Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_5/V15NO570.TXT

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

Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 05:03:17
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #570
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 19 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 570

Today's Topics:
                            Apollo 13 book
                 DC vs Shuttle capabilities (2 msgs)
                     Earthquake Filmed from Space
                     fast-track failures (2 msgs)
           Galileo's Atmospheric Probe Passes Health Checks
                 Justification for the Space Program
                       Relay to Follow Galileo?
                    Saturn costs, shuttle costs...
                          Second space hotel
                 Space Station Utilization Conference
                             SSF Progress
       Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) (3 msgs)
         TOPEX Data Show Role of Eddies in Ocean Circulation

    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: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:28:48 GMT
From: Phil Biehl <[e-mail]>
Subject: Apollo 13 book
Newsgroups: sci.space

I'm looking for a book I heard about a number of years ago regarding the
Apollo 13 mission and near disaster. I believe it was called "Houston,
We Have a Problem" or something like that. I thought it was by Buzz
Aldrin but a library search found nothing. It's an account of the
engineering behind the Gold Team that brought the astronauts safely
home. Has anyone heard of or have such a book? Where can I get it?
Thanks & happy ho ho.

Phil Biehl
Home Row, Inc.

--
[e-mail]  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at [phone] (1200/2400, N81)

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:45:46 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:
>
>
>>    I think we differ big-time when it comes to DC-1.  Allen seems
>>to me to be saying, "Things will work out, and this is how it will be."
>>I think that is the attitude that bothers me the most.  That is the
>>exact same thign that was said with the Shuttle.
>
>What bothers me is the attitude that, "If NASA couldn't do it,
>nobody can."
>
    That's not exactly what I said.  But of course you cut out the
part where I went on to say that I think DC-X has a much better
chance.  I'm simply saying that don't belive what anyone tells you
no matter who it is, NASA, SDIO, or MacDac, etc.  Look for the
proof in the pudding.

>Okay, NASA built one airplane, the Shuttle, that doesn't work
>very well.
>
    Doesn't work very well, or work as designed.  Granted, it
ain't flying 26 tiems a year or anything like that.  But what it
is doing, it is doing well.  Perhaps DC-1 can do it better.  I think
if even half of the promises of DC-X are truue, DC-1 can do a lot
better.  But, look for the proof.

>Boeing, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, and other companies quite
>regularly build airplanes as advanced and complex as the Space
>Shuttle (the Shuttle has 6 main computers, the B-757 has over
>200) that work quite well.
>
    I wonder how you count computers.  Do you count the
multiplex-deplexers on the shuttle, the sensor units and more?
I doubt that the B-757 has 200 comptuers that control the entire
plane.  I do believe it has 200 where various ones control various
parts of the plane.  That's two different things.

>This does not suggest, to me, that NASA is so all-efficient
>and omnicompetent that if they can't do it, no one can.
>
    Of course, if you set up the strawman, you can cut him down.

>If anything, it suggests the project will work as long as
>you keep NASA the hell away from it.
>
    "Objection honor, conclusion based on evidence not included."
Not that I disagree, simply that your conclusion does not follow from
above.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:52:41 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:
>
>>    Gee, thanks for the snide answer.  Now, my original point was
>>on rendezvous and repair.  So, now we have to get 3 objects in close
>>proximity to each other.  You've just made the problem at least 50%
>>tougher.  And now you have to transfer between craft.  More
>>difficuly.
>
>Last time I flew back into DFW, I saw more than three planes on
>the ground, in close proximity to one another.  I saw people and
>baggage being transferred between flights.   Looks do-able.
>
    Umm, so?  Tell me, did you see 3 aircraft landing at the same
time, or flying in formation?  Did you see baggage transferred between
them while in flight?  I'm not talking about on the ground, I'm talking
about in space.  If you recall, my original comment was about in-flight
satellite repair.

>
>>>That's what tankers are for.
>
>>    Again, another craft.
>
>I saw a *lot* of airplanes at DFW.
>
    Ayup.  And the US Air Force is the ONLY one that regularly does
inflight air-refueling.  I haven't seen Delta or Virgin Atlantic do it.
Remember, again, we are talking about in-orbit, not on the ground.

