Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_5/V15NO523.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 34KB

Date: Wed,  9 Dec 92 05:04:06
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #523
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed,  9 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 523

Today's Topics:
                   absolutely, positively overnight
           Apollo 10 LM (was Re: pre-fire Apollo schedule)
       Comsats to the Pole! (was Re: Orbit Question?) (2 msgs)
                            Cryogen costs
                        Galileo at 115.2 kb/s
                           Orbit Question?
                 Rumors and the people who start them
         Rush Limbaugh says problems with HST is a DoD hoax!
       Russian lunar program (was Re: US/Sov space comparisons)
                  Science use of the Sr-71 (2 msgs)
                     Scuttle replacement (2 msgs)
                         Shuttle replacement
           Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
                  YOU can do real cosmonaut training

    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: 8 Dec 92 15:16:32 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: absolutely, positively overnight
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>[e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>I know you had a smiley but I want to follow up anyway.  The big problem with
>transoceanic flight is that it would be much to expensive (and besides the
>jet lag would be awful :-).  This may not be the case for highly trained
>specialists or maybe special operations troops in the event of a really
>important situation (though I'm skeptical).  The costs could become reasonable
>for packages because they can be fairly light yet valuable and there are
>situations in which very high speed shipping is necessary.  In fact, it looks

ccording to Wingo, the Saturn 1 was developed under an Army spec
to be able to rapid deliver 800 airborne troops anywhere in the world
in 20 minutes.  i dont know if they would have had to parachute in
or if the capsule dropped them,  but it was interesting.  and that
was a first generation vehicle.

ADennis,  do you wish to elaborate on this,  or was this an elaborate
attempt to pull my leg that day...

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

Date: 8 Dec 92 10:04:07 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Apollo 10 LM (was Re: pre-fire Apollo schedule)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Waisnor) writes:
>>Does anybody happen to know what the flight schedule would have been if the Apollo 1 fire
>>had not occurred?????
[summary deleted]
> Apollo 11
> (July 1969) in fact had the very first LM that was light enough to fly
> a complete lunar landing and takeoff.  The hiatus after the fire gave a lot
> of subsystems, the LM in particular, time to catch up.

All of us watching the Apollo 10 crew circle the Moon, detatch the
Lunar Module, and descend to a low altitude were thinking, "What if
they land it, and jump the gun on Apollo 11?  Must be tempting!"

Henry, you imply that Apollo 10's LM couldn't actually land and
return.  Can you elaborate?  This is the first I've heard of this.
(Probably I haven't read enough Apollo history.)

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | Comet Swift-Tuttle is
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | Mama Nature's way of
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | saying it's time to
Internet:       [e-mail]  | get off the planet.
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  |   --Dale Amon

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 12:53:47 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Comsats to the Pole! (was Re: Orbit Question?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>> A few comments about Geosynchronous satellites,
>[...]
>> 6)  A geostationary satellite can see up to about 82 degrees North Latitude
>
>I asked about Antarctic communications last week, and received a reply
>from Richard Dyson at the University of Iowa, who has wintered at
>South Pole Station.  They *do* use GEO satellites to communicate by
>phone-- at least during a short time window each day.  Apparently when
>some not-quite-equatorial GEO satellites are at the southern end of
>their daily figure-eight oscillation, they are visible to South Pole
>antennas.   (Nice homework problem: how tall does an antenna at the
>South Pole have to be, before it can see a perfect equatorial
>geostationary satellite all the time?  I haven't worked it out.)

I was very careful to say geostationary.  I should also note that McMurdo in
Antartica is at about 72 degrees South.  Part of the problem with views from
the poles is obstructions, the other is the oblateness of the earth.  I
believe that an 8 degree inclination on a geosynchronous satellite will give
substantial visibility at the pole, but 100% coverage requires a phased
constellation of geosynchronous satellites each with substantial inclination.

