Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_7/V13_795.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-06 | 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/ocRMY2K00WBwALik5z>;
          Sat,  6 Jul 91 05:10:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat,  6 Jul 91 05:10:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #795

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 795

Today's Topics:
        Re: IGY and the dawn of the Space Age
            Unit of space sickness
             Re: Re: Re: Mars "face" data
       Re: NASA technology development vs. utilization
           Payload Status for 06/26/91 (Forwarded)
             Re: Re: Re: Mars "face" data
          Re: Democracy:  Easy Come, Easy Go

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: 24 Jun 91 18:41:22 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!convex!texsun!cronkite!newstop!exodus!concertina.Eng.Sun.COM![e-mail]  (Eolid enthusiast)
Subject: Re: IGY and the dawn of the Space Age

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>As usual you fail to note that Explorer was launched on a military rocket.
>The designed by space explorers rockets kept exploding on the pad in the
>full glare of international publicity.

Assuming that you're referring to U.S. satellite efforts around the same time
as Explorer, the one that kept blowing up on the pad was a Navy project, Vanguard.

The main difference was that Vanguard was designed from the beginning as a
satellite launcher, while Explorer's Jupiter C was derived from an artillery
rocket.  (I'd class ICBMs as artillery rockets...just *real* big ones.)

Were any civilian groups doing serious work toward launching satellites during
this period?  (Von Braun & Co. were tied closely to the Army, and NASA wasn't
in the neighborhood yet.  Hmmm...did NACA get into the game?)




--
------------
  The only drawback with morning is that it comes
    at such an inconvenient time of day.
------------

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

Date: 25 Jun 91 13:01:11 GMT
From: bu.edu!transfer!lectroid!sw.stratus.com![e-mail]  (Tarl Neustaedter)
Subject: Unit of space sickness

From the 14 June 1991 Science, page 1488, titled "Queasy Riders":

    Between 50% and 70% of astronauts suffer from the misery of "space
 sickness", which can reduce work efficiency and make them feel miserable,
 says Laurence Young, an aeronautical engineer at MIT. He plans to learn
 more about the cause of this pervasive and sometimes debilitating ailment
 on the current space shuttle flight, using the crew of the shuttle Columbia
 as subjects. Young's project is part of a larger set of biology experiments
 on the current mission, known as Spacelab Life Sciences-1.

    Space sickeness, like seasickness, starts not in the stomach but the
 inner ear, says Young. People often get an upset stomach if actual or
 apparent motion upsets the inner ear's vestibular system -- The apparatus
 that helps people sense motion and position.

    That system doesn't work well in the zero gravity of orbit, and Young's
 experiments are designed to find out why. One experiment requires subjects
 to put their heads in a rotating, spotted dome. Another looks at the
 response to an actual rotation -- the kind you feel if you spin fast in
 a swivel chair.

    Young says such experiments may lead to simple techniques to avoid the
 sensory confusion that can lead to queasiness. For example, astronauts
 already know to limit certain types of head movements.

    It will be easy to quantify the effectiveness of any space sickness
 remedy, thats to Senator Jake Garn (R-UT), who suffered a bad case of
 space sickness on his shuttle flight. "We have an official unit of motion
 sickness," explains astronaut Jeffret Hoffman. "We call it the Garn."


--
         Tarl Neustaedter    [e-mail]
         Marlboro, Mass.    Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.

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

Date: 26 Jun 91 02:30:35 GMT
From: pyramid![e-mail]  (Lon Stowell)
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Mars "face" data

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Farrell) writes:
>. . . because inquiring minds want to know . . .

I have the files converted to .gif and .xbm format if you can
figure out how to get them from me to you...

I think the "monkey with goiter" about sums it up....but I will
bet there was a LOT of comments when the images first came
in....

I've tried screwing around with the gamma with xv and can't
really get too much additional dark detail to "de-face" the
image...but the more you play with the lights the more it looks
like a face.

The big giveaway to me is the shadow....it would seem to
indicate a rather pronounced schnozz or just an ordinary hill
with a pointy outline.

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

Date: 26 Jun 91 16:58:36 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NASA technology development vs. utilization

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J. Porter Clark) writes:
>In this newsgroup the following opinions are often expressed:
>
>  (1) NASA should develop new technology; spinoffs are part of its
>      reason for being.
>
>  (2) NASA should use off-the-shelf technology and existing industry
>      and government standards as much as possible to reduce costs.
>
>I find it difficult to reconcile these opinions...

That's because you're confusing two fundamentally different aspects of
NASA activity:  objectives and tools.  NASA is supposed to be developing
new technology.  However, in areas where technology development is *not*
the objective of the exercise, gratuitously avoiding existing technology
runs up the price tag and runs down the reliability to no good purpose.

