Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_5/V15NO558.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 27KB

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 05:03:40
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #558
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 17 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 558

Today's Topics:
                            Air Force One
                          cancelled apollos
                 cryptocraft photography, Re: Aurora
                          D-21 recon drones
                      DC vs Shuttle capabilities
                      DoD launcher use (2 msgs)
      Galileo's Atmospheric Probe Passes Health Checks (2 msgs)
                       Mach 8+ Space/Spy Plane?
       Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) (9 msgs)
                            Trees in space

    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: 15 Dec 92 19:32:34 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Air Force One
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] writes:
|When I understood right the guy in Tucson at the air museum any aircraft of
|the air force where the president is still flying is called Air Force One.
|So there might not be only one B707 and one or two B747's, but still more.
|So even a fighter can wear this name. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are right. Air Force One is not an aircraft but a flight number
(or more likely a mission number) but it must be an Air Force plane.
The president's helicopter flights are called Marine One.

--
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131

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

Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 22:19:05 GMT
From: Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: cancelled apollos
Newsgroups: sci.space

Henry writes:
 >116 (the fifth J CSM) flew the first crew, 117 the second, and 118
 >the third.  111 (the last H) was Apollo-Soyuz.  119 (the last[?] J)
 >was allocated as Skylab rescue if necessary, then shifted to Apollo-
 >Soyuz backup.  Where 115 went I'm not sure.

In the Moscow science and technology park, there is a apollo CSM and
a Soyuz on display mated with what looks like a fake docking module.
So maybe this is CSM 115?

Great place to go if you want to get close to a lot of space hardware,
and they don't mind touchy feely there, so you can walk up to the odd
satelite sitting on the ground, deploy its antenae, push it back etc.

It is right next door to a big display of soviet  cow milking machines
and for some reason the soviet space and milking technology look very very
similar :-)  But hell it works (the space hardware that is, I have my doubts
about the milking machines -> I never found any milk in the old USSR)

Greg Wilkins @ Highland Logic
       Snail : Suite 1, 348 Argyle St., MossVale, NSW, 2577, Australia
       Email : [e-mail]
       Phone : [phone]  or direct: ([phone]
       Fax   : [phone]

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

Date: 16 Dec 92 20:18:07 GMT
From: Anthony J Stieber <[e-mail]>
Subject: cryptocraft photography, Re: Aurora
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dean Adams) writes:
>understandable.  Were there any photos of the F-117A prior to the
>official release?  I don't beleive so, even though it flew for almost
>a decade.

Yes, at least one in AW&ST, July 10, 1989, p22.  The picture clearly
shows the wings, double tail, and extended landing gear (gold colored
for some reason).  This is sometime after the first flights of the
craft in 1981, but of course all the early flights were done exclusivly
at night.  I don't remember when the offical pictures of the F-117A
were released.

I'm sure there will be pictures of whatever this/these craft are.  It
might be a couple years.  Someone with camera and a telescope lens
will catch it.
--
<-:(= Anthony Stieber    [e-mail]   uwm!uwmcsd4!anthony

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

Date: 16 Dec 92 19:47:42 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: D-21 recon drones
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:

>Kelly Johnson claims that SR-71 (and its siblings) would have been
>competitive with F-15 and B-1 programs but they were kept out by political
>considerations.

The YF-12A was a very capable interceptor, but didn't have the
maneuverability to be an air-superiority fighter.

The RS-71 (as it was originally designated) was competitive with
the reconnaissance/strike (RS-70) version of the B-70 Valkyrie.
However, it does not have low-altitude capability of the B-1.

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 09:59:53 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Newsgroups: sci.space

This may have been mentioned before but my site has a nasty habit
of trashing some articles.

If a DC-type spacecraft can make a vertical landing, would it be
capable of lunar flight? (with proper fuel and provisions for the crew
considered of course)

Also, how would a DC cockpit be configured?  I assume that the crew
would be seated on their backs during launch or landing, but would
that make landings tricky?

Simon

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

Date: 16 Dec 92 22:07:58 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: DoD launcher use
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>We're talking about Iraq right? No air opposition right? Complete Coalition
>domination of the airspace right? SR71s and U2s that can fly above anything
>Iraq had right? After 28 years of trying, the SU never managed to down a
>SR71 right? Why think Iraq could? What can a satellite do for tactical
>recon that a SR71 can't?
>

To the best of my knowledge,  and i am sure henry knows more on this subject,
NO SR-71  ever flew within Russian borders (or Air Space).  i suspect
they also stayed out of Warsaw Pact areas and china.

After Francis Gary Powers  got shot down/Flamed out over khazakistan
we signed an agreement with the russians never to do this again, and
they gave him back.  The russians never gunned down an SR-71, cuz they
never had a reason to.