                    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 19:22:42 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comsats to the Pole! (was Re: Orbit Question?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

   [...] Nice homework problem: how tall does an antenna at the South Pole
   have to be, before it can see a perfect equatorial geostationary
   satellite all the time?  I haven't worked it out. [...]

On a perfect sphere radius r, an altitude h will give a view \theta
around the sphere, where cos \theta = r/(r+h). (trivial trigonometry).

So an eqautorial geostationary satellite (h = 36000 km) can see around
to 81.3 degrees of latitude, and an antenna at the South Pole has to
be 74 km high to make up the difference.

Nick Haines [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 13:43:21 GMT
From: Gary Giles <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cryogen costs
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> John Roberts,
[e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> John Roberts,
[e-mail] writes:
>...I've never been able
>to find out where NASA gets the fuel (they have big spherical tanks, but
that
>doesn't necessarily mean it's produced on-site), or what they do with the
>stuff that's drained out of the tanks when a launch attempt is cancelled.

I saw a NASA report detailing a plan to ship coal to Florida and
manufacture LH2.
Is this being done or even planned?  My recollection was that the
breakeven point
was at more flight per year than current plans.

Gary Giles [e-mail]

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

Date: 8 Dec 92 03:19:59 GMT
From: Steve Derry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo at 115.2 kb/s
Newsgroups: sci.space

Anybody know why Galileo is still transmitting at 115.2 kb/s rather
than the max data rate of 134.4 kb/s?  By now it is close enough to
Earth that 134.4k should be achievable.
--
Steve Derry
<[e-mail]>

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

Date: Tuesday, 8 Dec 1992 08:47:50 CET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Orbit Question?
Newsgroups: sci.space

The trajectories of the russian com-sats are called Molnyia or Tundra
trajectories. They are highly inclined and do one rev in 12 or 24 hours.
The apogee where the slowest part of the trajectory is reached is above
the northern hemisphere in order to provide long coverage. That's why they
are also high eccentric. Inclination is about 63 deg where the pertubations
of the argument of perigee are extremly low.
High inclined geostationary trajectories have a groundtrack like an '8'
where the node is placed above the equator. They are spending halftime of
a rev either above each hemisphere.
Regards
         -Thorsten-

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Thorsten Nedderhut             |  Disclaimer:
mbp Software & Systems GmbH    |
c/o ESA/ESOC/FCSD/OAD/STB      |  Neither ESA nor mbp is responsible
Darmstadt, Germany             |  for my postings!
[e-mail]           |

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

Date: Tue, 08 Dec 92 14:44:44 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rumors and the people who start them

I wrote;
>>I heard the strangest rumor recently.  The doubt factor is pretty high,
>>but I'm curious if anyone has anything to add about the reality or origin
>>of the rumor.

[HST/DoD/ET rumor here]

>>You're buyin' it, right? :-)  Does this sound familiar to anyone, or
>>is it a total crock?  One way or the other, how do you know?

>Tom, you're an astronomy undergrad and you even consider the possibility of
>this?  First of all, Hubble is an optical telescope.  If there were an alien
>signal I'd be much more worried about the military hijacking all the radio
>telescopes.  Second, given the number of people who have worked on the problem
>and the number of astronomers (some of whom are on the net) who are involved
>with HST, this kind of thing would be completely impossible to keep a secret.

>Josh Hopkins

But, many times the mechanics of a rumor are as interesting or more
interesting than the rumor itself.  Given the number of people on the
net involved in HST and similar projects, I thought they may have had
something interesting to add, about the rumor or the people involved.
Rush Limbaugh was only the carrier of a message.  I was curious about
it's origin.

I get tired of reading so much argument about the DCX/Y/1, when it's
less than a year until it actually gets tried :-)

Finally, you should always *consider* the possibility of anything.
Dogmatic endorsement or belief in the face of contradictory evidence,
no, but consideration, yes.

The thing that convinced me that it was untrue was the inability of
the DoD to hide the alleged radio signal from the thousands of both
professional and amateur radio astronomers, who only need look up to
blow the whole cover.  If it existed, we would have heard of it.

