Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_0/V15NO072.TXT

Text File | 1993-07-13 | 30KB | 718 lines

Date: Wed,  5 Aug 92 05:02:42
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #072
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed,  5 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 072

Today's Topics:
                    ask a NASA person...? (2 msgs)
                Energiya's role in Space Station assem
              Energiya's role in Space Station assembly
               Energiya role in Space Station assembly
                  Fermi Paradox vs. Prime Directive
                        Meteor Soaks Datona FL
                     Methods for meteor avoidance
                     More second-hand info on TSS
                              NASA Tools
             Random Notes (Was Re: NASP, NLS, SSTO, etc.)
                        Soyuz as ACRV (2 msgs)
                      Star Trek Realism (2 msgs)
                TSS update (indirect via NASA Select)
             Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle
                       What is FRED??  (2 msgs)
                          What is the ASRM??

    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: 4 Aug 92 22:05:01 GMT
From: Jay Dresser <[e-mail]>
Subject: ask a NASA person...?
Newsgroups: sci.space

I have a listing of Internet BBS's that lists Spacelink
(spacelink.msfc.nasa.gov) as having an "Ask-a-NASA-person" service,
where I could ask a question of a genuine NASA guru.  But after
TELNETing to it and wading through their menus, I see no evidence of
such a thing.  Is this for real, or should I just ask the question
here?


-- Jay Dresser, [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Aug 92 08:00:15 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: ask a NASA person...?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jay Dresser) writes...
>
>I have a listing of Internet BBS's that lists Spacelink
>(spacelink.msfc.nasa.gov) as having an "Ask-a-NASA-person" service,
>where I could ask a question of a genuine NASA guru.  But after
>TELNETing to it and wading through their menus, I see no evidence of
>such a thing.  Is this for real, or should I just ask the question
>here?

When you logoff of Spacelink, it prompts you if you want to "leave
a message for NASA" and this is probably where you could leave your
question.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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: 5 Aug 92 00:45:28 GMT
From: "Hugh D.R. Evans" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Gerald Cecil) says:
>
>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.

One reason I can think of that FRED isn't going into a 40+ degree
inclination is the trapped proton fluxes that it would encounter going through
the South Atlantic Anomaly ( maximum fluxes at ~ -40 deg west,
-35 deg south).  At a 28 degree inclination, the space station only slightly
dips into the Anomaly.  The total radiation dose received by a man
inside a 4mm sphere of Aluminium ( SSF's skin will be about that thick)
is 17 rads over a 30 day period, compared to 25 rads at a 40 degree
inclination; requiring an extra 6 mm of Al over the entire surface of the
space station in order to reduce the dosage to that of the 28 degree
inclination orbit.  This represents quite a considerable mass increase.

Regards,
Hugh Evans.

ESTEC, ESA              * Inet:   [e-mail]
P.O. Box 299            *     or  [e-mail]
2200 AG Noordwijk       * SPAN:   ESTCS1::HEVANS
The Netherlands         * BITNET: HEVANS@ESTEC

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

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 01:12:21 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assembly
Newsgroups: sci.space

To summarize this thread so far:
We can only get useful payloads to the Space Station from CIS launch sites
if the station's orbit inclination is increased to, say, 45 degs.  The payload
penalty for a KSC launch is essentially negligible, but Energiya can
then play a meaningful role because the inclination difference is small
enough that the plane change can be done as a simple `dogleg' during the
launch ascent without coasting and restarting engines.  I dismiss the option
of sending Energiya components over here because the infrastructure already
exists in the CIS.  As some of you have suggested, why duplicate (metric)
plumbing, launch towers, and assembly buildings for just a few launches? (It's
surely easier to move Mohammed or Fred to the Mountain than vice versa:-)
We want to put up all the heavy stuff efficiently rather than delivering it
suitcase by suitcase in an seemingly endless stream of (ultimately exploding)
Shuttles.  We want to `exploit' unique capabilities at the CIS launch sites so
that they will remain viable (and solvent) for those nations to use once their
(and our) economires recover, not pay for yet more civil engineering in
Florida.  I'm pushing Energiya because it's operational (or nearly so), not
vaporware like many of the acronyms discussed in this group.

