Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_4/V15NO433.TXT

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 05:01:36
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #433
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 18 Nov 92       Volume 15 : Issue 433

Today's Topics:
                 *Angle of Attack*: have you read it?
                              Ada on SSF
                          astronauts voting
            Clinton's address (was Re: Feynmann's legacy)
                                COSTAR
                           Hubble's mirror
                 Lunar "colony" reality check, part 2
                   Mars Observer Update - 11/13/92
                        NASA Coverup (2 msgs)
   opening of the first self-sufficient solar house, Press Release
OS in the shuttle (was Re: What kind of computers are in the shuttle?)
                  Satellite Photos of hurricanes...
                      Shuttle computers (2 msgs)
                     Shuttle replacement (3 msgs)
                         Space Spinoff Survey
                         Space suit research?
                         Upcoming HST lecture

    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: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:28:18 GMT
From: david michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: *Angle of Attack*: have you read it?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>
>The book is the story of Harrison Storms, the head of North American
>Aviation's space division during the development of the Apollo command
>module (NAA also developed one of the Saturn V stages, I think).
>Storms was canned in the wake of the Apollo fire investigation, much
>disucssed here in the past week.

>

NAA developed the S II stage - also, by coincidence (?) a problem
child.  Much interesting background in the NASA SP "Stages to Saturn".

--
Dave Michelson
[e-mail]


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

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 22:48:35 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ada on SSF

-From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
-Subject: Re: Automated space station construction
-Date: 14 Nov 92 14:34:54 GMT
-Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

->From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Gary Coffman):
->> Military COBOL and Intel processors, FRED IS DOOMED. :-) :-)

-I called Ada military COBOL because it's almost as wordy. Actually I
-like Ada and have coded some serious applications in it. It's C++ with
-an attitude. :-)

A recently-read anecdote:

A contractor, assigned to program a military system, applied for and was
granted the usual waiver to write the code in assembly language rather than
Ada. When the job was nearly complete, a higher-up decided that there was
insufficient justification and cancelled the waiver, so the contractor had
to go back and write the code in Ada.

To the great surprise of the contractor, not only was the Ada version much
quicker and easier to write than the assembly version, but the resulting
machine language was more compact *and* ran faster!

One might almost speculate that Ada compilers have been improving in the last
few years, and that some of the old Ada jokes are not as relevant as they
once were.

(Now, if they could only figure out how to program the Difference Engine
in Ada! :-)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 17 Nov 92 20:16:07 GMT
From: Henry Troup <[e-mail]>
Subject: astronauts voting
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Mike van der Velden) writes:
|>the other hand, if you are a Canadian citizen living abroad there is
|>no mechanism in place by which you can cast an absentee ballot in the
|>American sense of the word.

The issue is the rather esoteric one of 'legal residence'.  This has a
lot to do with what income taxes you pay.  I read that Marc Garneau that
managed to establish a polling station in Houston for the Canadian Space
Agency types.  I suspect that this was possible under the same rules as
Canadian troops overseas - they're in the employ of the Canadian
government and maintain legal residence in Canada, regardless of
physical location.

Henry Troup - [e-mail] (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
         Only eleven more shopping days 'till St. Andrew's Day!

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

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:32:35 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Clinton's address (was Re: Feynmann's legacy)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
..
>>programs are writing letters to Clinton/Gore '92, rather than just sitting
>>around moaning. :-)
>
> I hope so too. The address is:
>
> President Elect Bill Clinton
> PO Box 615
> Little Rock AR 72203
>
>   Allen
>
> --
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
> |  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
> +----------------------158 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+


For such a together dude, why doesn't Clinton (and Gore) have an e-mail
address and access to the NET???  They'll Never know what's going on
unless they be on-line.  They should at least be FAQed in.

