Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_6/V13_669.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-20 | 12KB

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/QcM4Gy200WBwM6YE5y>;
          Thu, 20 Jun 91 02:01:34 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 02:01:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #669

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 669

Today's Topics:
                  Re: SR-71
                 Baja
      Re: Fred vs. Exploration: head-to-head competition
           Re: Rational next station design process
              Re: The Long Term
             Re: Babies in Space
               Antenna testing
         Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures

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: 28 May 91 21:36:26 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: SR-71

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

>In article <[e-mail]!n5abi>, lobster.hou.tx.us!n5abi!gak (Gene A. Kennedy) writes:

>>  The June issue of Popular Mechanics includes an article on the SR-71 and
>> mentions that NASA is putting three back in service for research. Does
>> anyone know where they will operate from? I would guess Edwards but the
>> article never says.

>At least one is at Edwards, and was operational when I saw it, even though
>the plane had been officially "retired". A second SR-71 is supposedly
>going to be used to help monitor the ozone hole over antartica. In both
>cases, the aircrafts value lies in its extreme altitude.

Uh, I guess I can comment some on these aircraft.  One is about 40
feet (about 1 wing span) from where I am typing this in our hangar
here at _DRYDEN_ Flight Research Facility, located on Edwards Air
Force Base.  A second one is located about 1/4 mile away in another
hangar.  The third one is located at Palmdale, currently.  NASA is/was
negotiating for a 4th airframe, the twin cockpit trainer as well.

And just because the Air Force `retires' an aircraft has little to no
bearing on what NASA flys (note that we still have operational F-104s,
long gone from the Air Force inventory).  The photo in Pop Mechanics
shows 4 people (2 crews) who are ready to fly as the funds become
available, Rodgers Smith and Steve Ishmael are the pilots and Marta
Bohn-Meyer and Bob Meyer are the flight test engineers (Bob is my
supervisor).

Just my $0.02...

--
`In the changing of the times, they were like autumn lightning, a thing out of
season, an empty promise of rain that would fall unheeded on fields already
bare.'                                 -Abe Shosaburo

Albion Hideto Bowers
ARA #3239   MCI #91-5896   DIOC #5937   DOD #900   PSIA #137
Ducati owner/enthusiast/apologist  Sandan Muso Shinden Ryu Iaido
[e-mail]   ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!bowers

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

Date: 28 May 91 21:28:56 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (HENEY,PAUL JOSEPH)
Subject: Baja

I've noticed that there's a lot of interest as of late in the upcoming
total solar eclipse and Baja in general.

I have put together a short (26 pages) booklet which I've sent all
over the world, called Baja 1991.  It deals with why this eclipse is
so special and why it's being called THE BIG ONE.  It isn't
incredibly technical, but it does explain everything from how eclipses
occur to effects like shadow bands.  I've been told that it's especially
helpful in convincing non-astronomer spouses to tag along.

Lately, I've been getting a lot of orders, and it occurred to me that
readers of these newsgroups might be interested.  If you would like
a copy, send $6 ($8 foriegn) to:

     Paul J. Heney
     312 Lisa Ann Drive
     Huron, Ohio  44839

This does include postage.  Hope to see all of you in Baja!


Clear skies! (let's hope...)


-Paul


--
HENEY,PAUL JOSEPH
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt6180a
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 May 91 00:39:23 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: Fred vs. Exploration: head-to-head competition

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

\The study of comets, their fragments, and earth-crossing meteoroids
/can be justified in the interest of national security, at the very
\least. I don't see any private groups, for-profit or not, rushing
/out to do this.

Uh, they seem to be doing at least as much of it as the federal
gubbimint is. One of the major search programs is heavily supported
by the Space Studies Institute, although there is some gov funding
too. The Spacewatch telescope which does the research was, I believe,
built with funds contributed by private groups. The upgrade will
possibly be funded by a university association which gets as much money
from alumni as from the state.

Note that the Spacewatch telescope is the only scope dedicated to
studying asteroids. SSI is one of the only groups, public or private,
that I know of that actively pursues asteroid data.

Besides, with a lot of the 'big science' astronomy stuff that the
government tends to do, a lot of the Solar System/asteroid data is
given ultra low priority or sometimes 'filtered out' from general
sky surveys.

