Space & Astronomy

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Space & Astronomy / Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso / mac / TEXT / SPACEDIG / V16_2 / V16NO258.TXT < prev next >

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 43KB

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 11:16:38 From: Space Digest maintainer <digests@isu.isunet.edu> Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #258 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Tue, 2 Mar 93 Volume 16 : Issue 258 Today's Topics: Aurora (rumors) Space FAQ 09/15 - Mission Schedules Space FAQ 12/15 - Controversial Questions Space FAQ 14/15 - How to Become an Astronaut Space FAQ 15/15 - Orbital and Planetary Launch Services Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", 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 space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 02 Mar 93 16:03:53 MET From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR Subject: Aurora (rumors) JP> Why is it extremely audible in the Los Angeles area? Does it fly at JP> rather low altitude? >It's probably audible in Los Angeles for exactly the same reason that >the Shuttle is. It's coming into land, slowing down and loosing >height at the same time. (Hugh Emberson, 27 Feb 93 07:52:39 GMT) The distance between Los Angeles and Tonopah, where Aurora is said to land, is about 280 miles. If Aurora were 100,000 ft up over Los Angeles (no noise) this would make a descent angle between 3.5 and 4 degrees. Is this too much for Aurora ? J. Pharabod ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 1993 22:29:00 -0500 From: Jon Leech <leech@cs.unc.edu> Subject: Space FAQ 09/15 - Mission Schedules Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.answers,news.answers Archive-name: space/schedule Last-modified: $Date: 93/02/28 22:17:56 $ SPACE SHUTTLE ANSWERS, LAUNCH SCHEDULES, TV COVERAGE SHUTTLE LAUNCHINGS AND LANDINGS; SCHEDULES AND HOW TO SEE THEM Shuttle operations are discussed in the Usenet group sci.space.shuttle, and Ken Hollis (gandalf@pro-electric.cts.com) posts a compressed version of the shuttle manifest (launch dates and other information) periodically there. The manifest is also available from the Ames SPACE archive in SPACE/FAQ/manifest. The portion of his manifest formerly included in this FAQ has been removed; please refer to his posting or the archived copy. For the most up to date information on upcoming missions, call (407) 867-INFO (867-4636) at Kennedy Space Center. Official NASA shuttle status reports are posted to sci.space.news frequently. WHY DOES THE SHUTTLE ROLL JUST AFTER LIFTOFF? The following answer and translation are provided by Ken Jenks (kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov). The "Ascent Guidance and Flight Control Training Manual," ASC G&C 2102, says: "During the vertical rise phase, the launch pad attitude is commanded until an I-loaded V(rel) sufficient to assure launch tower clearance is achieved. Then, the tilt maneuver (roll program) orients the vehicle to a heads down attitude required to generate a negative q-alpha, which in turn alleviates structural loading. Other advantages with this attitude are performance gain, decreased abort maneuver complexity, improved S-band look angles, and crew view of the horizon. The tilt maneuver is also required to start gaining downrange velocity to achieve the main engine cutoff (MECO) target in second stage." This really is a good answer, but it's couched in NASA jargon. I'll try to interpret. 1) We wait until the Shuttle clears the tower before rolling. 2) Then, we roll the Shuttle around so that the angle of attack between the wind caused by passage through the atmosphere (the "relative wind") and the chord of the wings (the imaginary line between the leading edge and the trailing edge) is a slightly negative angle ("a negative q-alpha"). This causes a little bit of "downward" force (toward the belly of the Orbiter, or the +Z direction) and this force "alleviates structural loading." We have to be careful about those wings -- they're about the most "delicate" part of the vehicle. 3) The new attitude (after the roll) also allows us to carry more mass to orbit, or to achieve a higher orbit with the same mass, or to change the orbit to a higher or lower inclination than would be the case if we didn't roll ("performance gain"). 4) The new attitude allows the crew to fly a less complicated flight path if they had to execute one of the more dangerous abort maneuvers, the Return To Launch Site ("decreased abort maneuver complexity"). 5) The new attitude improves the ability for ground-based radio antennae to have a good line-of-sight signal with the S-band radio antennae on the Orbiter ("improved S-band look angles"). 6) The new attitude allows the crew to see the horizon, which is a helpful (but not mandatory) part of piloting any flying machine. 