Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_0/V15NO099.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 36KB

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 05:01:25
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #099
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 12 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 099

Today's Topics:
              Capsule location list (at last!) (2 msgs)
                Energiya's role in Space Station assem
          Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and... (2 msgs)
                     Info on Challenger accident
                     More second-hand info on TSS
              Need Shuttle Launch Dates Aug 20 - Sept 20
                        Seeding Mars with life
                  Watching a Shuttle launch (2 msgs)
                     What is the ASRM?? (2 msgs)

    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: 11 Aug 92 16:07:27 GMT
From: Aero Student Account <[e-mail]>
Subject: Capsule location list (at last!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (John Methot) writes:

>In article <aero.713460930@io> [e-mail] (Aero Student Account) writes:

>>Skylab (unknown #)                 Junkyard near KSC

>Is there a NASA junkyard, or does this refer to the private "collection"
>just south of KSC that contains the dismembered SST mockup?

I could be very wrong on this, but I believe its just a junkyard, just like your
average car junkyard.  According to _Chariots_For_Apollo_, a book about the
building of the LM, several extra ascent stages also ended up in a junkyard,
possibly the same one.

>My curiosity was also piqued by the reference to a Gemini capsule being stored
>"in the Titan silo with the Challenger debris."  Can someone elaborate
>(succinctly, since I assume this was discussed at the time)?  Where is
>this Titan silo and why is the Challenger debris stored there?  Is this
>a symbolic tomb or is there a more technical reason for using a silo?

The reference was to the Apollo 1 capsule.  The previous post addresses this
question somewhat.  I don't know where the silo is, or the exact reasons why
a silo was chosen.

--------
Jonathan A. Bishop
[e-mail]

"Yippee!  That may have been a small one for Neil,
 but it was a big one for me."
                            --Pete Conrad

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 17:32:51 GMT
From: Chris Mastrangelo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Capsule location list (at last!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Jonathan A. Bishop ([e-mail]) writes:

>     My main source is an article titled "Where Have All the
> Spacecraft Gone?" from the October, 1985 issue of _Space_World_.

> Apollo 14                          (Article lists Rockwell, to be
>                                     transferred to LA County Museum
>                                     later in '85; did it make it?)

In 1988-89 I visited the campus of the University of Nebraska in
Lincoln and was surprised to find a genuine Apollo capsule sitting
on display outside the Nebraska State Museum of Natural History
not far from the Cornhusker's football stadium. I think it had
been there at least since 1985 because it was outside exposed to the
elements which had taken their toll on the white paint which was
flaking off in places where the clear plastic was not protecting
the exterior. (The plastic was mostly around the heat shield area
through which you could see the effects of reentry.)

Unfortunately I don't recall which Apollo number it was, but it
could have been Apollo 14, which evidently didn't make it to
Rockwell, or was donated to UNL after 1985.

Can anyone else confirm or deny this??

- Chris Mastrangelo


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

Date: 11 Aug 92 17:51:49 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>>You mean we would save $500 million! Well that's horrible. I can certainly
>>see why you wouldn't want to do that.

>Yes, but your random allegations imply we save $4 billion and can spend $4
>billion on other projects, Mr. Sherzer.

I ahve stated my costs and am willing to live with them. If Mr. DeLuca's
retort is that our savings will only be half a billion per year, I don't
consider that a negative arguement.

>>In other words, thinking for the long run is a bad idea.

>With the current budget situtation, it is extremely difficult to fund long-lead
>items. As noted, NASA does not operate under a multi-year budget.

The DoD is constitutionally forbiden to run under allocations lasing more
than two years and they rarely get them. Yet they build $100 billion
aircraft carriers and other hardware.

>>The Shuttle remains as a backup until the entire system becomes operational.
>>If it works we save billions, if not, we loose nothing. Why does that bother
>>you so much?

>You left out money to keep Shuttle(s) running.

No I didn't and I have already pointed this out to you. The new components
are commercial procurements. They will be developed and operated by the
private sector who will put its own capital at risk. This means that NO
government money is expended until services are provided. Shuttle will
continue to operate with the same funds it uses now until the cheaper
replacement comes on line.

