Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_2/V16NO214.TXT

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

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 05:28:41
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #214
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 22 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 214

Today's Topics:
                          Anonymous posters
                      AP article on Fred Funding
                  A response from Anonymous (2 msgs)
                  Getting people into Space Program!
                       JPL GIF Images Available
                    Mars Rescue Mission, what if!
                McElwaine disciplined! (somewhat long)
                  Measurement units for SSF and SSTO
                          military aircraft
                       Nobody cares about Fred?
            Shuttle refueling was(Re: Sabatier Reactors.)
                       SSTO/DC-X in the Media..

    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: 21 Feb 93 23:58:03 GMT
From: MICHELE M STEVENS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Anonymous posters
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

  I have found that those who use an anonymous system tend to fit
into two groups: 1) Those who sincerely have a need for it(rape
victims, those with vital information who might lose their
jobs if they openly posted information that was not wanted public,
etc etc.), and 2) Those whose sole purpose is to cause chaos, trouble,
disrupt the net, etc.
  I think that with some self-control, most users with access to an
anoymous system might be able to understand that not everything they
post should need to be done under the cover of anonymity. A poster
might try to think that maybe someone else would like to e-mail them
to ask for more information about a subject they spoke about(harmless),
or maybe other readers would like to be able to have someone to refer
back to on some point(also harmless).  Not everyone on the net is
going to flame you or harass you through e-mail for something you say.
  For those posting anonymously to these two groups, I have just two
questions: 1) Why are you posting anonymously to these two groups?,
and 2) Did you really post something that warranted anonymity?
What I mean is, these two newsgroups are relatively non-violent in
nature. It's not likely the groups will demand you retract something
or flame you(unless you come up with some unsubstantiated claim like
the Challenger really was blown up by a bomb, rather than by the
shaky claim of some "O-ring" scandal...for example).  In short, use
your judgement if you have a capability to be anonymous. We're not all
out to get you.  In fact, some of us might enjoy being able to reply
to something you've said, if you've stated your points well.
                       'Nuff said...
                        Michele

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

Date: 21 Feb 1993 20:03:51 GMT
From: Jon Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: AP article on Fred Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space

    The following excerpt is from an AP article by Tom Raum and Ron Fournier
appearing in our Sunday newspaper. The article described how Clinton's
economic plan was produced; this is the only space-related part.

   "One of the most vigorous arguments came over funds for Space Station
    Freedom, which both Clinton and Gore supported during the campaign.

    Efforts to drastically scale back the $30 billion project lead to a near
    shouting match among some members of the group when Clinton invited the
    budget team to the presidential retreat at Camp David one weekend,
    sources said.

    Gore pressed particularly hard for full funding of the space station in
    the meetings. The final decision from Clinton: a slightly scaled back,
    redesigned version of the orbiting laboratory."

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

Date: 21 Feb 93 19:56:04 GMT
From: David Sternlight <[e-mail]>
Subject: A response from Anonymous
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro

In discussing the use of anonymous postings, in article
<[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Becker)
writes:
>
>
>    In addition, privacy is a right which people
>    may exercise for whatever reason they wish -
>    the reasons are private as well, so one must
>    guess the motivation for anonymity in any
>    particular circumstance.  To assume that ...

I suppose this is also a useful point in discussing the use of Kill files,
in another sub-thread. Sauce for the goose, etc.

David
--
David Sternlight
RIPEM Public Key on server  --  Consider it an envelope for your e-mail

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

Date: 21 Feb 93 23:26:36 GMT
From: Doug Sewell <[e-mail]>
Subject: A response from Anonymous
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro

Bruce Becker ([e-mail]) wrote:

:     Anonymous postings are a really good example
:     of things that are to be judged by content,
:     since the typical responses of "oh that's a
:     posting by X, he's an idiot", or "Aha, Y is
:     always making good points" are not able to
:     be made.

No, one rapidly decides:

"Oh, it's another post from [e-mail].

He's always casting about red herrings and and bold pronouncements like
'having show that'...

His posts aren't worth reading."