7) The new attitude orients the Shuttle so that the body is more nearly parallel with the ground, and the nose to the east (usually). This allows the thrust from the engines to add velocity in the correct direction to eventually achieve orbit. Remember: velocity is a vector quantity made of both speed and direction. The Shuttle has to have a large horizontal component to its velocity and a very small vertical component to attain orbit. This all begs the question, "Why isn't the launch pad oriented to give this nice attitude to begin with? Why does the Shuttle need to roll to achieve that attitude?" The answer is that the pads were leftovers from the Apollo days. The Shuttle straddles two flame trenches -- one for the Solid Rocket Motor exhaust, one for the Space Shuttle Main Engine exhaust. (You can see the effects of this on any daytime launch. The SRM exhaust is dirty gray garbage, and the SSME exhaust is fluffy white steam. Watch for the difference between the "top" [Orbiter side] and the "bottom" [External Tank side] of the stack.) The access tower and other support and service structure are all oriented basically the same way they were for the Saturn V's. (A side note: the Saturn V's also had a roll program. Don't ask me why -- I'm a Shuttle guy.) I checked with a buddy in Ascent Dynamics. He added that the "roll maneuver" is really a maneuver in all three axes: roll, pitch and yaw. The roll component of that maneuver is performed for the reasons stated. The pitch component controls loading on the wings by keeping the angle of attack (q-alpha) within a tight tolerance. The yaw component is used to determine the orbital inclination. The total maneuver is really expressed as a "quaternion," a grad-level-math concept for combining all three rotation matrices in one four-element array. HOW TO RECEIVE THE NASA TV CHANNEL, NASA SELECT NASA SELECT is broadcast by satellite. If you have access to a satellite dish, you can find SELECT on Satcom F2R, Transponder 13, C-Band, 72 degrees West Longitude, Audio 6.8, Frequency 3960 MHz. F2R is stationed over the Atlantic, and is increasingly difficult to receive from California and points west. During events of special interest (e.g. shuttle missions), SELECT is sometimes broadcast on a second satellite for these viewers. If you can't get a satellite feed, some cable operators carry SELECT. It's worth asking if yours doesn't. The SELECT schedule is found in the NASA Headline News which is frequently posted to sci.space.news. Generally it carries press conferences, briefings by NASA officials, and live coverage of shuttle missions and planetary encounters. SELECT has recently begun carrying much more secondary material (associated with SPACELINK) when missions are not being covered. AMATEUR RADIO FREQUENCIES FOR SHUTTLE MISSIONS The following are believed to rebroadcast space shuttle mission audio: W6FXN - Los Angeles K6MF - Ames Research Center, Mountain View, California WA3NAN - Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, Maryland. W5RRR - Johnson Space Center (JSC), Houston, Texas W6VIO - Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, California. W1AW Voice Bulletins Station VHF 10m 15m 20m 40m 80m ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ----- ----- W6FXN 145.46 K6MF 145.585 7.165 3.840 WA3NAN 147.45 28.650 21.395 14.295 7.185 3.860 W5RRR 146.64 28.400 21.350 14.280 7.227 3.850 W6VIO 224.04 21.340 14.270 W6VIO 224.04 21.280 14.282 7.165 3.840 W1AW 28.590 21.390 14.290 7.290 3.990 W5RRR transmits mission audio on 146.64, a special event station on the other frequencies supplying Keplerian Elements and mission information. W1AW also transmits on 147.555, 18.160. No mission audio but they transmit voice bulletins at 0245 and 0545 UTC. Frequencies in the 10-20m bands require USB and frequencies in the 40 and 80m bands LSB. Use FM for the VHF frequencies. [This item was most recently updated courtesy of Gary Morris (g@telesoft.com, KK6YB, N5QWC)] SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER FUEL COMPOSITION Reference: "Shuttle Flight Operations Manual" Volume 8B - Solid Rocket Booster Systems, NASA Document JSC-12770 Propellant Composition (percent) Ammonium perchlorate (oxidizer) 69.6 Aluminum 16 Iron Oxide (burn rate catalyst) 0.4 Polybutadiene-acrilic acid-acrylonitrile (a rubber) 12.04 Epoxy curing agent 1.96 End reference Comment: The aluminum, rubber, and epoxy all burn with the oxidizer. NEXT: FAQ #10/15 - Historical planetary probes ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 1993 22:29:51 -0500 From: Jon Leech <leech@cs.unc.edu> Subject: Space FAQ 12/15 - Controversial Questions Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.answers,news.answers Archive-name: space/controversy Last-modified: $Date: 93/02/28 22:17:39 $ CONTROVERSIAL QUESTIONS These issues periodically come up with much argument and few facts being offered. The summaries below attempt to represent the position on which much of the net community has settled. Please DON'T bring them up again unless there's something truly new to be discussed. The net can't set public policy, that's what your representatives are for. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SATURN V PLANS Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, the Saturn V blueprints have not been lost. They are kept at Marshall Space Flight Center on microfilm. The problem in re-creating the Saturn V is not finding the drawings, it is finding vendors who can supply mid-1960's vintage hardware (like guidance system components), and the fact that the launch pads and VAB have been converted to Space Shuttle use, so you have no place to launch from. By the time you redesign to accommodate available hardware and re-modify the launch pads, you may as well have started from scratch with a clean sheet design. WHY DATA FROM SPACE MISSIONS ISN'T IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE Investigators associated with NASA missions are allowed exclusive access for one year after the data is obtained in order to give them an opportunity to analyze the data and publish results without being "scooped" by people uninvolved in the mission. However, NASA frequently releases examples (in non-digital form, e.g. photos) to the public early in a mission. RISKS OF NUCLEAR (RTG) POWER SOURCES FOR SPACE PROBES There has been extensive discussion on this topic sparked by attempts to block the Galileo and Ulysses launches on grounds of the plutonium thermal sources being dangerous. Numerous studies claim that even in worst-case scenarios (shuttle explosion during launch, or accidental reentry at interplanetary velocities), the risks are extremely small. Two interesting data points are (1) The May 1968 loss of two SNAP 19B2 RTGs, which landed intact in the Pacific Ocean after a Nimbus B weather satellite failed to reach orbit. The fuel was recovered after 5 months with no release of plutonium. (2) In April 1970, the Apollo 13 lunar module reentered the atmosphere and its SNAP 27 RTG heat source, which was jettisoned, fell intact into the 20,000 feet deep Tonga Trench in the Pacific Ocean. The corrosion resistant materials of the RTG are expected to prevent release of the fuel for a period of time equal to 10 half-lives of the Pu-238 fuel or about 870 years [DOE 1980]. To make your own informed judgement, some references you may wish to pursue are: A good review of the technical facts and issues is given by Daniel Salisbury in "Radiation Risk and Planetary Exploration-- The RTG Controversy," *Planetary Report*, May-June 1987, pages 3-7. Another good article, which also reviews the events preceding Galileo's launch, "Showdown at Pad 39-B," by Robert G. Nichols, appeared in the November 1989 issue of *Ad Astra*. (Both magazines are published by pro-space organizations, the Planetary Society and the National Space Society respectively.) Gordon L Chipman, Jr., "Advanced Space Nuclear Systems" (AAS 82-261), in *Developing the Space Frontier*, edited by Albert Naumann and Grover Alexander, Univelt, 1983, p. 193-213. "Hazards from Plutonium Toxicity", by Bernard L. Cohen, Health Physics, Vol 32 (may) 1977, page 359-379. NUS Corporation, Safety Status Report for the Ulysses Mission: Risk Analysis (Book 1). Document number is NUS 5235; there is no GPO #; published Jan 31, 1990. NASA Office of Space Science and Applications, *Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Ulysses Mission (Tier 2)*, (no serial number or GPO number, but probably available from NTIS or NASA) June 1990. [DOE 1980] U.S. Department of Energy, *Transuranic Elements in the Environment*, Wayne C. Hanson, editor; DOE Document No. DOE/TIC-22800; Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., April 1980.) IMPACT OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE ON THE OZONE LAYER From time to time, claims are made that chemicals released from the Space Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) are responsible for a significant amount of damage to the ozone layer. Studies indicate that they in reality have only a minute impact, both in absolute terms and relative to other chemical sources. The remainder of this item is a response from the author of the quoted study, Charles Jackman. The atmospheric modelling study of the space shuttle effects on the stratosphere involved three independent theoretical groups, and was organized by Dr. Michael Prather, NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The three groups involved Michael Prather and Maria Garcia (NASA/GISS), Charlie Jackman and Anne Douglass (NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center), and Malcolm Ko and Dak Sze (Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc.). The effort was to look at the effects of the space