Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_1/V16NO111.TXT

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

Date: Wed,  3 Feb 93 05:00:56
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #111
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed,  3 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 111

Today's Topics:
                             Atlantis...
            Catch-22: (was Using off-the-shelf components)
          Clinton's Promises (space) in Charlotte Observer+y
                 Distributed Energy Railgun Question.
                   Expensive shuttle toilets (Why?)
                           Galileo update?
                         IMDISP 7.9 and VESA
               Meteor Riding/Netting (lets go fishing)
                    Mir/SSF(Fred) Combo Mission..
       Non-Profit Space Exp: What would you do with $125M/year?
                     Rent Mir/Commercial SS Fred
         Russian solar sail flight possibly set for Feb. 4th
                     Solar Sail/Parachute/Brake+
                      today in 1986-remember th
            Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger (2 msgs)
                                Well..

    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: Sun, 31 Jan 93 15:44:17 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Atlantis...
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

>One question here-  Where is the shuttle Atlantis at the moment?  (Most of
>the schedules and such I've seen talk of Discovery, Columbia and Endeavour.)
>
>Is Atlantis in refit at the moment?
>
>Thank you.

  Yep, Atlantis is at Palmdale (Downey? I've heard both and don't know
  which is correct...)
  She's in the Orbiter Downtime Maintenance Program, sort of like the
  Service Life Extension Program the Navy uses for it's carriers. She's
  due back at KSC this fall. She'll make two flights in 1994, and then
  go to Mir in 1995.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
[e-mail]                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 02:14:46 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Catch-22: (was Using off-the-shelf components)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Ata Etemadi ([e-mail]) wrote:

: >>G'Day
: >>
: >> Are there any companies out there whose off-the-shelf products are
: >>space-qualified ? I ask this since a colleague at IKI told me that
: >>they had flown many standard PC hard discs as onboard storage devices
: >>and had great success.

Yes, some commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products are space
qualified.  A set of 3.5" floppy disks comes to mind.  We used them in
the Payload and General Support Computer (PGSC).  We went through a LOT
of trouble to get the floppies tested for outgassing, flammability,
etc., and we finally had a set of floppies anybody could order from a
catalog.  This gave us the ability to tell payload customers what they
could use for a floppy disk, since at that time, all payload PGSC
software had to go on the floppies, and the hard drive was under strict
configuration control (for obvious and non-obvious reasons).

Then the vendor went and changed the floopy disks on us (new paint on
the metal sleeve), and we had to have a whole new batch expensively
tested.

Ata Etemadi ([e-mail]) continued:

: >>   I just wondered what other components might be
: >>out there which are standard and space-qualified. I don't imagine
: >>for one minute that these components will be chosen for major space
: >>missions since they are just not expensive enough.

You seem to have strange ideas about the procurement processes used in
the space program.  The US Gov't rules stipulate that the qualified
vendor with the lowest price shall supply absolutely everything, with a
few exceptions for minority-owned small businesses and situations in
which there is a good reason not to make use of full and open
competition.  Don't knock it until you know the process.  Then you,
like me, can tear your hair out in frustration.

: In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright)
: writes:

: Space-qualified has a very precise meaning namely, in the case of
: the ESA, the component has to meet the criteria detailed in ESA PSS
: 01-701 etc.. which are part of a multi-volume set (I think its
: only 12 or so volumes :-)

For NASA, there are quite a few stipulations which must be met.  One of
them is JSCM-8080, the "applicability matrix."  There's a large set of
rules for non-metallic objects.  And everything has to be checked by
Safety, Reliability and Quality Assurance (SR&QA).  It's a long,
time-consuming, expensive process, but quite a few experiences (like
the "corned beef sandwich" episode documented in the Right Stuff, and
the possible contributing causes of the Apollo 204 fire) have taught us
to be very careful what we seal in a tin can with people in it for a
couple of weeks at a time.  It's not the best or cheapest process
possible, but it works most of the time.

: >Given a reliable, low-cost space transportation system, 1 and 2
: >become much less important.  And if you have a rotating space
: >station, with artificial gravity and earth-normal or near-normal
: >atmosphere, 3 ceases to be important as well, and you can buy
: >just about everything off the shelf.

Where can we be "given a reliable, low-cost space transportation
system?"  I'll take two.  Oh, and throw in one of those space
stations, too.  Mine doesn't rotate much.