I'll say it again since you couldn't seem to read it last time: Shuttle
continues to use its funding until the private sector builds the alternative.
All that is needed is an agreement to use the cheaper alternative if and
when it is available. New launchers and facilities are developed in the
exact same way that Boeing builds and sells aircraft.

Do you understand now?

  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?"                               |
+----------------------255 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 15:34:27 GMT
From: George William Herbert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Newsgroups: sci.space

Ordinarily, I let flame wars (even in sci.* groups) run unhindered
for the pressure release and entertainment value.  This time, y'all
have gone too far.  Ten steps back and hold your collective breaths
for a minute and sit on your hands (hint: you can't type when you're
sting on your hands) for an hour or so.

Let's go through this one step at a time... we can start with the
Soyuz ACRV idea, which I've actually done a bit of work on (not for
NASA, but if you think they have all the good ideas... 8-).

An ACRV design at its simplest is another way down.  It's not a cargo
return capsule.  It's not a replacement for a supply vehicle.  it's
a way down.

Soyuz can do this with a three man crew and some crossrange

(on-orbit maneuver) and not much else.  It has an existing and
proven 180 day on-orbit life.  It does not have the capability to deorbit
much cargo, deliver much supplies up, or to fit more than three crew.
It lands a bit hard for some medical emergencies, but those emergencies
are unlikely to occur from what's known about operations accidents etc.
(few compound fractures, many smaller injuries).

Station (_any station_) requires an ACRV.  There is no existing ready-to-fly
ACRV vehicle for the US Station.  The HL-20 vehicle quite likely could
be developed in 5 years and 2-3 billion dollars (perhaps less...)
but it's still a design as of right now.  HL-20 could also fly 8 crew
TO station, but it'll cost six times as much per flight as a Soyuz/Atlas
will ($400 million vs. about $65 million; assumes mildly refurbished HL-20
w/o dev. amortization and one Titan IV vs. a Atlas IIAS procured at
commercial rates and a Soyuz at three times the last price I was
quoted for one 8-).  The on-orbit lifetime difference significantly
dents the price differential (HL-20 should last for 2 plus years) but
Soyuz still comes out ahead.

Soyuz will not provide significant cargo capacity.  It would provide
redundancy (help prevent single point catastrophic failures).  It is
likely that it could be integrated and man-rated on an Atlas for under
$500 million dollars.  The development savings relative to HL-20 gives
an overall advantage to Soyuz, but Not Invented Here syndrome is a
stroke against it.  In Soyuz' favor is that at this rate, HL-20 won't
be funded in time to fly when PMC is achived, and we'll have to use Soyuz
due to development time differential.

Other operational concerns such as pollution, number of vehicles causing
configuration problems, etc.  are roughly even.  Fortunately, none
of the ACRV options will blow the solar panels off Freedom (something
that Shuttle does given current configuration and panels), so we
don't induce problems with either Soyuz or HL-20.

There are no other ACRV options that I've heard of.  The capsule that
was discussed as an HL-20 competitor hasn't materialized as more
than numbers (if I don't se a sketch, it's not a serious proposal 8-).

END OF FLAME WAR:  NO ACRV SOLVES OTHER MISSION OR ARCHITECTURE PROBLEMS.
If we try to do that, we're falling in the same trap that the Shuttle
did in its conceptual design, and we'll end up with a do-everything-and
-can't-afford-it system.  If we limit our scope to ACRV, Soyuz is
a likely cantidate for a cheap and easy solution.  Soyuz is most
certainly worth looking at more closely, which is exactly why it's
being looked at now.  Wether it eventually gets used will depend lots
on how those studies turn out, how the HL-20 looks once it's budgeting
firms up and is released to the public, and how friendly we are with CIS.
Infinite amounts of screaming at each other on the net will not affect the
outcomes of those engineering studies; either it's a good idea or it
isn't, and people who get paid to know more than you do about the subject
are trying to figure that out for sure 8-)  We'll hear about it later.
The only thing I KNOW about it is that we need one, be it HL-20 or Soyuz.