Now the only speculation (this is a challenge!) that anyone has come up with as
to why one would NOT want to orbit the Space Station at an inclination > 28.5
deg is the increased radiation load at higher latitudes.  I have a hard time
believing that the situation is much worse if one spends a little time at 45
degs, but are there any magnetospheric experts out there who would like to
comment?  I thought that most of the nasty stuff drifts in from several RsubE
under normal circumstances, except during intense storms when it can penetrate
to ~1 RsubE ... still comfortably far away and 30 degs from the geomagnetic
pole.  Or, is the problem stuff that drifts UP from the ionosphere?  How do
the fluxes compare to the load in the South Atlantic Anomaly that the Space
Station has to encounter in any case?  Finally, how does the shielding on the
Space Station compare to that on Skylab (which flew at 55+ degs)?  True,
Skylab was occupied during a solar Min (the next Max is what nailed it), but
was radn shielding a real concern?
--
Gerald Cecil 919-962-7169  Dept. Physics & Astronomy
U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA
-- Intelligence is believing only half of what you read; brilliance is
   knowing which half. ** Be terse: each line cost the Net $10 **

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

Date: 5 Aug 92 03:35:37 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya role in Space Station assembly
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Hugh Evans) writes:
>One reason I can think of that FRED isn't going into a 40+ degree
>inclination is the trapped proton fluxes that it would encounter going through
>the South Atlantic Anomaly ( maximum fluxes at ~ -40 deg west,
>-35 deg south).  At a 28 degree inclination, the space station only slightly
>dips into the Anomaly.  The total radiation dose received by a man
>inside a 4mm sphere of Aluminium ( SSF's skin will be about that thick)
>is 17 rads over a 30 day period, compared to 25 rads at a 40 degree
>inclination; requiring an extra 6 mm of Al over the entire surface of the
>space station in order to reduce the dosage to that of the 28 degree
>inclination orbit.  This represents quite a considerable mass increase.

Thank you for quantifying the exposure.  I don't recall the exact
dimensions of a Space Station module, but if I take 4 of radius 2 m x
12 m long we need an extra mass of 9800 kg.  I guess we'd have to tuck that
away on Energiya somewhere.  (Doesn't strike me as excessive.)
(Re the exposures: my Particle Data Booklet reminds me that 250-300 rads of
wholebody exposure in 30 days produces 50% mortality.)
--
Gerald Cecil 919-962-7169  Dept. Physics & Astronomy
U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA
-- Intelligence is believing only half of what you read; brilliance is
   knowing which half. ** Be terse: each line cost the Net $10 **

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 22:26:30 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fermi Paradox vs. Prime Directive
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>... One can imagine something like
>the "non-interference rule", where contact with Earth is *illegal*. That
>would require a coherent interstellar culture in the local region.

The hard part is making it stick for many millions of years, and be
sufficiently airtight that there are no leaks whatever.  (Despite all
the true-believer hoopla over UFOs, there is not one case of an
unquestionably extraterrestrial artifact being found.)  Moreover,
bear in mind that until recently -- at most a few million years ago --
this planet had no intelligent life, and was ripe for colonization or
other exploitation even if such a rule existed and was 100% enforced.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 5 Aug 92 00:36:52 GMT
From: "James T. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Meteor Soaks Datona FL
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Heard on Local TV News:

A giant wave that drenched Datona FL and caused a lot of damage
in July turns out to have probably been caused by a 1 meter
meteor!

I wonder if this'll give the beancounters in Congress any
incentive to fund a near-Earth Asteroid finder program.
True, not many 1 m objects can be found, but perhaps this can
scare them enough to look for big ones on the way to turn DC
into a crater :-)


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: [e-mail] :-)~~~\
|                                                               |
| "It is mankind's manifest destiny to bring our humanity into  |
| space, to colonize this galaxy.  And as a nation, we have the |
| power to determine whether America will lead or will follow.  |
|                                                               |
|    I say that America must lead."  -- Ronald Reagan           |

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 22:58:41 GMT
From: Kenneth Tolman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Methods for meteor avoidance
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>After the meteor from last year passed withinn 4 minutes of the earth (the
>>large one), I was wondering if we have any system of avoiding these
>>large beasts??!! I read that if it hit the earth, millions could have died.
>>
>>With a problem like this, surely there must be some defence!!!
>>
>
>One idea springs to mind if you know the time and direction of impact, get
>to the other side of the Earth PDQ!  Or live in a polar climate, the chances
>of getting a direct hit should be a bit less, although similarly
>catastrophic to a perpendicular strike.