: The components will STILL have to pass vibration, outgassing and
: ECM tests. Given beam transport technology, we could all go on
: holiday on Mars with Mr Spock et al.. :-)

ECM?  You mean EMI (electromagnetic interference) I presume.  We
don't get too much into Electronic Counter Measures in the SSP.
Maybe SSFP....

Your product also must meet G-loading, flammability, sharp-corner,
fail-safe, sound level and smell requirements.  (There's a panel of
"smell experts" at White Sands who turned down the ink we wanted to use
on the Flight Data File on-board documents because it smelled bad.
Don't laugh too much -- this is a serious concern in a closed
environment.)

Star Trek avoids some of the flammability problem -- there are no paper
documents on the Enterprise.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "NASA turns dreams into realities and makes science fiction
      into fact" -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator

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

Date: 2 Feb 93 00:12:13 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Clinton's Promises (space) in Charlotte Observer+y
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Carl Hage) writes:
> [e-mail] writes:
> :Amerina Anyoen Congression Japana Teh alaska alot alreadt aspicies
> :becomeing commerical compedative dificult dsign elevetor emust geo
> :gladitor legeslating liek progect sellt teathered ther wher
Wow I knew I was tired when I wrote the above, but I did not realize how
tired I was.. Sorry for the gibberish post.

Im not ever sure what I was trying to say..

>
> It should be evident that the most serious long term problem facing
> America is our educational system. If we can't type, spell, formulate
> grammatically correct sentences, or engage in meaningful discussions,
> how can we expect anything other than being eclipsed in space technology
> by other countries? How will we solve a future economic and ecological
> crisis in an overpopulated, resource depleted world?
>
> It also seems like we have lost our pride in quality craftsmanship. I'm
> amazed to see how much hastily prepared, shoddy workmanship is sent out
> without even a minimal quality check, particularly when today's
> technology enables a vast improvement in quality over what was available
> or practical a few decades ago.
>
> During the late 1950s, the "missile gap" and the "I'd rather be dead than
> red" philosophy motivated the United States to accelerate the development
> of space technology and improve math and science education. Currently,
> we are lagging far behind many other countries in basic education. What
> is there to motivate our country to respond to an impending crisis?
>
> Why is there so much whining about Clinton's broken promises less than 10
> days after he has been in office?  I hope space enthusiasts will help
> president Clinton and our congress solve the current economic crisis and
> correct our lagging educational system. Without these problems addressed,
> our future endeavors in space are sure to fail.

Will try to not post again when I have been  on the computer for more than 24
hours..

==
 Michael Adams, [e-mail]
 Im not high, just jacked

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

Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 00:39:21 GMT
From: Rajesh Batra <[e-mail]>
Subject: Distributed Energy Railgun Question.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics

I am interested in modeling a distributed energy source railgun.
I have read "Electromagnetic projectile acceleration utilizing
distributed energy sources" by Jerald V. Parker which was published
in the 53rd volume of the Journal of Applied Physics (Oct. 1982).
This article has the differential equations that need to be solved
to properly model this type of railgun.  However, I have noticed
a few discrepencies in the derivation of the equations along with
having trouble in solving the "ordinary" differential equations.  I
was wondering if anyone has read this article and could elaborate on
what the author means by using an "ordinary differential equation
solver routine and standard matrix inversion routines".  We
can't even solve a problem with two differential equations let
alone the 60 that were solved in the journal report.  We are
currently using MAPLE to solve the equations but are getting
errors when it attempts to solve for the constants.  Even
by hand calculations, the two differential equations are
impossible to solve.

Any help on the subject would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

John L. Papp
[e-mail]
University of Cincinnati
Department of Aerospace Engineering

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

Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1993 12:32:13 GMT
From: Bob Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Expensive shuttle toilets (Why?)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

[e-mail] writes:
: I recently was asked a non-astonomy related question here at the
: planetarium for which I cannot seem to find the answer.  The student
: wanted to know why the toilets installed in the shuttle were so
: expensive.  I recall some flap about this some time ago (1-2 years
: maybe, or has it been longer than that?).  If someone could point me
: to a possible source of information on this, or the "official"
: response, I would appreciate it.
:
: Thanks in advance
:
: Scott Miller, Program Coordinator
: Rauch Memorial Planetarium
: University of Louisville
: [e-mail]
:
: P.S.  e-mail is fine, or post to sci.space or sci.astro if you really
: feel it is appropritate to that group.  Thanks, again.
:
: jsm
Stop and think about it.  The shuttle is in a zero gravity environment.  What normally drops
into a water filled bowl on earth, does not want to 'drop' anywhere in space.  The water bowl
on earth provides a couple of functions, contains smell, provides a medium for the transport
of the waste material.  Now you got to figure out subsitutes for those two functions.
In addition you to provide a seal between the user and the toilet, remember the user is in a
zero g environment and will have to be strapped in, and how do you seal the upper middle leg
area, for both men and women?  How does the user clean themselves?  It turns out it is a very
difficult problem, made worse by the fact it can only really be tested in space.