>
>>    Hint, they are flying.  You are talking about a paper=airplane
>>and saying it will do all this and more.  I'm saying, build it, fly it,
>>and see what happens.
>
>I thought that was what we were doing.
>
    No, some people are telling me, DC-1 will do this, do that, and
hey, we can add this, we can add that... it's all going to be easy.
I'ms aying, "sounds good, but prove it."

>
>>    Right, that works fine once you've built your power-plant
>>on the moon.  I'm talking at first.  It seems to me that someone
>>here is forgetting the middle step of testing and flying the thing.
>
>See above.
>
    IBID.

>There's a difference between "testing and flying the thing"
>and standing on the sidelines hurling spitballs.
>
    And there's a difference between making snide comments, and
trying to temper enthusiasm with reality.

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

Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:13:05 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Earthquake Filmed from Space
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.geo.geology,ca.earthquakes

From the "JPL Universe"
December 18, 1992

Earthquake fault motion observed in videotape produced by JPL geologist
By Mary Hardin

     Using satellite images taken before and after the June 28
Landers earthquake, JPL geologist Dr. Robert Crippen has produced
a video which shows the motion of the Emerson and Homestead
Valley faults in the Mojave Desert.
     "This is the first time fault motion has been observed
through the use of images acquired from space," said Crippen,
from the Tectonics and Geophysics Group, Geology and Planetology
Section 326. "The observation from space of newly fractured
ground along fault zones is also believed to be a first," he
added.
     Crippen used images from the French Satellite Pour
l'Observation de la Terre (SPOT) acquired under a data exchange
agreement between NASA and the French space agency, Centre
National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES).
     The technique used to create the fault motion video is
similar to how weather satellite images are used to show cloud
motion on television weather reports.
     Crippen took a "before" SPOT image of the Landers quake site
that was taken on July 27, 1991, nearly a year before the
magnitude-7.5 earthquake, and he then matched that up with an
"after" image that was taken on July 25, 1992, only 27 days after
the quake.
     In order to minimize distortions, he said, it was important
to use matching images that were taken from the same orbital
position and on nearly the same day of year, to achieve the same
seasonal effects and sun angle.
     After precisely lining up enlarged portions of the images on
a computer display, Crippen flickered between the two and
observed the differing ground motions across each of the faults.
He repeated this process with other parts of the images taken of
several different sites along the faults, and in some cases, he
observed newly formed cracks in the fault zones.
     Working with JPL colleague Dr. Ronald Blom, Crippen is also
using the images as digital maps that show where the ground was
before the earthquake and where it ended up after the quake. By
using a supercomputer, the scientists hope to measure ground
motions at a level of geographic detail that has never been
achieved before, Crippen said.
     "By observing the details of fault motions we hope to better
understand the mechanisms of fault breakage and ultimately,
contribute to the understanding of the threats that earthquakes
pose to society," Crippen explained.
     Crippen presented his finding last week at the fall meeting
of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.
                                ###
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in you life.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:07:36 GMT
From: Chip Salzenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: fast-track failures
Newsgroups: sci.space

According to [e-mail] (Gary Coffman):
>You wouldn't do a cheap and dirty Hoover Dam or Golden Gate bridge
>saying that if it failed you'd just shrug and go on to the next
>project. Aerospace has become like civil engineering. The costs
>of projects, and the effects of failure, have become high [...]

I think there's an issue of cause and effect here.

Isn't it possible that the costs of projects and the effects of
failure have risen _because_ risk taking has become so rare?
--
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
  "you make me want to break the laws of time and space / you make me
   want to eat pork / you make me want to staple bagles to my face /
   and remove them with a pitchfork" -- Weird Al Yankovic, "You Make Me"

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:41:00 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: fast-track failures
Newsgroups: sci.space

>When fighter development from concept to flying prototype cost less
>than $100,000, normally funded internally by the company, and took
>less than a year, planes were simpler then, that was an acceptable
>approach.

I think The SR-71 cost a little bit more than $100,000.  Even
if you fail to account for inflation.


>Now with development costs running into the billions, and
>usually taxpayer funded, the financial risks of a failed project have
>become too high to take such a cavalier approach.

This is a self-fulfilling prophesy.  Your "failure-oriented
management," with its army of beancounters and its endless
review and approval cycle is what caused development costs
to run into the billions.  It prevented failures, either,
only reduced the number of successes.