shuttle and Titan rockets on the stratosphere. The following are the estimated sources of stratospheric chlorine: Industrial sources: 300,000,000 kilograms/year Natural sources: 75,000,000 kilograms/year Shuttle sources: 725,000 kilograms/year The shuttle source assumes 9 space shuttles and 6 Titan rockets are launched yearly. Thus the launches would add less than 0.25% to the total stratospheric chlorine sources. The effect on ozone is minimal: global yearly average total ozone would be decreased by 0.0065%. This is much less than total ozone variability associated with volcanic activity and solar flares. The influence of human-made chlorine products on ozone is computed by atmospheric model calculations to be a 1% decrease in globally averaged ozone between 1980 and 1990. The influence of the space shuttle and Titan rockets on the stratosphere is negligible. The launch schedule of the Space Shuttle and Titan rockets would need to be increased by over a factor of a hundred in order to have about the same effect on ozone as our increases in industrial halocarbons do at the present time. Theoretical results of this study have been published in _The Space Shuttle's Impact on the Stratosphere_, MJ Prather, MM Garcia, AR Douglass, CH Jackman, M.K.W. Ko and N.D. Sze, Journal of Geophysical Research, 95, 18583-18590, 1990. Charles Jackman, Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Branch, Code 916, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771 Also see _Chemical Rockets and the Environment_, A McDonald, R Bennett, J Hinshaw, and M Barnes, Aerospace America, May 1991. HOW LONG CAN A HUMAN LIVE UNPROTECTED IN SPACE If you *don't* try to hold your breath, exposure to space for half a minute or so is unlikely to produce permanent injury. Holding your breath is likely to damage your lungs, something scuba divers have to watch out for when ascending, and you'll have eardrum trouble if your Eustachian tubes are badly plugged up, but theory predicts -- and animal experiments confirm -- that otherwise, exposure to vacuum causes no immediate injury. You do not explode. Your blood does not boil. You do not freeze. You do not instantly lose consciousness. Various minor problems (sunburn, possibly "the bends", certainly some [mild, reversible, painless] swelling of skin and underlying tissue) start after ten seconds or so. At some point you lose consciousness from lack of oxygen. Injuries accumulate. After perhaps one or two minutes, you're dying. The limits are not really known. References: _The Effect on the Chimpanzee of Rapid Decompression to a Near Vacuum_, Alfred G. Koestler ed., NASA CR-329 (Nov 1965). _Experimental Animal Decompression to a Near Vacuum Environment_, R.W. Bancroft, J.E. Dunn, eds, Report SAM-TR-65-48 (June 1965), USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB, Texas. HOW THE CHALLENGER ASTRONAUTS DIED The Challenger shuttle launch was not destroyed in an explosion. This is a well-documented fact; see the Rogers Commission report, for example. What looked like an explosion was fuel burning after the external tank came apart. The forces on the crew cabin were not sufficient to kill the astronauts, never mind destroy their bodies, according to the Kerwin team's medical/forensic report. The astronauts were killed when the more-or-less intact cabin hit the water at circa 200MPH, and their bodies then spent several weeks underwater. Their remains were recovered, and after the Kerwin team examined them, they were sent off to be buried. USING THE SHUTTLE BEYOND LOW EARTH ORBIT You can't use the shuttle orbiter for missions beyond low Earth orbit because it can't get there. It is big and heavy and does not carry enough fuel, even if you fill part of the cargo bay with tanks. Furthermore, it is not particularly sensible to do so, because much of that weight is things like wings, which are totally useless except in the immediate vicinity of the Earth. The shuttle orbiter is highly specialized for travel between Earth's surface and low orbit. Taking it higher is enormously costly and wasteful. A much better approach would be to use shuttle subsystems to build a specialized high-orbit spacecraft. [Yet another concise answer by Henry Spencer.] THE "FACE ON MARS" There really is a big rock on Mars that looks remarkably like a humanoid face. It appears in two different frames of Viking Orbiter imagery: 35A72 (much more facelike in appearance, and the one more often published, with the Sun 10 degrees above western horizon) and 70A13 (with the Sun 27 degrees from the west). Science writer Richard Hoagland has championed the idea that the Face is artificial, intended to resemble a human, and erected by an extraterrestrial civilization. Most other analysts concede that the resemblance is most likely accidental. Other Viking images show a smiley-faced crater and a lava flow resembling Kermit the Frog elsewhere on