While I work for the company that makes/designed the space toilet (Hamilton Standard, Div
of United Technologies) I do not work in that business group, and this response is in no way
an 'official' response.

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

Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 00:49:30 GMT
From: Bruce Bowen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo update?
Newsgroups: sci.space

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Ron Baalke):
> The recent hammerings have not opened the antenna.  The first hammering
> attempt turned the ballscrew an additional full rotation, but it has
> not budged since.  Despite 13,000+ hammerings at different frequencies
> and at various antenna temperatures, the ribs are still stuck.

 Is it possible to reverse the motor and retract the antenna?  Maybe reversing it
will relieve whatever is holding it closed and then allow it to open.

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

Date: 2 Feb 1993 01:10 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: IMDISP 7.9 and VESA
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mike Newberry) writes...
>I haven't any idea why IMDISP wouldn't work on a VESA compatible video
>card.  VESA provides extensions to the basic video BIOS functions.  If
>IMDISP will work on a non-VESA card, and it does, then it should also
>work on a VESA based card.  Ron Baalke, one of the IMDISP programmers
>says that IMDISP is not intended to be VESA compatible.  Therefore, since
>VESA provides BIOS *extensions* which are not used by IMDISP, IMDISP should
>indeed run.  There's somehting else going on here--maybe a bug in the IMDISP
>code in which it sends an erroneous command to the card which does nothing
>on a non-VESA card but accidentally executes a VESA function on the
>VESA compatible card.

I think a little history on the IBM graphics cards is in order here.
When IBM first came out with color graphics cards, they defined the
what the standards would be.  This did so for the CGA, EGA and VGA
modes.  However, there were no standard for the Super VGA modes.
Every graphics card manufacturer did Super VGA their own way.  Each
SVGA card required their own custom code to work in the high resolution modes.
IMDISP was coded to support 6 or 7 SVGA cards and all of the low
res standard modes (CGA, EGA and VGA). Then the VESA standard came along in
an attempt to provide a standard for the SVGA modes, but it came after the
fact.  IMDISP does not fully support the VESA standard (yet), and just because
the VESA drivers exists does not mean a program will magically support
it.  So to summarize, IMDISP supports all of the standard VGA modes,
some of the SVGA cards (which had to be custom coded), but no VESA
support.  I do plan to add in the VESA support to IMDISP which will
appear in version 8.0.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never yell "Movie!" in a
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | crowded fire station.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: 2 Feb 93 00:23:12 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Meteor Riding/Netting (lets go fishing)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Here is an idea, maybe made more clear..
You don't have to cut up with the meteor, you just have to put a
net in its way. Namely the net would be attached to a probe
using some form of shock absorber attached to the line between the net
and the Probe. The shock obsorber would talk up much of the whip action and
migth help keep the meteor in its orighinal course..
I can put this on paper, but not sure how to describe it.. The net might have
to have some volacity, but not as much as the meteor, just enough speed to not
get torn/ripped up when the metoer comes flyingtowards it..

==
 Michael Adams, [e-mail]
 Im not high, just jacked

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

Date: 2 Feb 93 08:28:04 EST
From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mir/SSF(Fred) Combo Mission..
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, davem@ee (Dave Michelson) writes:
>
>How big is the "payload hit" if one were to launch into polar orbit from
>the equator rather than from, say, the North Pole or perhaps the Arctic
>Circle?  I wouldn't have thought it was that big but some people give the
>impression that it is.

I don't think there's any "payload hit" to launch into polar orbit from any
particular latitude -- that is, all latitudes have the same energy requirement.
The "hit" is that to reach a polar orbit, you have to launch due north or
south, and therefore receive no benefit from the earth's rotation.  Vandenberg
AFB, used by the US for its polar launches, isn't very far north at all -- it's
used instead of Cape Canaveral because it has an open area to the south.  Polar
launches from the Cape would overfly either the continental US or various
Caribbean islands and/or northern South America during the boost phase, which
is bad from a range safety point of view.  I don't know what, if anything,
prevents the Russians from using Tyuratam for polar launches, but the fact that
Plesetsk is closer to the pole is not a factor in its preferred status for
polar orbit launches.