Satellites also have one big advantage no Plane ever will.  Infinite hang time.

With cheap space access,  we could in an emergency,  put 4 sats in Molniya
orbit over an emergency area  or we could put a few birds in
90 minute orbits inclined over an area,  and just watch the video.

Satellites also have a big legal advantage.  THey are called "National
Technical Means"  and protected by treaty.  SR-71's are called spy planes
and when they enter someones air space,  That is an act of war.

Let's say we want to know what's going on in an egyptian nuclear
reservation.  we send an SR-71 over,  they get pissed and close the
suez canal to our boats.  Now what, gary?  do we spend $200 billion
go over and pound the stuffings out of their country?  Imperialism
is dead.  long live the new world order.

Take the new CIS member states.  Ukraine and khazakistan  have beacoup
nukes and lots of old soviet equipment.  we get into a peeing match
and they could toss around a few nukes as point makers.  unlikely, but
we are better off with them sticking by existing treaties.

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 09:20:29 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: DoD launcher use
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>I agree that not all conflicts will be as easy as the Gulf War and that
>>satellite recon is very valuable, especially for strategic recon. But the
>>origninal message that I questioned said that the Space Command commander
>>during *Desert Storm* said he needed tactical satellite recon *for that
>>conflict*.
>
>That is correct. He said that his satellite coverage wasn't as good as
>he would have liked. With a DC like spacecraft, he could have had much
>better coverage.

Only if he flew DCs as recon or expended hundreds of very expensive
LEO satellites. Now the first may be practical if DC actually works
and is as cheap as people say. It would only cost about 100 times
the cost of a SR71 mission, or 1000 times the cost of a F117 mission,
or 10,000 times the cost of a RF4 mission. But over Desert Storm,
as opposed to ex-Soviet airspace, the risk to any of the listed
aircraft is low and the cost is much less. The military, like everyone
else has to pay attention to costs, even if their threshold is higher
than most other users. Wars can be lost by simply running out of money
as surely as losing on the battlefield.

>>And yes, A10s and Tornados doing low level attacks were lost
>>to ground fire in Desert Storm as well as a few other operational type
>>aircraft like an AC130, but as far as I know, no recon aircraft were lost.
>
>I don't think much if any recon was flown. The Air Force had better things
>to do with its aircraft.

I expect this is totally absurd. Recon is a vital part of any campaign.

>BTW, flying recon is one of the most dangerous types of flying in wartime.

Actually no. Tactical recon has traditionally been relegated to second line
aircraft. Flown at high altitude in single plane sorties, it attracts
little in the way of hostile aircraft or hostile ground fire. In WWII
the P-38 was widely used as a photo-recon aircraft over Europe. The
losses were low compared to the losses of first line fighters like
the P51 and P47, or of bombers. The Enola Gay received free passage
over it's target because the Japanese thought it was only flying a
recon mission and didn't expend much effort to intercept it. Close
air support strike aircraft flying is the most dangerous flying in
wartime. The SR71 is very much the exception in recon aircraft. It's
mission was to do strategic recon in a *cold* war situation. This is
very different from tactical recon in a combat zone.

>>But this was exactly my point. LEO satellites pass over the same ground
>>track twice a day.
>
>With a DC like vehicle you could put in a constelation of satellites to
>provide fresh updates every half hour or so. It would take about a week
>to put it in place compared with months today. This is an order of mganitude
>faster than aircraft can provide the same information. The data is also
>an order of magnitude fresher.

You didn't address my points about the cost of such satellites. For
tactical recon, battle damage assessment for example, satellite images
have to be better than is commonly available from orbital heights. It
requires KH-11/KH-12 grade optics. That's both rare and expensive.

>>Then unless
>>you have realtime downlink in the footprint of the satellite, very close
>>to your target, you wait for the satellite to pass over your downlink station
>>and download the image.
>
>DoD owns lots of communication satellites. With DC, they can launch more
>and larger ones. This will allow the tactical satellite to dump its data
>in seconds.

Yes this is a solution to the data dump problem. TDRSS type satellites
in GEO could service the recon birds. The data could be returned to the
NRO and processed and interpreted then linked back to the field commanders
via other comsats. In fact this is exactly the way it was done for Desert
Storm. This presupposes your space assets are safe. That was true in Desert
Storm of course, but then ordinary aircraft recon was fairly safe too. With
a serious opponent, your space assets would be priority targets.

>>You can
>>launch ramp ready recon aircraft in 10 minutes if necessary, though
>
>You don't ramp launch recon aircraft. You only ramp launch aircraft
>for the defense of the airfield or similar emergencies.

That's the usual case, but there's no technical reason you can't deal
with time critical tactical recon needs the same way.