Mars. There exists a Mars Anomalies Research Society (sorry, don't know the address) to study the Face. The Mars Observer mission will carry an extremely high-resolution camera, and better images of the formation will hopefully settle this question in a few years. In the meantime, speculation about the Face is best carried on in the altnet group alt.alien.visitors, not sci.space or sci.astro. V. DiPeitro and G. Molenaar, *Unusual Martian Surface Features*, Mars Research, P.O. Box 284, Glen Dale, Maryland, USA, 1982. $18 by mail. R.R. Pozos, *The Face of Mars*, Chicago Review Press, 1986. [Account of an interdisciplinary speculative conference Hoagland organized to investigate the Face] R.C. Hoagland, *The Monuments of Mars: A City on the Edge of Forever*, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California, USA, 1987. [Elaborate discussion of evidence and speculation that formations near the Face form a city] M.J. Carlotto, "Digital Imagery Analysis of Unusual Martian Surface Features," *Applied Optics*, 27, pp. 1926-1933, 1987. [Extracts three-dimensional model for the Face from the 2-D images] M.J. Carlotto & M.C. Stein, "A Method of Searching for Artificial Objects on Planetary Surfaces," *Journal of the British Interplanetary Society*, Vol. 43 no. 5 (May 1990), p.209-216. [Uses a fractal image analysis model to guess whether the Face is artificial] B. O'Leary, "Analysis of Images of the `Face' on Mars and Possible Intelligent Origin," *JBIS*, Vol. 43 no. 5 (May 1990), p. 203-208. [Lights Carlotto's model from the two angles and shows it's consistent; shows that the Face doesn't look facelike if observed from the surface] NEXT: FAQ #13/15 - Space activist/interest/research groups & space publications ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 1993 22:31:04 -0500 From: Jon Leech <leech@cs.unc.edu> Subject: Space FAQ 14/15 - How to Become an Astronaut Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.answers,news.answers Archive-name: space/astronaut Last-modified: $Date: 93/02/28 22:17:34 $ HOW TO BECOME AN ASTRONAUT First the short form, authored by Henry Spencer, then an official NASA announcement. Q. How do I become an astronaut? A. We will assume you mean a NASA astronaut, since it's probably impossible for a non-Russian to get into the cosmonaut corps (paying passengers are not professional cosmonauts), and the other nations have so few astronauts (and fly even fewer) that you're better off hoping to win a lottery. Becoming a shuttle pilot requires lots of fast-jet experience, which means a military flying career; forget that unless you want to do it anyway. So you want to become a shuttle "mission specialist". If you aren't a US citizen, become one; that is a must. After that, the crucial thing to remember is that the demand for such jobs vastly exceeds the supply. NASA's problem is not finding qualified people, but thinning the lineup down to manageable length. It is not enough to be qualified; you must avoid being *dis*qualified for any reason, many of them in principle quite irrelevant to the job. Get a Ph.D. Specialize in something that involves getting your hands dirty with equipment, not just paper and pencil. Forget computer programming entirely; it will be done from the ground for the fore- seeable future. Degree(s) in one field plus work experience in another seems to be a frequent winner. Be in good physical condition, with good eyesight. (DO NOT get a radial keratomy or similar hack to improve your vision; nobody knows what sudden pressure changes would do to RKed eyes, and long-term effects are poorly understood. For that matter, avoid any other significant medical unknowns.) If you can pass a jet-pilot physical, you should be okay; if you can't, your chances are poor. Practise public speaking, and be conservative and conformist in appearance and actions; you've got a tough selling job ahead, trying to convince a cautious, conservative selection committee that you are better than hundreds of other applicants. (And, also, that you will be a credit to NASA after you are hired: public relations is a significant part of the job, and NASA's image is very prim and proper.) The image you want is squeaky-clean workaholic yuppie. Remember also that you will need a security clearance at some point, and Security considers everybody guilty until proven innocent. Keep your nose clean. Get a pilot's license and make flying your number one hobby; experienced pilots are known to be favored even for non-pilot jobs. Work for NASA; of 45 astronauts selected between 1984 and 1988, 43 were military or NASA employees, and the remaining two were a NASA consultant and Mae Jemison (the first black female astronaut). If you apply from outside NASA and miss, but they offer you a job at NASA, ***TAKE IT***; sometimes in the past this has meant "you do look interesting but we want to know you a bit better