Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_0/V15NO077.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Thu,  6 Aug 92 05:04:44
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #077
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu,  6 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 077

Today's Topics:
                         Calendar and Zodiak
                           Comm. Space Act?
                          FRED?  Whas' dat?
                     Fwd: Origin of Life article
             Giotto - First Results from Comet Encounter
                      Magellan Update - 08/05/92
                        Meteor Soaks Datona FL
                            Meteor Strikes
                              NASA Tools
                        Origin of Life article
                 Phobos & Deimos Uncertainty (2 msgs)
                         Red-blooded ET's : )
                            Soyuz as ACRV
                       Star Trek (anti-)realism
             Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle
                     What is the ASRM?? (2 msgs)
       Whats wrong with this CIRCUIT (was: Tethered Satellites)

    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: 5 Aug 92 20:39:28 GMT
From: Steve Willner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calendar and Zodiak
Newsgroups: sci.space

I think the article below was supposed to be a joke, but it didn't
have smileys, and the author has not confirmed that it was.  Maybe
the joke is on me for following up.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary
Coffman) writes:

> There wasn't a March 2000 years ago.

Does "Beware the Ides of March." ring any bells?

> The calender we use is a modern invention of the 17th century.

Sixteenth (adopted 1582).  Adopted at varying times but much later in
non-Catholic countries.  Also, it seems extreme to call the Gregorian
calendar an "invention" when it is such a minor variation on the
Julian calendar.

> When the Gregorian calendar was rationalized, we lost a week, and
> renters rejoiced and landlords cried.

It was the landlords who rejoiced, as others have pointed out.  And
the adjustment was 10 days, not a week.

> Precession is not
> figured into the calendar. Unless someone rationalizes the calendar again,
> the seasons will precess across the months.

The Gregorian calendar (365.2425 days per year) is an approximation
to the _tropical_ (365.2422 day), not _sidereal_ (365.2564 day) year.
The calendar will need a one-day adjustment in roughly 3000 years to
stay synchronized with the seasons.  Synchronizing to the sidereal
year would require an adjustment every 72 years.

The Julian calendar (365.25 days per year) was between the sidereal
and tropical years but actually a bit closer to the former.  The
one-time adjustment was meant to make up for the accumulated error
from the tropical year.  I calculate that the correction brought the
seasons back to their dates in AD 300.

> The Chinese calendar, and the
> Jewish calendar now have the new year occurring on dates other than Jan 1.
> That's because both calendars are old enough to have precessed a bit.

These are lunar, not solar, calendars and have nothing whatever to do
with the Gregorian.  In any case, the Jewish new year never started
on Jan. 1.  (I don't know about the Chinese, Mohammedan, or Indian
calendars, but if they ever started on Jan. 1, I would suspect
coincidence rather than a common reason for the starting date.)

This is well away from sci.space; followups directed to sci.astro.
--
Steve Willner            Phone [phone]         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: [e-mail]
  member, League for Programming Freedom; contact [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed,  5 Aug 1992 18:28:08 -0400
From: David O Hunt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comm. Space Act?
Newsgroups: sci.space

What _is_ the commercial space act?  Could someone please post some
information?

David
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 92 20:14:16 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: FRED?  Whas' dat?

>->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.

>Actually, somebody on sci.space suggested "Fred" even before Reagan announced
>the name "Freedom".

I think it may have been Nick, though I'm not sure, that suggested shortening
the name even further, to FED, since it's seems little more (to the cynical)
than a combination pork/prestige project.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: Wed,  5 Aug 1992 18:25:42 -0400
From: David O Hunt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Origin of Life article
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic,sci.space

> Why is it so difficult for people who call themselves
> scientists to explore the possibility that God created the
> earth and all the creatures on it?  There is every bit as much
> scientific "proof" for the "theory" of creation as there is for
> the "theory" of evolution.  Why is everyone so set against
> acknowledging a valid alternative hypothesis?  Is there some
> prejudice against is?
> Steve Troxel
> [e-mail]

1) This is not the place for this article.  Try alt.atheist, or
talk.origins.

2)  What proof of creation?  How is it valid?  And, if somehow it were
valid, why not the buddhist creation, the hindu, the shinto, etc?  Why
are those any less valid?  So...let's teach them ALL!!!

Or does this concept bother you?  And if so, why?  Are you afraid
of some competition, not from science, but from other religions?

