Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_4/V16NO458.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 25KB

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 93 05:10:59
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #458
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 14 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 458

Today's Topics:
                      Apollo Training in Iceland
                   Clementine Science Team Selected
               Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?
                              Cool book
                 Did any DC-X gifs show up? (2 msgs)
                 Help viewing Voyager CD ROMs on Mac
                        Orbital RepairStation
                        Quick reaction shuttle
               Russian  Operation of US Space Missions.
                     Space on other nets (2 msgs)
            Space Station Quick Reaction Shuttle. (2 msgs)
                           Voyager pictures
                   Why is SDIO doing "Clementine"?
                 Will the launch be visible from NJ?

    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: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 04:29:06 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Apollo Training in Iceland
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <stephens.734725576@ngis> [e-mail] (Dave Stephenson) writes:
>>I've read that Apollo astronauts were
>>in Iceland to train because some of the
>>landscape does indeed resemble the Moon.
>
>Some of the Astronauts trained near Sudbury in Ontario for that reason.
>(The Nickel smelters wiped out the plant life down wind at the time)

Actually, they were in Sudbury not because of the desolation caused by
the smelters, but because the Sudbury nickel deposits are at the bottom
of a very large meteorite crater.  (There is still debate about whether
the nickel deposits are the remains of the meteorite or metal-rich deep
magma brought up by the impact.)  Their interest was in the crater, not
in the plant life or lack of same.

If they were in Iceland, presumably it was for training on volcanic
geological formations, which are everywhere in Iceland.

If they wanted superficial resemblance to moonscapes, they need not have
gone so far afield.  Trips like that were motivated by the geological
history of the regions, not by surface appearance.
--
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 01:35:01 -0500
From: Mark Prado <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clementine Science Team Selected
Newsgroups: sci.space

Reply to: [e-mail]

 > Basically, SDIO wants to test out new sensors for potential
anti-missile
 > use -- international treaties won't allow you to test them on
satellites
 > (the idea of testing them on natural bodies is pretty much a
treaty
 > loophole).

SDIO missions Delta 180 and Delta 181 tested sensors on
other bodies in orbit around Earth.  For example, Delta
180 tested them on the object it eventually intercepted
at the end.  They were fully orbiting "satellites".

The Homing Overlay Experiment in 1983 tested IR sensors on
an RV over the Pacific.  It intercepted that object.

In other words, treaty compliance is not why we're going
after an asteroid instead of something else.

If an official or a columnist said it was, then I would
appreciate it if you or someone else would tell me who.

(One of my assignments for SDIO in 1986-87 was ABM Treaty
compliance of all their space experiments.  It was a fairly
easy case.  Perhaps someone in some heavy position could use
some of the public statements of my case which were put into
old press releases and a congressional report.)

All the best,
- Mark Prado
  [e-mail]

 * Origin: PerManNet Communications, Washington D.C., U.S.A.
(1:109/349.2)

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 02:21:21 GMT
From: Kenneth W Durham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Regarding all the 'secondary' effects in a 3-body problem (as commented
on in the Comet in...Jupiter posts), are there any functions concerning this
problem already written up?

Ken

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 05:40:38 GMT
From: David Meese <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cool book
Newsgroups: sci.space

There is a new book that was put on the market about 6 months ago by
Marshall T. Savage.  It contains many interesting ideas for economically
begin to send man into space enmasse.  All the ideas and methods seem
like they might actually work.  The name of the book is "The Millennial
Project"  Get your hands on a copy and see what you think.


Dave
[e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Apr 1993 23:14:28 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Did any DC-X gifs show up?
Newsgroups: sci.space

THere was a picture in this weeks Space News.

Is it just me, or does it still look like a dairy products plant?

pat

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

Date: 14 Apr 1993 08:34:25 GMT
From: Diaspar Virtual Reality Network <[e-mail]>
Subject: Did any DC-X gifs show up?
Newsgroups: sci.space

The rollout was great and I got lots of great shots. I attended
the press briefing and got shots of the DC-Y model, too. All
in 3D

David H. Mitchell

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

Date: 14 Apr 93 01:24:36 GMT
From: "David Gaba M.D." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help viewing Voyager CD ROMs on Mac
Newsgroups: sci.space

Two and a half years ago I purchased a set of CD ROMs from the
University of Colorado Lab for Atmos. and Space Physics.  They
were Space Sciences Sampler and Voyagers to the Outer Planets.
My plans to get a CD ROM player never materialized.