In general, you get the most help from the earth's rotation if you launch due
east, and the satellite's orbit will have an inclination equal to the latitude
of the launch site.  The closer your launch site is to the equator, the more
benefit you receive (the ESA's launch site at Kourou is excellent in this
regard).  You can easily put a satellite into an orbit with an inclination
greater than the latitude of the launch site by launching in a direction which
is not due east, though the benefit from earth's rotation is lessened.  To put
a satellite into an orbit with an inclination less than that of the launch site
requires either a dogleg maneuver during the boost phase or a plane change
maneuver after orbital insertion (or both), and these come with a cost.
--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 02:05:28 GMT
From: Jeffrey J Bloch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Non-Profit Space Exp: What would you do with $125M/year?
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

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

    (stuff deleted)

>What could we accomplish with a $125 million/year budget and no
>government bureaucracy, no Byzantine procurement regulations, and a
>willingness to take calculated risks?  (Assume, for the sake of
>argument, that our organization is sufficiently well-connected to
>obtain waivers for the more unreasonable regulations on private
>launches.)
>

It would be quite reasonable to field a small LEO satellite well within that
budget. We built the ALEXIS satellite (225 pounds, to be put in a 400nm orbit
by Pegasus) for about $17 Million, not including launch costs. Of course
we made heavy use of an existing infrastructure of space instrumentation
expertise and equipment. Launch costs are a different matter. What did
$17 Million buy us? A satellite with approximately 50-50 ratio of payload
mass to bus mass, 96 Megabytes of on-board memory to act as a solid state
tape recorder, 40 Watts orbit averaged available for experiment power, 10W
for the bus, 6 small x-ray telescopes, a VHF ionospheric experiment, a
750 Kilobit telemetry system, and a dedicated ground station at Los Alamos.
If they ever get Pegasus flying on a routine basis, or Taurus for that matter,
consider another $10 to $15 million for launch costs. In doing all this we
tried to minimize paperwork as much as possible, and fairly well succeeded.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are my own and not                Jeff Bloch
    of the DOE or LANL            [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 2 Feb 93 14:52:37 EET
From: [e-mail] (F.Baube x554)
Subject: Rent Mir/Commercial SS Fred

fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
> [e-mail] ("F.Baube x554")
> > Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
> > > Sure, we can do as some people have suggested and rent Mir and buy
> > > Soyuzes and use Energia and save lots of money, but the end result
> > > would be the complete stasis of the space arm of the U.S. aerospace
> > > industry, coupled with Russian dominance of space down the line.
>
> >Did you ever hear about the benefits of free trade ?
>
> I suggest you look in a good text on international economics under
> "optimum tariff" for a lesson on "the benefits of free trade". This
> is a buzz-phrase that is most often used to hand-wave away better
> formulated arguments.

The buzz-phrases cut both ways.  And don't forget the
benefits of mutual specialization.

Is the "optimum tariff" point that we should lean towards
autarky and avoid buying Not-Invented-Here because:

(1) we maximize national income [not arguable in this newsgroup], or

(2) we should be able to produce anything and everything
    on our own for reasons of

    (a)  supply stability, or
    (b) "national security", or
    (c)  national technology policy, or

(3) something else ?

> >I thought re-entry capsules and disposable multi-stage
> >boosters were supposed to be the means, not the end.
> >A big Russian buy could be a short-to-medium term expedient [..]
>
> Except, of course, we wouldn't be.  We'd be buying Russian hardware
> INSTEAD OF spending the money to develop our own.

I didn't really choose a position re. cancelling our own development
versus stretching it out.

But the idea of using Soyuz for Fred escape capsules is plausible.
If it is judged to be a money-saver then maybe it will be done.
Is there a fundamental difference in the case of heavy-lift launchers ?
Is there a heavy-lift technology or three there that we haven't
developed, and would like to, and "ought" to ?

Besides, we've *already* done some heavy-launcher development.
It all seems to have either gone bye-bye (Saturn) or hit the
circular file (NLS) or be having major problems (Titan IV) or
be surprisingly risky and expensive (Shuttle).

Maybe our development to date is WHY a buy from the Russians
sounds interesting.