first". Think space: they want highly motivated people, so lose no chance to demonstrate motivation. Keep trying. Many astronauts didn't make it the first time. NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas Announcement for Mission Specialist and Pilot Astronaut Candidates ================================================================== Astronaut Candidate Program --------------------------- The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has a need for Pilot Astronaut Candidates and Mission Specialist Astronaut Candidates to support the Space Shuttle Program. NASA is now accepting on a continuous basis and plans to select astronaut candidates as needed. Persons from both the civilian sector and the military services will be considered. All positions are located at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, and will involved a 1-year training and evaluation program. Space Shuttle Program Description --------------------------------- The numerous successful flights of the Space Shuttle have demonstrated that operation and experimental investigations in space are becoming routine. The Space Shuttle Orbiter is launched into, and maneuvers in the Earth orbit performing missions lastling up to 30 days. It then returns to earth and is ready for another flight with payloads and flight crew. The Orbiter performs a variety of orbital missions including deployment and retrieval of satellites, service of existing satellites, operation of specialized laboratories (astronomy, earth sciences, materials processing, manufacturing), and other operations. These missions will eventually include the development and servicing of a permanent space station. The Orbiter also provides a staging capability for using higher orbits than can be achieved by the Orbiter itself. Users of the Space Shuttle's capabilities are both domestic and foreign and include government agencies and private industries. The crew normally consists of five people - the commander, the pilot, and three mission specialists. On occasion additional crew members are assigned. The commander, pilot, and mission specialists are NASA astronauts. Pilot Astronaut Pilot astronauts server as both Space Shuttle commanders and pilots. During flight the commander has onboard responsibility for the vehicle, crew, mission success and safety in flight. The pilot assists the commander in controlling and operating the vehicle. In addition, the pilot may assist in the deployment and retrieval of satellites utilizing the remote manipulator system, in extra-vehicular activities, and other payload operations. Mission Specialist Astronaut Mission specialist astronauts, working with the commander and pilot, have overall responsibility for the coordination of Shuttle operations in the areas of crew activity planning, consumables usage, and experiment and payload operations. Mission specialists are required to have a detailed knowledge of Shuttle systems, as well as detailed knowledge of the operational characteristics, mission requirements and objectives, and supporting systems and equipment for each of the experiments to be conducted on their assigned missions. Mission specialists will perform extra-vehicular activities, payload handling using the remote manipulator system, and perform or assist in specific experimental operations. Astronaut Candidate Program =========================== Basic Qualification Requirements -------------------------------- Applicants MUST meet the following minimum requirements prior to submitting an application. Mission Specialist Astronaut Candidate: 1. Bachelor's degree from an accredited institution in engineering, biological science, physical science or mathematics. Degree must be followed by at least three years of related progressively responsible, professional experience. An advanced degree is desirable and may be substituted for part or all of the experience requirement (master's degree = 1 year, doctoral degree = 3 years). Quality of academic preparation is important. 2. Ability to pass a NASA class II space physical, which is similar to a civilian or military class II flight physical and includes the following specific standards: Distant visual acuity: 20/100 or better uncorrected, correctable to 20/20, each eye. Blood pressure: 140/90 measured in sitting position. 3. Height between 60 and 76 inches. Pilot Astronaut Candidate: 1. Bachelor's degree from an accredited institution in engineering, biological science, physical science or mathematics. Degree must be followed by at least three years of related progressively responsible, professional experience. An advanced degree is desirable. Quality of academic preparation is important. 2. At least 1000 hours pilot-in-command time in jet aircraft. Flight test experience highly desirable. 