Wm. Hathaway

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

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 22:32:12 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: COSTAR

-From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
-Subject: Re: COSTAR
-Date: 17 Nov 92 15:07:18 GMT
-Organization: Johns Hopkins University

-Has an assessment of potential risks has been prepared and reviewed?
-What could go wrong?  Where are the primary risk areas?  e.g. failure
-to grapple the telescope, failure to extract the module COSTAR
-replaces, engineering uncertainties that might lead to the new optical
-path missing the aperture opening, etc.

During the closeout, a technician inadvertently leaves an unopened Coca-Cola
can inside COSTAR. (Later analysis of the checklist reveals that "remove
any extraneous beverage cans" was signed off by *two* different inspectors.)
When the boom is deployed, it ruptures the can, causing the entire interior of
HST to be coated with a liquid that quickly dries to a black, tarry layer. :-)

Somewhat more plausible scenario - the mirrors only partially deploy,
blocking the original light paths, but not implementing the new light paths,
and efforts to retract them fail. (I presume they'll try to deploy while
HST is still attached to the Shuttle - if all else fails, a couple of burly
astronauts can try to yank the whole assembly out of HST.)

The mirrors and the boom *are* designed to be retractable, aren't they?

Another question: is COSTAR designed to be hooked into the existing HST
power supply?

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:27:04 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble's mirror
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>#To the best of my knowledge, the only statement in my posting which is
>#not a solidly-established fact . . .
>
>I was referring to your statment implying that Dr. Jefferys was
>contributing to the "technological myth of the century." Correcting
>Dr. Jefferys on matters of the HST is like correcting Dennis Ritchie
>on matters of C.

Since I've been known to do the latter, I don't see why I shouldn't do
the former. :-)  Actually, I don't immediately remember having had
occasion to correct Dennis on the net, but I have found bugs in both
his code and his book.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 23:32:15 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check, part 2

-From: [e-mail] (Nick Szabo)
-Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check, part 2
-Date: 15 Nov 92 11:48:05 GMT

-* Just as with Shuttle, astronauts will not be able to fix most
-  broken equipment.  Most disabling breaks, no matter to how
-  small a part, will require an entire replacement unit to be
-  shipped from earth.  Since the astronaut's very lives will
-  depend on recycling equipment, large numbers of spares will
-  have to be shipped on the first trip.

A valid concern, and one I have posted before. What can be done to help
alleviate the problem? Breaking designs up into smaller modules, and having
as many identical modules as possible might help. Using initially identical
but reconfigurable modules could also be useful. (Earthbound example: I just
finished a circuit design in which a high percentage of the logic is in
identical reprogrammable logic devices, each one programmed differently.
By keeping a relatively small number of spares on hand, I could replace
any of these devices that might fail. If for some reason I had no spares
and really needed to use the circuit, I could cannibalize a component from
a less-critical area, and use it to replace a failed device in a more-critical
area.)

As I posted long ago, I suspect a first mission would be likely to choose to
start with a minimal set of spares, and hope to later build up a stock by
periodic resupply. (Or they might send supplies ahead of them, by unmanned
vehicle.)

-* Redesigning equipment for 1/6 g will cost _more_ than
-  redesigning it for 0 g, because the latter has been
-  done for a much wider array of equipment on satellites
-  & stations.

With so many Earth-based processes relying greatly on gravity, can you be
sure that low gravity will be worse than none at all? Experience with
chemical processes in microgravity is very limited - not counting rocket
engines (which I don't think of as a *process* anyway), I can't think of any
non-classified work except film development, and that was done using gels.
(Obviously, there are ongoing Shuttle experiments on processes that
*require* microgravity.)

Are you thinking in terms of large rotating structures in space to provide
gravity? That approach can introduce its own problems.

-* Unlike the intrepid Biosphereans, lunar astronauts will
-  not be able to cheat and come back to civilization to
-  find good medical care.  In a lunabago will be found
-  little more than a part-time doctor and a first-aid kit.

That's also a concern for SSF. Would a crew return to Earth two months
early to reattach a severed fingertip?