My buddy just got a CD ROM player on his Mac IIVX so we thought
we'd try them out.  The set of disks came with two sets of
software:  Pixel Pusher (a JPL product) and Image 1.26 (an NIH)
product.  The documentation with Pixel Pusher was pretty meager
and that for Image was pretty cryptic, but we pressed ahead.

With Pixel Pusher we could never get past messages something like
This file has no PDS label, please fill in the following info
(a bunch of slots with most zeros).  Yet, we could open the
image file in Word and see the label file at the beginning.

With Image we followed the instructions as best we could but just
got pseudo-random images.

Yes, I can contact the originators (and I will) but -- has anybody
had similar problems?  Are there newer programs that make
displaying these images easier for the common person?  If so what?
Etc.

Thanks,

David Gaba
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 93 05:58:09 GMT
From: Michael Nielsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orbital RepairStation
Newsgroups: sci.space

    It seems to me that so many billion of dollars are floating
around in orbit around the earth (i believe it is something like a
satelite for every degree of a circle, probably increased by now)).  So
It seems like a huge opportunity for the development for an orbital
station capable of carrying out a repair of a vehicle in orbit, with out
the clumsy suits (of course this adds problems).

    Sort of a space dry dock, should not really be that impossible,
could perhaps be constructed using a flexable blimb like construction,
which is erected around the satillite or other such vehicles like extra
planetary  veichles could be constructed in orbit (means a lot of small
payloads (ie using these spare missil that are hanging around)).


    Just thinking aloud, and before some one mentions the costs of
such a system, I have though of this, but I cannot see that it would out
weigh the benefits, as in being able to recommission some of the older,
useful satellites.

    mike


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
    JOKE == (:->)            Michael Nielsen @ 1993
    [e-mail]        Disclamer :- I'm Innocent
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 01:08:11 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Quick reaction shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>(Josh Hopkins) writes:
>>(Pat) writes:
>|
>|How difficult can it be to keep a
>|>shuttle stacked,  and waiting for the occasional light weight
>|>mission?
>|
>|Try impossible.  Or at least, not practical for the amount of money we're
>|willing to spend.  For one thing, you'd be tying up a launch pad or VAB spot.
>|For another, the shuttle doesn't have an infinite shelf life.

>What I am asking is essentially a historically speculative question.
>It is irrelevant now, due to the  number of commercial launchers
>available and a sudden surfeit of Russian   equipment.

>However,  My understanding  is that the Orbiters have a 20 week mission
>cycle.  From landing at edwards to Next flight.  Much of that time
>is spent re-furbishing engines,  etc.   The VAB has 4 Bays.  one could
>stack 2 SRB,s an ET and OV-100,  and leave it parked  in a spare bay.

Don't forget a crawler.

>I know the SRB's should be good for quite a long time. AF solids sit around for
>years qiting for doomsday.  An unfueled ET, should be good for a few years
>also.  The big question is the Orbiter gaskets, seals, etc.....

That is indeed the big question.  I don't know what the shelf life of each
such component is.  However, I doubt that it is long enough (you would need
something on the order of years).  The Titan launchers are required to be able
to last one year on the pad, and in at least one case they had to refurbish
the vehicle after such a period.  I recall the story of one Saturn IB launch
(told by Pouge perhaps?) in which the engineers were called in to determine
if the vehicle was safe to launch after numerous delays left it on the pad.
The fins (which were apparently load bearing structures) had developed cracks.
by using a special cradle and keeping the stack in the VAB you might be able
to extend its shelflife, but it still won't be indefinite.

>But you keep a maintenance team  hanging about.

And they cost money.  They also take the vehicle offline whenever they do
maintainance, which means that either you need two backup orbiters or you don't
fly missions while the backup is down (or you just accept a higher risk).
None of these choices are very logical.

>To me,  back in 1979,80  it would have made sense to keep an orbiter
>ready to go,  as nothing else as a rescue vehicle.  In 1983,  if a shuttle
>took an unrepairable  event,  Fuel cell explosion, etc.  it may have
>made sense to have an orbiter that could get up there in 24 hours.

