Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_6/V13_675.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-20 | 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/kcM7CgC00WBwA7FU58>;
          Thu, 20 Jun 91 05:21:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 05:21:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #675

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 675

Today's Topics:
                Re: Amputation
Re: The Reasons for a Station? Was Re: Rational next station design...
         Re: Fred cut, AXAF and SIRTF funded
        Re: Female Cosmonauts (the Soviet experience)
             Re: Babies in Space
           Re: Rational next station design process
              Re: Good for the Japanese
                Re: Astrolabes
          Re: Extra Terrestrial Intelligence
         Re: Moonbase movie *Plymouth* to air Sunday?
         Re: Info on spacecraft power storage wanted

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 13:18:38 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Amputation

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Bowery) writes:

>Having heard Rep. Green speak on this issue, he will fight like hell
>to protect space science.

A Congresscritter will always say what you want to hear. Look instead at his
record and district (after all, all politics is local). Green has a very
liberal voting record and represents part of NY City and has some very poor
neighborhoods. He fought hard to get his present job because he wants to
put money into HUD and then into his district. There are very few space
scientists in his district. He will not 'fight like hell' to protect your
pet projects if he thinks he can put the money into HUD instead.

>I haven't heard as much from Traxler on this issue specifically,

Last year Traxler promised to fund Freedom if NASA flattened out the
hump in spending and kept total requests to around $2B per year with
some small growth for inflation. NASA did exactly what was asked of
them and then Traxler reneged on the deal and cancled funding. Given
that what makes you think you can trust him on anything?

BTW, Traxler's actions has produced allies for Freedom among people who
otherwise wouldn't care. In Congress promises like Traxler made are
important. They happen too often and are needed to make the system
work. It's OK to lie to constituents but not to renege on a deal. This
has made both him and the Democratic leadership look bad.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer |        Allen's tactics are too tricky to deal with      |
|   [e-mail]   |             -- Harel Barzilai                           |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 28 May 91 22:03:57 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!bridge2!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!hamlet.caltech.edu![e-mail]  (Lydick, Carl)
Subject: Re: The Reasons for a Station? Was Re: Rational next station design...

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Mark Purtill) writes...
>    But you don't have to go that far realize that your suggestion
>is ludicrous: do you think the (American) female astronauts are men in
>drag or what?  We have more experiance with women in space than the
>Soviets (and my apologies to all Lithuanian, Ukranian, etc.,
>cosmonauts for calling them Russians in my last posting).

I didn't know at the time I posted how long a female cosmonaut had been in
space.  I was hoping that somebody with that information would reply and
clarify things.  IF the Soviets had had a woman in space for an extended period
of time, my point would have been valid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick    HEPnet/NSI: SOL1::CARL    Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 May 91 02:53:25 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Fred cut, AXAF and SIRTF funded

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas C. Bruno) writes:
>...The Soviet Union had the right idea.  While America debated over
> the "usefulness" of various space projects, and slowly axed a Space Station/
> Space Truck vision down into a fleet of space shuttles, the Soviets have
> (even in "tin cans") have logged-in more long term man-hours than any other
> nation can hope to equal within the next twenty years.

More to the point, the Soviets have improved their space station design.
They have, as you suggested, learned much more about the design and
assembly of a station than NASA has from "studying" the issue. Most
of the problems faced by the Freedom design resulted from a lack of
experience. For example, for all but the last year, maintnance was NOT
an issue. There were not even standards for documenting required
maintnance. Simply knowing that this was an issue required some experience
in station design to learn.

                    Frank Crary

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

Date: 29 May 91 03:11:06 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Female Cosmonauts (the Soviet experience)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris Jones) writes:
>I've heard a lot of speculation about Tereshkova's performance during her
>flight.  Much of it seems to have been unfounded rumor, and I'd be interested
>to hear which objectives of her flight she was unable to complete.

Most of the reports of Tereshkova's illness in flight have been published in
the popular press. The most recient example was the _NOVA_ broadcasts on the
Soviet space program. A former official said on camera that Tereshkova was
quite ill during her flight. Also, Korolyov's wife, also interviewed by
_NOVA_ was quite emphatic that Korolyov's attitdue toward female cosmonauts
resulted from Tereshkova's flight. While this information is not far from
being a rumor, it is at least first hand.

>Also, whether or not Tereshkova suffered from space sickness, she would not
>have been the first Soviet cosmonaut to do so.

I refered, however, to the possibility that Tereshkova was the first to get
a sever case of SAS. As opposed to the first to suffer from it.

By the way, I do not deny that the Soviet officials may have an unfounded
bais against women. However, this bias could easily have been "confirmed"
by Tereshkova's illness.