There are myriads of evidence for evolution - fossils, lake-bed sediment
that are modulated by astronomical cycles, genetic relations, etc etc
etc.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE _FOR_ CREATIION?  The "evidence" given is that of
"Well, we've found a possible problem with evolution, so our theory must
be the only alternative".  Sheesh.  Take a course in logic!

As to the few problems that arise in the evolutionary support...suppose
I give you a coin.  You flip it 1,000,000 times, and 999,999 times it comes
up heads, once tails.  Are you _seriously_ going to tell me that the odds
of the next one being tails are favorable?  Definite?  Because that's what
you're claiming with the _overwhelming_ evidence for evolution.

"Oh!  Oh!  We've found a small inconsistency!  Must mean that the whole
theory is wrong!"    Get a life.

Religion has a role for some, but any role of religion is suspect in the
affairs of science.

Can someone else please forward this person some information to read,
because I personally am sick and tired of dealing with god sticking
his nose into things that he has no affairs in.



David Hunt - Graduate Slave | My mind is my own.          | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland!
============================================================================
Email:  [e-mail]            Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"


Democracy is based on the theory that the people know what they want...and
they deserve to get it - GOOD AND HARD!

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

Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 05:18:01 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Giotto - First Results from Comet Encounter
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

ESA News Release

The Giotto Extended Mission
First Results from the Encounter with Comet Grigg-Skjellerup

     On 10 July 1992, at 15h30 UTC, the Giotto spacecraft passed within
approximately 200 km of the nucleus of comet Grigg-Skjellerup.  The
payload had been switched-on in the evening of 9 July - then the uplink
was removed to provide the maximum onboard power margin for a safe
operation fo the payload.  Eight out of the original complement of eleven
experiments were operated and provided a surprising wealth of exciting
data: Magnetometer, Johnstone Plasma Analyser, Energetic Particle
Analyser, Optical Probe Experiment, Reme Plasma Analyser, Dust Impact
Detection System, Ions Mass Spectrometer and Giotto Radioscience
Experiment.

     Already at about 600,000 km from the nucleus, i.e. 12 hours before
the closest approach, the Johnstone Plasma Analyser (JPA) detected the
first presence of cometary ions.  At a distance of 18-15,000 km both JPA
and the Reme Plasma Analyser (RPA) reported what looked like a bow shock
or a bow wave, much more distinct than had been predicted for such a weak
comet.  The Magnetometer measurements carried out during the inbound
trajectory could not confirm this finding, but reported exciting wave
phenomena not seen in a natural plasma before.  However, on the outbound
trajectory the Magnetometer saw clear indications of a shock.

     The Optical Probe Experiment got the first indication of entering the
dust coma at around 20,000 km and from their data could derive the first
estimate for the encounter distance of approximately 200 km.  Together with
Magnetometer data there is good evidence that Giotto passed the nucleus on
the "dark" side, i.e. in the tail forming region.

     At 15:30:56 the Dust Impact Detectors reported the first impact of
a fairly large particle, followed by two smaller ones.

     At 15:31:02, shortly after the first impact, the High Gain Antenna
appeared to be oscillating slightly around its nominal value.  An increase
of the spin rate by  .003 RPM was also observed while the Solar Aspect
Angle readings were fluctuating between 89.26 and 89.45 degrees, pointing
out a nutation of about 0.1 degrees.  This was also recorded by the
Radioscience Experiment and is awaiting further evaluation.

     The Energetic Particle Experiment saw clear indications of the
acceleration regions and surprising differences in the structures between
the Halley encounter and Grigg-Skjellerup.  Last but not least, the Ion
Mass Spectrometer recorded good data, however the data analysis for this
instrument is quite cumbersome and complex, on the account fo the low
encounter velocity (14 km as compared with 68 km/s' at Halley).

     A thorough test of the camera on-board Giotto on 7 July 1992 could
only confirm that the optical path was very effectively blocked.  However,
on 12 July a number of tests were performed with the detectors of the
Halley Multicolour Camera, which had provided very valuable engineering
and calibration data on the long term behaviour of the CCD's in space.

