Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_4/V15NO436.TXT

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 05:02:37
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #436
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 19 Nov 92       Volume 15 : Issue 436

Today's Topics:
                          Breasts in zero-g
                FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY For Spacecraft
                     Lunar "colony" reality check
            Lunar "colony" reality check, part 2 (2 msgs)
                    Mars Simulation in Antarctica
Minority Kids into Techies (was Re: Free Middle/High School Broadcasts) (2 msgs)
                    ROTATION OF THE MOON (3 msgs)
                   Saturn V for Freedom deployment
                          Shuttle computers
                     Shuttle replacement (5 msgs)
                         Space suit research?
              What kind of computers are in the shuttle?

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

Date: 18 Nov 1992 17:50:02 GMT
From: Claudio Egalon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Breasts in zero-g
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hmm... That is an interesting point. Sometime ago I read somewhere
(I guess it was in the OMNI Space Almanac, I am not sure) that
whenever a woman go to space in zero g, the breast keep on floating,
in the upwright position. Interesting enough, (still according to the
same reference), the same  thing happens to the penis of the male
astronauts. This is what I call the OverSEX Effect of space-flight, after
the Overview Effect concept developed by a guy from  Princeton ( I
guess that his name is Frank White). No insult was intended,  of
course.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:52:48 GMT
From: Brad Whitehurst <[e-mail]>
Subject: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY For Spacecraft
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>     The technology described in the article copied below could be used to
>power spacecraft, space colonies, etc.:
>
>
>                            FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
>                       by Robert E. McElwaine, Physicist
...
>          energy" ("2nd law of thermodynamics").  The physicists do not
>          know how to do certain things, so they ARROGANTLY declare
>          that those things cannot be done.  Such PRINCIPLES OF
>          IMPOTENCE are COMMON in orthodox modern "science" and help to
>          cover up INCONSISTENCIES and CONTRADICTIONS in orthodox
>          modern theories.
>
>               Free Energy Inventions are devices which can tap a
>          seemingly UNLIMITED supply of energy from the universe, with-
>          OUT burning any kind of fuel, making them the PERFECT
>          SOLUTION to the world-wide energy crisis and its associated
>          pollution, degradation, and depletion of the environment.
>
...
    I think we just found the REAL "Mr. Ozone"!  Is there anyone
at U. of W. Eau Claire who can verify if this is a real person?  Does
he do anything but post these articles?
--

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
[e-mail] |   We like it hot...and fast.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:27:59 GMT
From: "Carlos G. Niederstrasser" <phoenix.Princeton.EDU![e-mail]>
Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check
Newsgroups: sci.space

>
> >> It would take decades
> >>of concentrated work to build a Lunar array after permanent manned presence
> >>is established on the Moon, if the array is to be constructed from native
> >>materials.

Meanwhile while we argue about possible paths to take, we forget to do even the
most basic research to prove anyside of the argument.  As I see it all this
bickering is useless unless we have some real data about water at the poles,
more general composition or regolith etc... Why argue when we have yet to fully
understand what we are arguing about.

And then they are the Japanase who quietly spend a little amount on money on
research that they know will not pan out for years(decades) if at all.  Then at
the end of that period if it works they come right back and sell it to us.
(Can you say LCDs ?)

What is wrong with some basic research to really find out what we need.  Having
any reality checks either way is pointless.

Oh, one last note...  Saying any thing will take decades assumes a relatively
constant technological base.  Say you predict that making a power beaming
station on the moon will take 40 years.  40 years is a long time for technology
to grow.  By the year 20 technology could have changed so much that the next 20
years might be shortend to only 10.  The point is once you get above durations
of 10 years everything has a very large error to it.  IMHO, of course.


--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |
|                                 |   and the reality of tomorrow   |
| [e-mail]   |---------------------------------|
| [e-mail]     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 17:09:53 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check, part 2

-* 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.

I seem to remember seeing this same line before and my reply is the
same. It would be criminal not to insist on someone losing a finger tip
in order to keep the experiment pure. We know the answer to the question
for colonists, lunar, asteroidal or otherwise... They lose the finger
tip and might even die from complications. That is the price you pay and
one you had better accept. Anyone who can't do so can stay in their
comfy earthworm-city condominium with a nearby LifeFlite to rush them to
the Trauma Center.

-* 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".

Wrong. John Roberts is correct. I had an office mate who was
ex-hunter-killer. Hunter-Killer subs surface now and then. Strategic
boats go out, dive deep and stay there for the entire tour unless there
is an emergency... Oh,yeah, they have had incidents like burst appendix
when they surfaced and had the crewman taken off. Guess they weren't
being serious enough about the Cold War :-) Seriously though, it was
(is?) a very deadly game. Near collisions at depth were not all that
uncommon. The USSR boats couldn't hear the US ones even when they were
almost literally on their tail. Sometimes they would suddenly reverse
direction...

