Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_0/V15NO067.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Tue,  4 Aug 92 05:06:21
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #067
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue,  4 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 067

Today's Topics:
           Bono's Politics (was Re: Clinton Space Position)
          Energiya's role in Space Station assembly (2 msgs)
                            Galileo issues
                                 NASP
                        Soyuz as ACRV (9 msgs)
                       SPS and light pollution
                                 SSF
             Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 92 22:46:38 GMT
From: steve hix <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bono's Politics (was Re: Clinton Space Position)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:
>>     I went to the U2 concert in Albany NY a few months ago, and while
>> their, the lead singer, Bono made the following comment:
>
>Speaking of politics, I have heard that Bono is now running for
>Senator in California...

Ummm,,,wrong Bono.

The one in California is (was?) Sonny. 8}





--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 22:18:03 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assembly
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Dumoulin) writes:
>>  Besides, how would you propose something as large as the Energiya would
>>  get shipped out of Baikonur.  The US ships its External Tank by barge
>>  fromMichoHow would an Energiya get here?

>The same way it's shipped to Baikonur now:  by air.  This is what the
>Antonov Mriya was built for...

Unless I am mis-remembering, the range of the transport craft loaded down
with an Energia core is something under a thousand miles.  Unless they
have in-flight refuelling for the thing, which I doubt, you're going to
have to cross Siberia, Alaska, and Canada to get that thing to the U.S.
I wouldn't want to fly something like that on that route.
--
Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."
Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]              _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 22:43:27 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assembly
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>Unless I am mis-remembering, the range of the transport craft loaded down
>with an Energia core is something under a thousand miles.  Unless they
>have in-flight refuelling for the thing, which I doubt, you're going to
>have to cross Siberia, Alaska, and Canada to get that thing to the U.S.
>I wouldn't want to fly something like that on that route.

So contract the Russians to do it, payment on successful delivery only.
They aren't as timid about flying space hardware through weather, as
witness them bringing the Buran orbiter into Paris through a rainstorm.

Besides, they'd probably have the thing fitted for refuelling (if it
isn't so fitted already -- strikes me as useful enough to be worth it)
before we finished haggling over the price.  That isn't a big deal.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 06:13:40 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo issues
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>
>I would like to explore some possible means of capturing the Galileo
>data by using an inexpensive spacecraft as a relay  station, and hope
>that one of these may prove useful.
>
>1)      Use of Soviet hardware.

I don't think the Soviets are in a position politically or econimically to
be able provide a launch vehicle in time for Galileo by 1995.  They have
offered the use of their 70 meter antennas to be arrayed with the Deep
Space Network's antennas.

>2.      A Discover-class spacecraft.

At one point there was discussion to send a modified satellite out the Jupiter
to be used as a relay satellite.  However, since 70% of the mission can still
be accomplished using the Low Gain Antenna, this idea has pretty much been
dropped through the cracks.

>3.      Use of Cassini. During the early 2000's, the Cassini spacecraft will
>use Jupiter as a slingshot to reach its intended target of Saturn.

Cassini isn't due to flyby Jupiter until December 30, 2000.  Galileo will
likely be not operational by then, its orbital mission around Jupiter
runs from 1995 to 1997.  It is true that some spacecraft have lived
well beyond their designed lifetimes, but Galileo will be in a particularly
harsh environment in Jupiter's radiation belt.  Also, a Cassini flyby is too
short of a duration to be used as an effective relay.

>4.      Use of Ulysses. This spacecraft is presently in an orbit that takes
>it out of the ecliptic, and over the poles of the Sun. Its orbit does
>intercept the ecliptic, at the distance of Jupiter. Can Ulysses' orbit
>be modified so that the next time it reaches its maximum distance from the
>Sun at the ecliptic that Jupiter is nearby, and thus Ulysses serve as a
>relay station?
>

Ulysses will come somewhat close to Jupiter in 2004.  Same arguments as with
Cassini plus it is not known what Ulysses' operational status will be in 2004,
which is 9 years past its primary mission.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | You can't hide broccoli in
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | a glass of milk -
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | anonymous 7-year old.