>>normally you'd schedule recon as part of an operational timetable.
>
>Which BTW, takes 12 to 24 hours to plan (my last defense job was
>working to automate NAVY strike planning). Not good in a rapidly
>changing situation.

That's one way to do it. However, the Brits showed how to use dispatchable
"cab rank" tactics in WWII. With JStars, we can do the same much more
effectively, and we *did* in Desert Storm.

>>You can get back immediate Mark I eyeball reports during the mission
>
>Generally you maintain radio silence during a mission. No point in
>telling the bad guys where you are.

Unless your data is time critical, like spotting an enemy carrier task
force. We used radio reports in WWII for this reason.

>>and photos as soon as the aircraft returns.
>
>Hours after you got your satellite update.

Hours before you get your satellite update, if you don't have a capable
satellite in position. That's the thing, recon satellites with the
resolution of recon aircraft aren't cheap or expendible. Even with
free launches, you can't just throw hundreds of satellites in orbit
on whim. Aircraft, even with some losses, are much more cost effective.
Battles are won by tactics, but wars are won by logistics. You can't
ignore the costs of an operation.

Gary

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 07:00:41 GMT
From: "Gary Morris @pulsar" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo's Atmospheric Probe Passes Health Checks
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>     Its incandescent shock wave will be as bright as the sun and
>>reach temperatures up to 28,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

>Will entry be observed by the camera on the orbiter?

I wonder if Hubble could see the entry?
--GaryM

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 11:14:29 GMT
From: Hartmut Frommert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo's Atmospheric Probe Passes Health Checks
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

[e-mail] (Gary Morris @pulsar) writes:
>[e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>>Will entry be observed by the camera on the orbiter?
>I wonder if Hubble could see the entry?
If you put it into Jupiter's orbit .. :-)
 Hartmut Frommert                 <[e-mail]>
 Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
                                           -- Eat whale killers, not whales --

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 09:08:29 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mach 8+ Space/Spy Plane?
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.space

On the subject of this mach 8 plane, a 'pulsed engine' is mentioned.

Am I to assume this operates like the pulse-jet engine on the World War
II V-1 missile?

In a recent Discovery channel documentary ('Wings of the Luftwaffe')
footage of a pulse jet being fired on the ground clearly showed flashing
exhaust flame as well as a 'smoke-ring' effect.

Just my $.02 worth.

Simon

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:14:41 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

> That it can be done, I am more or less with you. (But I fully expect

> a design problem or two to slow things down...) That it can be done
> at the price you quote, that's another story. Say I'm from Missouri.
> Show me.

I and others are working very hard to do exactly that.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------129 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:31:14 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>Let's fly them on Mir and use the hundreds of millions saved on some other
>>worthwhile project.

>You seem to think that the Mir Cosmonauts are just floating around up
>there waiting for paying work.

Not waiting but I'm sure customers with hard currency get priority. There
would be no problem flying those experiments.

>Last I heard they're
>willing to rent Cosmonaut time at $5 million an hour plus launch costs
>for any experimental equipment you want them to use.

No offense but I would like some backing for that.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------129 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 16 Dec 92 20:06:41 GMT
From: "Michael V. Kent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>Can't you just admit that a lot more happened on STS-52 than the launch of
>>LAGEOS so we can put this issue to rest?

> Nope. Just about everything on that mission could have been divied up
> and flown on other Shuttles.

[A list of alternatives deleted.]

Perhaps this is true, as it is for most missions.  That is the advantage of
the modular concept of STS.  Spacelab, the robot arm, SPAS, the Spacelab
pallets, etc can be mixed and matched to perform a variety of missions on the
same flight.  NASA could have shuffled the mix and combined things a different
way.  Perhaps a different mix would have been more efficient.  I'm not de-
bating that.  I am dismissing Allen's claim that we could have flown STS-52
on a $10 million Pegasus and accomplished all of its objectives.

> fly the EDO pallet for the mission and spread the work out over four or
> five more days. This was Columbia, afterall.

This is a good idea.  I've posted several times that I think every Columbia
fly should be an EDO flight, and that every Endeavour flight should be flown
its max 10 days.  The marginal cost of an extra day on orbit is so small com-
pared to the turnaround cost that even if the astronauts did nothing but
sit around in LBNPs, it would be cost-effective.  And I think we could find
additional work for them to do anyway.

The Shuttle is a limited resource that ought to be used to the fullest extent
possible.  My point was to dismiss Allen's claim that the Titan IV can do any-
thing the Shuttle can do (It can't, and Spacelab is one example).

Mike

--
Michael Kent                                   [e-mail]
Flight Test Engineer                           Tute-Screwed Aero '92
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
These views are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:28:54 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Right now,  all staged rockets are vintage 60's/50's designs.  they have
>absolutely no margin for safety.  neither does the shuttle.