-Tommy Mac
-----------------------------============================================
Tom McWilliams              | What a tangled web we weave, when at   ". |
[e-mail]      |              ,  .first we .practice .*'  .|
[phone] -or- 353-2986|            '. '  . . to decieve    ,      |
a scrub Astronomy undergrad | After that, the  ,          +             |
at Michigan State University| improvement is tremendous! '.  , .'       |
------------------------------===========================================

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

Date: 8 Dec 92 13:35:18 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rush Limbaugh says problems with HST is a DoD hoax!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Page)
writes:
>
> Interesting that you state your opinion that he pays no mind to any opinions
> contrary to his own.  It was posted long ago in this newsgroup that he
> prefaced this "story" as being ridiculous.  Please note the number of
> "open-minded" posters who freely posted what Limbaugh "thinks".  Perhaps
> someday they too will stop paying "no mind to any opinions contrary to" their
> own.

To beat a dead horse (elephant?), I heard him discuss the rumor on the
radio.  He did present it as a rumor, but not as a ridiculous rumor.
Something to the effect that all the people who use the HST mirror
fiasco as an example of America's declining expertise should consider
this rumor...  The implication being that while maybe the military
is not actually looking for the optical signature associated with
the radio emissions of little green men, perhaps the military
had some reason to cause the data from the HST to be degraded.  Kind of
like the rumors about SEASAT; its synthetic aperture radar detected
nuclear submarine wakes all too well -- a definite no-no -- so the
military had SEASAT terminated.
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
[phone], FAX: [phone], [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 18:14:01 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Russian lunar program (was Re: US/Sov space comparisons)
Newsgroups: sci.space

First, about the race between Apollo and Zond:
When the Russians flew Zond 5 and 6 around the moon, NASA accelerated Apollo
lunar orbit missions.  This had the side effect of accelerating the US
lunar landing project while the prospects of a Russian circum-lunar
orbit flight did very little to advance their N1/L3 landing project
since they used almost totally different hardware (the Block-D,
LOK-Soyuz capsule and cosmonauts being the only common parts).

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:
>The N-1 wasn't the only rocket they had capable of lunar flight.
>Proton is capable of sending a small manned capsule to lunar orbit
>and back. (Or at least on some sort of lunar flyby; I guess it depends
>on whether you have one or two people in the capsule etc...)

No, it was a 2 person craft. Russian articles sometimes talk of 'lunar orbit'
missions for the Zond but it was capable of only circum-lunar fly-by.

(Phil Fraering) writes:
>Now get this: some of these Zond missions were Soyuz capsules without
>the orbital module and a little more propulsion

No. The Zond (L-1) spacecraft carried less: a KTDU-53 main engine (same as the
Soyuz engine but without the backup) and no torus tank. It could NEVER have
entered and left lunar orbit. Only needed mid course corrections.

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
#They flew unmanned precursor tests:  the Zond lunar
#flights were stripped-down unmanned Soyuzes.  If a man had been aboard
#the last one of those, he'd have survived in comfort.  (On the previous
#one, he'd have had a rough flight but not a fatal one.)  There was time
#to launch another before Apollo 8.  Nobody knows why it wasn't done;
#the best guess is that they were trying but ran into minor problems of
#some kind and missed the window.
-AND-
(Phil Fraering) writes:
>At the end of the mission the Zond performed a lifting re-entry maneuver
>similar to the Apollo missions' and landed.

True, but unfortunately, many Zonds experienced guidance failure during
reentry. For instance, no flights were scheduled to land in the Indian
Ocean but Zond 5 and 8 did just that. Zond 4 may have landed in China,
I still haven't heard if that's verified. Leonov (lead cosmonaut for
the Zond mission) says the first 2 tests failed. 3 more failed during
launch, and Leonov says one cabin depressurized in flight. They only
launched 10 and at least 9 failed although some of those fell back to
Earth somewhere....

(Phil Fraering) writes:
>In short, they could have done it. They did send a manned capusle on
>a lunar flyby and back; they simply neglected to put a cosmonaut in.
>In retrospect, they should have.