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 00:37:20 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASP
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (John A. Weeks III)
-Subject: Random Notes (Was Re: NASP, NLS, SSTO, etc.)
-Date: 1 Aug 92 02:13:04 GMT
-Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

-While driving into the parking lot at the USAF Museum in Dayton on Monday,
-I saw an X-30 mock-up departing Wright-Patterson AFB on the back of a
-semi-truck.  It was painted white and blue with red trim.  Since the plane
-was about 40 feet long, I suspect that it was a 1/3 scale mock-up.

They were showing off a small model of NASP on NASA Select last week.
(It's about a foot long.) In this model, the engines are on the bottom,
with their fronts a little more than half of the way back. The last 1/4 or
so of the bottom is a flat open area, where much of the combustion actually
takes place. (So the "engines" are perhaps more accurately described as
airscoops/mixers/ignitors.)

This would appear to be consistent with the posts in recent months on
scramjet technology. The promotional computer-animated video shown
periodically on NASA Select still shows the engine outlets right at the
back of the aircraft.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 21:53:23 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

Article-I.D.: rigel.SHAFER.92Aug3145317
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: Usenet news <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Lines: 32
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 3 Aug 92 20:00:27 GMT
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

On 3 Aug 92 20:00:27 GMT, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) said:

AWS> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>How do you figure that? The money needed to build know-how and all that
>>is being spent flying Shuttle. That's the problem.

>No, we're getting the knowhow *from* the Shuttle...we've learned more about
>high-speed aerodynamics alone, just as an example, from the Shuttle than
>we've learned in 20 years before that.

I'm not sure I'd go that far.  We learned a lot, but we knew a lot
well before we started.  The X-15, Reentry F, the Sandia vehicles: all
these were a pretty good base to build on.

See Iliff and Shafer, "Space Shuttle Hypersonic Flight Research and
the Comparison to Ground Test Facilities (Invited)", AIAA 92-3988,
which was presented at the AIAA Ground Test Conference in Nashville,
TN, last month.  Actually, read the papers listed in the references.

AWS> At what cost? Sacrificing everything to high-speed aerodynamics just
AWS> isn't a good idea.

I don't know why you say this.  It sounds like a _great_ idea to me.

Mary Shafer
Dryden Hypersonic Aircraft Group

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 21:58:17 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>I don't think you can fit any usable cargo in a three-man capsule.

>So if you don't put men in them, what do you have room for? I'd say that you'd
>have at least the weight for oh 200lbs/person x 3 people = 600lbs of cargo.
>Strip or fold the seats out...c'mon, you make it sound like it's SOOO
>difficult.

This is the ACRV, remember?  Don't you think the people who are taking
the thing down would like to have seats to ride in?
--
Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."
Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]              _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 22:16:14 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>Let's compromise. I'll earmark a third of my savings to NASP. That will
>be enough to build a NASP vehicle which will provide far better data on
>high speed flight.

When did you get to do the earmarking?  That's Congress that gets to do that,
and they certainly don't look at money in the same way.

>>>1. HLV flights   $400M  (2 flights/year each carries a Soyuz and supplies)

>>Since the HLV doesn't exist, this number is pretty meaningless.

>On the contrary. 95% of this HLV can be bought off the shelf today. The 5%
>that doesn't exist are basically chunks of metal. This is a very conservative
>design with a saftey factor of two done by a company with a good track
>record at building launchers.

Odd, I seem to recall just the other day that the Delta-deraived HLV design
(is that the one we are talking about here?  I've lost track of the code
names) transfers fuel about in response to engine failure.  Please don't
tell me that you think in-flight fuel transfer among boosters is just 'chunks
of metal'.

>There is some risk associated with this number but it cannot reasonably
>be called meaningless. Besides, the builder is willing to take on all
>risk, all we need do is buy transport services.

As we've seen recently with the DoD bailing McDonnell-Douglas out, these
assumptions of risk aren't quite all they seem.

Besides, the normal pork-barreling will assure that no matter what, we'll
buy stuff from them anyway.

>If it works, we save billions, if it fails, we loose nothing. What's
>your problem?

My problem is that this is the real world, and it doesn't quite work that
way.

>>>3. Cargo Return  $100M  (WAG, stick some Shuttle tiles on a canister and

>>Uh-huh...tether it down?  What are you attaching your tether to?

>Space Station Freedon.

<clunk>

There went your microgravity work.