Missile boats don't leave station until the next boat comes out and is
sure it has no tails.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:14:23 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check, part 2
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

And actually, the experience with rockets is moderately instructive...
Great pains have to be taken to make sure that fuel flow works right in
free fall.  Attitude-control engines and minor maneuvering systems typically
put a flexible diaphragm between pressurizing gas and fuel, and big
main-propulsion engines often simply can't be started without a preliminary
shove from a smaller system to settle the fuels to the bottom of the tanks.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:50:46 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Simulation in Antarctica
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>        At one point I believe that the US was operating a small nuclear
>reactor as a source of power and heat in one of their Antarctic bases.  Does
>anyone know the details - this would be highly relevant to moon and or mars
>bases (which of course would have to however have alternate methods of
>rejecting heat).

THey probably ran SNAP-7 nuclear reactors down in the polar areas.
it was there small transportable power rac for science stations, etc....
i seem to recall they were used in the artic as well.
look in some historys of nuclear power to be sure.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 06:43:32 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Minority Kids into Techies (was Re: Free Middle/High School Broadcasts)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>I agree it's a damned shame more females, and members of American minority
>groups, don't take up these professions.  But sometimes I wonder...


>Would it be simpler to ask white males, politely, *not* to become
>engineers?  Or it might be even more effective to pay them.  "You
>don't want to be a scientist, kid!  Here's some cash."

Hmm... Seems to me that any scientist/techie type who is after money is in the
wrong field.  Be a sports hero or write a romance novel.

>This would help make room for the ambitions of young people of other
>races, genders, or ethnic heritages to enter techie professions.

I don't have the stats to prove it, but I'm sure the ratios of fetal engineers
and scientists (those in school) are improving.  They still aren't great, but
they're far better than they used to be.

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]

    "Why put off 'til tomorrow what you're never going to do anyway?"

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 16:46:11 GMT
From: "Bradford B. Behr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Minority Kids into Techies (was Re: Free Middle/High School Broadcasts)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
  [e-mail] (David Toland) writes:
>
>Why would ANYONE want to REDUCE the number of students (white or otherwise)
>studying to enter science and technology fields???  We have few enough
>students graduating with even minimal competence in mathematics and
>the physical sciences.

I agree about the "minimal competence" issue -- the percentage of
people who are technologically illiterate in our increasingly
technological society is sad and is going to (already has) lead to
some mighty big problems. But on the other side, there's been a lot of
posting recently on sci.research.careers about the glut of physics and
csci PhDs, and how jobs for PhDs are hard to come by these days.
Unless research and related  opportunities are expanded, encouraging
students (regardless of race, sex, or species) to go into the sciences
could lead to a new population of unemployed.

'Tis a puzzlement. Solutions, anyone?

Brad


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Bradford B. Behr                   [e-mail]
     Sacramento Peak National Solar Observatory, Sunspot NM 88349
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 17 Nov 92 20:37:08 GMT
From: Trevor German <[e-mail]>
Subject: ROTATION OF THE MOON
Newsgroups: sci.space

    There was a question in rec.puzzles asking how to send a message
    to the future (real time) say a million years or whatever and I
    send it this responce.

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

    Re: sending a message to the future.

    Obviously anything placed on earth is likely to be destroyed
    by plate techtonics etc so no good burying something. A transmition
    that takes that long to get back would be hard to receive even if
    you were expecting it.

        I have a much better idea. Take a dead satelite. A big one,
    like say the moon. Then blast its surface with  enough nukes to
    make an easily recognisable pattern that would be only partly
    erased by comet and meteoride collisions. Then just for good measure,
    adjust the rotational velocity of the moon so that the message
    always faces the earth. The message could be something like
    a big face......................


    Came to me in a dream.

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

    I was being a tad facetious (?sp), but it got me thinking about the
    rotational speed of the moon. I know it has a rotation time
    that matches the orbit time but I was wondering why this is ?
    Is the match exact ? I assume it is extremely close since there are
    no records of it being any different from how we see it now, or
    at least I don't know of any.  What is the governing factor, or
    is it just a wild coincidence ?

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


--
       >|  "Only average people            | Trevor J German BSc    |<
       >|        never make mistakes."     | NCR, Waterloo, Ontario |<
       >| [e-mail] | Canada.                |<

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 16:38:04 GMT
From: "Bradford B. Behr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ROTATION OF THE MOON
Newsgroups: sci.space

>    I was being a tad facetious (?sp), but it got me thinking about the
>    rotational speed of the moon. I know it has a rotation time
>    that matches the orbit time but I was wondering why this is ?
>    Is the match exact ? I assume it is extremely close since there are
>    no records of it being any different from how we see it now, or
>    at least I don't know of any.  What is the governing factor, or
>    is it just a wild coincidence ?