_____
Second point: Using Energia for Freedom Launch...

Energia can't launch to 28.5 degrees says one poster here; that's not
quite what I was told (secondhand report, but the firsthand was at
Energia NPO at the time he heard it; the story I got was roughly
"not much payload").  Shifting Freedom's inclination would have a number of
wierd effects beyond decreasing somewhat the payload you launch to it
from the US (crew radiation up; communications infrastructure rework
on the ground a bit or TDRSS use up).  It's not fatal.  Freedom would
operate in a Polar Orbit if we were bored enough to put it there...

Energia is a new, still in development large launch vehicle.  It's
got some bugs.  The welds apparently work ok, but the Zenit-stage
boosters may be unreliable and upper stages are apparently still
not well debugged.  Overall, it amazingly resembles the state of the
Saturn V program in 1967-68, though it's making progress at about
1/4 to 1/6 the speed we did in Apollo (funding is too low...).

Flying the Freedom design on Energia probably could be done; the vehicle
is big enough, it has been designed to be manrated, there are no known
major flaws.  It isn't likely to be done unless it can't be flown on
Shuttle; NASA has planned most of the next ten years around station
ops, and if that went away the justification for flying Shuttle also mostly
goes poof.  Potential reasons for "it can't" include a flight failure
(the 99% reliability posted is unrealistic; I'll discuss this later)
or funding failure (congress is like that).

Basically, Freedom as a station is now inexorably linked to the Shuttle.
If Fred flies, it will be on OV-10xyza.  If Freedom gets canned, but
congress can be resold on the idea of a station, we might sell the idea
at a lower cost using Energia.  It might not be a bad policy to fly
50% more components than actually needed if there's a fear of failure.
The existing Freedom technology could well be used for this followon
station, but it won't be Freedom.

Again, wether a followon station might actally fly on Energia depends
on detail studies that mostly haven't been done yet.  Right now, it
looks pretty attractive.  After we design it, it might not.  People
are doing the studies.

Minor point I'd like to make here... a conceptual and preliminary design
of an aerospace vehicle can be done for under 5% of the final development
cost, and will in all likelyhood be able to give you an estimate on
performance, issues, and costs that are +-25% accurate.  Only a few
such early designs get funded now, but it might be a good idea to push
NASA to do more of them.  For a slight overall increase in short term cost,
we get hard data on some of these options that are sort of nebulous right
now.

Anyway, summary on Energia/Fred:  Technical issues are a bit vague, but
promising.  Policy and funding issues are poor at this time.  No show
stoppers exist except putting the Shuttle out of business, sort of
unpopular in a NASA using 35% of it's money to fly shuttle.
It would require changes to the station configuration that are feasible.

OVERALL SUMMARY:
Technically, using Soviet hardware is technically _potentially_ a good idea
and is policy-wise cloudy.  Technical problems don't appear serious with
either concept, but are being investigated now to determine if that's so.
As usual, technology isn't the limiting factor.  Policy, bureacracy,
and people's individual visions of how space will be explored and what
that implies on earth are more important in determining feasibility
than work in space.

Anyone who's endured this far (phew 8-):  I'm leaving followups
directed to sci.space, but quite obviously many of the followups WILL
be by nature more appropriate to talk.politics.space .  Please
use good judgement in assesing which group is more appropriate.

This posting was completed at slightly after local midnight following
an eighteen-hour day, and while technically solid (unless I'm more
asleep than I thought) is likely somewhat grammatically vague.  Please
accept my slightly fuzzy appologies.

I would appreciate it if those reading this in the early morning listen
to the first paragraph and calm down a bit rather than reply immediately.
From the tone of postings over the last couple of days, tempers are
short and you're not arguing technology or funding or policy anymore.
Smile and enjoy some (coffe/tea/sunshine/whatever) and shoot some
rational holes in it if you have to, but don't go ballistic.
Few launch vehicles that go up come down, a metaphor that can
well be applied to flame wars 8-)  This is sci.space.

-george william herbert
[e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail] until 28 aug
++ copyright 1992 george william herbert. All rights reserved.  Permission   ++
++ granted for Usenet transmission/use and followup/reply articles/mail use  ++

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 17:46:21 GMT
From: Edmund Hack <arabia!hack>
Subject: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
[munch]
>There are no other ACRV options that I've heard of.  The capsule that
>was discussed as an HL-20 competitor hasn't materialized as more
>than numbers (if I don't se a sketch, it's not a serious proposal 8-).