Not to mention, of course, that we heven't even begun to consider using
tethers to move payload about.  You can't just pull technologies out of
the air and use them on cost analyses.

>>Who puts the thing in the canister?

>what thing?

Whatever you are trying to return to Earth.

>>You need to put a bit more thought into this one.

>No, all I need to assert is that the problem can be solved for less
>than $3 billion a year. If it can, then we save money.

Up above you asserted it can be done for $100 million, including startup
costs and everything.  You are clearly incorrect.

>Development costs are included for everything. This also includes the
>interest on the bonds issued to fund development.

Wow...a whole new return system using tethers and everything, for only
$100 million?  Are we using the same dollars here?

>>Man-in-a-can is no replacement for the
>>Shuttle, no matter how much money you might save,

>Why?

Because it is a step backwards in both technology and capability.
--
Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."
Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]              _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 22:23:43 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>Uh-huh.  You get what you pay for.  Using your scheme, we have zero
>>independent science capacity, zero cargo return capacity, and zero technological
>>advancement.  We're trying to move forward, and you're wanting us to return
>>to the 60's in the name of the almighty dollar.

>Taking thirty years to admit you made a mistake is indeed deplorable, but
>continuing to refuse to admit it is worse.

Huh?

I'm not saying that the Shuttle is the end-all and be-all of space
transportation, but it's hardly a mistake.  Say what you will, the
shuttle has capability equalled by no other behicle in the world.  I
just don't see using Soyuz capsules as an alternative.

>Trying to do muchos technological advancement on a vehicle that is also
>supposed to provide an operational service is a massive mistake, as any
>airliner company could tell you.

It depends on your definition of 'operational service'.  After Challenger
they dropped a lot of the operational service aspects from the system,
and it's a lot more of a science and research vehicle.

>Ballistic capsules for cargo return are well-understood technology which
>NASA is now trying to revive, because the shuttle is unsuited to many of
>the cargo-return missions the customers want to fly.

But it's better suited to many more.  I'd like to see Hubble come back in
a canister...

>Why exactly is "independent science capability" important?  Do remember
>that Spacelab, which is a large piece of the shuttle's science capability,
>was built in Europe.

I was referring to independent in the sense that we will have science
capability independent of the space station.  Using capsules, it's the
station or nothing.  I wasn't considering the procurement of the Spacelab
module.

>>Instead of incurring the massive startup costs and incompatibilities of
>>using Soyuz, why not wait the years or two extra and go for Delta Clipper,
>>and keep moving forward?

>Why not do both?  DC, for all its importance, is still a slightly iffy
>project... and it won't yield an *operational* spacecraft for a few years
>yet even if it works perfectly.

I agree that it's not a sure bet, but by the time we can get a Soyuz system
up and running, it'll be well into the second-level prototyping stage, and
we should be able to predict with some assurance whether or not it will
generate something usable.  Going through the expense and hassle of setting
up Soyuz just to toss it away a couple of years later is silly.

--
Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."
Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]              _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 22:30:37 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>I'm not as sold on the whole idea as Allen is, but claiming that the
>shuttle is too good to replace is not a viable counterargument.

I'm not saying that.  Show me a proposal that has a capability similar to
the shuttle, and I'll go for it.  If capsules were so wonderful to begin
with, we would never have built the shuttle.

>>You are making the fatal mistake of tossing out a current technology for
>>one that doesn't exist yet...

>I didn't see Allen saying that.

I see Allen using the savings from canning the shuttle to build his pipe
dreams.  Since you can only get savings by stopping the program, this
implies that the shuttle is stopped and *then* development on his stuff
starts.

If it doesn't work, of course, we're back to 1976 with no manned space
capability.

>>... Man-in-a-can is no replacement for the
>>Shuttle, no matter how much money you might save...

>Name one spaceflight function the shuttle can do that it can't.  (High-speed
>airflight research is not spaceflight.)

I'd like to see a Soyuz:

(a)  Stay up for two weeks for large-scale biomedical studies.

(b)  Put a crew of three outside to mate a new booster to a communications
     satellite.

(c)  Deploy and retrieve a tethered satellite.

(d)  Retrieve and return a long-duration exposure facility.

That's four things that the Shuttle has done (or will be doing) on just
its last three missions.


>>... When we have a functional
>>replacement for the shuttle, then we can talk.