--
Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University
[e-mail]       [e-mail]    <internet>!cc.ysu.edu!doug

uuencode bunny.dropping < core | mail [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Feb 1993 15:54:25 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>
>>No, the 15 was orbital, but it could and did cross the "Space"
           s/was/wasn't/  (typo folks)
>>boundary on numerous missions.    It had an operational
>>level good enough that it could almost fly military Missions.
>>If you had a missile or platform you wanted to carry up that
>>high.
>
>Whoa. The X-15 didn't have provision for internal or external
>missile stores. No hardpoints, no bay. The X-15 could reach
>350,000 feet, but it couldn't *do* anything up there. It was
>strictly a hypersonic research vehicle.
>


Most Military aircraft dont have weapons until one is designed
for it.   Hardpoints are only part of the issue.  control systems
need to be built and weapons dynamics have to be tested.
Somehow I figured, that if someone wanted badly enough to
put a sensor or weapon onto the X-15,  the engineering would
not be implausible.   Somehow, I doubt designing a hard point
would have been beyond the design team.

Seriously.  My point was that the X-15 was qualifying astronauts
at a rate that I think the SHuttle only passed recently.

pat

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

Date: 21 Feb 1993 22:43 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: JPL GIF Images Available
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

                         ==========================
                               JPL GIF IMAGES
                              February 21, 1993
                         ==========================

     I've placed some more GIF images at the Ames site.  These images are
courtesy of the Public Information Office at JPL.  Note that the images are
in GIF89a format, so make sure your display software supports this format
(as opposed to the older GIF87a format).  The caption files accompanying
the images are appended at the end of this message, as well as being embedded
in the images.  The images are available using anonymous ftp to:

        ftp:      ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3)
        user:     anonymous
        cd:       pub/SPACE/GIF
        files:
                  cassini.gif  - Artists rendering of the Cassini spacecraft.
                  cassini.txt  - Caption file.
                  exlaunch.gif - Explorer 1 Launch (1958)
                  exlaunch.txt - Caption file.
                  explorer.gif - Explorer 1 spacecaft.
                  explorer.txt - Caption file.
                  redspot.gif  - Color image of Jupiter's red spot.
                  redspot.txt  - Caption file.
                  saturn.gif   - Color image of Saturn
                  saturn.txt   - Caption file.

     Also, photographic prints of these images can be ordered from Newell Color
Lab listed below.  Refer to the P number associated with the images when
ordering.

     Newell Color Lab
     221 N. Westmoreland Avenue
     Los Angeles CA 90064
     Telephone: [phone]
     FAX: [phone]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
cassini.txt

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE [phone]

PHOTO CAPTION                                             P-41589
                                                    February 1993

This artist's rendering depicts the NASA/JPL Cassini spacecraft
in orbit around ringed Saturn (lower right background).  At the
lower left, the European Space Agency's Huygens probe descends to
the surface of Saturn's moon Titan (in foreground).  Cassini is
planned for launch on a Titan IV rocket in October 1997, with
Saturn arrival in June 2004.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
exlaunch.txt

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 911O9. TELEPHONE [phone]O11

PHOTO CAPTION                                            293-3466

This Jupiter-C rocket launch in 1958 carried into orbit the first
U.S. satellite, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory-built Explorer 1.
Sixty-six days after receiving approval to begin the project, JPL
had designed and built the 14-kilogram (31-pound) satellite.
Launch took place from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in
Florida at 10:48 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on January 31, 1958.
In orbit Explorer 1 discovered a radiation belt around Earth
which was identified by Dr. James A. Van Allen of the University
of Iowa.  Explorer 1 stopped transmitting on February 28, 1958
and reentered the atmosphere in 1970.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
explorer.txt

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 911O9. TELEPHONE [phone]O11

PHOTO CAPTION                                            P-2351Ac

Explorer 1 became the first United States satellite in space when
it was launched in 1958.  Sixty-six days after receiving approval
to begin the project, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory had designed
and built the 14-kilogram (31-pound) satellite.  It was launched
by a Jupiter-C rocket from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in
Florida at 10:48 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on January 31, 1958.
In orbit Explorer 1 discovered a radiation belt around Earth
which was identified by Dr. James A. Van Allen of the University
of Iowa.  Explorer 1 stopped transmitting on February 28, 1958
and reentered the atmosphere in 1970.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE [phone]

PHOTO CAPTION                                             P-21151
                                                    Feb. 25, 1979