An oblique bolide impact, such as one striking the poles, actually could
be WORSE for the unsuspecting native.  It sometimes can kick up even more
debris, due to its "skitter".  I would think that being well informed is
the best protection, along with a self propelled airplane.

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

Date: 5 Aug 92 00:50:06 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: More second-hand info on TSS
Newsgroups: sci.space

Apparently after more heroic efforts and at least one additional problem,
they got it out to 517 (feet, yards, meters - pick your units), whereupon
it stuck. There are plans to attempt to get it further out, perhaps in
"manual" mode (whatever that is).

Before this latest problem, there was discussion of reducing final deployment
to 6km, to try to get back on schedule.

There's supposed to be a daily update at 11PM EDT, which I hope to catch
directly, so some of these numbers can be firmed up.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Aug 92 00:27:47 GMT
From: Bruce Dunn <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA Tools
Newsgroups: sci.space

> John Roberts writes:
>
> No release of the TSS yet - it appears to be stuck.
>
> Maybe they need to unpack the Ferrous Portable Leverage Application
> Mechanism (FPLM), the Passive Maximal Kinetic Transfer Device (PMKTD),
> and the Linear Metallic Abrasive System (LMAS), and try an EVA. :-)


Crowbar, hammer, and file?



--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   [e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 20:49:13 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Random Notes (Was Re: NASP, NLS, SSTO, etc.)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John A. Weeks III) writes:
> 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.
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are correct.  This model was made by senior engineering students
at Mississippi State University for NASA and the NASP JPO.  It should
be at the AF Museum until the end of August (I can get the exact date
if you are interested).

P.S.  I am one of the people they roped in to 'man' the NASP booth
at the U.S. Air and Trade Show, so if you have any questions feel
free to ask.

--

   Jim Batka  | Always remember ...                        | Buckaroo
   Modemman   |    No matter where you go, there you are!  |   Bonzai
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
              | Work Email:  [e-mail] | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  [e-mail]      |   DEAD!
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
              | 64 years is 33,638,400 minutes ...         | Beatles:
              |    and a minute is a long time.            |   Yellow Submarine

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 22:48:05 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> [losing shuttles]
>>You don't have to rely on me for this; your own NRC and OTA will tell you the
>>same thing... if you bother to listen.
>
>Forgive me, but harping on it is getting on my nerves. Will it give you great
>joy to see another bird lost?

No.  Nor does it give me joy to see otherwise-intelligent people sticking
their heads in the sand and pretending it will never happen.  This will
make things *worse*, not better, when the inevitable eventually occurs.
We need to *plan* for less than 100% reliability, not fumble around trying
to improvise when our noses are rubbed in it.

>>>If you have to fix Freedom, you can't do it from a tin can...
>>Odd.  Why?  There have been two major space-station-salvage missions flown
>>to date, both successful, both using Soyuz-type technology...
>
>If you had your choice of [shuttle] verses a 3 man shot with limited
>supplies, tools, no CanadaArm, which would you choose?

The one with a better chance of success, which is probably the shuttle.
But how many 3-man shots can you launch for the cost of running the
shuttle for one year?  If I had my choice between three attempts using
3-man capsules, and one using the shuttle, I know which I'd pick.

I note, also, that we have changed the subject:  the claim that it just
can't be done using capsules has quietly been dropped.

>Furthermore, both "rescues" were simple; i.e.; hit one docking adaptor, go
>inside, do whatever. With a shuttle, you could use the CanadaArm ...
> to grab onto the truss or use to remove/replace/restore a flapping
>solar panel.

Much like the way the first Skylab crew deployed a sunshade and then
freed and deployed the surviving main solar array.  Nice though the
arm is, I'll take men in spacesuits over it any day when the job gets
tricky.

>Of course, if we went tin-can, we could leave the CanadaArm home and cut back
>Canadian participation in the United States space program.