>If you insist on seeing one but won't allow attempts to build one, that
>talk may have to wait a long time...

Like I demonstrated above, going back thirty years in time is no replacement.
--
Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."
Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]              _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 22:57:35 GMT
From: Greg Hennessy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew
DeLuca) writes:
#But it's better suited to many more.  I'd like to see Hubble come back in
#a canister...

Red herring. HST isn't coming back on the shuttle either.

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

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 23:34:40 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew
>DeLuca) writes:

>#But it's better suited to many more.  I'd like to see Hubble come back in
>#a canister...

>Red herring. HST isn't coming back on the shuttle either.

It's an example.  Replace it with any complex and delicate piece of orbital
equipment that we might want to retrieve.
--
Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."
Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]              _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 23:46:06 GMT
From: Mark Littlefield <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
|>
|> >It's not the flight certification that is the problem.  There are
|> >several issues that NASA must address before Soyuz can be used as am
|> >ACRV.  First it must be adjusted for long term deployment on orbit.
|> >As it currenly stands, Soyuz has an on-orbit life span of about 90
|> >days (if memory serves) due to battery constraints.  This is clearly
|> >not enough for an ACRV.
|>
|> Sure it is. We just do what the Russians do and use it as crew transport
|> as well.
|>

No problem, if that's all you need.  Are you willing to expend the
logistics modules that would be brought up and down with a crew rotation?

|> >Also, Soyuz will need to be certified for a
|> >possible water landing.  We do not have areas like the steppes of Asia
|> >to land in like the Russians.
|>
|> Soyuz can stay in orbit for days if needed. All the crew need do is
|> evacuate to Soyuz and wait until they can land on land.
|>

Again, no problem on the surface.  Although Soyuz has never had to
land in water, it has missed it's target area by hundreds of miles on
more than one occasion.  We simply do not have the land mass to
support that sort of system and at +- 28.5 degrees, there is not a lot
to look for in a land landing except maby the sahara or the indian
subcontinent.

|> >Finally, four people simply cannot fit in the Soyuz (three is a VERY
|> >tight squeeze, I understand).
|>
|> since we will use it for crew rotation we will launch two at a time.
|>

See note below.

|> >If we deploy two, there is a problem of where to put the
|> >second.  There are only so many docking ports on Freedom and most are
|> >already accounted for (cupola, hyperbaric airlock, logistics
|> >modules, etc).
|>
|> So we add another one. Multiple Soyuz is actually an advantage. First of
|> all, it prevents single point failure. Suppose the module which connects
|> to the ACRV is on fire and needs to be quickly closed down or is suffers
|> major structural failure. The way it is now, the crew would have no way
|> out. With two Soyuz, they could all pile into one, maneuver to the other
|> and do an EVA to transfer the extra crew.

Serious problems here.  Again, there's just so many docking ports and
as of a couple of months ago (the last time I saw a mission build
plan) there just isn't an available outward facing port that can be
used.

Your point about the single point failure is well taken, however, four
crewmembers simply cannot fit inside a Soyuz return module.  Even if
they could squeeze in for a few minutes, there would be no way to
transfer to the other module as there is no airlock on the Soyuz and
you certainly couldn't fit four suited crew members inside a Soyuz.  A
natural response would be "Why don't you just EVA out of Freedom's
airlock and traverse over to the second Soyuz then?"  Again, not
possible.  The current EMU requires a substantial pre-breath before an
EVA can be attempted.  Not a satisfactory way to quickly evacuate the
station.

|>
|> Soyuz is also better if there is a medical emergency. With ACRV the entire
|> station would be evacuated just because one guy got sick. Maintenance tasks
|> wouldn't get done and time lost. With Soyuz, you just pack the sick/injured
|> person and ship him back.
|>

This might be possible, but it is unlikely that any real work could be
done with a two person crew (note that one non-incapacitated
crewmember would need to return with the injured crewmember, if not to
pilot the vehicle, then to be on hand to help in the recovery).

All in all, I believe that the Soyuz could make a satifactory ACRV,
given sufficent modification to meet the needs of the mission.  It
certainly isn't a trivial task to just "put it on an atlas and let go"
like some here are suggesting.