There are at least 2 "capsule" ACRV ideas.  Both have had sketches
circulated within NASA/AW&ST/Space News.  The first is the old ACRV
concept that has been worked within the SSF rubric.  Rockwell and a few
others came up with concepts and early designs for ACRVs under some
study contracts.  A full size mockup is attached to the SSF trainer here
at JSC in Building 9.  Cost is $1e9 or so.

The main "competitor" to the HL-20 is the capsule-based Personnel Launch
System (PLS) study program at JSC.  I posted a long description of it a
year or so ago.  It is an 2 crew/8 passenger vehicle with limited cargo
capability that is to be launched on a Titan/Atlas/NLS expendable.  It
is Gemini-like, in that the crew compartment is separable from the
propulsion/support  module. The propulsion system uses storable
propellants, so it is to be robotically refurbished to reduce hazardous
material exposures.  Two studies at JSC are still going on PLS.  Note
that PLS and HL-20 are intended as a replacement to STS for routine crew
transfer to SSF, were not originally intended to be ACRVs, and are both
shoestring efforts.  I don't expect either to go forward to Phase B
studies anytime soon.  NASA ought to get some credit for realizing that
the STS is not the "best" way to do a crew rotation.


--
| Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
| [e-mail]    SpokesPersonp(Me,or(NASA,LESC)) = NIL
| "No the game never ends when your whole
|       world depends on the turn of a friendly card"

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 22:05:50 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Info on Challenger accident

> 1986.  Yes, the group was around.  There were various postings
concerning
> the accident, including (I think) a scanned-in copy of the
conclusions of
> the Rogers Commission, but I don't know where you'd find it online
today.
>


With the help of Gene Miya, Mark Maimone and Bill Higgins I am in the
process of setting up a complete archive of SpaceDigest from V1-0 to
present. I will post here when that archive is ready to go on line.
There is a fair amount of work involved in collating, putting
different sets into the same formats, etc. No one has complete sets,
so I have to search a good bit. It might be awhile yet: I've been
working on it off and on for several months as time allows.

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 16:54:13 GMT
From: "Thomas J. Nugent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: More second-hand info on TSS
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Chuck Shotton) writes:

>Running 12 miles of cable off a spool doesn't seem to be a particularly
>difficult task, even in zero G. Why is it that we have another
>over-engineered solution that has apparently failed? Is this really any
>more difficult to engineer that an elaborate fishing reel? I'm sure it's a
>LOT simpler than most other shuttle systems (including the toilet!).

>It's a little discouraging to continually see minor things screwing up
>over-hyped shuttle missions (like non-functional grapple bars, jammed fax
>machines, burned out cooling fans, untested telescope mirrors, etc.)

>I'm not flaming anyone. I seriously want to know how this cable mechanism
>was designed and tested and how such a simple mechanism can be so screwed
>up.

It is screwing up (probably) because we still don't know all that we need
to in order to work in space.  The latest SpaceNews has an article
describing how they tested that sucker back and forth, inside and out - and
it worked perfectly.  They even tried to simulate a zero-g environment.  But
they can't actually test it in a zero-g environment, and so the unexpected
creeps in.  Now it may be that something happened during launch, or that
someone forgot to remove the gum he stuck under it :-) or something else.
Or it may be that zero-g strikes again.  They'll find out when they do
the "autopsy" I guess you could call it.

"The future is a race between education and catastrophe."
        - H.G. Wells
--
"To be average scares the hell out of me." -- Anonymous
Tom Nugent        e-mail: [e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 16:47:38 GMT
From: keith schultz ldv/cl <utrurt!schultzk>
Subject: Need Shuttle Launch Dates Aug 20 - Sept 20
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Hi Netters,

    The Subject says it all. My going to Florida and would like to
    see a real live shuttle launch so if a kind soul would be kind
    enough to give me the information or me to an e-mail site
    I'd appreciate it very much !! Thanx for your patience, time and
    efforts. I'm on the internet. See my adress bleow. Please
    e-mail me since others may fell this to be a nuciance.