The old produced the P-39 *and* the P-51.  The new, improved,
"scientific" system produced the A-12.

The old system produced Project Apollo. The new system produced
the Space Shuttle.

In the old system, there was a saying, which you no doubt hate:
"Nothing succeeds like success."

In the new system, nothing succeeds like failure.


>You wouldn't do a cheap and dirty Hoover Dam or Golden Gate bridge
>saying that if it failed you'd just shrug and go on to the next
>project.

Once again, you should read more history.  Both projects had their
share of Gary Coffmans, standing on the sideline, carping and saying
it was impossible, while men with real vision got the job done.


________________________________________________________________

"This so-called atomic bomb will never work.  And I speak as an
expert on explosives." -- a former US Navy Admiral, who no doubt
wishes to remain nameless.

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

Date: 18 Dec 92 08:33:36 GMT
From: Dan Tilque <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo's Atmospheric Probe Passes Health Checks
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

[e-mail] writes:
>
>     The probe will make history's first entry into the atmosphere
>of an outer planet on Dec. 7, 1995.  It will slam into Jupiter's
>atmosphere at 115,000 mph, fast enough to jet from Los Angeles to

Dive bombing Jupiter on Pearl Harbor Day, eh?  To-rah!  To-rah!  To-rah!

>
>     Its incandescent shock wave will be as bright as the sun and
>reach temperatures up to 28,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

My first thought was that maybe this could be observed from Earth.
Then I realized that meteors must enter Jupiter's atmosphere all the
time and I've never heard of anyone reporting seeing one.  But I
suppose it wouldn't hurt to look.  Someone may want to find that exact
time and then figure out if any part of Earth has Jupiter in the night
sky at that time.

---
Dan Tilque    --     [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:46:48 GMT
From: Daniel L'Hommedieu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.space,sci.space

[e-mail] (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983) writes:

>: |>      Can any of you think of any moral or philosophical justification
>: |>     for using huge amounts of taxpayer money to fund the "space
>: |>     program" at all?  Not counting, of course, it provides high-
>: |>     pay, high-tech jobs for a bunch of us.
>:


>This country does not do enough basic research as it is. The space
>program, and the defense department have done a great deal of this.
>Their research has led to such things as the computers we are using.
>The first electronic computers were developed by the military. I
>beleive they were using them to crack codes.

Some of the other common household items of the day also came from the
space program--that's my understanding.  Microwave ovens, digital
watches, and calculators all come to mind.  Hey, I like my 386 too!

Daniel
--
Daniel L'Hommedieu / Junior, CSC Depatment, NCSU / [e-mail]
From: Rec.humor.funny:                   "Ich bin ein Adler"
      My unique solution to two of the world's problems:
      "Feed the Homeless to the Hungry"

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:43:23 GMT
From: "Don M. Gibson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Relay to Follow Galileo?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] () writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] writes:
>
>>
>>No matter which way you cut it, a TDRS is too heavy to be launched to Jupiter
>>orbit from the shuttle (remember it needs to carry fuel for Jupiter orbit
>>insertion, as well).
>>
>>One of the problems with the space activist commnity is that we tend to make
>>half-a**ed designs here on the net, instead of what we should be doing:
>>creating an environment where things simply don't go wrong in the first place.
>>That's what TQM is all about.
>>
>>--- Maximus 2.00
>
>     I would like to see the math that shows that TDRS could not be sent to
>Jupiter, remember that a TDRS has relatively large fuel tanks, in addition to
>fuel in the IUS.
>     I believe the redesign of TDRS-F looked very complicated and was thought
>very risky.  I was not consulted and did not look into it.  The link budget
> would need to be quite a bit different than the situations for which TDRS
>was designed.
>

as long as were at the exercise of retro-fitting a TDRS for GLL-Relay,
please post the TDRS specs for:
    wet mass:
    dry mass:
    power source:
    attitude control sensors:
    attitude controllers:
    thermal controllers:
    radiation hardness:
    antenna articulation capabilities:

thanx

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:30:49 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Saturn costs, shuttle costs...