3. Ability to pass a NASA Class I space physical which is similar to a military or civilian Class I flight physical and includes the following specific standards: Distant visual acuity: 20/50 or better uncorrected correctable to 20/20, each eye. Blood pressure: 140/90 measured in sitting position. 4. Height between 64 and 76 inches. Citizenship Requirements Applications for the Astronaut Candidate Program must be citizens of the United States. Note on Academic Requirements Applicants for the Astronaut Candidate Program must meet the basic education requirements for NASA engineering and scientific positions -- specifically: successful completion of standard professional curriculum in an accredited college or university leading to at least a bachelor's degree with major study in an appropriate field of engineering, biological science, physical science, or mathematics. The following degree fields, while related to engineering and the sciences, are not considered qualifying: - Degrees in technology (Engineering Technology, Aviation Technology, Medical Technology, etc.) - Degrees in Psychology (except for Clinical Psychology, Physiological Psychology, or Experimental Psychology which are qualifying). - Degrees in Nursing. - Degrees in social sciences (Geography, Anthropology, Archaeology, etc.) - Degrees in Aviation, Aviation Management or similar fields. Application Procedures ---------------------- Civilian The application package may be obtained by writing to: NASA Johnson Space Center Astronaut Selection Office ATTN: AHX Houston, TX 77058 Civilian applications will be accepted on a continuous basis. When NASA decides to select additional astronaut candidates, consideration will be given only to those applications on hand on the date of decision is made. Applications received after that date will be retained and considered for the next selection. Applicants will be notified annually of the opportunity to update their applications and to indicate continued interest in being considered for the program. Those applicants who do not update their applications annually will be dropped from consideration, and their applications will not be retained. After the preliminary screening of applications, additional information may be requested for some applicants, and person listed on the application as supervisors and references may be contacted. Active Duty Military Active duty military personnel must submit applications to their respective military service and not directly to NASA. Application procedures will be disseminated by each service. Selection --------- Personal interviews and thorough medical evaluations will be required for both civilian and military applicants under final consideration. Once final selections have been made, all applicants who were considered will be notified of the outcome of the process. Selection rosters established through this process may be used for the selection of additional candidates during a one year period following their establishment. General Program Requirements Selected applicants will be designated Astronaut Candidates and will be assigned to the Astronaut Office at the Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas. The astronaut candidates will undergo a 1 year training and evaluation period during which time they will be assigned technical or scientific responsibilities allowing them to contribute substantially to ongoing programs. They will also participate in the basic astronaut training program which is designed to develop the knowledge and skills required for formal mission training upon selection for a flight. Pilot astronaut candidates will maintain proficiency in NASA aircraft during their candidate period. Applicants should be aware that selection as an astronaut candidate does not insure selection as an astronaut. Final selection as an astronaut will depend on satisfactory completion of the 1 year training and evaluation period. Civilian candidates who successfully complete the training and evaluation and are selected as astronauts will become permanent Federal employees and will be expected to remain with NASA for a period of at least five years. Civilian candidates who are not selected as astronauts may be placed in other positions within NASA depending upon Agency requirements and manpower constraints at that time. Successful military candidates will be detailed to NASA for a specified tour of duty. NASA has an affirmative action program goal of having qualified minorities and women among those qualified as astronaut candidates. Therefore, qualified minorities and women are encouraged to apply. Pay and Benefits ---------------- Civilians Salaries for civilian astronaut candidates are based on the Federal Governments General Schedule pay scales for grades GS-11 through GS-14, and are set in accordance with each individuals academic achievements and experience. Other benefits include vacation and sick leave, a retirement plan, and participation in group health and life