One other thing that hasn't been addressed here is that a universal
docking adapter will have to be designed.  Currently NASA is looking
into using the Russian "androgynos (sp??)" docking adapter on Freedom.
That may be a possible solution to this problem.


|>   Allen
|>
|> --
|> +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|> | Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|> |  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
|> +----------------------263 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

mark,

--
=====================================================================
Mark L. Littlefield              Intelligent Systems Department
internet: [e-mail]
USsnail:  Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
          2400 Nasa Rd 1 / MC C-19
          Houston, TX 77058-3711
====================================================================

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 00:18:17 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>Red herring. HST isn't coming back on the shuttle either.

>It's an example.  Replace it with any complex and delicate piece of orbital
>equipment that we might want to retrieve.

Like what? This piece of equipment needs to cost well over a billion $$
before it is worth recovery with the Shuttle.

But I'm feeling generous today. I'll toss in a couple of billion from
my savings to build a Shuttle compatible return module. Just bring your
payload to the station (hell, I'll even spring for an OTV which I can
pay for in about a years savings). We'll stick it in and teather it
down for recovery. I'll even give you a price break since everything
I teather down will save me fuel.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------263 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 00:46:37 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPS and light pollution
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (Ralph Buttigieg)
-Subject: Re: Solar Power Satellites
-Date: 26 Jul 92 09:57:14 GMT
-Organization: Fidonet. Gate admin is [e-mail]

- to [e-mail] (George William Herbert), via *IXgate 3:713/602
- g>         You're right, and most professional astronomers figure (rightly)
- g> that given a miniscule percentage of the launch mass required for even a
- g> lunar-materials using SPS, they can do better science from orbit
- g> than they'll lose due to light pollution on the ground.  They just ask

- This is all very well for the pros but no great help for the rest of
- humanity. No matter how fast Space is developed, the vast majority of
- people will be living on Earth for centuaries.

- They will be the ones who lose out.

I find that my small telescopes make the sky appear a lot darker in
comparison to the stars, even on nights when the moon is out.

So perhaps the ones who would suffer are those who don't own even a small
telescope, and those who want to do "world-class" astronomy on an amateur
basis, and can't afford use of orbital instruments.

I don't know how much SPS would affect ground-based searches for asteroids
and comets, since they're basically searches for point sources that move
over time, without much need to exactly characterize those point sources
in the initial observations.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 00:26:47 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (Gerald Cecil)
-Subject: Re: Energiya's role in Space Station assem
-Date: 3 Aug 92 14:53:53 GMT
-Organization: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

-So, my question: why is the Space Station being assembled in a 28.5 deg.
-orbit?  This locks out ANY participation by the CIS launch complexes for only
-a few % gain in payload.  (This also excludes the obvious benefit to earth
-observations of an orbit at 40+ degs, perhaps an important selling point to
-soon-to-be VP Gore.)  Concerns re abort sites are irrelevant, in that NASA
-has happily launched Shuttles to higher inclination orbits in the past.

To add to the arguments presented by others, re a higher inclination:

Pro: A larger percentage of the taxpayers could watch it pass overhead.
     (At least, I *hope* that would be pro. :-)

Con: Higher inclination orbits are not as well protected from radiation
     as the lower inclination orbits of the same altitude. Long-term
     exposure to radiation is a significant concern for the SSF crew,
     and radiation levels do get fairly high even at LEO during major
     solar flares.

I've also mentioned the possibility of building it at high inclination
orbit, then "warping" it to a low inclination orbit for use. Sure that
would take a lot of energy, but you could use solar power, and we really
need to learn how to use ion engines anyway. :-)  The big advantage is
that Mir could be used as a construction shack, thus saving a *lot* on
construction of SSF before it becomes habitable. Adminstrator Goldin's
recent discussion on a proposal to dock a Shuttle to Mir for extended
periods makes this even more technically attractive.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 21:44:37 GMT
From: TS Kelso <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, [phone], and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 46
1 22064U 92 49  A 92215.64583333  .00013459  00000-0  25599-3 0    55
2 22064  28.4712 336.1282 0007242 311.3562 119.2459 15.46519912   320
EURECA
1 22065U 92 49  B 92215.69805508  .00099984  00000-0  21195-2 0    34
2 22065  28.4691 335.7773 0007299  83.4067 276.6552 15.43555541   323
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
[e-mail]                    Air Force Institute of Technology

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 067
------------------------------