Just for the sake of argument, if money *could* be saved buying
Russian, how would that amount of money compare to, say, Delta
Clipper development ?  Or to the sums needed for some of the
other propulsion studies at NASA ?

> >If we were talking about Long March, I'd say let the repressive
> >SOBs *keep* their hardware.  But the Russians are good guys now,
> >and could use our business to keep their skills alive [..]
>
> If you are a firm believer in "the benefits of free trade" and
> honestly think that the only concern is with the goal and we
> shouldn't worry about all the interrim things, why discirminate
> against the Chinese?

Such discrimination is hardly unusual.  It's US national policy.
Bought any Cuban cigars lately ?  Tried to ?

But why *not* Long March ?  The point is valid.

But perhaps moot in a buyer's market.  For example, I have the
moral luxury of not needing to buy anything from Nestle.  I can
arbitrarily exclude them from consideration and still have many
other choices based on cost and utility.

> Also, what about keeping OUR skills alive?  Or doesn't that
> matter to you?

OF COURSE it does.  Like I said, there seems to be plenty of work
around that is starved for money and closer to the horizon of the possible ..

Or perhaps when you say "OUR skills", do you mean "Saturn-type" skills ?

> >.. is this naive ?
>
> In the extreme, and in several different directions.

May be, but it's been a great debate on this topic.
Lots of thoughtful and informative postings ..

> [e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------
This .sig is at half-mast in consideration for Buffalo's
thrice-suffering fans.  Hats off to Don Beebe for tackling an
overconfident Leit (#78) and preventing records for most turn-
overs and most points against.  There is no joy in Mudville.
--------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 03:01:05 GMT
From: Glenn Chapman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Russian solar sail flight possibly set for Feb. 4th
Newsgroups: sci.space

     There has been some questions asked about the Russian solar sail
experiment.  Here is the best current information that I have.  This in
this test, called the Znamya experiment, the progress TM-15 tanker with
the 20 metre mirror solar sail folded, will be detached from the Mir
space station on Thurs. Feb. 4th according to one CBC report.  After moving
a few hundred metres from Mir it will deploy the sail and orientate itself
to have the sun in line with the sail.  The experiment will continue for
three days (till Feb. 6th).  However take all this with a grain
of salt.  This experiment was originally to take place in December, and was
delayed from the previous Mir crew to the current one, which just arrived
on Jan. 26th.  There has been no announcement that I have heard on
Radio Moscow of the time of separation or the date only the month.   Further
only a small change in the orbit of Mir, will significantly alter any
viewing time numbers.  Such changes usually are made a few days
before the Progress tanker leaves by firing the Progress's engine to raise
Mir's orbit.
    Best viewing will probably occur near sunrise, when the
mirror, which is pointed towards the sun, is reflecting light while towards
the earth's edge just before it enters the terminator for the earth's shadow.
Exact times will depend on the orbital elements and your location
     Hope this helps those that are looking for it.  I will provide better
information as I get it.


                                                        Yours truly
                            Glenn Chapman
                            Simon Fraser U.
                            [e-mail]

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

Date: 2 Feb 93 03:30:06 GMT
From: Philip Young <[e-mail]>
Subject: Solar Sail/Parachute/Brake+
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:
|> > [e-mail] (Jonathan Deitch) writes:
|> >
|> >> >From: [e-mail]
|> >
|> >> >A Solar Sail if I understand right when it arrives at its Steller destination
|> >> >it becomes a Solar Parachute/Brake. Am I right?
|> >
|> >>Yep ... you simply turn it around and use it to capture the *outward* solar
|> >>wind of your destination star to slow you down.
|> >
|> > Solar sails do NOT use the solar wind.  They run on light pressure.
|> >
[...]
|> Of what I have heard there is two different solar sails.
|> One uses light, the other uses Solar Winds.. Light Sails are more practical if
|> I remember right..
|> Arthur C. Clarke and friends have abook on the subject, called "Project Soalr
|> Sail". By ROC press..

See "Rocheworld", a science fiction novel by Robert Forward for a fascinating,
in-depth look at solar sail technology as applied to interstellar travel.
I found the book a bit hard to get into, and its treatment of humans and
their behaviour is pretty unrealistic, but *boy* does he ever do a great job
on solar sails!

--
Philip R. Young
Data General Australia Pty. Ltd.