I think you may want to reconsider based on the statistics above.


(Phil Fraering) writes:
>I also wonder what would have happened if they had put all the effort
>they put into the N-1 into a good upper stage for the Proton and
>in beefing up their docking technology. They could have gotten to
>the moon shortly after we did...

There were many different ideas.  In fact, these different ideas and
political games are what lead to the N-1 being delayed for many years.
Regardless of boosters, the spacecraft weren't ready until well after
1970. The lander may have been ready around '72 but the lunar version
Soyuz was apparently never space tested and it had a totally new engine module.

1960 - Korolev KB begins plans for N-1 and N-2 boosters, government delayed
       project until 1965.
April 1961 - Chelomey KB circum-lunar project approved
July 1962 - Keldysh report supports N-1, Glushko and Chelomey oppose it
1963 - Due to Glushko's opposition, Korolev picks Kuznetsov KB to develop
       N-1 engines, but it isn't part of rocket industry and its managment
April 1963 - Korolev KB starts conceptual development of N-1 and L-3
             Chelomey and Glushko counter with proposal for UR-700 booster
             Yangel counters with proposal for R56 booster
Oct 1964 - Chelomey proposes Proton for lunar orbit mission
           Korolev counters it can only do so using EOR scheme
           Chelomey counters with proposal for UR-900 booster to eliminate EOR
mid-1965 - Korolev continuing conceptual development of N-1 and L-3
           Chelomey circum-lunar mission behind schedule
           Korolev takes over circum-lunar mission mating the Proton to
           a modified LOK (Soyuz) (Yuri Semenov in charge) and N-1 Block-D
August 1965 - Chelomey continues work on lunar mission spacecraft
Jan 1966 - Korolev dies in surgery
mid-1966 - Mishin completes N-1 project draft with 95,000 kg payload to LEO
           L-3 spacecraft complex design draft also completed
1967 - engine tests uncover unstable combustion problems and corrections made
1967 - first N-1 test article completed
1967 - Chelomey begins mockup fabrication for UR-700/LK-700 direct ascent
       lunar landing project without funding - Glushko supports it
Dec 1968 - manned Zond cancelled, Chelomey awarded Almaz project
Feb. 21 1969 - 4L N1/L3S first launch failure
1969 - Mishin plans for N1/L3M LOR lunar landing mission with 5-30 day stay
....more removed....
Nov. 24 1971 - first LK (lunar module) test - Kosmos 379
1971 - N1/L3M proposal complete, 1972 - N1/L3M plan approved
....more removed....
1974 - Glushko appointed to replace Mishin, all N1 work stopped.
       Chelomey proposes UR700M for (240,000 kg LEO) Mars mission, rejected.
       Glushko later proposes Zenith booster and lunar colony plan which is
       rejected except for Energia which is tied to military need for Buran
       project.

I hope this info clears up some misconceptions.

Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 15:24:03 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Science use of the Sr-71
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dean Adams) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>
>>Has NASA or NOAA or some other group looked at using the Sr-71 for science
>>missions?  or does it lack any advantage over the U-2s.  i am sure it
>>is much more expensive to operate then the U-2, but i am not sure
>>if it has any real advantage other then speed.
>>
>
>SPEED -is- the advantage...  It's a little difficult to conduct
>Mach 3+ research programs with the U-2 (ER-2)...  :->
>
>FYI, NASA Ames-Dryden FRF operates two SR-71As and one SR-71B
>for a variety of high altitude/supersonic flight research projects.
>

 Given that we have  a pretty good understanding of that flight region,
what are they actually, doing?

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 16:12:34 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Science use of the Sr-71
Newsgroups: sci.space

On 8 Dec 92 15:24:03 GMT, [e-mail] (Pat) said:

P> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dean Adams) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>
>>Has NASA or NOAA or some other group looked at using the Sr-71 for science
>>missions?  or does it lack any advantage over the U-2s.  i am sure it
>>is much more expensive to operate then the U-2, but i am not sure
>>if it has any real advantage other then speed.