     All experimenters were - and still are - enthusiastic about the
quality of the data returned from the Giotto encounter with Grigg-
Skjellerup, which surpassed all expectations.  The quality of the
results obtained during this mission are outstanding and make it another
highlight in the history of Giotto and in the history fo the ESA
scientific programme.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 19:53:51 GMT
From: Martin Connors <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Update - 08/05/92
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
> Forwarded from:
> PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
> JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
>      Two tests were conducted on Magellan's transmitter B last
> week at its minimum temperature of 23.4 C (74 F) to see if high
> rate data could be received.  Both tests showed a continuing
> noise spur at various temperatures
        ^^^^
Please explain! What is a noise spur? How does it differ from 'noise'?

Puzzled in Canada

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

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 21:23:00 GMT
From: Rusty Whitman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Meteor Soaks Datona FL
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (FRANK NEY):
>>
>> -----I quote-----
>> 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!
>>
>IS there any source on this <alleged> meteor event other than a TV news report?
>

I heard this was caused by an underwater landslide (Washington Post I think).
This sounds much more plausible than a meteor strike.  If a 1 meter meteor
had hit the Atlantic just off Datona Beach there would have been some
atmospheric effects along with the wave.  Also, I would hope that some
Defense radar would have picked it up.  One meter objects falling from space
are things they look for.  Of course, most of the radars look north and west.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"[W]e think it the height of reckless and extreme folly to address
'violent and vile profanity' to a Butte miner AND a Marine, while
such remarks to the miner OR the Marine require only courage."
        37 Mich.L.Rev. 874,887 (1939)

[e-mail] (128.183.92.59)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 92 20:17:31 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Meteor Strikes

>If we lived in afuture time, this scenario would need neither forethought
>nor complex long-distance monitoring or planning.

>Think of swatting a piece of meat covered in flies; they rise up
>before the blow lands. So, we all jump into our personal space vehicles
>and tool about for a day or two until the dust has settled.

1) Assuming a time when we have personal space sleds, we probably would
not only have an easy way to detect them (lots of colonies, etc.) but
also would have a goodly portion of people not even living on the planet.

2) Now think of a bucket full of fish;  They get squashed and evicted when
you drop a watermelon into it.  In your scenarion above, we'd have to
tool around for a year or two, before the (worst of) the dust settled,
assuming of course that some nuclear-bomb-armed group did not get the
lucky draw.  They might just assume that their least favorite nation
had attacked, which, or course, merits a retaliatory strike...and now our
dust not only cools and pollutes, but irradiates.

3) Back to your flies:  Assuming that the hand can get a good 40 or 50
flies (ever seen those things congregate in the summer on old, raw, meat.
Me either.  Sounds like a disgusting experiment, and I don't care to try it,
but you can imagine) we might guess that that's 5% of the current fly
population.  Do YOU want to be part of that 5%?  How about the (extremely
large) geographical region where your house, job, family members, or friends
might be?  Imagine the agricultural effects if Kansas (and most of Nebraska,
Iowa, Illinois, etc) got hit.

I'd say it's worth a bunch of telescopes, dedicated to looking around.  We
pay people right now for a lot stupider things (My favorite is the Gov.
agency, created in the 50's, that is STILL searching for a suitable place for
the FDR monument.  I think that the agency itself IS the monument :-)

PS- _Lucifer's_Hammer_, by, I think, Niven and Pournelle, gives an interesting,
if not wholly accurate (who knows, right?) portrayal of the effects of a
comet strike.  'Course, that was a multiple hit...  The guy surfing the
mile-high tidal wave to his death in Silicon Valley was my favorite part.
If you liked _The_Stand_, it's pretty similar, but less religious.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1992 23:19:06 GMT
From: Dave Rickel <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA Tools
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bruce Dunn) writes:
|> > John Roberts writes:
|> > ...FPLM, PMKTD, LMAS...
|> Crowbar, hammer, and file?

Left out baling wire and duct tape (i'll leave it to someone with more
imagination to generate the acronyms).


david rickel
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 22:10:57 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Origin of Life article
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Troxel) writes:
>Why is it so difficult for people who call themselves
>scientists to explore the possibility that God created the
>earth and all the creatures on it?  There is every bit as much
>scientific "proof" for the "theory" of creation as there is for
>the "theory" of evolution.  Why is everyone so set against
>acknowledging a valid alternative hypothesis?  Is there some
>prejudice against is?
>
    I have two prejudices against your idea.
    1) I have NOT seen as much scientific proof for creationism as I
have for evolution.  I've seen a lot of handwaving.
    2) Second, much of the Creationist thoery fails in one major
way: Prediction.  Any good theory can explain a phenomonon, and I will
admit, Creationists can explain a lot.  But further, the theory has to
be able to predict phenomona.