This dramatic view of Jupiter's Great Red Spot and its
surroundings was obtained by Voyager 1 on Feb. 25, 1979, when the
spacecraft was 5.7 million miles (9.2 million kilometers) from
Jupiter.  Cloud details as small as 100 miles (160 kilometers)
across can be seen here.  The colorful, wavy cloud pattern to the
left of the Red Spot is a region of extraordinarily complex end
variable wave motion.  The Jet Propulsion Laboratory manages the
Voyager mission for NASA's Office of Space Science and
Applications.  This image was converted directly from digital
data to GIF format.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91109. TELEPHONE (2l3) 354-5011

PHOTO CAPTION                                      Aug. 13, 1981
                                                     P-23883C/BW
                                                           S-2-5

NASA's Voyager 2 took this photograph of Saturn on July 21, 1981,
when the spacecraft was 33.9 million kilometers (21 million
miles) from the planet.  Two bright, presumably convective cloud
patterns are visible in the mid-northern hemisphere and several
dark spoke-like features can be seen in the broad B-ring (left of
planet).  The moons Rhea and dione appear as blue dots to the
south and southeast of Saturn, respectively.  Voyager 2 made its
closest approach to Saturn on Aug. 25, 1981.  The Voyager project
is managed for NASA by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena,
Calif.  This image was converted directly from digital data to
GIF format.
                                 #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | If you don't stand for
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | something, you'll fall
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | for anything.

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

Date: 21 Feb 93 19:46:19 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Rescue Mission, what if!
Newsgroups: sci.space

Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Of course, this presumes you *can* give up and cut your losses...

>Frank's got a point:  the Scott expedition is a poor example because it
>was so utterly incompetently run.  However, even Amundsen, more competent
>than Scott and Shackleton put together, was eventually killed in the course
>of Arctic exploration (well, Arctic search-and-rescue, technically).  There
>is a limit to what you can do to minimize risk.

Shackleton, from what I've read and seen on documentaries, apparently
was fairly competent; he got all his people back when the ship got
stuck... it's not up to us to judge Shackleton vs. Amundsen...

_Anyway_, you're right about the limitations of planning. I remember
reading about one Swedish attempt to reach the North Pole by balloon
where things didn't go right, the balloon crashed, the two people reached
an abandoned whaling station, bedded down for the winter (they had
three or so years of supplies, plus a boat, firearms, etc; are you
beginning to see why the balloon crashed?), and when there was a
clear spot in the weather they'd make a drive for Spitzbergen... well,
having enough food for the next three years wasn't enough. They had
to shoot a bear as well, and eat it.

I've forgotten if they were killed by tricinosis from the bear or
by toxic levels of vitamin A or D in the bear's liver. Someone here
probably knows more details.

Anyway, it's probably time to mention the best documentary for the
layman on polar exploration: _Scott of the Antarctic_. If you can
find it. (Ignore the part about the lion; but the 30 foot electric
penguin, experts declare, is probably accurate).

>C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

One day I hope to be smart enough to understand Henry's .signature,
--
Phil Fraering         |"...drag them, kicking and screaming,
[e-mail]|into the Century of the Fruitbat." - Terry Pratchett,
                       _Reaper Man_

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 22:57:30 GMT
From: Richard Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: McElwaine disciplined! (somewhat long)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle

[e-mail] (Russell J. Pagenkopf) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] () writes:
>>It always worries me when someone is stomped on because of what he says,
>>even if what he says is unadulturated gibberish.  Are we so thin-skinned
>>that we can't just ignore stuff we don't want to see?

>* SOAPBOX ON *

>I must agree with you Andrew.  Just because *you* (newsgroups in
>general) don't agree with what someone has to say doesn't mean you have the
>right to CENSOR him/her.  Yes, I agree that sometimes some of the posts can be
>downright outrageous/annoying, and yes, you might think that this one is

Thanks for sharing your opinion. :)  I disagree with you about McElwaine.
He's a twit who has wasted my time in the past.  I wouldn't be sorry to
see him barred from internet and usenet access - just because he seems to
get his silly little jollies by waving his mental impotence in everyone's
faces, trying to get a shock reaction.  This is not productive, nor is it
useful.

McElwaine's stuff generally violates the cooperative nature of the usenet
groups and mailing lists he spams.  His stuff would be all right in the
appropriate groups (alt.fan.mcelwaine? :), but I don't subscribe to
SEDS-L (discussion for and about Students for the Exploration and
Development of Space and their projects) to read rec.humor.!funny posts
about weird physics.