Some of the Shuttle experiments have involved equipment and techniques
that would be useful for medical treatment in orbit - they could
certainly make sure at least one SSF astronaut is a physician, and
perhaps surgery would not be out of the question.

On her first flight (the Spacelab mission), Dr. Tammy Jernigan showed that
if the Shuttle pilot is strapped down onto the experimental restraint table
for sick crewmen, he can safely be whacked over the head and/or tickled
with an artificial arm without fear of immediate retribution - thus proving
that the restraints are effective. (On the recent STS-52 mission, however,
she was unfortunately dragged off by a 'space alien' during the Halloween
celebrations - showing that these things balance out in the long run.)

-* Submarines get to surface every month or more, and can come back to
-  port for food & sex.  Nobody has a "submarine colony", even though
-  it would be far less expensive and more functional than a lunar
-  "colony".

I know one person who actually served on a nuclear attack sub. Judging from
his (unclassified) account, I don't think they surfaced for months at a
time.

-* If scientific knowledge is an "economic resource", then what
-  happened to NASA's planetary science budget?  Why can't they
-  even find money for a lunar polar orbiter, which costs many
-  orders of magnitude less than even a minimal lunar base?
-  Why not let scientists decide where to spend the science budget?
-  (Hint: lunar base isn't even _on_ their long list of priorities).

Some might argue that the overwhelming interest of scientists is to
publish as many papers as possible (to the extent that many journals
actually charge the authors to publish their papers), and that for a
given amount of money, you can get a lot more speculative papers on
fuzzy blobs seen from Earth. I think that would be too harsh an accusation -
I'm sure there are many dedicated scientists who are mainly interested
in scientific truth. But I'm not convinced that the scientists should be
given the sole voice in deciding what should be funded. None of the scientists
I know get to spend on whatever they want without approval from Administration.

-* Microgravity manufacturing, large platforms and other space
-  industries could export $10's of billions per year to earth
-  by using a large supply of cheap volatiles and high-grade metal
-  regolith, available in abundance from planetesimals but absent
-  on the moon.  With low thrust in microgravity, the power needed
-  to move this material to earth orbit is orders of magnitude less
-  than needed to get useless lunar material out of the moon's gravity
-  well.

-Our obsession with the Death Valley in front of us continues
-to blind our eyes to the fertile valleys beyond, and the space
-colonization movement remains mired in failure.

"And your friends on the forest moon will not survive." :-)

Well, one improvement anyway - nobody's going to be able to dispute
the *numbers* in your post. :-)  :-)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 17 Nov 1992 19:15:24 GMT
From: Steve Derry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 11/13/92
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
|>
|> A new Star Catalog/Ephemeris was uplinked and a successful "USE"
|> command radiated this morning.  The ephemeris previously used had the
|> intended effect of altering the solar array sun incidence angle by 5
|> degrees, from 60 degrees to 55 degrees.  This sun incidence angle periodic
|> decrease will be performed in subsequent ephemeris loads, with the final
|> objective being to point the high-gain antenna at earth by the time
|> transition from inner to outer cruise takes place.  The current offset is
|> designed to prevent direct sunlight on the solar panels creating an excess
|> amount of power.  At the time of transition from inner to outer cruise, the
|> spacecraft will be of sufficient distance from the sun that excess power
|> is of a lesser concern.

I understand why it is undesirable to point the solar array directly at the
sun at this point in the mission.  But why can't the HGA be pointed at earth?
Aren't the solar array and HGA independedtly steerable?

--
Steve Derry
<[e-mail]>

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

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:45:11 GMT
From: Dillon Pyron <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gregory N. Bond) writes:
>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:42:20 GMT, [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) said:
>
>Josh> Did you know that fully _half_ of all babies are born within one
>Josh> week of a full Moon!  No kidding.
>
>And what is worse, half of those babies born within a week of a full
>moon have below-average intelligence!
Ha!  What fools!  Did you not know that half of all children are born within
one week of the "new" (null) moon?  What running-dog lackeys of the
capitalictic imperialists! (sorry for old dogma, the new stuff hasn't arrived
yet and this stuff will expire soon if I don't use it :-)

Also remember that half the kids are born between high tide and low tide.
>
>Obviously, the radiation from the alien artifact that is holding the
>moon up is affecting them.

