WHAT'S NEW, Friday, 17 May 1991                    Washington, DC

1. HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE VOTES TO KILL SPACE STATION!
Constrained by last year's budget agreement, the allocation for
the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee was $1.3B below
the President's request for the programs it funds. Following the
recommendation of the Chair, Bob Traxler (D-MI), the Subcommittee
terminated Space Station Freedom.  Traxler pointed out that, "if
we cannot afford to fund the space station this year, there is no
way we would be able to fund it next year." Shocked space station
supporters will launch the mother-of-all floor fights to save the
program in the House--but it will be Dan Quayle directing the
troops, not Norman Schwarzkopf.  Yesterday, Quayle accused the
Democrats of "undermining the legacy of John Kennedy," but it was
not a simple party line vote.  In the Senate, the corresponding
Appropriations subcommittee, under Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), is
expected to be more sympathetic to the space station.  Testifying
before the Senate Subcommittee last week, NASA Administrator
Richard Truly emphasized NASA's devotion to science--in which
category he ranks space medicine and microgravity at the top.

2. THE CARCASS OF FREEDOM WAS USED TO FEED NSF AND SPACE SCIENCE,
as well as certain social programs.  By eliminating about $2B for
Space Station Freedom, the HUD/VA/IA Subcommittee was able to
provide full funding for NASA's space science activities, other
than microgravity and life sciences.  The Subcommittee also
recommended all but $3M of NSF's $1.963B request for research and
added $45M to the NSF request for education. The only serious
casualty was elimination of the $23M for LIGO.  The stunning vote
came as the scientific community closed ranks against Freedom (WN
3 May 91). The Council of Scientific Society Presidents, composed
of the presidents of 57 scientific societies, unanimously adopted
a statement opposing the space station.  The CSSP statement was
patterned after the APS statement (WN 25 Jan 91), but went even
further by questioning the value of a permanently manned space
station to the life sciences as well as to the physical sciences.

.....

Robert L. Park  [phone]      The American Physical Society




--
Nick Szabo                [e-mail]
"If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably
knew it already.  The more bewildered you are, the more successful
the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer

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

Date: 18 May 91 05:07:33 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: SPACE station or NOTHING!!!!!

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

>The money will go to "reduce" the national debt.  While everyone was busy
>yelling about how the space station would not meet their particular needs,
>it lost the support it needed to come into being.  You can't always get what
>you want..... so lets have nothing instead..... what a mature solution!

> I know that one vote by a committee does not kill the station, but it is in
>DEEP trouble.  Would you rather have the station or NOTHING.

>Flame away at me if you want to.  I don't care.   Its just my opinion.

Well, if we go ahead and build the station as currently conceived,
it'll just be that much harder for me to convince my professors who
do astronomy work that manned space work is worthwhile and doesn't
have to be as expensive as the latest megaproject. It'll be especially
hard, because we'll probably both be in an old age home somewhere with
oldztimers' disease. (I am an undergraduate :-)

With the astronomical pricetag for the shuttle, he doesn't believe
cheap spaceflight is possible.

--
Phil Fraering || Usenet (?):[e-mail] || YellNet: 318/365-5418
''It hardly mattered now; it was, in fact, a fine and enviable
madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is
beyond the reach of a strong left arm.`` - Larry Niven and Jerry
Pournelle, _The Mote in God's Eye_

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

Date: 19 May 91 01:54:18 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Existing investments and technology

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Raul Rockwell) writes:
>I haven't seen any postings on proposals to use existing missile
>launch vehicles as a springboard.  I've seen articles at work (one of
>the major military contractors, either Northrup or Lockheed, has
>proposed scrapping a number of their long range missiles and using
>them as launch vehicles.  Some of the people involved in the light
>launch vehicle business would rather this didn't happen because of
>economic stresses).
>
>Would any of the people in the know like to illuminate some of the
>details of this topic?

In the 1950's and 60's there was a great deal of similarity between ICBM's
and launch vehicles. They both accelerated as large a payload as possible to
a very high velocity. As a result, a good ICBM could often be converted into
an good launcher (Atlas, Delta (ne. Thor) and Titan are US examples.)
Today, however, the requirements for ICBM's and launch vehicles have
diverged. ICBM's now need to be as small as possible (to be launched from
mobile launchers), use solid (or at worst storable liquid) fuels and
in many cases have a high acceleration. Launch vehicles, on the other
hand, require low operational costs, large payloads (compaired to ICBM's)
and as a result, lean towards high energy, cryogenic fuels. As a result,
a modified, say, MX missile would be quite able to launch a payload to
orbit, but it would not be an especially good launch vehicle.

                  Frank Crary
                  UC Berkeley

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

Date: 19 May 91 00:13:49 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>Any satellite rescued by the Shuttle for return to Earth lost money.
>We are better off keeping them there. As for repair, for about 40%
>of the third year savings from an approach like this we can build the
>OMV to get satellites. Then they can be repaired in a orbital dry dock.
>This will save the taxpayers money instead of costing them money like
>we do now.
>
If returning a broken satellite to Earth for repairs "lost money" why
are insurance companies willing to PAY NASA to do this?
As for repairing a satellite on orbit, what sort of "dry dock" are you
thinking of. The facillities used on Earth to repair or modify a
satillite are quite substantian. To do the same job, you would need
an truly HUGE space station. Building and operating a station of this
size, as well as building and operating the Orbital Manuvering Vehicle
could easily cost FAR more than just throwing the satillites away when they
fail.