                     Frank Crary

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

Date: 29 May 91 15:37:03 GMT
From: brunix![e-mail]  (Curtis Yarvin)
Subject: Re: Babies in Space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Carter) writes:
>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.
>
>A fetus floating in amniotic fluid is already experiencing nearly zero-G
>conditions, and has to resist no gravitational loads.

Balls.  Buoyancy is not antigravity.

When you drop a wrench in a submarine, does it fall to the deck?  Or does it
just hang there?

A baby in the amniotic sac experiences the same gravitational load as a baby
lying in a parking lot.  The difference is that, in the former case, the force
which opposes gravity is buoyancy, which is well-distributed over the body
surface and thus causes minimal stress.  The same effect could be achieved
by immobilizing the critter and placing it on an ideal contour couch.

c

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

Date: 30 May 91 15:04:39 GMT
From: eagle!venus.lerc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ronald E. Graham)
Subject: Re: Rational next station design process

In article <[e-mail]>,
     [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes...

>In article <[e-mail]> I wrote...

>>Well, there were a load of alternate designs looked into prior to signing
>>on to the original dual-keel, balanced (in terms of solar arrays), multi-
>>purpose, multi-module configuration.  [...]

>I was unaware of these configurations. How funadmentally different from
>the final (or current) design were they? Were they all, for example,
>launched and supported/supplied by the space shuttle, used long sections
>of truss structure, etc?

I don't mean to splutter on this question, but I'm just like any other
engineer around here: so much stuff in my office that I can't afford to
keep around stuff that isn't being used actively in the program.  So I
got no documentation to back me up, just memory.  My memory includes about
a dozen alternatives, some roughly similar to the dual-keel, some a lot
different.  I'm almost positive one was based on a tin-can (kind of like
the way Mir started, and you could perhaps use a Shuttle external tank as
the basis of this design - it was my personal favorite, because I think
you really have to walk prior to running ;-)), and that one was roughly
similar to those rotating wheel designs you read about in a lot of old
sci-fi shorts.  But all that is memory: if the real information exists
anywhere, it's in DC or Reston.

>> ...And, if you want detailed design studies of all
>>proposed alternative concepts, the database would be *huge*.

>While I agree that such a database would be too large to compile or
>use, this does not mean that it cannot be comprehensive. If, for example
>20 possible designs, and thier estimated preformances/costs/etc..., were
>to be considered a reasonable sized database to work with, then these 20
>designs should be as different as possible. If they are all permutations
>of the same basic concept (as for example, the "different" mission concepts
>in NASA's 90-study of manned Mars missions were,) then the full range of
>studied designs is too small for a good trade-off study.

The problem with this concept is that if the "database would be too large
to compile or use," you still can't have a "good trade-off study."  I wish
I could keep from sounding like I'm trying to evade the issue here.  Try
this: you can know something truly, without knowing it comprehensively.  I
want to believe that what happened in the Fred design selection process was
that alternative concepts were tossed out based on some fundamental flaw,
and that the dual-keel had no such flaw from an engineering point-of-view.

What bothers me about the situation is that the decision was made very
early in the program, and without comprehensive engineering input.  I
have seen Fred staff up all over the country with technical personnel at
several NASA field centers and contractor locations, and as this happens,
technical questions arise on various disciplinary fronts, as you would
expect with a complex system.  We bought into a system with this level of
complexity before we knew to what extent these questions would arise.

That doesn't mean the engineering done early wasn't any good, just that it
was trying to do too much over too short a time period.  And that is driven
by the political end.

>>...And keep in mind, although this is only my harmless
>>opinion, Lewis Research Center has gone a long way toward delivering a
>>working electrical power system for Fred: working end-to-end test beds,
>>a design selected for actuation of solar arrays, etc.  The arrays themselves
>>have been designed and re-designed, and could be built - but proximity
>>operations considerations will delay this process for some time.

>To what extent are the Lewis solar panels/power supply tied down to the
>specific design of Freedom? Would it be possible to use them, with only
>slight modifications, on totally different space systems?

As far as tieing solar arrays to Fred design goes, we have a saying around
here (and normally I hate such sayings): "if you want a station, you have
to have solar power.  If you want solar power, you have to have power
collection.  If you have power collection, you have to follow the sun."
We figure photovoltaic (PV) arrays will continue to be adopted by the Fred
program as long as there is one, whether that's a couple weeks or until
man-tended capability.  (And I work on pointing control of those bad boys,
so I'll have something to do.)  However, just like the other field centers
and like Reston, we have a management and technical support team that was
put in place for a configuration of several arrays, and you only have two
arrays for the first several mission-builds.  So there's IMPO a reorgan-
ization of this field center coming in the near future, after we are told
what's going to be what.