Which artifact?  I thought that neither of them radiated.

Obnoxious debunking - It's not just a hobby, it's an avocation.
>--
>Gregory Bond <[e-mail]> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
>``There is Faith, Hope and Charity.  But greater than these is Banking.'' - 1492
>
>
>
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
[phone] (when I'm here)     |
[phone] (when I'm home)     |"Pacts with the devil are not legally
[e-mail]          |binding!"
PADI DM-54909                     |-Friar Tuck   _Robin Hood:The Hooded Man_

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

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:53:18 GMT
From: Dillon Pyron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nasa Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
  [various discussion deleted]
>
>>   10. Is there anything "funny" about the moon?
>
>Yes. We should have bases there by now.

That's not all that funny.  "Funny", yes.  Like that "funny" sound of a land
mine arming itself.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
[phone] (when I'm here)     |
[phone] (when I'm home)     |"Pacts with the devil are not legally
[e-mail]          |binding!"
PADI DM-54909                     |-Friar Tuck   _Robin Hood:The Hooded Man_

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

Date: 17 Nov 92 21:12:28 GMT
From: Phil Ngai <[e-mail]>
Subject: opening of the first self-sufficient solar house, Press Release
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Remember Apollo 13, the failure modes for these things includes
>BOOM! Also don't forget the electrolyzer, tankage, and pumps.

I thought the Apollo 13 failure was due to overheating a dewar,
something not proposed for this house project.

--
My opinions are my own.

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

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:55:03 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: OS in the shuttle (was Re: What kind of computers are in the shuttle?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marc Fournier - Admin) writes:
>>... the specs are stringent for a reason.  MSDOS doesn't qualify. :-)
>
>    Speaking of MSDOS...NAWT!...what do they use?  An in-house
>developed OS?  Some derived from existing OS's?

It's a custom-cooked system that was (I think) done from scratch.  It may
well have borrowed bits and pieces from earlier avionics systems using
the same processors.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 21:41:46 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Satellite Photos of hurricanes...

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (IEGS000) writes:
|>
|>COULD SOMEONE HELP ME: SUPPOSE A HURRICANE JUST BLEW IN! WHERE CAN I
|>FIND A SATELLITE PHOTOS OF IT'S PROGRESS?
|>PLEASE REPLY TO MC.BER
|>

>CNN

--
>Tim Fogarty
>[e-mail]

The cable was the first thing to go. Of course, the internet
connection to the school had been shut down early in the day.

The cable wasn't hooked up again until about three weeks
or so after the power was hooked up. The phones were up
all the time.

I don't really know why they want to keep the phone companies
out of the cable business.

--
Phil Fraering
In the country of the blind....
60 minutes doesn't run stories about people trying to ban hearing

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

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 23:04:57 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle computers

-From: [e-mail] (Pat)
-Subject: Re: Shuttle computers
-Date: 17 Nov 92 04:58:22 GMT
-Organization: UDSI

-In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
->Do you recall how tight the lockstep is? I don't believe I've seen anything
->written on that since before STS-1.

-I think it was 1/2 a clock.  i believe every instruction is run at the same
-time on each processor and when a computation is ready they go to the master
-for comparison and validation.

That *is* a tight lockstep - obviously a pure hardware implementation (at
least for detection). Do the processors have measurement "hooks" into
their internal workings for the lockstep comparison?