Tidal effects (of the earth on the moon, opposite the tides we usually
refer to) have "locked" the moon's rotation and revolution periods,
such that the same face always faces earthwards (with a little bit of
wobble). I'm not clear on all the details of the astrodynamics, but I
think it's valid to think of it this way:

Just as the moon's gravity makes "bulges" on the earth (manifested in
the fluid oceans as  high tides), the much more massive earth raises
tides in the solid moon, deforming it elliptically. If the moon were
rotating (as it once was), the constantly moving deformation would
twist and squeeze the moon, heating it, and dissapating the energy.
The energy lost as heat would have to come from the moon's rotation,
so over billions of years, all the rotational energy (from the earth's
point of view) would be lost, and the moon would stop rotating
relative to the earth.

The same thing is happening, much more slowly, to the earth --
friction with the tides and within the "solid" earth is slowing the
rotation rate by something on the order of 1 sec every century. We can
actually measure it (the slowdown) nowadays. Love those atomic clocks!

Brad


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Bradford B. Behr                   [e-mail]
     Sacramento Peak National Solar Observatory, Sunspot NM 88349
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:35:35 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: ROTATION OF THE MOON
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Trevor German) writes:
>    ...rotational speed of the moon. I know it has a rotation time
>    that matches the orbit time but I was wondering why this is ?
>    Is the match exact ?

Yes.  The Earth raises tides in the Moon the same way the Moon raises
tides in the Earth (there are tides in the Earth's crust and atmosphere
as well as in the oceans, although they're less conspicuous).  Having
tidal bulges constantly moving over the surface takes energy, because
there's friction involved in moving that mass around -- be it fluid
flow or flexing rock -- and some energy gets lost as heat.  That energy
has to come from somewhere.  Most any small satellite of a larger body
will rapidly lose rotational energy to tidal drag, and end up rotating
in synchronization with its orbit, so the tidal bulges are "frozen" in
and do not move.  The Moon is not unique in this; a lot of the planetary
moons in the solar system show this locked rotation.

It works both ways too.  Earth's rotation rate is slowing, very slightly,
due to tidal drag from the Moon (and the Sun).  It's taking much longer
than it took for the Moon, because the Earth is much the more massive of
the two.

If you want to see tidal effects in action on a large scale, look at Io.
Its rotation is locked to Jupiter, but it still has tides because its
orbit is slightly elliptical (so the bulges, although fixed in place,
rise and fall as the distance to Jupiter varies).  Tidal drag would have
circularized the orbit long ago, except that Io is locked in a resonance
with the other large moons that draws energy from all of them to keep it
in that orbit.  And so Io *boils* -- it's the tidal friction that keeps
those volcanoes erupting furiously on such a small body, which normally
would have lost all its internal heat long ago.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:29:35 GMT
From: "Carlos G. Niederstrasser" <phoenix.Princeton.EDU![e-mail]>
Subject: Saturn V for Freedom deployment
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <dfegan.722009437@node_2204c> [e-mail] (Doug
Egan) writes:
> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris Coley)
writes:
>
>
>     The Saturn V booster consumed extreme amounts of liquid fuel.
>     (NOT practical today...)
>     I am also under the impression that the design documents were
>     somehow lost...  (Maybe to favor the Shuttle program.)
>
Read the FAQ to find out that the design documents were not lost.  Just kept
out of the picture and not mentioned until people started wondering about them.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |
|                                 |   and the reality of tomorrow   |
| [e-mail]   |---------------------------------|
| [e-mail]     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |

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

Date: 18 Nov 92 18:51:47 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle computers
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>Is it at all possible to reprogram the GPCs from the ground, or does it
>have to be done from onboard?

They are routinely reloaded with different software from onboard storage
(tape, I think), but I don't think there is any remote-upload capability.
In an emergency, the astronauts can input patches manually -- NASA insisted
on this capability, over IBM's objections (the IBM folks say they considered
having the patch routine pop up a little flag saying "your warranty is void"
when it was used :-)) -- but that's not suitable for routine use.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 06:27:29 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

[e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>>It seems to me that in 1992, Space Shuttle is offering one of the best
>>returns on investment in the space community!

>Atlas and Delta are providing profits for the companies which build them.
>That means they offer a return on investment.

I agree with Allen that ELVs are better than Shuttle for many things, but I'm
quite certain that I read that Atlas was actually loosing money for GD and
had been for a while.

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]

    "Why put off 'til tomorrow what you're never going to do anyway?"

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:40:10 GMT
From: "Carlos G. Niederstrasser" <phoenix.Princeton.EDU![e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

Talking about the possible merits of HL-20, DC-Y, NASP, etc is a good thing.
Whatever program you support lets make sure is flying before the shuttle stops.
In my opinion giving a more or less specific date such as 2005 for the shuttle
to stop is a bad mistake, if we don't have realtively certain dates for any
replacements.