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

Date: 1 Feb 93 17:26:44 GMT
From: tom betz <[e-mail]>
Subject: today in 1986-remember th
Newsgroups: sci.space

I was at work, writing Pascal code.  The first thing I told a colleague
when I heard about the explosion (before I heard any of the details) was,
"Damn, I'll bet the frigging SRB's leaked at one of the gaps! I knew that
damned penny-pinching would cause trouble.  Congress shoulda sprung for
liquid-fueled boosters and air launch."

Turned out, sad to say, my intuition was correct.


---
 ~ WinQwk 2.0 a#299 ~ My God, Thiokol, when do you want me to launch, April?
--
Executive Network Information System  [phone]
International ILink Host

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

Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 15:43:45 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

>I was in high school and most of my Chemistry was coming from lunch when
>someone said the shuttle blew up.  We, at first w3ent to a neighboring
>classroom that had a TV while someone went and got one from the media
>center.  For the rest of the day, we watched the coverage provided by the
>network.  It was a sad day for this country.
>
>Just in case people are wondering, there's a memorial (maybe they are
>buried there too -- I don't remember) at Arlington National Cemetary
>just behind the building from which you can watch the changing of the
>guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers.  Does anyone know of other
>sights where there are memorials for the crew of STS-26?
>
>
>Sandy
>[e-mail]

  The Astronauts Memorial at Kennedy Space Center, for one. It's the
  "Space Mirror" design which gives the illusion of the crew's names
  riding in the sky.

  The names depcited are:

  SCOBEE      GRISSOM     BASSETT    WILLIAMS    FREEMAN     CARTER
  SMITH       WHITE       SEE
  McNAIR      CHAFFEE
  ONIZUKA
  RESNIK
  JARVIS
  McAULIFFE



  CARTER (Manley L. "Sonny") was represented by a gold star the last
  time I saw the memorial. I think his name is now in place.

  Does anyone know if there are plans to add the names ADAMS and
  GRIGGS to the memorial?

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

Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 03:04:33 GMT
From: Jeffrey J Bloch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

This is a bit late, but where was I?

I was a physics graduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
in the x-ray astronomy group. I was spending a lot of time working on
a shuttle experiment (the Diffuse X-ray Spectrometer, which BTW finally
flew a few weeks ago), that was to fly in October of 1986. I was
standing in the basement of the Space Science and Engineering Center
talking to the project's head mechanical engineer. He was commenting how
we were finally over the hump, and that we might actually make our
scheduled October flight. All of a sudden the head of the Center came
on the loud speaker and made a brief and garbled announcement that the
shuttle had blown up. Both of us looked at each other and rushed to the
upstairs conference room where a crowd had gathered. The TV monitor had
no antenna and the head of the Center was using his body as a set of human
rabbit ears. We watched in horror and amazement. I felt sick for the rest of
the day. When the shock of the human tragedy wore off, I
decided that pinning my post-doc employment hopes
on a shuttle experiment was not the smartest thing to do....

People who have posted about dreams aside, some of us did have a funny
feeling about the launch that day before it happened when we saw the
ice hanging from the pad on the TV coverage.
Our research group did most of its experiments
on sounding rockets from White Sands, NM. Several years before, a shot was
being constantly delayed over and over again for weeks by weather or equipment
problems. Finally the winds aloft and equipment all came together, but the
temperature was several degrees C below launch spec. The launch director
at White Sands then uttered a famous line; "F@#$ it, Fire it!". At an
altitude of about 2000 feet, a seal ruptured in the solid rocket motor
assembly and the vehicle had to be cut down because it started going off
course. It was a passing thought at the time, but
even if we had thought more seriously about it, the shuttle folks surely knew
what they were doing, right?

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

Opinions expressed are my own and not those of LANL or the DOE.

Jeff Bloch                        [e-mail]
Astrophysics and Radiation Measurements Group
Los Alamos National Laboratory

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

Date: 1 Feb 1993 20:15:45 -0600
From: Robert Fentiman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Well..
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.misc,rec.arts.startrek.tech

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Otto Maddox) writes:
:     How long would it take a ship traveling at Warp 1 to get to a
:planet that is 60 light years away?
:
:     I have a an answer in my head but I wanna see if I am doing this
:thing
:right.

By Star Trek definition, 60 years exactly.

:
:Otto Maddox
:[ [e-mail] ] [ [e-mail] ]

    Thanks
    Robert Fentiman

InterNet: [e-mail]
At: University of Minnesota, Duluth

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 111
------------------------------