Regardless of whether or not McElwaine's spamming is factually correct
and sane, he's sticking it in front of faces that have expressed a
collective interest in not seeing it.  He's proven repeatedly that he is
unable to work in a cooperative anarchy - he's an abuser of others' good
will.

McElwaine's got a right to say whatever he wants, but no-one has the
right to use someone else's press to promulgate their views.  On usenet,
we've gotten together to pool "presses" under certain guidelines, and
grant each other the _priviledges_ of using them.  Various mailing lists
are set up on the nets under similar rules.  In the end, there are more
appropriate places for his spam than mailing lists and newsgroups set up
to discuss other issues.

Rampant free speech is well and good, except when it gets in the way of
communication.

My good will for that kind of stuff simply ran out.  After serious
thought, I added my one small voice to the crowd expressing displeasure
and requesting removal of McElwaine's access.


Richard

--
Loudyellnet: Richard Johnson | Sneakernet: ECOT6-29 or ECNT1-6, CU Boulder
Phonenet: +1 303.492.0590    | Internet: [e-mail]
PGP 2.0 public key available on request
Speaker to avalanche dragons.   Do you really think they listen?

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 17:35:35 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Measurement units for SSF and SSTO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steven J. Edwards) writes:

|>
|>As has been reported before, all of the previous incarnations of Space
|>Station Freedom used the old English measument system instead of SI
|>(metric).  Is the new design incarnation still going to be measuring

I can see it now:  Everything continues as planned, NASA using the Imperial
system and ESA/NASDA using the Metric system.  Final result: modules that
won't fit together and nobody with the correct spanner (wrench) to fix it.
:-)

Of course, I don't speak for ESA, just myself.

Regards,
Hugh Evans
Internet    [e-mail]
SPAN            ESTWM8::hevans

Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind.
      (Terry Pratchett, Reaper man)

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 23:16:00
From: Matthew Tarascio <[e-mail]>
Subject: military aircraft
Newsgroups: sci.space

Dear Sir,
        My ambition is to become aeronautical engineer who will hopefully one
day work in the U.S. for Lockheed.  At the moment I am only 17 so I have a
little way to go yet, but hopefully I will get there.  Anyway I was wondering
about a project that your company was undertaking about the new ATF or F22.  I
was wondering when the F22 was going to take the place of the F15 and whether
its opponent, the F23, was going to take the place of the F14.  Also I was
wondering whether there was a replacement for the Grumman A-6 Intruder looming
in the future, I have heard rumors that a plane named the Aurora was to take
its place being a mach 4+ aircraft.
        Also is there a spacecraft like plane looming in the future for
Lockheed?


                                Yours Sincerely
                                     MATT.

 * Origin:  (3:635/532)

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

Date: 21 Feb 1993 18:40:29 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>Note that GD testified before Congress that elimination of FARS only
>

a Dennis.  The GAO analyzed NASA and stated that most of
their budget overruns come
from being to optimistic about complexity and cost.
the GAO also threw mud on congress for not maintaining steady
funding, but still I think NASA needs to understand
risk costing better then they currently do.
Try, Fly Try some more is the way to learn.
I think massive simulation only slows
the design cycle and keeps people
from getting more hands on experience.

and besides after what rockwell did on the
first shuttle, I don't think anyone
wants to letthem have less control on procurement./

>This is from experience and is not one whit of diatribe and really and truely
>it is not an attack on Allen. I have sent him personal e-mail telling him


For the benefit ofa
For the benefit of US, could you post us about some
of your projects.  Seds sat looks neat, but what else is being
done and how do they save money.  Inquiring minds want to know:-)

>the how to's and why's of how we have saved NASA litterally tens of millions
>of dollars, while helping NASA to advance their own technology. This is not
>a joke it is not verbal abuse heaped on someone, that in the end I respect
>for at least getting out there and opening himself to verbla machete attacks,
>we have been doing what I challenge Allen to do, we have done it successfully
>and are doing more and more of it and if you don't watch out we will one
>day outdo the big boys in space.





pat

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

Date: 21 Feb 93 18:14:18 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Shuttle refueling was(Re: Sabatier Reactors.)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>|Yeah, except we'd use that fuel getting the ET into orbit, and we'd have
>|to design and install scavenging pumps in the ET to get to the fuel in
>|micro-G, etc. The ET isn't designed to supply fuel except under acceleration.
>
>Then we should be doing flight test programs to qualify and design
>pumps that could do exactly this.  IF Shuttle is this great workshop
>then why cant we install some compressors and some refrigerators
>into it to recover residual propellants.?
>I have a workshop in my back yard, I don't have to spend billions of
>dollars sticking a 1 hp air compressor in there.