\   In any case this is all apples-vs-oranges... More informative numbers
/would be to compare inflation adjusted development costs of various NASA
\programs to DCX, DCY...  The key though is not to compare just the Shuttle,
/try to find programs with similar scopes, and complexities. Perhaps
\the LM, Gemini, the Dryden Center's experiments with flying bodies (from what
/I've read, one of NASA's more cost effective programs, the result of
\being a local initiative without a lot of official support or oversite),
/and the X-15 (although primarily an Air Force project). Anyone have any
\numbers, and care to risk eternal flames for posting them?

/Henry Worth
\No, I don't speak for Amdahl... I'm not even sure I speak for myself.

This account will be going away soon and I don't know when I'll get
back, but I'll put in some ideas I had anyway (and dare people to
try to flame me ;-)

1) What are the incremental costs of launching a) a Saturn V, and
b) A Shuttle Orbiter?

Keep in mind, they use the same VAB, the same launch pads, crawlers
etc... how many people did it take to launch each one?

2) What is the cost of manufacturing a Saturn V (sans payload) vs.
the cost of remanufacturing a shuttle (combined with the amortization
costs on that specific orbiter's purchase alone?)

How much could the Saturn launch to leo compared to the Shuttle?

Wickedly yours,

Phil
--
Phil Fraering
"...drag them, kicking and screaming, into the Century of the Fruitbat."
<<- Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_
PGP key available if and when I ever get around to compiling PGP...

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:54:11 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Second space hotel

> More of interest, Pat is working on *Space Tourism* in Japan.
>
> Guess who'll have the furst space hotel?

\It will be owned by Japanese corporations.
/
\But the staff will be British.

/(Hey, Dave, if jobs are tight in astronomy, you could get a job as
\concierge.  And do astronomy in your off hours, in the hotel's parking
/lot...)

Hmmph. The staff will be British.

Hidden in this statement is the implied "the cooks will be
British" which means that whoever builds the second space
hotel will have a good chance of putting the Japanese out
of business.

"Oh, you mean you're dehydrated from spacesickness? Well,
we have lukewarm tap water or lukewarm stout. Which'll
it be?"

"Ice? We're hoping we can get some up for the next time Halley
comes by..."

\Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "Enough marshmallows
/Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | will kill you
\Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | if properly placed."
/Internet:       [e-mail]  | --John Alexander, leader of
\SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | "disabling technologies"
/ [*Aviation Week*, 7 Dec 1992, p. 50]  | research, Los Alamos

Placed with what? A railgun?
--
Phil Fraering
"...drag them, kicking and screaming, into the Century of the Fruitbat."
<<- Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_
PGP key available if and when I ever get around to compiling PGP...

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:21:25 -0500
From: Mark Kieffer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Station Utilization Conference

  [This message was sent to the Space Digest maintainers.  I thought it was
   of sufficient interest to post to sci.space, but I've not verified the
   contents -- MM]

Dear Moderators,
        Our company, BDM International, is under contract to support NASA's
upcoming Space Station Utilization Conference. In an effort to reach
researchers that might be interested in attending such a conference, we
have decided that postings to several electronic bulletin boards or
conferences accessible from the Internet system may reach audiences that
normally would not receive the necessary information.

            [ .... Rest of the text deleted -MM .... ]

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

Calender Notice:
NASA SPACE STATION FREEDOM (SSF) UTILIZATION CONFERENCE AT THE SAN
FRANCISCO HILTON, JUNE 21-24, 1993, SAN FRANCISCO.  This conference and
hardware exhibition is for researchers who want to learn more about past
accomplishments, present activities, and future plans and opportunities for
space-based research.   Space Station Freedom research capabilities, and
opportunities for commercial research will also be detailed.  Research
discipline sessions will cover recently completed or planned space-related
experiments in life sciences, biotechnology, fluid physics, materials
sciences, combustion, and technology development.  For registration
information, either send e-mail to [e-mail], call
202-479-5280 or send queries via fax to 202-863-8407, Attn: SSF Utilization
Conference.  Potential exhibitors should call 202-479-5253.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 23:44:47 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <Cohen@.mdc.com>
Subject: SSF Progress
Newsgroups: sci.space

I'm very impressed that a Design Project leader would take the time to post
in such detail!