>SPEED -is- the advantage...  It's a little difficult to conduct
>Mach 3+ research programs with the U-2 (ER-2)...  :->

>FYI, NASA Ames-Dryden FRF operates two SR-71As and one SR-71B
>for a variety of high altitude/supersonic flight research projects.

P>  Given that we have  a pretty good understanding of that flight region,
P> what are they actually, doing?

Among the proposals that I've seen are external burning and launching
HALO.  There are a variety of proposals but these two seem to be the
most sensible.

The SR-71 is not particularly suitable for atmospheric sampling
because of the aerodynamic heating, which affects the species that
might be collected.
--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

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

Date: 07 Dec 92  21:14:30
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Scuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

Phil G. Fraering writes:

>Or are you the 'folks' who are terminating DC-X, Space Van, Sea
>Dragon, Laser Launchers, gun launchers, Phoenix, and mass drivers
>to get one more year of Scuttle launches?

Ahhhhh Phil...
   I hate to point this out, but none of those programs were ever
planned for NASA funding.
   DC-X -- SDIO funding (DoD)
   Space Van -- Never suggested for NASA funding.  Looking for
        commercial funding, as they have been for the past decade.
   Sea Dragon -- after being dead for over a decade, currently the
        closest program is SEALAR, which is funded by the Naval
        Research Lab.
   Laser Launchers -- what little funding is being spent comes from
        LANL, and LLNL, both DoE labs, with a large component of
        SDIO funding.  Not NASA funded.
   Gun Launchers -- what is being spent comes through LLNL, which is
        probably SDIO or DOD money.  Again, not NASA funded.  There
        is also a commerical company, and some US Army experimental
        work looking at gun-powder propelled suborbital gun
        projectiles, but none of that comes from NASA.
   Phoenix -- Gary Hudson's concept.  Never proposed for NASA
        funding, and a failure at getting commercial funding.
   Mass Drivers -- Funded by a little NASA money in the late 1970's,
        but most of the money came from the National Magnetics Lab
        (which was primarily funded by Department of Transportation
        for MagLev trains), and by the Space Studies Institute.
   Furthermore, almost none of these programs even comes out of the
same budget allocation that NASA gets funded out of (HUD/IA) so you
can't even say that funding NASA takes funds away from them through
NSF or NIH or VA or HUD.
    I didn't see a smiley face -- but I hope you were joking about
that comment.  It seems to be rather incorrect in implying that NASA
funding was being withheld for these things.

    Now, in the general principle that NASA _should_ be
investigating these things, I'll agree with you.  NASA's advanced
technology and developments programs should be beefed up.

   But as it stands, it is difficult for NASA to fund programs which
duplicate efforts funded by other government agencies (unless they
are specifically set up as a joint program such as NASP was, and
have very specifically defined different charters for each agency),
or program which were never proposed to be funded by NASA.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                            Space Technology Investor

--- Maximus 2.00

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 92 13:41:19 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: scuttle replacement

\Phil G. Fraering writes:

/>Or are you the 'folks' who are terminating DC-X, Space Van, Sea
\>Dragon, Laser Launchers, gun launchers, Phoenix, and mass drivers
/>to get one more year of Scuttle launches?

Wales Larrison writes:
\Ahhhhh Phil...
/   I hate to point this out, but none of those programs were ever
\planned for NASA funding.
/   DC-X -- SDIO funding (DoD)
\   Space Van -- Never suggested for NASA funding.  Looking for
/        commercial funding, as they have been for the past decade.
\   Sea Dragon -- after being dead for over a decade, currently the
/        closest program is SEALAR, which is funded by the Naval
\        Research Lab.
/   Laser Launchers -- what little funding is being spent comes from
\        LANL, and LLNL, both DoE labs, with a large component of
/        SDIO funding.  Not NASA funded.
\   Gun Launchers -- what is being spent comes through LLNL, which is
/        probably SDIO or DOD money.  Again, not NASA funded.  There
\        is also a commerical company, and some US Army experimental
/        work looking at gun-powder propelled suborbital gun
\        projectiles, but none of that comes from NASA.
/   Phoenix -- Gary Hudson's concept.  Never proposed for NASA
\        funding, and a failure at getting commercial funding.
/   Mass Drivers -- Funded by a little NASA money in the late 1970's,
\        but most of the money came from the National Magnetics Lab
/        (which was primarily funded by Department of Transportation
\        for MagLev trains), and by the Space Studies Institute.