The two are not sharply distinct.  For example, the X-29 was built to
explore forward-swept composite wings, a new technology, but it used as
many off-the-shelf parts as possible.  There is no conflict here; the
objective was FSCW technology, and any attempt to develop, say, a new
engine at the same time would have been unnecessary and counterproductive.

The problem comes when NASA tries to do a project whose objective is *not*
technology development, but sells it on the grounds of how much it will
advance technology.  This is asking for trouble.  The combination of the
good old pork barrel and the obsession with new technology makes NASA
very ill-suited to building systems that are supposed to serve operational
functions.  Unfortunately, such systems -- manned and unmanned -- tend to
eat most of NASA's space budget these days, and technology R&D goes begging.
(The aeronautical side of NASA gets this right, but tends to be the poor
stepchild at budget time.)

How to sort the mess out?  I think the only way is to remove some of the
conflicts of interest.  Operational facilities -- things like launchers and
space stations -- should not be designed or built by NASA.  I think there
is a good case for government support of such projects, but as an "anchor
tenant" or market guarantor (via something like the Kelly Act) rather than
as the prime mover.  Relatively routine missions doing things like remote
sensing and astronomy, whether in our own backyard or elsewhere in the solar
system, should be funded through NSF.  NASA should focus on technology
development -- which means building prototypes and test-flying them, mind
you, not just writing papers about it -- and avoid anything resembling
routine operations, be it of a space station or of a Jupiter orbiter.

>... In general, a single program, even a big one like SSF, will
>balk at developing new techology in what it considers to be a "support"
>area....

Oh really?  The 20kHz power system.  The electrolysis fuel system.  All
the robotics, automation, and AI nonsense.  Need I go on?  Fred, especially
as originally conceived, positively gloried in developing new technology
anywhere and everywhere.  The shuttle was the same way.  Good for the
technology -- we now know that staged-combustion engines are more trouble
than they're worth, for example, although the Japanese don't seem to have
caught on yet -- but bad for operational systems.

>I don't see much co-operation between programs to co-develop
>this type of equipment either.

No mystery there; nobody wants to be the first guinea pig for a system they
don't have full control over.  What is needed is not co-operation, but an
effort specifically directed at developing and testing this stuff *without*
tying it to (i.e. funding it from) a specific operational mission.
--
"We're thinking about upgrading from    | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5."              |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 26 Jun 91 19:50:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 06/26/91 (Forwarded)


                              PAYLOAD TEST AND ACTIVITY SHEET
                              KENNEDY SPACE CENTER
                              UARS STS-48/DISCOVERY

                              6/26/91

          George H. Diller
          407/867-2468
          FTS 823-2468

          Upcoming Activity          * denotes change since last schedule

          Solar array dark testing 6/26 *
          UASE Interface Test  6/26 - 6/27
          ISAMS testing 6/27-6/28 *
          Remove ISAMS for repair 6/29 *
          Remove PEM Detector for repair 6/29 *
          POCC Test   6/27 - 29 *
          Reinstall flight SPRU  6/30 *
          Second CLAES Recool 7/1 - 7/4 *
          All Systems Test (health check) 7/1 *
          Reinstall PEM Detector 7/2 *
          Reinstall ISAMS 7/5 *
          Start spacecraft final checks  7/8
          Crew Equipment Interface Test (CEIT)  7/8 *
          Payload thermal closeouts  7/8 - 7/12
          Cleanliness Inspection  7/16
          Install into payload canister 7/18 - 7/19
          Move to VAB  7/22
          Rotate Canister to Vertical 7/23


          Move to VPF 7/24
          Install in test cell 7/24
          Establish CITE connections 7/29
          UARS Interace Verification Test (IVT) 7/30-31
          UARS End-to-End Test (ETE)  8/2
          UARS State of Health check 8/5
          Flight Battery Reconditioning 8/6-8/8
          UARS Closeouts and cleanliness inspection  8/9
          Install in Payload Canister 8/12


          Transport to Pad A  8/13
          Install in Discovery  8/17
          Establish UARS electrical connections with UASE 8/18-8/20
          CLAES Recool 8/18
          UARS/Discovery IVT 8/21
          UARS End to End (ETE) Test 8/26
          UARS Launch Readiness Test 8/27
          Flight Battery Reconditioning 8/28-9/1
          Close payload bay doors 9/10