So take your 1 hp compressor and recover some free floating droplets
of cryogenic fuel in a very large tank under micro-G. And don't spend
billions doing it. BTW that's why the DPM experience is valuable in
this case. The ET only pools fuel around the pump pickups when under
acceleration. In micro-G the fuel droplets free float in the big
tanks. Engineers have discussed some kind of bladder arangement to
control the fuel for scavenging, but it would add considerable mass
and expense to ETs.


>The ET isn't designed to do lots of things but clever engineers have
>lots of plans to use them for other things.
> Come on gary.  you dont think, the idea is impossible, so we should
>be doing it.  we need to have the hardware base in place for
>futture  projects.

I don't think it's impossible to scavenge the ET, you could burn OMS
fuel to keep the vehicle under acceleration while you pumped for example.
But that complicates things considerably and wastes OMS fuel you may
need for other purposes, and probably puts you, and the payload you're
refueling in the wrong orbit.

>aOh and according to wingo, the shuttle doesn't use any extra propellant
>keeping the ET attached going up.  Dennis, correct me if i am
>misquoting you.

Well, if you think about it, the ET isn't jettisoned until after MECO.
However, without an OMS burn the ET will re-enter, as will the Shuttle.
The additional mass of the ET and residuals requires a substantially
larger OMS burn than the Shuttle alone. Now OMS fuel is needed for
maneuvering, such as rendezvous with a satellite or station, and for
re-entry of the Shuttle. Considering the extra costs associated with
carrying the ET, with modifying it for residuals extraction, the extra
mass of the extraction equipment, the extra OMS fuel, or consequent loss
of maneuvering capability use of extra OMS fuel entails, it's not cost
effective to scavenge the ET. It's better just to carry a tank in the
cargo bay specifically designed for micro-G refueling purposes as they
*did* on flight 41-G.

>|>I agree. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be tried,
>|>but NASA is constitutionally unable to do such basic experiments.
>|
>|No, NASA is just terrified that if they did it Allen Sherzer would
>|scream in his best McElvane speak that the Evil NASA spent a BILLION
>|dollars to duplicate what any gas station in the SOVIET UNION could
>|do for pennies. And that it was all a PLOT to kill SSTO.
>|
>
>Red Herring artgument gary.  and it stinks like a fish.

Jeeze, for the humor impaired, :-).

>Besides, fuel transfer technology especialy of Cryogenics is a must do
>for the DC-1 project.  The DC-1-OTV and LLM  both require in orbit
>fueling.  IF Shuttle picked up the developement cost it's only
>help the DC-1's case.
>Besides  Do you really mean to say that all those high government officials
>are afraid of little old alan?

Allen wants to amortize every possible cost to the Shuttle, but now
you want the Shuttle to pick up development costs for a capability
needed by Allen's DC-1. Can NASA *bill* McDD for this at Allen's Shuttle
cost figures? Say $10 billion or so. (for the humor impaired, :-))

>|>All those people who glorify NASA should push to see Shuttle
>|>used for such basic technology research studies.
>|
>|NASA is a government agency, so by definition it is already glorified,
>|however, they are doing basic research. The Drop Physics Module on
>|a recent flight was designed to find out how liquids behave in micro-G.
>
>That's an apples and oranges argument gary.  playing with a couple cc's
>of water and glycerine on sticks is as far from pumping hundreds of pounds
>of LH2/LOX  as breeding chickens and doing DNA recombinant experiments.
>
>We need to know how to move large quantities of fuel through hoses,
>valves, pumps, compressors and refrigerators in vacuum, in orbit.
>
>Many brute force assumptions (WE call them engineering assumptions)
>can be made to model the actual physics.  while it may be elegant to
>know the behavior of a drop on a stick (Surface tension effects)
>it's maybe not relevant due to scaling factors in bathtub quantities.