Tsk tsk, you're showing your ignorance.  We participated in the earlier
programs too (although in still smaller ways).
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 5 Aug 92 02:38:00 GMT
From: [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:
>
>>I'm not saying that.  Show me a proposal that has a capability similar to
>>the shuttle, and I'll go for it.
>
>The overall system I am proposing does exactly that. You have yet to find
>any technical holes in it.
>
The return capability is near zero Allen.  In a previous post you stated that
Hubble could not be returned, why not? LDEF weighs as much as HST at 33,000
pound and it was returned with no problems. How about as a transfer vehicle
for Heavy payloads returning from Lunar orbit? Your system could never do that
without very large weight penalties for providing for the return capsule.

By the way someone here stated that COMET could return 750 kg. That is not
true, COMET Weighs 750 kg. The return capsule payload is only 60 kg.

>>If capsules were so wonderful to begin
>>with, we would never have built the shuttle.
>
>Huh? Odd as it may seem this won't be the first time anybody has gone
>up a technological blind alley.
>
The shuttle as you well know Allan was designed by Cap Weinberg and the
Office of Managment and budget.  It is starting to look like the Shuttle
with its large payload capablity might just have some uses in the future
after all.  I have to look at it some more.


>Reusable spacecraft ART the way to go (although it's hard to call the
>Shuttle reusable"). However now is not the time. Larger markets are
>needed. To promote those markets we need to lower costs. Using the
>Shuttle doesn't do that.
>
You stated in an earlier post Allan that you could return a satellite from
orbit using your technological approach but NO ONE is even suggesting that,
that as I have seen.

>>>>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.
>
>Pipe dreams? I don't call conservative designs from experienced spacecraft
>builders pipe dreams.
>
>However, it is clear you haven't been reading my postings. The HLV will be
>built by the contractor and owned by the contractor. There will be no
>out of pocket expenses unless and untill the contractor has demonstrated
>the ability to reduce costs.
>
>All we agree to is to buy launch services when they are available.
>
>*THEN* and only then (when the new system has been demonstrated) do we
>ship the Shuttles to the Smithsonian Air and Space.
>
The HLV as I have stated in this post has no return capability worth talking
about. and for the future of space development this will begin to be a more
and more desired and actually demanded feature as the space infrastructure
grows. Don't go shipping the Shuttles off the othe museums quite yet or you
may see a future generation berating us for losing a valuable technology.

By the way a winged return vehicle is the only way to go to keep the G level
anwhere near an acceptable level for delicate payloads returning. No matter
what it is called.


>>I'd like to see a Soyuz:
>
>>(a)  Stay up for two weeks for large-scale biomedical studies.
>
>No problem. It will fly up to Fred, do the experiment, and return.
>
>>(b)  Put a crew of three outside to mate a new booster to a communications
>>     satellite.
>
>No problem. Put the booster on a HLV, send them up in a Soyuz to Fred, and
>they they mate the booster.
>
Allan this will only work in the fortitutious event of the satellite becoming
stranded at SS Freedom orbital altitude and inclination. I do not think this
very likely.


>>(c)  Deploy and retrieve a tethered satellite.
>
>No problem. Put the crew in a Soyuz, send them to Fred, deploy and retrieve
>the satellite from there.
>

Sorry a Soyuz would be a very iffy deployer. Our Delta missions can only
do very small payloads because of the physical limitations of deploying
masses that approach your own mass as would be the case for any Soyuz deployer

>>(d)  Retrieve and return a long-duration exposure facility.
>
>No problem. Use the OTV to retrieve the facility, bring it to Fred. There
>remove the experiment panels, attach new ones, and return the experimental
>panels with the next supply drop.
>
>Why do you insist on focusing on one small part of this approach and then
>demand it do everything?
>
>  Allen
>

Allan there are some things the Soyuz can do and there are some things that
an HLV can do, but you know believe it or not I am regaining my respect for
the Shuttle and its versatility.  It is not the best vehicle in the world
but it is becoming more and more each mission what Wherner Von Braun meant
it to be, a pathfinder to the heavens.

Dennis Wingo

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 23:08:22 GMT
From: Kenneth Tolman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Star Trek Realism
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Now, another problem, why do they all fall unconcious within about 2 minutes
>of losing "LIFE SUPPORT"?