Phil Fraering || Usenet (?):[e-mail] || YellNet: 318/365-5418
Standard disclaimer, whatever a disclaimer is, applies.
''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: 29 May 91 01:25:57 GMT
From: celit![e-mail]  (Dave Smith)
Subject: Re: Rational next station design process

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Janow) writes:
>I don't think anyone is denying that some research can't be done without a
>long-term manned facility.   [ ... ]
>Could it possibly wait until space engineering can provide better
>facilities for less cost?

How is space engineering going to get any better unless we do some?  Computer
simulation is not enough, we all know this.  Neither is building small
unmanned probes.  Have you any proposals for doing space engineering without
building a station?

--
David L. Smith
FPS Computing, San Diego        ucsd!celit!dave or [e-mail]
"It was time to stop playing games.  It was time to put on funny hats and
eat ice cream.  Froggie played his oboe" - Richard Scarry

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

Date: 29 May 91 14:05:52 GMT
From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!watyew![e-mail]  (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: The Long Term

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin S. Van Horn) writes:
>>>>One year is long term? ...
>>>Well, in the US it is...
>>Give me a break.  I'm always hearing about how American business doesn't look
>>past the next quarter's profits.  But what do you call it when a group of
>>venture capitalists finances a startup (like the one I'm working for -- MasPar)
>>with the expectation that they'll have to wait maybe five years to see a
>>return on their money?
>
>Medium term at best.  Ask the Japanese.

    Or ask Holland. They planted a large number of hardwood trees to
make ships out of (The English had had a negative effect on the number of
ships in the Dutch fleet). Hardwood trees take a *long* time to mature;
the ones I am thinking of were ready for harvesting in the 1960s, I think. Now,
granted that ship technology had changed enough that the trees were not useful
for their original purpose (A danger in very long term planning), wood is
still a valuable commodity.

                                James Nicoll

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

Date: 29 May 91 15:16:25 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!ox.com!fmsrl7![e-mail]  (Ron Carter)
Subject: Re: Babies in Space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>    Growing children would probably be seriously damaged by improper
>bone formation due to the zero-G effects.

If you are talking about babies and toddlers, you may very well
be right.  You'd probably want your living quarters in a centrifuge
anyway.  But if you are talking about foeti, I bet you are wrong.

In adults, bones demineralize and weaken when they are not stressed.
Bed rest is a good way to study this phenomenon.  A fetus floating
in amniotic fluid is already experiencing nearly zero-G conditions,
and has to resist no gravitational loads.  Bone mineralization in
the foetus must be driven by other mechanisms than stress.

Which brings up an interesting point:  what is it that causes
foetal bones to mineralize?  Studying the changes in gene expression
and enzyme/protein production in osteocytes in maturing animals in
zero G may well give us breakthrough discoveries which will allow
us to treat diseases such as post-menopausal bone loss in women
and other difficult bone disorders.

[Cross-posted to sci.med.  Please direct followups correctly.]

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

Date: 28 May 91 11:51:38 GMT
From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink![e-mail]  (Bruce Dunn)
Subject: Antenna testing


     Difficulty in unfurling antennas (and solar panels) seems to be one of the
major causes of satellite and spacecraft failures (Galileo, newly launched
Anik, nearly Gamma Ray Observatory).  Presumably, unfurling is difficult to
simulate on the ground.  Is there any particular reason that the shuttle hasn't
been used as a routine test bed for unfurling mechanisms?  The only test I can
remember was a test of a large stowable solar array, several years ago now.
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 May 91 21:01:40 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures

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

>If we want to increase the lifetime, assuming your comment about it being
>fuel-limited is correct, the best way is to launch more fuel in the first
>place,

If you can Nick. Most do put in as much as they can. The designers are
however limited by the total weight of the satellite, center of gravity,
shape of the fairing, and other constraints.

>rather than adding heavy, complex, and error-prone refueling equipment.

We don't know how heavy and error prone it will be. Field replaceable
components also add weight, complexity, and error to satellites yet
Solar Max got several additional years of life because of them.

It depends on the numbers. With a good OMV it could well be practical
to do refueling at some fuel depot in LEO.

   Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer |   DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten.         |
|   [e-mail]   |                                                         |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #669
*******************