          Activity Completed

          Instrument Module arrived PHSF  5/13
          Install Instrument Module into test fixture  5/14
          Remove Zenith Energetic Particle System (ZEPS) for rework  5/18
          Initial Power-up  5/21
          Install Solar Stellar Pointing Platform (SSPP)  5/21
          Attitude Control System (ACS) test complete  5/22
          Install High Gain Antenna  5/22
          CLAES first recool complete  5/29
          UARS Airborne Support Equipment (UASE) arrival at PHSF  6/1
          Conclude battery "wake-up" cycle #1  6/3
          UARS Airborne Support Equipment Receiving Inspection complete 6/4
          Spacecraft Hydrazine Fueling  6/5
          Fuel tank pressurization  6/6
          Zenith Energetic Particle System (ZEPS) reassembly completed 6/10
          Installed ISAMS Scan Mirror  6/10
          Installed ZEPS  6/11
          Flight Batteries installed  6/11
          Zenith Energetic Particle System (ZEPS) reinstalled  6/11
          Standard Power Regulator Unit (SPRU) temporary changeout 6/12
          Modular Power System (MPS) reinstalled  6/12
          Flight Batteries charged  6/12
          MACS Sunshade Installation completed  6/15
          UARS Airborne Support Equipment Standalone testing completed 6/15
          Mate MMS to Instrument Module 6/17
          UASE mechanical operations completed 6/21
          UASE contingency EVA tool fit checks 6/25
          High Gain boom gimbal check and antenna dish installation 6/20
          High Gain Antenna POCC Test 6/21
          Baseline Testing (partial functional) completed 6/25



          Undefined Payload Acronymns

          CLAES  Cryogenic Limb Array Etalon Spectrometer
          ISAMS  Improved Stratospheric and Mesopheric Sounder
          MMS    Multimission Modular Spacecraft
          MACS   Modular Attitude Control Subsystem
          PEM    Particle Environment Monitor

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

Date: 26 Jun 91 11:58:46 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!buster!brain![e-mail]  (Chuck Shotton)
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Mars "face" data


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Greg Farrell) writes:
> > Yes, the image data has been revewied by many experts from both the public
> > and private sector, and after many hours of painstaking analysis they have
> > come to the same conclusion.  However, the results are so startling that
> > they have tried to keep it quiet lest the populace be seized by panic.
>
>
> Please advise who these experts are and what are your references.  We'd
> like to know.   Thank you in advance.
>

It appears that you deleted a crucial (punch) line from your quote of the
original message. The line read "It's Elvis!" The experts are the editors
of the National Enquirer.

Get a copy of the original image data that was posted here a few weeks ago.
In its UNRETOUCHED form, the image looks more like a half-buried Volkswagon
with its headlights knocked out than a human face. My theory is that Martians
are actually a giant race, and we've merely photographed one of their junkyards.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Shotton                 Internet:  [e-mail]
BIAP Systems                  UUCP:      ...!buster!brain!chuck
"Your silly quote here."      AppleLink: D1683       MacNet: shotton

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 08:05:29 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: crash![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Democracy:  Easy Come, Easy Go

Matthew DeLuca writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark
Ricci - CATS) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>>>If you want to lobby, fine, but you have to do it
>>>on your own money.  NASA has to use its own money...
>
>>Gee Matt, whose money do you think NASA's is?
>
>NASA's money is NASA's money.
>
>I've been trying to make a fairly subtle point that people aren't picking
>up on: NASA is not the government.

NASA is an agency within the executive branch of the federal government.
It's employees are civil servants.  Its administrator is a political
appointee.  They are paid directly from the federal treasury.  The only
control on their performance is via Congress, the Executive and/or
the Judiciary.  There is no private-sector ownership of its assets or
board of directors elected by stockholders.  All of its assets are
counted as assets of the U.S. Government by the Comptroller General.

NASA is, indeed, part of the government.

As a part of the executive branch, NASA has appropriate input to the
processes of government via the mechanisms within that branch.  Beyond
this, Congress invites NASA employees to testify in hearings from time-
to-time.  They don't need to misappropriate public funds to initiate
political action in Congress:  our main route of input to our government.

The fact that this kind of thing is happening almost daily without
anyone being punished indicates the mechanisms that protect democracy
have broken down.  The positive feedback system created by this self-
serving political action by NASA represents a threat to democracy.

As I write this, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is on C-SPAN speaking on the
House floor about how the "future of the young people sitting in the
gallery is being overwhelmed with red-ink".  Since we're borrowing
money in the name of those young people to pay NASA civil servants and their
contractors to lobby for more money -- money Rohrabacher himself
voted to appropriate -- how can any reasonable and concerned citizen
doubt that our society is threatened by this kind of political action?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      619/295-3164               The Coalition for
PO Box 1981                                   Science and
La Jolla, CA 92038                             Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #795
*******************