But that wouldn't have been possible.  To launch an orbiter that is in the VAB,
you must move it to the pad (a distance of a few miles at less than walking
speed), fill an enormous fuel tank (which takes hours), clear the launch,

program in the orbital parameters, do the calculations, check the systems,
in short, you must do much more than 24 hours worth of work.  Therefore, you
must define a mission wherein the crew can survive for days or weeks, but can't
get down by themselves.  There just aren't many ways things can catastrophic
so politely.

>If STS was going to be an Operational system, it makes sense to have a hot standby
>running.

But if STS were an operational system, in the sense envisioned in the late 70s,
it wouldn't _need_ rescuing.

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
          "Tout ce qu'un homme est capable d'imaginer, d'autres hommes
                     seront capable de le realiser"
             -Jules Verne

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

Date: 13 Apr 1993 23:31:15 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Russian  Operation of US Space Missions.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

I found out something interesting today.

COBE  the Cosmic Background Explorer  is planned for shutdown
THis year,  because there is insufficient funds to keep it alive.

Would it be possible for the soviets to Run it?  THis is kinda a
henry Spencer,  Dennis Newkirk question,  But  it should be
10 times cheaper to do it there.

Do the Russians have the X band Capable Large Dishes to
command and control  things like COBE and Magellan?

If not,  what kind of ballpark money would it take to get them
up and running?

How difficult would it be to send people over to train them and get them
running?

pat

PS  for those interested,  at GSFC, COBE costs appx $1 million a year
to run.  Anyone know a science foundation that can pick up the tab?:

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

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 23:36:02 -0500
From: Mark Prado <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space on other nets
Newsgroups: sci.space

 > From: [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
 > Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 >
 > For an article I'm writing, I would like to know more
 > about space-related chatter on other networks, especially
 > commercial services in the U.S.

Notably, if anyone here knows someone else who would like to get
access to space-related resources on the Internet, but do not
have an Internet link, then they may be able to get them via my
store & forward hub here in the Washington, D.C., area.  All they
need is a modem and suitable software.

 > Fidonet

I basically use FidoNet_technology, not FidoNet itself, to
distribute sci.space, sci.space.news, United Press
International (UPI) newswires, and other things to people
who have a modem, a phone line :), and FTSC-compliant (i.e.,
FidoNet-compatible) software.

This little network is called PerManNet.

We also have a "PerManNet Quick Startup Kit" shareware
software package, including our complete INSTALL.EXE
and some nice documentation in case it's needed.

It's very nice.

Further, we offer some optional "loadable modules", like a
ListServ (yes, you can host your own listserv using a
PC, and it's fully automated), and ftpmail.  These two
(and other optional modules) are for the more ambitious,
leader types.

 > 0rigin: Internet <=> permanet.org FTSC, Voice: 703-715-8473

Any inquiries should go to:

[e-mail]

 * Origin: PerManNet Communications, Washington D.C., U.S.A.
(1:109/349.2)

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

Date: 14 Apr 1993 08:31:31 GMT
From: Diaspar Virtual Reality Network <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space on other nets
Newsgroups: sci.space



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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 04:04:51 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Station Quick Reaction Shuttle.
Newsgroups: sci.space


Here is a better idea than a quick reaction shuttle..

Build a space station and have a space vehicle docked for missions in and
around earth.


Possible uses for a quick reaction vehicle is:

Astronaut/medical emergencies:
Basicaly an Ambulance designed to search for, rescue and stabalize a
patient for transport to the space station for more work. Basically what is
current for a ETT/EMT/Paramedic basically EMS (Emergency Medical Services).

Once the patient gets back to the station and stablized, they can be
treated at the station or transported to earth via either regular shuttle
run or by Drop Capsule for splash down on earth.

Search and Rescue:
Like above, basically is used to perform search and rescue of astronauts,
maybe not in a critic situation, but in a need of rescue.

Satellite Rescue:
Basically as in patient rescue, but not as critical. Basically go find,
repair onsite if possible, if not possible, then capture and transport to
station for repairs, if still not able to repair then ship to earth via
shuttle/drop capsule.



If its a satellite, gets it and brings it back for repair at the Stations
Workshop. Or if its to bad, sends it to earth via scheduled shuttle
missions or via the same basic method as a patient, but it can be
easier (less need to preserve life)..