No, existing rockets, including the Space Shuttle, have very generous
safety margins.  They also have poor safety records, compared to other
transportation systems.  That's because they don't fly often enough to
prove the design, in the statistical sense, and each copy flies only
once (or, in the case of the Shuttle, a couple times a year).  So you
can't test the copy before you put it into operational service.  This
is important because no two vehicles of the same design are identical.
There's always some variation.

Safety margins are nice, but they aren't enough.  If you pushed Gary
hard enough, I'm sure he'd admit that, despite all those enormous
safety margins he designs into generators, they do still throw the
switch on one before it leaves the factory.



>If a 747 had to change engines every time it flew,  a ticket would
>cost 10 times as much.

If you had to repaint a 747 each time it flew, the ticket would
cost ten times as much.


>You seem stuck on stress the same way Bi-Plane builders were in the 20's.

Nah.  He's stuck in the 1930's, when companies like Dornier were
building two-stage airplanes for the trans-Atlantic route.

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:11:24 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>One Shuttle flight is a bit less than half the projected cost of DCX
>development to flight test. It doesn't even begin to cover costs for
>the development of DCY which requires different structures and engines,
>or of DC-1.

McDonnell Douglas has estimated the total development costs of the DC-1
at $1.5 billion.  I don't recall exactly how much money has been spent
on DC-X, but it's in the range of a couple hundred million.  NASA spends
over a billion dollars on each Space Shuttle flight.  I think you've
indulged in some creative accounting.

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:22:28 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>I'm not trying to educate Truax. I'm sure he's aware of the various
>causes of vehicle stress. It's not clear that you are, however.

You're right, I clearly didn't understand that the major cause
of stress in a pressure-fed rocket was the pumps.  Thanks for
"educating" me. :-)

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

Date: 16 Dec 92 22:07:41 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>>Ever hear of the "Manned Orbiting Laboratory"? A Gemini with a very
>>Spacelab-like module launched together by Titan III.

>Yeah, I've heard of it.  I've also heard that it was cancelled about 25 years
>ago, and that none of them ever flew.

You heard wrong.  One MOL flew (unmanned).

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

Date: 16 Dec 92 22:08:38 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>For what we have spent on Shuttle we could have built two Freedom
>space stations or about 20 or so Industrial Space Facilities.

But without the experience gained during the Shuttle program,
we never could have built a space station as expensive as Freedom. :-)

Well, we could have, but it would have had a crew of 100. :-)

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:57:49 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>DC-X development was actually a lot cheaper. Put the cost of a Shuttle
>flight in a CD for a year and the interest you earn will pay for the
>DC-X development effort.

Uh wait, didn't you post that SDIO's DCX program cost totalled $1.2 billion?

Gary

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 19:50:23 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Trees in space

Eric Bales writes:
>>I posted this after having a thought on another group, but no one there
>>could find any information on it...

>>How would a tree grow in zero-g's?  I mean, if you take a tree enclose
>>it in a bubble of some sort, with the roots in one half and the trunk
>>and branches in another half, what would it look like after a couple
>>years?  Air wouldn't be moving except what little was necessary to keep
>>it fresh, and the roots would be provided with nutrients.  (So, please
>>don't see read Niven's The Integral Trees, as this is a totally different
>>situation! :-))

Plants do quite fine in enclosed spaces.  "Edwardian Gardens" was the name
given to 'bottle gardens' that were used to protect plants on ocean voyages
during the age of exploration.  These terrariums used edwardian crystal,
hence the name, and were found to protect the plants quite well from
dryness, salt-air, and sudden temperature changes.  This was the first
example of terrariums, and are responsible for the widespread use of
potatoes, pumpikins, and other new-world plants in Europe

>>2.  Would it grow any different in free-fall as opposed to zero-g's?  It
>>seems to me it would not, but I don't know for sure...

Plants do use gravity as a means of determining up and down (see a stand
of pines on a mountain-side - they don't lean) known as gravitropism.
They also have other means, mainly light, to make the determiniation, which
I imagine would become dominant, lacking gravity.  I remember reading (sorry,
forgot the title ) about the experiences of Russian during extended stays in
space.  Some of them brought plants along, for that homey touch, and found
that athough strange-looking, they were perfectly healthy.

I can't imagine that no studies have been done on plant growth, but whether
you can find the results or not, you know as well as me.   I seem to
remember about 2 years ago, a prof. from MSU getting space on the shuttle
for an experiment using tomato-seeds, to study germination in free-fall.

Sorry I can't give you better references.

-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! '.  , .'       |
------------------------------===========================================

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 558
------------------------------