    Given a small initial population and conditions, any good
evolutionist can describe what will happen.  If I introduce a new
condition, I can predict what effect it may have on the environment.
Creationism fails to do this.

    The reality may be that God did create everything in 4004BC, but
if we want to explain how things occured, and be able to make scientific
predictions, we need to develop a SCIENTIFIC theory, not a religous theory.

    I have no problem with people believing in God creating things,
I do have a problem with people claiming that what they present is a
scientific hypothesis when it clearly is not.


>Steve Troxel
>[e-mail]
>
>**Save the baby humans.**


--
<------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Greg d. Moore                  |  [e-mail]
Green Mountain Software        |  "All that is gold does not glitter."
Carpe Diem                     |

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

Date: 5 Aug 92 21:55:34 GMT
From: "Constantinos A. Caroutas" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phobos & Deimos Uncertainty
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Tyler Brown) writes:
>I posted the message below in sci.astro last week. The results are amusing...
>
>>>I know that the moon Phobos means "fear" and was a consort of the God
>>>of war (Mars/Ares), but I forget what "Deimos" means. Could someone
>>>remind me?
>>>            [e-mail]
>>
>>I received several replies, some of which are appended below.
>>
>>The current vote total is:
>>
>>    Terror    10
>>    Panic    6
>>    Hate    1
>>    Fear    1 (Said that Phobos and Deimos meant fear!)
>>                                    ^^^

Hmmm... I can't say that I remember Greek mythology well, but I believe
that Phobos and Deimos were sons of the god of war Aris (Mars). "Phobos"
means "fear" in modern Greek, while in ancient Greek it also carries the
connotation of "respect". "Deimos" is not used in modern Greek. This
supports that argument that it also meant "fear".

The words for "terror", "panic", and "hate" in Greek are "tromos",
"panikos", and "misos" respectively.
--
Constantinos A. Caroutas

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

Date: 5 Aug 92 22:07:58 GMT
From: "Constantinos A. Caroutas" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phobos & Deimos Uncertainty
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Stephen McCluskey) writes:
>
>    Mythologically, it makes sense that panic is an offspring of
>the god of war, especially if you're a Greek infantryman fighting face to

Panicos was nobody's son. An ancient Greek messenger told a body of Greek
soldiers perparing for battle that he had met god Pan (a minor forest
deity) and the god promised him that they would win. They did and the word
"panicos" was created to describe the enemy retreat and to honor Pan.
--
Constantinos A. Caroutas

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

Date: 5 Aug 92 19:14:37 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Red-blooded ET's : )
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
|> In article <0eS=[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David O Hunt) writes:


|> >I'll buy the iron argument about magnetic fields, though I think that
|> >some other light metal might work...I'm admittedly ignorant about geomagnetics,
|> >but isn't it the currents in the core rather than the composition of
|> >the core?

|> The iron serves to concentrate the field, same as any electromagnet. There
|> are other ferromagnetic materials, but they are based on *rare* earth
|> elements. Being rare they are unlikely candidates

Good grief.

Iron is only ferromagnetic at fairly low temperature, below "red hot".
It is certainly *not* ferromagnetic when molten, or at the temperature
of the Earth's core.  Look up the definition of "Curie Point" sometime.

The Earth has a magnetic field because it has a core made of a liquid
conductor that is undergoing convection.  This causes the conductor
to move across a magnetic field, which generates a current, which
sustains the field.  No ferromagnetism involved.

Similarly, Jupiter, which has a large core made of liquid metallic
hydrogen, has a large magnetic field.  The iron content of Jupiter
is not very high.

The Sun also has a magnetic field, as do many stars.  They have
little iron (all of it vaporized).  The interaction of convection
and magnetic fields on these bodies causes all sorts of interesting
effects.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 92 20:50:23 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[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:
>
>>>Since Soyuz weighs a good deal less than Shuttle it should burn far less
>>>fuel. Polution should therefore be lower.
>
>>Oh. You left out resupply flights. Hm. You'd better go back to the drawing
>>board and add those up.
>
>OK. Since Soyuz and the resuply modules weigh less than the equivalent
>Shuttle flights, polution should be lower.