Many of what has gone between postings in this thread are interesting and
some are questionable.....Note that we on WP-02 (both MDA and NASA) are
currently looking at well over 200 contract changes.

Two changes of interest: 1. Change from crew-built-in-EVA approach to a
PreIntegrated Truss (PIT)i.e., prebuilt on the ground then shipped up to
orbit and attached to previous peices.... This was the biggy a couple of
years ago and was driven by the Fischer-Price (not the toymaker!) study on
EVA maintainance time...I personally believe that this was not the true
reason....I think it was because the truss elements (sticks) would not be
strong enough.....not to mention that the crew could never had built it all
by hand before using up all their air....The PIT was what MDA originally
wanted to do back in phase B, but I've heard they (NASA) wanted it built by
Astronauts....This was the biggest one and if we had started with this
approach in '88 a good amount of $ would have been saved.  True...due to
the shuttle's limitations and weight there is less power and a smaller
size.....  part of this change included halving the modules which saved
tons as well as eliminating two of the resource nodes.
2.  Another big change which is going through these days allows the
electronic devices to switch to backup components at failures....known as a
logical "string" as opposed to a physical...In the old way a physical
string is made up of a set of devices...multiple strings provided
reliability during failure...the system would switch to the other
string...However the additional backup devices were scrubbed out of the
program.... the strings were incomplete.....  The newer design allows the
systems to continue to operate after 2 failures have occured.  Devices
within the logical string switch rather than the whole string..in the old
way if a device failed, so would SSF.....This change is a direct result of
#1 above  as well as other scrubs....

These two big changes have had the most impact and get the most press.....
neither are due to ANY technical stupidity on the part of MDA....nor poor
mgmt practices.....

The fact is...SSF is a hard thing to do and we are ALL learning how to do
it as we go along.  True there were probably cheaper ways to go, but these
cheaper ways depend on hindsight.  This is a development program which in
unofficially fixed price...even though it's officially cost plus and
managed as such...

I repeat what I posted here months ago....SSF will teach us how to build
big massive structures in orbit.....you can't do much in space until you
know how to do that...... Killing SSF now would be almost as bad as
allowing Skylab to fall out of orbit (OK, maybe not that bad...).....In my
opinion what the program needs is extreme stability and enforced
accountability...  NASA mgmt must not be allowed to change and move on to
other jobs.....Too many NASA bigshots have stomped their way through the
program thinking they can wrestle it under control by banging their fist on
the table during big meetings then bullying everybody.....Then moving
on....  The upper mgrs should be forced to be accountable for stupid
expensive wastes....

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

Date: 18 Dec 92 21:14:31 GMT
From: Henry A Worth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
> onvex.convex
> Sender: [e-mail] (news access account)
> Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
> Lines: 21
> Nntp-Posting-Host: bach.convex.com
> X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
>               Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
>               not necessarily those of CONVEX.
>
> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>
> >HE indulged in creative accounting?  I think the contract for DC-X was $58
> >million, not a "couple hundred million."
>
> That sounds right.  McDAC has also spent some of its own money in
> addition to what it got from the Air Force.  I believe the contract
> required McDAC to spend at least an equal amount, so that puts it
> into the hundred-million-dollar range.  *Not* the billion-dollar
> range.
>
>
> >The average total cost of a shuttle mission is a little over $500 million
> >not a billion+.
>
> Only if you learned math from the "Hitchhiker's Guide."
>
> Divide the amount of money NASA spends on the Space Shuttle program
> every year by six flights per year.
>
> $500 million ain't even close.

   What NASA quotes as Shuttle costs is their idea of "direct operating costs".
This leaves out a lot of the Shuttle program's other indirect or overhead
costs including development and overhaul costs. Since NASA doesn't have to
answer to the IRS and Congress is interested in program costs, they have
a lot of flexibilty to define direct and indirect as they wish :-)
As a result, no one really knows how much the Shuttle costs and
we have to endure this never ending debate on the net.


   In any case this is all apples-vs-oranges... More informative numbers
would be to compare inflation adjusted development costs of various NASA
programs to DCX, DCY...  The key though is not to compare just the Shuttle,
try to find programs with similar scopes, and complexities. Perhaps
the LM, Gemini, the Dryden Center's experiments with flying bodies (from what
I've read, one of NASA's more cost effective programs, the result of
being a local initiative without a lot of official support or oversite),
and the X-15 (although primarily an Air Force project). Anyone have any
numbers, and care to risk eternal flames for posting them?