Contrary to popular belief, life support is NOT related to breathing,etc..
it is related to the VR interface.  Life support is commonly thought of
as being the temperature control, gravity control, pressure control,
atmospheric content control, etc.  But clearly it is not, for these things
could not fluctate so wildly as to knock them out so quickly- (or with
some time limit- 3:00 minutes until life support fails is the common threat)

What life support IS is the cyberspace link up to the mainframe.  All of
the crew of the enterprise really sit on a lunar sub station- hooked into
a supercomputer which provides the realistic ship/interaction/and environment.
When life support fails- they lose their individual links to the mainframe
and thus are unconscious.

Notice, this also explains why they have such an interesting voyage.  It
is fabricated by social engineers, computer imagination, and a good dose
of silliness put in by the original programmer.  It also explains why
everyone speaks english, why all the planets are breathable, and why the
whole thing reeks of having been written- it was in a loose way by the
mainframe.

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

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 92 02:21:47 GMT
From: Scott Stanford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Star Trek Realism
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jack Hudler) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>
>>interstellar space.  AND the way the shuttles bank and turn as if they're
>>airplanes.
>
>They bank and turn because, if they didn't, you'd bitch that they didn't.
>--
>Jack Hudler - Computer Support Corporation - Dallas,Texas - [e-mail]

True, but also because pilots/passengers would still feel G-forces in
turns, and it's more natural to have these just going up-and-down as
opposed to side-to-side.  Or do the shuttles have the same
high-quality fake gravity machines as the ships?

my $.02

Scott
stanford@leland

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 22:32:38 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: TSS update (indirect via NASA Select)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>No release of the TSS yet - it appears to be stuck.

Latest radio news reports say that problems with an electrical connector
were cleared up after repeated attempts.  Doesn't sound like they needed
an EVA.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 22:15:22 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 92217.16443287  .00089207  00000-0  25599-3 0   107
2 22064  28.4767 325.1610 0005057 291.0993  84.2223 15.91617334   560
EURECA
1 22065U 92 49  B 92217.31526294 -.00987981  00000-0 -42166-1 0   100
2 22065  28.4446 324.5151 0017653 115.7028 244.0547 15.41399649   571
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
[e-mail]                    Air Force Institute of Technology

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

Date: 
P
From: Michael Corvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is FRED??
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 21:53:55 GMT
Lines: 9
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

What program does "fred" refer to?  I've seen it mentioned quite
a bit but have never come across what it actually is...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corvin           PP-ASEL, PP-G        [e-mail]
just another spaced rocket scientist at    Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============    My views, not Martin Marietta's   ========================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 4 Aug 92 22:34:02 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is FRED??
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Corvin) writes:
>What program does "fred" refer to?  I've seen it mentioned quite
>a bit but have never come across what it actually is...

It's a cynical nickname for Space Station Freedom, coined when the thing
shrunk yet again a couple of years ago.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 5 Aug 92 04:38:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: What is the ASRM??
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James B. Pettengill) writes:
>
>>the asrm program is dead for now but not for long. it should be resurrected
>>latter this year or next.
>
>Don't count on it.
>
>>Space Station Freedom can't get off the ground without asrm.
>
>Unless they use Energia.
>
>  Allen
>
>--

Allen the ASRM's do give more lbs to orbit but they are not REQUIRED for
putting SSF up.  Also have you considered the problems integrating a payload
to a vehicle with unknown dynamics of the mating? That is what happened to
Skylab when the heat sheild was lost causing the loss of the Large Solar
Array. It was a dynamics problem relating to pogo of the S V first stage.
Hou can you say with the assurance that you seem to put in your messages that
some equally harsh problem would not happen with SSF components?  It would
not be nice to get to orbit with a hab module structurally destoyed by a
dynamics problem. This is a problem that you cannot know about until you
actually launch. The shuttle does not have this problem due to the long
operational experience and low g forces that are part of the shuttle's
standard operating procedure.  Even with the three G acceleration of the
Shuttle, the qualification level for payloads in the cargo bay is

+/- 10 G in the flight direction
+/- 6 G in the X and Y Axis perpendicular to flight.

This info from the NASA payload safety documents.

Just a little "technical" objection

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntville.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 072
------------------------------