I'll hold my nose until someone can put up real numbers.

However, if you claim brighter teeth and fresher breath next, I'm going to
puke.

>Polution is furthur reduced since logistic modules are teathered down
>which means both fewer burns for logistics AND fewer burns for Freedom
>stationkeeping. This also saves additional $$ since less fuel is needed.

So did you add in the money for engineering and tether development? Nyet.

                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 92 20:08:07 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Star Trek (anti-)realism

>>>  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.

>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?

Naw, I got to ride in one at an amusement park, and we were thrown all over
the place.  We saw a cool film of car chases and roller-coasters, tho. :-)

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 21:17:59 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 92218.12277754  .00088411  00000-0  25599-3 0   159
2 22064  28.4801 317.9864 0004242 309.1517 167.8794 15.91453621   712
EURECA
1 22065U 92 49  B 92218.02794578 -.00023063  00000-0 -55089-3 0   136
2 22065  28.4571 319.5763 0024073 125.3490 235.2134 15.40522860   102
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
[e-mail]                    Air Force Institute of Technology

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

Date: 5 Aug 92 20:16:24 GMT
From: "James B. Pettengill" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is the ASRM??
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

Just a correction to my previous post:

According to the Assembly and Maintenance Implementation
Definition Document (AMIDD) dated 9/15/91:

Mission Build     Payload (lb)     Capacity(lb) (220nm)
-------------     ------------     --------------------
    MB1            38492               37300
    MB2            37076               36300
    MB3            36653               36300
    MB4            37130               36300
    MB5            44415               36300

The constraints on the orbiter are as follows:

1. Light orbiter configured for a crew of five (OV-103,104,105)
2. Seven day mission
3. Forward RCS full
4. Two EMU's
5. Four cryo sets installed
6. 220 nm orbit, inclination 28.45 degrees
7. SSME set at 104% during max throttle
8. RMS installed

Orbiter payload capacity can be increased with the following trade offs:

1. Decrease altitude        +100 lb/nm
2. Delete RMS              +1200 lb
3. Delete rendezvous prop  +1000 lb
4. Leave 1 astronaut home   +500 lb
5. Add 4th cryo-tank set    +785 lb

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

Date: 5 Aug 92 10:50:43 GMT
From: Armando Fortuna <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is the ASRM??
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

>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.

>>fred can't get off the ground without asrm.

>Unless they use Energia.

>  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?"                               |
>+----------------------262 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

Or unless they use a Saturn V rocket. Rumors say that NASA is thinking
about "resurrect" the Saturn V to launch fred in fewer flights than
it would take by using the Shuttle.
Of course, rebuilding the launch pads for the Saturn, and getting the
original contractors to build the parts, would not be easier, and one
may say cost-effective.

Armando

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

Date: 5 Aug 1992 16:17:11 -0700
From: Steven Robiner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Whats wrong with this CIRCUIT (was: Tethered Satellites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>I'm cross-posting to sci.space. Scott said that they were having a
>similar discussion. I haven't been keeping track there. I hope this
>is a help and not a hindrance there.
>
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>(Steven Robiner) writes:
>|>
>|>Excuse me, but isn't something missing from this "Tethered Satellite"
>|>experiment?  The shuttle is at one end, and the satellite is at the
>|>other, right?  But that's an open circuit, so where's the load
>|>joining the ends of this 'generator.'?
>|>

 [... stuff deleted ]
>of electrons, it will shed them when its potential compared to the
>local plasma is higher than the work function for the shuttle surfaces.
>So now you have the "infused" electrons into the flux tube that contains
>the shuttle. Eventually normal plasma-plasma and plasma-neutral interactions
>will allow the electron to move back to its original flux tube. This however
>may take some time. So the circuit is really completed in the same sense
>that grounded circuits are completed, except here we don't have a good ground

But in space, the plasma is not a great conductor, and in fact, moving electrons
should be repelled from moving against the magnetic field in a direction
opposite from the induced current in the tether, right.  I mean, just because
the electrons aren't in a wire shouldn't mean that they aren't affected

So how will the current manage to travel back up to the satellite?

(btw, I guess the point is moot, since the tether is stuck at the moment,
but theoretical, what really would happen? )





=steve=

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 077
------------------------------