Let us not forget history.  Twenty years ago 3 (or more) fully operational
Saturn V were left as museum pieces accross the country.  As much as I would
like to see Columbia at KSC, let's try not to shoot ourselves in the foot again
and let go of our heaviest capacity lift vehicle.  (notice I said heaviest and
not heavy :)

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |
|                                 |   and the reality of tomorrow   |
| [e-mail]   |---------------------------------|
| [e-mail]     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |

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

Date: 18 Nov 92 13:34:12 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

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

>> How can the Shuttle possibly be said to offer ANY (much less the best) return
>> on investment? Shuttle has LOST billions.

>Well, considering that the Shuttle project also provides/provided profits for the
>companies which launch/re-furbish/built it can you tell us what the difference
>is?

Your saying that since the subcontractors are turning a profit it therefore
follows that NASA is making a profit. If you think about that for a moment
you will see that it makes no sense. It's like saying that Boeing is making
a profit and therefore American Airlines must be profitable as well.

Profit is when you collect more in fees/sales than you spend. If you add
up all the money collected in fees and subtract out the amount spent you
will see that Shuttle has lost billions.

>Consider that the Atlas and Delta carry many goverment payloads.

Sure. But they charge the government more than their costs. They make
a profit and therefore have a return on investment. Shuttle simply
doesn't have either.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------157 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 13:43:48 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>>> Atlas and Delta are providing profits for the companies that make them <<

>As for Delta, absolutely, positively right. But I fail to see how depositing
>two enormously expensive satellites in the Atlantic can be said to be
>a profit for General Dynamics and the Atlas.

Simple: it costs GD X to launch an Atlas. They charge the customer a sum
greater than X to launch their satellite. This results in a profit.

Now will GD continue to be profitable if they don't fix the Centaur problems?
I doubt it but that's not the same thing.

>The Space Shuttle was already more-or-less paid for, so why not use it.

Because even paid for is still costs three times as much as the alternatives.

>I was trying to say (got sidetracked, I must admit) that the U.S. should
>have put its money into a new unmanned booster system, not tired old
>designs like Titan and Atlas.

Those 'tired old designs' will put the same payloads in orbit for a
third the cost.

The US shouldn't be putting it's money into the design of ANY expendable
launcher. We have done that for too long and it's hasn't reduced launch
costs by a dime.

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------157 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 18 Nov 92 18:48:41 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>The US shouldn't be putting it's money into the design of ANY expendable
>launcher. We have done that for too long and it's hasn't reduced launch
>costs by a dime.

Actually, this isn't a very sound argument.  The US has been putting big
bucks into small improvements to the performance and reliability of 50s-
vintage expendable launchers.  It *hasn't* made any serious effort to
build a cheaper one (which cannot be done without changing the way the
launchers are built and operated -- it's not the fuels and metals that
cost all that money, but the way they're used).  All that money has been
going into squeezing one more ounce out of existing designs, and any sane
engineer will predict a lousy cost/benefit ratio for that approach.

No conclusion can be drawn about the possibility of cheaper expendables;
it has not been tried.  Even the projects that have officially included
"lower costs" in their objectives have always had higher-priority objectives
(typically, maximum payload and maximum reliability) that pushed them
toward higher, not lower, costs.

Certainly, even after you get past complications like different accounting
systems, there is no possible doubt that launchers like Soyuz and Long
March really are substantially cheaper to run than Atlas or Delta.  It
*can* be done.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 18 Nov 92 07:17:10 EST
From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space suit research?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, roberts@cmr (John Roberts) writes:
>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.

(Aerial?) This was done on the later flights, which spent more time in the
vicinity of the moon.  I recall this started with Apollo 15, but I don't have a
reference handy to confirm that.

>                                  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.

As I recall, the EVA was done on the return trip to earth, after the LM upper
stage had been discarded.  The CM, naturally, was depressurized.  It was the CM
pilot who got to do the EVA (he was owed, after all!).

>Question: was the Lunar Module normally pressurized before takeoff?

Yes.  It was repressurized basically immediately after every EVA so the
astronauts could take off their helmets and gloves.

>                                     And
>after the film EVA, was it pressurized again before unsealing the docking
>adapter?

See above.
--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:52:57 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: What kind of computers are in the shuttle?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John F. Woods) writes...
>Rad-hard SRAM, 50 bits of ECC for each 32 bits of memory, *and* a background
>scrub cycle every two seconds.  They didn't buy this at "BACK OF THE TRUCK
>PEECEES, LIMITED", nosir!

Interesting.  Would you happen to know how many errors this memory can detect
and correct?

-Mike

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 436
------------------------------