OK, you just re-iterated that these projects don't get money from NASA.

\  Furthermore, almost none of these programs even comes out of the
/same budget allocation that NASA gets funded out of (HUD/IA) so you
\can't even say that funding NASA takes funds away from them through
/NSF or NIH or VA or HUD.
\    I didn't see a smiley face -- but I hope you were joking about
/that comment.  It seems to be rather incorrect in implying that NASA
\funding was being withheld for these things.

Well, I'm saying something similar. You just stated above that
NASA isn't doing any of those things.

\    Now, in the general principle that NASA _should_ be
/investigating these things, I'll agree with you.  NASA's advanced
\technology and developments programs should be beefed up.

/   But as it stands, it is difficult for NASA to fund programs which
\duplicate efforts funded by other government agencies (unless they
/are specifically set up as a joint program such as NASP was, and
\have very specifically defined different charters for each
/or program which were never proposed to be funded by NASA.

Most of the people in those programs would be glad to be getting money
from NASA. I suspect that they only went to other sources when advanced
propulsion money from NASA wasn't forthcoming.

This is the sort of stuff NASA was chartered to do...
and could possibly do if it weren't so tied up with pork barrel
programs, like ASRM, which is advanced propulsion only by the
wildest stretch of the imagination.

Phil

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

Date: 8 Dec 92 14:12:43 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 16:01:56 GMT
From: Aaron Sawdey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (_Floor_) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>] always mean higher reliability. A truck engine is usually good for
>] a million miles while a formula one engine may last 100. They both
>] put out roughly the same amount of power, but one masses a lot more
>] than the other.
>]

>What?!? What kind of a comparison is that? I don't really think this is
>an appropriate example of your point. A formula one engine is tortured
>by blipping rapidly back and forth between 3,000 and 13,000 rpm continually
>for two hours. It isn't the size that's the factor, is the use! I think
>a tree trunk versus a twig is a better example of your scale/reliability
>dependence point.

> Gene Van Buren, Kzoo Crew(Floor), Washington U. in St. Lou - #1 in Volleyball

Actually, the difference in mass is significant. A formula 1 engine
would fit into the engine bay of my Honda CRX -- I think they're
usually about 1.5 liters displacement with LOTS of turbocharging --
(I can't guess what it'd be like to drive it with 750hp under the hood ;-)
while a 750hp truck engine would be as big as the entire passenger
compartment (guess: 8-12 liter turbodiesel?). Same power means similar
amounts of waste heat (probably the F1 engine is less efficient, so it'd
more waste heat to get rid of). Much smaller size of the F1 engine means
the heat is much more concentrated -- and probably less evenly distributed.
This applies to two rocket engines of different sizes and similar thrust
as well.


Disclamer: I'm not a rocket scientist nor an automotive engineer.
       Corrections welcome, Flames > /dev/null

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

Date: 8 Dec 92 13:15:14 GMT
From: George Hastings <[e-mail]>
Subject: YOU can do real cosmonaut training
Newsgroups: sci.space