                        Thanx

                          Keith.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Keith J. Schultz                 ////               The Power Bauer
..!unido!utrurt!schultzk       (o)-(o)              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[e-mail]        |  "  |          Never counts his chickens
Linguistics at its finest       \`u'/               before they hatch
University of Trier           / |>o<| \     This ain't no chicken feed !!?!
=============================================================================

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 15:38:58 GMT
From: David Knapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seeding Mars with life
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Knapp) writes:
>
>
>|> >The driest places on Earth, like the dry valleys of Antarctica, are
>|> >tropical rain forests compared to Mars.
>|>
>|> You don't know that, and, in fact, nobody else does either. There is
>|> strong evidence that there exists abundant water supplies within the
>|> Martian regolith.
>
>There exists abundant water of hydration, and ice, probably.  But *not*
>liquid water anywhere near the surface.  The pressure is simply too low.

I contend that the subsurface of Mars is as much on Mars as the surface is
and that if water exists there in liquid form, then liquid water exists on
Mars, which you said was impossible.

I don't know why you think the surface is so special, unless you are going to
get into the old worn photosynthesis tyrade.

>|> We might expect that life forms would exist lower in the
>|> soil *anyway* due to the atmospheric pressure, constinuents and abundant
>|> UV.   We will need to go there and physically investigate the strata to confirm
>|> or deny amounts of water in the regolith.
>
>Life exists at depth on earth only because it also exists at the surface.

I think you've suggested a cause an effect that most biologists would
disagree with.

>Soil organisms decompose organic compounds produced by photosynthesis.

Photosynthesis isn't required for all life. Not all life forms consume
products of photosynthesis. Deep ocean vent tube worms are one example.

>Deep organisms that eat oil run on fossil photosynthetic energy.
>Even the "vent" organisms are exploiting the chemical gradient set up
>by photosynthesis (they oxidize the reduced chemicals coming out of the
>vents), and are therefore not completely geothermally powered.

The do not comsume photosythesized materials. (at least according to National
Geographic...)

But why should we argue about life on Earth when it is life on Mars that is
the issue?

>|> >Liquid water cannot exist
>|> >at the surface of Mars.
>|>
>|> But it can deeper in the regolith.
>
>Irrelevant.

You seem to be one of the few who think so, and that is your prerogative.

>|> >No terrestrial cell could survive, let
>|> >alone reproduce, there.
>|>
>|> Not on the surface, but perhaps deeper in the regolith it could. More
>|> research needs to be done to confirm the upper crust and regolith structures
>|> and other properties.
>
>This seems very unlikely.  What could they eat?

Themselves? Who knows?  Do you know every possible instance that life might
exist in?  Maybe you do, but if you did, your time would be better spent
writing books than writing on the net.

>|> Do you know for a fact that there is no geothermal activity *anywhere* on
>|> Mars that might still be supplying enough heat to maintain liquid water
>|> within the soil?
>
>Liquid water could not be maintained at the surface.  At depth?  Perhaps,
>but what's the energy source for the organisms?

You were simply wrong about 'liquid water not existing on Mars' because H2O(l)
is actually quite probable. Now you shift to the issue of viability of *any*
life form. We know relatively little about life on *this* planet, why would
you think we are experts on all possible life everywhere?

Again, just because that is not known, doesn't mean it's not possible.
Do you remember when CFCs came out? They were 'prefectly inert'. What could
*possibly* go wrong with using them on large scale?

Well, it couldn't have been forcasted but as it turns out, quite a *lot* of
damage can be done with them.

That is a wonderful example of using the lack of knowledge as justifcation for
implementation. There are many more where that came from.

If we get cocky and think we can forcast everything that might ever happen
concerning life on another planet or moon, we could quite easily destroy our
ability to detect it or study it.  You might not think that would be a waste,
but luckily, NASA and ESA (and many others) do. For the cost of creating a
sterilization policy, we insure a better possiblity of finding life if it
exists on Mars.  We've already mucked up this planet enough with ego-
centricity, I don't think it's a bad thing at *all* to treat the only other
planet in our solar system, which might be able to support humans, with kid
gloves.


>|> >Even the icecaps have pressures too low
>|> >for liquid water to exist.  No liquid water = no terrestrial life.
>|> >Period.
>|>
>|> It's not that simple (comma)  If it were that simple, NASA would not be
>|> so concerned about contamination.
>
>NASA is constrained by a pointless treaty.