insurance plans. Military Selected military personnel will be detailed to the Johnson Space Center but will remain in an active duty status for pay, benefits, leave, and other similar military matters. NEXT: FAQ #15/15 - Orbital and Planetary Launch Services ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 1993 22:31:33 -0500 From: Jon Leech <leech@cs.unc.edu> Subject: Space FAQ 15/15 - Orbital and Planetary Launch Services Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.answers,news.answers Archive-name: space/launchers Last-modified: $Date: 93/02/28 22:17:45 $ ORBITAL AND PLANETARY LAUNCH SERVICES The following data comes from _International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems_ by Steven J. Isakowitz, 1991 edition. Notes: * Unless otherwise specified, LEO and polar paylaods are for a 100 nm orbit. * Reliablity data includes launches through Dec, 1990. Reliabity for a familiy of vehicles includes launches by types no longer built when applicable * Prices are in millions of 1990 $US and are subject to change. * Only operational vehicle families are included. Individual vehicles which have not yet flown are marked by an asterisk (*) If a vehicle had first launch after publication of my data, it may still be marked with an asterisk. Vehicle | Payload kg (lbs) | Reliability | Price | Launch Site (nation) | LEO Polar GTO | | | (Lat. & Long.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ariane 35/40 87.5% Kourou (ESA) (5.2 N, 52.8 W) AR40 4,900 3,900 1,900 1/1 $65m (10,800) (8,580) (4,190) AR42P 6,100 4,800 2,600 1/1 $67m (13,400) (10,600) (5,730) AR44P 6,900 5,500 3,000 0/0 ? $70m (15,200) (12,100) (6,610) AR42L 7,400 5,900 3,200 0/0 ? $90m (16,300) (13,000) (7,050) AR44LP 8,300 6,600 3,700 6/6 $95m (18,300) (14,500) (8,160) AR44L 9,600 7,700 4,200 3/4 $115m (21,100) (16,900) (9,260) * AR5 18,000 ??? 6,800 0/0 $105m (39,600) (15,000) [300nm] Atlas 213/245 86.9% Cape Canaveral (USA) (28.5 N, 81.0W) Atlas E -- 820 -- 15/17 $45m Vandeberg AFB (1,800) (34.7 N, 120.6W) Atlas I 5,580 4,670 2,250 1/1 $70m (12,300) (10,300) (4,950) Atlas II 6,395 5,400 2,680 0/0 $75m (14,100) (11,900) (5,900) Atlas IIA 6,760 5,715 2,810 0/0 $85m (14,900) (12,600) (6,200) * Atlas IIAS 8,390 6,805 3,490 0/0 $115m (18,500) (15,000) (7,700) Delta 189/201 94.0% Cape Canaveral (USA) Vandenberg AFB Delta 6925 3,900 2,950 1,450 14/14 $45m (8,780) (6,490) (3,190) Delta 7925 5,045 3,830 1,820 1/1 $50m (11,100) (8,420) (2,000) Energia 2/2 100% Baikonur (Russia) (45.6 N 63.4 E) Energia 88,000 80,000 ??? 2/2 $110m (194,000) (176,000) H series 22/22 100% Tangeshima (Japan) (30.2 N 130.6 E) * H-2 10,500 6,600 4,000 0/0 $110m (23,000) (14,500) (8,800) Kosmos 371/377 98.4% Plestek (Russia) (62.8 N 40.1 E) Kosmos 1100 - 1350 (2300 - 3000) $??? Kapustin Yar [400 km orbit ??? inclination] (48.4 N 45.8 E) Long March 23/25 92.0% Jiquan SLC (China) (41 N 100 E) * CZ-1D 720 ??? 200 0/0 $10m Xichang SLC (1,590) (440) (28 N 102 E) Taiyuan SLC CZ-2C 3,200 1,750 1,000 12/12 $20m (41 N 100 E) (7,040) (3,860) (2,200) CZ-2E 9,200 ??? 3,370 1/1 $40m (20,300) (7,430) * CZ-2E/HO 13,600 ??? 4,500 0/0 $??? (29,900) (9,900) CZ-3 ??? ??? 1,400 6/7 $33m (3,100) * CZ-3A ??? ??? 2,500 0/0 $???m (5,500) CZ-4 4,000 ??? 1,100 2/2 $???m (8,800) (2,430) Pegasus/Taurus 2/2 100% Peg: B-52/L1011 (USA) Taur: Canaveral Pegasus 455 365 125 2/2 $10m or Vandenberg (1,000) (800) (275) * Taurus 1,450 1,180 375 0/0 $15m (3,200) (2,600) (830) Proton 164/187 87.7% Baikonour (Russia) Proton 20,000 ??? 5,500 164/187 $35-70m (44,100) (12,200) SCOUT 99/113 87.6% Vandenberg AFB (USA) Wallops FF SCOUT G-1 270 210 54 13/13 $12m (37.9 N 75.4 W) (600) (460) (120) San Marco (2.9 S 40.3 E) * Enhanced SCOUT 525 372 110 0/0 $15m (1,160) (820) (240) Shavit 2/2 100% Palmachim AFB (Israel) ( ~31 N) Shavit ??? 160 ??? 2/2 $22m (350) Space Shuttle 37/38 97.4% Kennedy Space (USA) Center Shuttle/SRB 23,500 ??? 5,900 37/38 $248m (28.5 N 81.0 W) (51,800) (13,000) [FY88] * Shuttle/ASRM 27,100 ??? ??? 0/0 (59,800) SLV 2/6 33.3% SHAR Center (India) (400km) (900km polar) (13.9 N 80.4 E) ASLV 150 ??? ??? 0/2 $???m (330) * PSLV 3,000 1,000 450 0/0 $???m (6,600) (2,200) (990) * GSLV 8,000 ??? 2,500 0/0 $???m (17,600) (5,500) Titan 160/172 93.0% Cape Canaveral (USA) Vandenberg Titan II ??? 1,905 ??? 2/2 $43m (4,200) Titan III 14,515 ??? 5,000 2/3 $140m (32,000) (11,000) Titan IV/SRM 17,700 14,100 6,350 3/3 $154m-$227m (39,000) (31,100) (14,000) Titan IV/SRMU 21,640 18,600 8,620 0/0 $???m (47,700) (41,000) (19,000) Vostok 1358/1401 96.9% Baikonur (Russia) [650km] Plesetsk Vostok 4,730 1,840 ??? ?/149 $14m (10,400) (4,060) Soyuz 7,000 ??? ??? ?/944 $15m (15,400) Molniya 1500kg (3300 lbs) in ?/258 $???M Highly eliptical orbit Zenit 12/13 92.3% Baikonur (Russia) Zenit 13,740 11,380 4,300 12/13 $65m (30,300) (25,090) (9,480) ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 258 ------------------------------