RG

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

Date: 30 May 91 16:33:16 GMT
From: mutei![e-mail]  (Ed Turner)
Subject: Re: Good for the Japanese

I suspect that the Japanese are upset about much more than just the money
they may have lost.  If, as claimed in the original post in this thread,
their participation in the space station project was a major component
of their space program plans, then the cancelation will imply a major
disruption of that program.  They tend to be quite fond of plans and
of sticking to them (time table and all!).

Furthermore, they are much less inclined than we (conditioned by so much
civil litigation) to see money as sufficient compensation for any and all
(non-criminal) afronts.

Ed Turner            "Itsu nukera
phoenix!elturner         soko tomo shirazu
                 oke no tsuki."
or
[e-mail]            - Mabutsu 1874

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

Date: 30 May 91 18:51:36 GMT
From: phri![e-mail]  (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: Astrolabes

[e-mail] (Doug Brownell) writes:
> I was just introduced to a reproduction of a 13th century astrolabe
> [...] Does anyone know where such marvels can be purchased for less
> than a small fortune?

    I seem to remember that Celestaire, in Witchita, Kansas has them in
their catalog.  These are quite inexpensive, and are probably of low
quality, being meant largely for demonstration or display purposes.  For
those not familiar with Celestaire, they are *the* place to buy serious
celestial navigation equipment, i.e. sextants.  Seems like the kind of
thing you might find in an Edmund Scientific catalog too.  As a last
resort, try calling a local planitarium and asking for the book or gift
shop.  I think the Hayden, here in New York, sells that kind of stuff.

    If you ask in rec.boats, I'm sure some of the navigation freaks
that hang out there (I'm one of them) will pop up with some more
information.
--
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
[e-mail] -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy
"Arcane?  Did you say arcane?  It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"

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

Date: 30 May 91 18:07:51 GMT
From: unhd.unh.edu!oz![e-mail]  (The Wiz)
Subject: Re: Extra Terrestrial Intelligence

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Anastasios Vergis) writes:
>There is yet another possibility: Any sufficiently advanced civilization
>will blow up, when experimenting with not well-understood physics
>which unleash unsuspected and catastrophic amounts of energy,
>or turn their solar system into a black hole or something ...
>This is necessarily the case if there is such a "catastrophic"
>experiment in physics which any advanced civilization is bound to conduct.
>This chilling possibility is described in "Thrice upon a time" by James Hogan,
>where the earth is consumed by "get-away" tiny orbiting black holes.)


    I think the conclusions stated here are ridiculous.  If a civilization
were capable of "creating" black holes (However unlikely) it would not likely
have all its beans in the same basket.  In other words not all of its people
would likely reside in the same solar system or planet.  I think it would be
likely that they would not do a great deal of experimenting on their home
planet.   If they were advanced enough to destroy them selves quickly and by
accident, they would most probably do research in space. Space offers many
advantages for research, the first of which would be limiting the damage
you could cause.

    Just an Opinion.

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

Date: 30 May 91 23:18:43 GMT
From: sco![e-mail]  (Dean Reece)
Subject: Re: Moonbase movie *Plymouth* to air Sunday?


[e-mail] (Yuan Liu) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (hermann) writes:
>#More technical problems:
>#
>#- an airlock door in the moonrover garage that consisted mostly of glass.
>#There is no need to put glass in an airlock door, and it complicates the
>#engineering enormously. Put a viewport in the bulkhead next to it.
>#
>Maybe they are transparent aluminum. Remember Star Trek IV?  :-)
>
>Yuan Liu
>[e-mail]

Well, I suspect that the writers decided that on the moon, glass would be
more obtainable than metals.  Is there a book this movie was made from?
If so, that may shed some light on a few design decisions.

All in all, I thought the science & effects were probably closer to
reality than most sci-fi movies I've seen (Though the Space Oddessy movies
were pretty good).  _Plymouth_ is certainly the most accurate MADE FOR
TV space movie out there.

As for acting, plot, and premise - well, um, nuff said.

[e-mail]

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

Date: 31 May 91 03:36:24 GMT
From: agate!earthquake.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Info on spacecraft power storage wanted

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Carter) writes:
>Add nickel-hydrogen batteries to the list Frank Crary
>posted.  They are widely used in some applications and
>apparently have superior characteristics for spacecraft
>purposes.
>
>I have no information on performance, but it should
>not be too difficult to find in the proper trade rags.

60 W-hr/kg, 15,000 cycles life.
(sorry I left this one out...)

                   Frank Crary

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #675
*******************