Perhaps you should join with Nasa to fix that as long as you are such an
expert on Mars. They could probably use your expertise. I'm surprised they've
gotten as far as they have without your insight. Unless maybe they know
something you don't or aren't as ignorant as you seem to think.

>
>|> >And let's not forget the lethal unfiltered UV, and the
>|> >oxidizing surface conditions.  Remember that the Vikings didn't
>|> >even detect the expected carbonaceous meteorite remnants, so
>|> >we know there are active processes destroying organic matter there.
>|>
>|> Viking landers didn't look everywhere. They looked not even as deep as
>|> what the dust storms could pile up.
>
>The Viking landers looked at spots that were not very dry by Martian
>standards.  And, unless you are proposing some magical mechanism
>that keeps the carbonaceous debris falling on the planet from ending
>up at those sites, the GCMS results do corroborate the aeronomical
>information about the oxidizing conditions there.

Sure, there are major dust storms every year moving highly oxidized minerals
which are airborne for long periods of time over the surface.  Unless
the meteoric materials are in a large mixing ratio with the airborne dust
they will not be contained in that dust.  Viking landers only dug up a
few cm of wind blown dust. That is no enigma.

Do you think you can go anywhere on Mars (or Earth) and pick up a couple
scoops of dirt and find carbonaceaous condritic materials?  I would simply
disagree. I can point you to *numerous* papers which hold that the Viking
landers landed in non-representative, isolated areas on Mars *anyway*. This
had to be done to ensure a better chance of a successful landing, which clearly
worked.

So the surface is subject to oxidizing conditions. So what?

>Henry:
>
>I did know about the Surveyor spores.  I didn't consider dormant
>spores to be living cells.  They were not undergoing any metabolic
>activity, so in an actively hostile environment they could not
>repair damage and would eventually become nonviable.


Well, as an aside, I am *very* glad you are not making policy decision for NASA.


--
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      [e-mail]
Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 04:33:31 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Watching a Shuttle launch
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (Frederick A. Ringwald)
-Subject: Re: Home made rockets
-Date: 10 Aug 92 01:22:46 GMT
-Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

-In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
-> True. But I'd be happy to sign a liability release if it would let me watch
-> a Shuttle launch from a mile or two away.

-In that case, your eardrums may not be too happy with you. I saw the
-Skylab I launch from Titusville, right across the bay, and that was
-PLENTY close enough! (It's a low-frequency sound much more felt than
-heard.)

Except for *really* loud sounds, it's the high frequency that causes most
of the damage, and that can be largely abated by tissue paper in the ears
or (even better) the earplugs used by shooters (I prefer the expanding foam
type). For the one-mile site I'd want a safety helmet, goggles, and a
concrete trench. A two-mile site probably wouldn't be too bad as-is.
(I don't really expect NASA to approve such an idea, since even the safety
people are kept three miles away, with the possible exception of some armored
vehicles, but it would be great if they did allow it.)

I watched the Shuttle launch last September from the park area near
Titusville - it was very impressive. From all the reports I'd read, I
expected a rather unspectacular view, with the main feature being the roar
of the engines. To my surprise, it was the opposite. The sound was impressive,
to be sure, especially at that distance, but the flames from the exhaust
were really fantastic. What fooled me is the limited dynamic range of
television systems and camera film - with the sensitivity set to pick up
the body of the Shuttle, the exhaust flames of the SRBs are washed out -
you only see them at a fraction of their true brightness. In fact, they're
more like the flame of an acetylene torch with some sodium added - a
blazingly brilliant yellow glare. Once the SRBs separated (which is clearly
visible from the ground), the flames from the main engines became apparent -
brilliant points of blue light. The main engines were still clearly visible
at a range of 50-60 nautical miles, at which point the Shuttle passed
behind a palm tree, and I lost track of it. This launch was a few minutes
before sunset, which gave very favorable lighting.