    Aerospace Ambassadors of Huntsville, AL has announced a
second opportunity for average citizens for participate in a
week of REAL Cosmonaut Training in Star City, Russia. Those
who go on the training trip will try out the REAL STUFF to
see if they have the "Right Stuff"!
    The trip in February, 1993 will fly from the U.S.A. to
Helsinki, Finland.  The trip from Helsinki to Moscow will be
via the Russian national airline, AEROFLOT.
 A day and a half in Moscow will allow tours of the city, Red
 Square, the Kremlin, and cultural events while adjusting to
 the different time zone, eight hours ahead of Eastern
 Standard Time.
    Bus transportation will be provided to Zhvuzhdny Gorodok
 (Star City), 40 miles north west of Moscow. Star City is
 like the Johnson Spaceflight Center in Texas where two
 cosmonauts (Titov and Krikalev) are now training as space
 shuttle astronauts.
   Housing will be in the Orbita Hotel in Star City, and all
 meals will be provided. Participants will be given full
 spaceflight physical examinations. They will attend lectures
 and briefings by top Russian scientists, engineers, and the
 cosmonauts who are responsible for guest-cosmonaut training.
 There will be numerous opportunities to use the actual
 training equipment used to train the cosmonauts for
 spaceflight. Sessions will be conducted inside the full-size
 MIR Space Station training model, as big as a three-bedroom
 house.
   Participants will ride the centrifuge to experience the
actual G-forces encountered during liftoff into orbit on the
Russian Proton rocket.
 There will be rendezvous-and-docking practice of the Soyuz-TM
 Spacecraft with the MIR Space Station. Another very
 realistic simulator will be used to teach trainees how to
 fly the Russian Manned Maneuvering Unit "IKARUS".
   There will be opportunities to practice in two different
 kinds of space suits: the lightweight Sokol space suit used
 during liftoff and reentry in the Soyuz-TM Spacecraft, and
 the Orland heavy duty suit used during spacewalks outside
 the MIR Space Station. The Russian space agency trains
 cosmonauts for EVA (Extra-Vehicular Activities) in a giant
 neutral buoyancy tank, three stories tall and a hundred feet
 across. Space suited trainees are weighted just enough to
 cancel out the tendency to float to the top of the water,
 but not enough to make them sink to the bottom. Neutrally
 buoyant, not floating or sinking, they can then practice
 many of the movements and maneuvers necessary in true
 weightlessness.
   In preparation for weightlessness training, participants
 will be tested in the high-altitude chamber, taken to the
 pressure-equivalent of 15,000 meters, and will practice
 using oxygen masks. A variety of devices will be used to do
 vestibular training. Celestial navigation will be practiced
 in the Russian Buran Space Shuttle simulator.
  One of the highlights of the training session will be the
 opportunity to experience REAL WEIGHTLESSNESS while riding
 aboard the IL-76 MDK Cosmonaut Training Aircraft. This large,
 windowless cargo plane has had most of the seats removed, and
 the floor is covered with thick padding.  Trainees sit on the
 floor while the plane climbs to an altitude of approximately
 20,000 meters. It goes into a slight dive to build up speed,
 pulls up sharply under full engine thrust, and then
 throttles back the engines to idle while the pilot gently
 pushes the nose of the aircraft down. Inside, passengers
 float gently off the floor, drifting weightless in the air
 for about thirty seconds as the plane falls at the same speed
 as everything inside. As the pilot pulls out of the dive,
 trainees experience about two to two-and-a-half times the
 force of gravity. The plane then climbs to altitude to do
 another weightless parabolic arc. By the end of the training
 flight, participants will have been weightless for a minimum
 or at least five minutes!
  The total cost of the round trip transportation to Helsinki,
 Moscow, Star City, and return, room and board, city tours,
 cultural events, plus use of the Cosmonaut Training
 Facilities and equipment, the training personnel, and the
 airplane ride on the IL-76 MDK weightlessness training
 aircraft, is $2,800.
  If you are interested, or know someone else who might be
 interested in participating in only the second group of
 American citizens ever admitted to this formerly closed
 Russian training facility, send E-mail to:

 [e-mail]        George Hastings
    or                Mathematics & Science Center
   72407,[e-mail]        2401 Hartman Street
                             Richmond, VA 23223
                      Office: 804-343-6525
                                FAX:    [phone]


--

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 523
------------------------------