-one of the first shuttle flights was screwed up because IBM tested the
-software ona ground test bed which had different cable lengths then the
-shuttle and the propagation delay was putting the clock edges enough out that
-they kept locking out the slave in each pair.  i think it was something
-like this.  there are two control channels, each has a primary and backup
-computer.  the backups kept going off-line and the mission got scrubbed.
-i am sure henry knows the true details but thats how a guyt from IBM
-explained it to me.

If the new GPCs have a performance of 1.2 Mips, and the old GPCs have
"a third" of that, then it is very unlikely that the main processor clock
ran at more than a few megahertz. Since signals travel through cable at
roughly 1/2 - 1/3 of the speed of light, that sounds like either an
extraordinarily long cable or an unreasonably tight timing tolerance
relative to the clock speed.

The first launch of the first Shuttle (STS-1) was delayed a few days
because when the system was powered up on the launch pad, an unacceptable
phase relationship was established between two of the system clocks. The
relationship was such that it was extremely unlikely to happen at any given
powerup, but no provision had been made to prevent it (the self-checks
*were* designed to detect it).

The solution at the time was to look at the phase relationship after powerup,
and if detected, the processors would be turned off and powered up again. :-)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:44:07 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle computers
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>-... aren't independent systems -- those five main computers operate
>-in very close lockstep for fault tolerance.  This isn't just a tougher
>-version of a commercial computer system.
>
>Do you recall how tight the lockstep is? I don't believe I've seen anything
>written on that since before STS-1.

It's not a cycle-by-cycle lockstep like some redundant systems.  Every
couple of milliseconds, the four computers in the main redundant set
compare notes; if one disagrees with the others twice in a row, the
others declare it to have failed.  The fifth computer runs completely
different software, programmed by a different group using different
methods, as a final backup against disastrous failure; I think switchover
to it is entirely manual.

That's the configuration used when going up and coming down.  On orbit,
I believe they typically preload one or two of the computers with reentry
software and then take them out of service completely as reserves, while
the others are used for routine on-orbit operations.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 17 Nov 92 20:46:55 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <[e-mail]> writes:

>Allen, is it concievable that an SSTO vehicle could be built with the same
>payload weight capability as the shuttle with the same base technologies?

As I understand it you can scale up to some degree. Eventually you will
want to lighter NASP materials which aren't being used in DC-Y and more
powerful engines. There is also the tri-propellent engines which have
the potential to greatly increase payload.

I believe that if DC-Y works and can deliver 15 to 20 thousand pounds to
LEO then building a 40K version should be possible.

>By the way, I am in the process of trying to convince Gore to back the
>SSTO and NASP programs as well as the SEI program. Any ideas you could provide
>would be appreciated. Also, let me know if I can be of service to your
>efforts.

Do you have one of our packets? If not, email me your address and I'll
send you one. It will help you with selling Gore. If you can get a meeting
with Gore, let me know. If it helps, offer to meet him anywhere and I'll
get you there (within reason :-)).

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------158 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:49:01 GMT
From: "Dr. Norman J. LaFave" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Allen W. Sherzer, [e-mail]
writes:
>A set of Delta Clipper vehicles can do most  of what a Shuttle does. It
>can launch and retrieve payloads weighing less than 20K pounds but that
is
>only half the Shuttle payload. A Clipper stationed at SSF could work as
an
>OTV.

Allen, is it concievable that an SSTO vehicle could be built with the same
payload weight capability as the shuttle with the same base technologies?

By the way, I am in the process of trying to convince Gore to back the
SSTO
and NASP programs as well as the SEI program. Any ideas you could provide
would be appreciated. Also, let me know if I can be of service to your
efforts.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson

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

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:01:50 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <[e-mail]> writes:
>... is it concievable that an SSTO vehicle could be built with the same
>payload weight capability as the shuttle with the same base technologies?

Yes, it's entirely plausible, although it might end up being somewhat
larger than the shuttle for the same payload.  NASA studied SSTO concepts
early in the shuttle development, although the conclusion was "too
much risk of performance shortfall".