I was able to get a good spot to crouch down and set up my telescope and
camera tripod on what everybody else thought was a fire ant bed. Having
encountered real fire ants a few weeks earlier, I was unimpressed by these
ants, though they did bite several other people. :-)

A few minutes before the launch, a dolphin swam right to the shore, stuck
its head out of the water, and looked at the spectators. At the time it
seemed like mere coincidence - later, I wondered if NASA had hired a few
dolphins to keep an eye on things. :-)  :-)

I got some pretty good pictures with a zoom lens set to 300mm. If I had it to
do over again, I'd probably add my 2X converter and try for 600mm. A local
radio station broadcast the audio portion of NASA Select, and many of the
spectators had radios, which made it easy to keep track of what was going on.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 18:45:55 GMT
From: Solly Ezekiel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Watching a Shuttle launch
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:

>I watched the Shuttle launch last September from the park area near
>Titusville - it was very impressive. From all the reports I'd read, I
>expected a rather unspectacular view, with the main feature being the roar
...
>to be sure, especially at that distance, but the flames from the exhaust
>were really fantastic. What fooled me is the limited dynamic range of
>television systems and camera film - with the sensitivity set to pick up
...

I too have seen a shuttle launch (STS-11), and was impressed by 4 things:

  1.    The brightness of the exhaust.  STS-11 went up at ~0700 local time,
    and it was like seeing an early sunrise.  If any of you saw the
    very first Shuttle launch on TV, you'll remember that when the
    SRBs cleared their flame trenches and the TV cameras got their
    first clear pictures, the flames kept "blinking"- which I took
    to mean that some cutout circuit had started tripping due to the
    brightness.

  2.    The sound.  From the viewing area, which is about 6 miles away,
    I didn't hear much high-frequency noise, but the low-frequency
    stuff got through just fine.  It felt like my clothes were flapping
    in some strange breeze.

  3.    The sheer speed with which the Shuttle went up.  Like it was on
    a spring.  TV cameras don't convey that at all.

  4.    Finally, the reaction of everyone around me.  I'd seen closed-
    circuit launch coverage before, at which everyone cheers and
    claps their hands... but this time, seeing it live, when those
    engines started everyone just stood there, dumbstruck.

  +--------------------------+---------------+---------------------------+
  | "Asps!!  Very dangerous. |               | My opinions are not those |
  |     ...You go first."    |  Sol Ezekiel  |      of my employer,      |
  |          -- Sallah       |               |    Space Systems/Loral    |
  +--------------------------+---------------+---------------------------+

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 15:40:58 GMT
From: George William Herbert <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is the ASRM??
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James B. Pettengill) writes:
>According to the Assembly and Maintenance Implementation
>Definition Document (AMIDD) dated 9/15/91:
>Mission Build     Payload (lb)     Capacity(lb) (220nm)
>-------------     ------------     --------------------
>    MB1            38492               37300
>[...]
>Orbiter payload capacity can be increased with the following trade offs:
>1. Decrease altitude        +100 lb/nm
>3. Delete rendezvous prop  +1000 lb
>4. Leave 1 astronaut home   +500 lb

    Don't forget that on MB-1, there's no rendezvous, and one
astronaut can stay home if needed.  That gives 1000-1500 lb extra,
which means that MB-1 is no longer negative payload margin.  Later
missions w/o ASRM continue to be slightly over mass budget.
The solution of assembling slightly lower is likely.


-george william herbert
[e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail] until 28 aug
++ copyright 1992 george william herbert. All rights reserved.  Permission   ++
++ granted for Usenet transmission/use and followup/reply articles/mail use  ++

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 16:35:30 GMT
From: "Thomas J. Nugent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is the ASRM??
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

[e-mail] (James B. Pettengill) writes:

>fred can't get off the ground without asrm.
>as of the last redesign the third flight is above the shuttle max payload.

I thought that if they used ASRM on the shuttle, it would not be able to
abort after takeoff and return to ground.  From what I remember, after the
Challenger accident, during the redesign, it was realized that if it were
carrying somewhere near its maximum payload and tried to abort back to
ground, the wings of the shuttle would snap off under the stress due to the
weight of the full payload bay.  ASRM implies that they will be launching
even heavier loads.  Anybody know any more about this?

"The future is a race between education and catastrophe."
        - H.G. Wells
--
"To be average scares the hell out of me." -- Anonymous
Tom Nugent        e-mail: [e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 099
------------------------------