The fuel residuals in an ET at rest will be in free floating droplets,
thus DPM bears directly on the problem. You aren't *seriously* proposing
cryogenic fuel *compressors and refrigerators* on Shuttle I hope. Those
aren't small, they aren't light, and they consume enormous quanities of
power. Any fuel that's gone to gas just has to be vented. There's no way
you're going to recondense it with Shuttle borne equipment in reasonable
amounts of time.

>|That's applicable to any liquid transfer system that may be designed.
>|They also did an experiment to refuel a satellite's thrusters on one
>
>If i understand,  they did a simulation using nitrogen gas.
>and it's nice, but they only did one or two experiments in 60
>missions.  Sherzer is right on when he says every!  shuttle misison
>should have carreid a couple of suits and had the astronauts out
>there playing with hardware in vacuum.

A precursor test was done with inert gases, but on flight 41-G
Kathryn Sullivan and David Leestma did actual hydrazine transfers
during a 3 hour EVA to test hoses, valves, and couplings to be
used in future satellite refuelings. It worked perfectly, *several*
times. Rumor has it that new military spy satellites are fitted with
these couplings. A KH12 carries about 5,000 pounds of hydrazine, and
when it runs out, the satellite can't be maneuvered over interesting
targets anymore. When a system works just like you intended it to
do, you don't need to test it on every flight.

>And the EDO pallet is nice, but it's a passive system.
>what about pumps and refrigerators.  ?

What about them? Do you know how many kilowatts these have to draw
per liter of cryogenics? Do you know how much power Shuttle fuel
cells can produce? Do you know how much liquid hydrogen and liquid
oxygen is consumed by the fuel cells at maximum output? It's almost
certainly a net loss of cryogenics.

>Gary,  Do you have a problem with risk?  your business is based on
>risk.  people build things and then you test them.  if the designers
>were so perfect, we wouldn't need testing shops like yours.

It's precisely because people want to avoid risk in real world
systems that they hire me to test their equipment. Otherwise
they'd just ship it and see who gets killed. But they don't pay
me to test the same design over and over ad infinitum after it's
been shown to work correctly. Fuel transfer has been done, it
works, end of story. The only question remaining is, when is it
cost effective? It may already be for spysats, but they aren't
going to tell us. Swapping thruster packs may be more cost effective
for Fred since we've got to bring that big empty cargo bay back down
anyway and the whole thruster pack doesn't mass much more than the
tankage and transfer equipment needed to refuel it on orbit. Fueled
Centaurs can ride Titans if we want. Allen says that's cheaper.

There are a lot of different experiments begging for astronaut time.
NASA has to make decisions on whether to have them playing with hoses
and tanks in the cargo bay for the Nth time, or working on some higher
priority item in the middeck, or whatever. It's not like they are sitting
around up there idle. In the latest EVA we had astronauts carrying each
other back and forth in the bay. My first cut on that was it was silly.
But after looking at the mission objective, it turns out to be a reasonable
way to test an astronaut's ability to move massive objects in micro-G
during prolonged work periods. Turns out to be more strain that the water
tank tests indicated, but doable. Using the other astronaut as the test mass
is very cost effective since he's there anyway because of safety rules.
We've done that now, next time they'll try something else relevant to
space assembly, or not, depending on whether a higher priority task
occupies the astronaut's time. Throwing in an EVA just for the hell
of it is really silly. With pre-breathe, it's very consuming of precious
on orbit astronaut time. There has to be a pressing reason to do EVA.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 19:41:02 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO/DC-X in the Media..
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>   It is? I missed "Beyond 2000", and I have seen absolutely no news
>   about Delta Clipper other than on this net (Thanks, Allen!)
>   I do remember a magazine story circa 1990, either Aviation Week
>   or Final Frontier, I don't remember which. It was somewhat vague.

>   By the way, with Delta Clipper an SDIO project, I've always
>   figured that the silence was intentional.

No, it wasn't intentional. I do wonder, though, why it has gotten
TV coverage in Australia and none here (Beyond 2000 comes out of Oz,
last I checked).

Fred seems to get a lot of coverage, though... I guess money talks.
--
Phil Fraering         |"...drag them, kicking and screaming,
[e-mail]|into the Century of the Fruitbat." - Terry Pratchett,
                       _Reaper Man_

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 214
------------------------------