Gary Hudson claims that you could put six SSMEs on a shuttle external
tank, without SRBs, and get it into orbit carrying a payload about 50%
greater than the shuttle's.  It wouldn't be reusable, though.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 17 Nov 92 19:58:14 GMT
From: Adams Douglas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Spinoff Survey
Newsgroups: sci.space

This is posted for my roommate, Donna M. Gagnon. She does have a
net email address, but no News access.

PLEASE EMAIL ALL REPLIES TO: [e-mail]

     I am a Research Associate for Jan Howard Finder's Shadow
     Cabinet, an organization of space enthusiasts attempting to
     develop a coordinated space policy statement _sellable_ to
     the general public. At the moment I am collecting
     information for several cabinet members. Please email me
     answers to the questions I have listed below. I will post a
     summary for those interested.

     While I personally am globally minded, for purposes of this
     survey the answers to these questions should explicitly
     reflect the benefits to the U.S.A. as distinct from those to
     the planet.

     1. Does the space program contribute to the american
     economy, if so how? Please give explicit examples. Also,
     please don't answer the next two questions in the answer to
     this one.

     2. What physical products (e.g., bowling balls,
     photosensitive sunglasses) are in use in present-day America
     that we can attribute to the space program? Please be
     explicit.

     3. What non-physical products (e.g., weather reports, better
     communications) are available in present-day America that we
     can attribute to the space program. Please be explict.

                                   Thank you,
                                Donna M. Gagnon

REMEMBER, REPLY TO: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 23:19:00 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space suit research?

-From: [e-mail] (Pat)
-Subject: Re: Space suit research?
-Date: 17 Nov 92 04:13:22 GMT
-Organization: UDSI

-ALSO in apollo were EVA's part of the planned mission?  sure on lunar landing,
-but what about in flight for the command and service module.  were they
-recovering sample panels or was this just emergency plans?

I believe the astronauts normally moved between the Command Module and the
Lunar Module via a pressurized docking adapter. However, while two of the
astronauts were on the moon, a camera mounted on the Service Module was
busy taking beautiful stereo aerial photos of the lunar surface. When the
astronauts came back from the moon, one of them had to do an EVA to
retrieve the film. This is depicted in the NASA Select video of Apollo 16
(a great video, if you ever have a chance to see it).

I'm not sure whether this was done before or after unsealing the Lunar Module -
Command Module adapter - I would guess before, so the Command Module would
not have to be depressurized.

Question: was the Lunar Module normally pressurized before takeoff? And
after the film EVA, was it pressurized again before unsealing the docking
adapter?

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 22:14:30 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Upcoming HST lecture

[Sorry about the late post - I just found out about it. I'll try to attend
and take notes, but no promises. JWR]

IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Society Chapter Meeting

"The Hubble Space Telescope: an Instrument that Takes Exceedingly Good
Care of Itself"

Thursday, November 19, 1992, 8:00 pm
Mr. Dana L. Mitchell - Lead Instrument Engineer at the Space Telescope
  Science Institute

>From the level of a single detector on up to the entire telescope as a
system, the HST does an exceptional job of protecting itself. We will
hear a recent saga of problems both internal and external to the spacecraft,
and how the HST automatically rode through it all without a scratch.

Mr. Mitchell is Lead Instrument Engineer and Deputy Chief of the Engineering
Support Branch at the Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore MD. He
heads the group of engineers who monitor the performance of the Hubble
Space Telescope's instruments. Prior to this, he was the Technical Director
of the Steward Observatory at the University of Arizona. His initial
satellite instrumentation experience was gained as Chief Engineer of the
Columbia University Astrophysics Laboratory where he followed a number of
instruments from design through to in-orbit operation.

Hazelton's Restaurant, Gaithersburg Marriott, Gaithersburg MD.
Social 6:15 pm; Dinner 6:45 pm; Talk 8:00 pm. For dinner reservations,
contact Jerry Stenbakken before November 18, 1992 on 301-975-2440.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 433
------------------------------