--
Henry Worth
No, I don't speak for Amdahl... I'm not even sure I speak for myself.

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

Date: 18 Dec 92 20:37:01 GMT
From: Henry A Worth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
> >
> >>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.
>
> Oh. Oh. My source is a post by Nick Szabo Sept 19th of last year where
> he quotes a Mir Press article on suited time for sale. Since they offered
> John Denver a ride for $10 million, this must be out to lunch.
>
> Gary

   I believe the $5M/hr figure was for EVA time. The planning, support,
and resources required for EVA are non-trival, whether performed by the
CIS or the USA.


--
Henry Worth
No, I don't speak for Amdahl... I'm not even sure I speak for myself.

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

Date: 18 Dec 1992 23:53:55 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>
>the same. The two designs lead to different stresses, though. A low volume,
>high pressure pump has different failure modes than a low pressure, high
>volume pump. One is not necessarily better than the other.
>
>Gary


Kinda like the difference between Glider Landings and Powered Vertical
Descent;-)

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

Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:07:17 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: TOPEX Data Show Role of Eddies in Ocean Circulation
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.geo.meteorlogy

From the "JPL Universe"
December 18, 1992

TOPEX data show role of eddies in ocean circulation
By Mary Hardin

     Preliminary results from the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite's
radar altimeter have enabled scientists to create a global image
of the world's oceans that shows how swirls of ocean currents,
called eddies, change over distances of tens to hundreds of
kilometers during time periods that range from weeks to months.
     "Eddies play an important role in ocean circulation because
they transport an enormous amount of heat, salt, nutrients and
other chemicals in the ocean," said JPL Project Scientist Dr.
Lee-Lueng Fu. It is this process of ocean circulation that helps
to shape the global climate, he continued.
     "The data were collected during a 10 day period from Oct. 3
to 12, 1992 and were processed using preliminary algorithms that
have not yet been adjusted based on post-launch calibrations," Fu
said.
     The altimeter measures the height of the sea surface along
the satellite's ground track which covers the entire global ocean
every 10 days.  After subtracting a model of the mean sea surface
height from the satellite measurements, JPL's Oceanography Group
produced the image showing sea surface height due to changes in
ocean current.
     "This is a snapshot that doesn't coincide with the multi-
year average of past ocean observations," Fu said, "It shows that
the ocean changes constantly."
     Areas of sea surface height greater than 25 cm occur mainly
in regions of the following strong currents: The Gulf Stream off
the east coast of the United States, the Kuroshio current off the
east coast of Japan, the East Australian Current, the Agulhas
Current south of South Africa, the Somali Current off Somalia,
and the convergence of the Brazil Current and the Falkland
Current off the central east coast of South America. A chain of
secondary highs can be seen north of Antarctica.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in you life.

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


To: [e-mail]
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!west.West.Sun.COM!news2me.EBay.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!cupertino!rjr
From: Bob Rocchetti <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Mach 8+ Space/Spy Plane?
Date: 18 Dec 1992 19:43:34 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Lines: 22
Distribution: world
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: cupertino
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

>Popular Science magazine had a photograph of a "mysterious" contrail that
>looks like -+-+-+-+-+-+, and very thin compared to other trans-sonics.
>This was ?September 1992 (this year anyway)

I've seen this contrail.  It was on a north/south track out over the ocean
west and south of San Fransico, approx. August 1992.  The trail was well above
and further out to sea than the normal air traffic pattern that runs along the
west coast of the US.  The regularity of the pattern is what really stuck in
my mind.

At the time I thought it was the contrail from a Nasa modified U2 that
flies out of Moffet Field near San Jose.  The altitude seemed reasonable
for a U2.  The contrail was relatively close to a U2 base. The pulse pattern
is the only thing I can't explain.

Are there any known jet engines (military or commercial) that produce
a regularly pulsed contrail at high altitudes?  Could the pulsing just be
the result of a fuel saving modification to an old U2 engine?
---
Sun Technology Enterprises.    - SunPics Printer Imaging Group
[e-mail]           - [phone]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 570
------------------------------