>Even as we speak the DoE is doing work using a Soviet military reactor.
>They bought it form them. If SDIO doesn't want to use the available
>hardware then let them build their own. They aren't worth holding up
>everybody else.
>
The DoE has bought a soviet "Topaz 2" space nuclear reactor. They did NOT
buy it for use. They plan to take it apart and see how the soviets built
it. This insight will, they hope, help them build their OWN reactor. There
are NO plans to buy soviet reactors to power operational American
satellites.

>The Titan is just for transport. Experiments get power from the space
>station. Crews go up on another Titan. If we have a HLV then both can
>go up at the same time.
>
How will the experiment module get to the station? Unless you have an
OMV (Which is worth having, but not trivial to build, fly and operate)
the experiment module will have to have its own manuvering and docking
system. This is the case for the expansion modules the soviets have
added to Mir. These systems reduce the mass of the module by about
20%. While a Titan IV can launch a Shuttle-sized payload. It cannot launch
a Shuttle-sized payload plus the hardware needed to get it to a station.
Also, from where will the module get power during the time it is
in transit to the station? This will take at least a few hours and many
payloads CANNOT be turned of in filght.

>>Sure. You're going to ask people who were put on hold for close to 3 years
>>post-Challenger to go back to the drawing board.
>
>In some cases, yep.
>
If NASA made a commitment to fly someone's experiment on the Shuttle, they
have a responsibility not to jerk him around (e.g. by forcing him to re-
design his experiment or constantly changing the launch data.)

                                Frank Crary
                UC Berkeley

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

Date: 20 May 91 03:11:25 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Lewis) writes:
>   What would [bacteria] chomp [sulfur] into?
> ...there's still going to be sulfur somewhere,
>and you have to do SOMETHING with it. I assume that most heavy compounds
>that might settle to the surface would break down eventually in the
>heat, pressure and miscellaneous chemicals.
>
While I am not a geologist, I seem to remember that sulfur is not an uncommon
component of rocks here on Earth. Venus is assumed to have about the same
ammount of sulfur as the Earth, (having formed from roughly the same
material and being roughly the same size.) As I understand it, the problem
on Venus is that most of the sulfur is in the form of gasses.

                      Frank Crary
                      UC Berkeley

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

Date: 21 May 91 00:36:10 GMT
From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa![e-mail]  (Charles Frank Radley)
Subject: Re: Huh? Space Station Cancelled?



Since you have apparently not heard the news......
  The House Appropriations Committe for HUD, VA and NASA
votedkotes to delete all funding for Space Station in the next
fiscal year.

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

Date: 18 May 91 05:02:07 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: Shuttle=>Space piggyback?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (thaddeus k blayda) writes:

>Is it possible, however to carry the SRB's and Tank together?  The
>shuttle could be set and released from a separate plane with a
>system to "catch" the SRB's and the Tank from a separate plane.

>Difficult I'll admit, but is it indeed infeasible in this day and age?

Yes. It is infeasible.

--
Phil Fraering || Usenet (?):[e-mail] || YellNet: 318/365-5418
''It hardly mattered now; it was, in fact, a fine and enviable
madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is
beyond the reach of a strong left arm.`` - Larry Niven and Jerry
Pournelle, _The Mote in God's Eye_

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

Date: 19 May 91 06:02:42 GMT
From: ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Existing investments and technology

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Raul Rockwell) writes:

>I haven't seen any postings on proposals to use existing missile
>launch vehicles as a springboard.

Lockheed has proposed using some old Polaris missiles as launch
vehicles.  Other companies are using new ICBM technology
to develop the next generation of rockets.  There are two
proposals for using MX missile technology.  The first is Taurus
from Orbitial Sciences Corp., which combines an MX first stage
with a Pegasus engine upper stage.  The first flight is scheduled for
1992.  The second proposal is from E'Prime Aerospace Corp., which is
using an MX first stage with a fuel that is safer to handle and
cheaper to manufacture.  Last I heard, they lacked financing and the
project was stalled.  It should be noted that none of these projects
are being funded by NASA.



--
Nick Szabo                [e-mail]
"If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably
knew it already.  The more bewildered you are, the more successful
the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer

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

Date: 18 May 91 06:46:43 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Galileo Status for 05/15/91 (Forwarded)


                     GALILEO MISSION STATUS
                          May 15, 1991

     The Galileo spacecraft is 49.6 million miles from Earth,
making the round-trip communication time almost 9 minutes.  Speed
in orbit is 54,526 mph; distance from the Sun is 143 million miles
or 1.54 astronomical units.  The spacecraft has travelled 919
million of its 2.4-billion-mile looping course to Jupiter.

     Galileo is in a stable cruise mode, spinning at about 2.9 rpm,
and transmitting engineering data at 1200 bits per second over the
low-gain antenna.  Spacecraft health and performance are good
except that the high-gain antenna is only partly deployed.

     This week the Galileo spacecraft team began a series of tests
to characterize this partly-open antenna.  Yesterday the spacecraft
was shifted from all-spin to dual-spin (the aft section fixed in
inertial space) and back. Celestial and gyro data may reveal a very
slight wobble, verifying that the antenna opened off-center. It
will be a very subtle effect because the antenna is light and the
spacecraft heavy.  Another test tomorrow, using radio signals, may
give more information on the antenna's shape.

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #599
*******************