If anyone has seen a few books on early future space exploration..
Saw a book about a Doctor who is hired to be the medical officer on a space
station/microwave orbital power collector and beamer.. Can't remember the
author and name, but I liked the idea and such.. Also the fact that the
station was a commercial project and not a government one.. And the
interplay and such..

I know the analog of Bush Medicine and such can be made into space..
Imagine if you will an accident where a person has multiple trauma and might
die if not gotten to care soon. Problem is its up to a half hour to the
airport at their village and the local health aid, then on a plane to
medevac them to Nome and the local/regional hospital
(with a nurse/doctor (normally an intern but might be a full doctor or
a paramedic if available)) onboard from Nome..

Then upto an hour or more to get the person stablized once in Village or
Nome..
Then an hour (or more) flight to Anchorage.. BAsically by the time the
person gets from a village to Anchorage and a full care hospital it
can be from 4 to 12 hours, depending on the patient and the weather
conditions..

We once had a medevac (I was not on it) from Big Diomede, the weather was
terrible, the Russians could not get there for at a minimum of two days, the
Army Guard/Coast Guard might get there the same day or next.. Well they got
there the next day, weather.. The soldier was then taken via Little Diomede
(another patient on Little Diomede which is next door to Big) to Nome and
finally to Anchorage.. Big Diomede is in Russia if you did not know..
We here in Alaska have very good reasons to see normal relations between Russia
and the US, cause we are in the cross hairs, we have family over there and
we would be on the for front on relief to Providenya and Eastern Siberia.
Food is in short supply there.. And it will get worse..

Anyone who has lived in Alaska for long, especially the Bush knows how
satellites and such have affected us here in the Bush..
Does anyone know of the Iditarod? C.1930 a Influenze epidemic was raging in
NW Alaska and a vacine was needed there. Well via plane, and dog sleds to
Nome from I believe Anchorage took almost 3 weeks.. Well that same trip is
now about 45 minutes..

Well enough of this..

==
Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked


(This is a repost of a post I made earlier with more spelling errors and the
subject was <none>. So I reposted it now..).

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

Date: 13 Apr 1993 22:43:58 -0700
From: Ken Hayashida <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Station Quick Reaction Shuttle.
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Here is a better idea than a quick reaction shuttle..
>
>Build a space station and have a space vehicle docked for missions in and
>around earth.

Interesting idea...I vote for the Centaur as a propulsion module.  Here's a
description of my ultimate space station (BTW I think we should build the
current design since it has advanced to the point of achieving its CDR and
design freeze in a few weeks [opinions?])

Small truss as a framework to link the following parts:
1  module for medical/pharmaceutical research
1  module for dedicated materials research with furnace
1  module for closed loop ecosystem system
2  habitation modules for 2 astronauts each

Each of these hab/lab modules would be half the size of the current modules,
about the size of the end nodes of the current station design.  Each module
would also need identical electrical and data interfaces.  In addition,
each module would have identical docking mechanisms so that the combination
of modules could be altered or changed.

Several unpressurized modules, including a propulsion module, a electrical
supply module (i.e. for solar panels or for a nuclear generator).

Once these modules are manufactured and orbited, if built within the proper
weight limits, they could be sent on to lunar orbit.  The same modules
from space station could go to the moon or further.  Thus, I argue that part
of the NASA exploration program should include the development of a Centaur
like upper stage for the delivery of several ton payloads to the moon or Mars.


Here's a different space station design idea.  Build shuttle Z and replace
the shuttle on the stack with a payload the size of the External Tank.  That
volume would validate the ETCo people's ideas and set the stage for orbital
use of ET's (external tank, not extra-terrestial [for all you Spielberg
lovers]).

Ken
[e-mail]

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

Date: 14 Apr 93 04:16:07 GMT
From: "THE SKY ALREADY FELL. NOW WHAT?" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voyager pictures
Newsgroups: sci.space

    Hi, I hope I'm posting this to the right group. I would
like to get some big, blow-up prints of the pictures that Voyager took
on its way past Jupiter and Saturn. Does anyone have any idea how I
could come by them? I looked through the FAQ's but I didn't see anything
relevant.
    Thanks in advance for any information.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson
"This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       [e-mail]
settled into the situation and found my bearings.
THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 12 Apr 93 14:36:31 GMT
From: "Rudy J. Cazabon" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why is SDIO doing "Clementine"?
Newsgroups: sci.space

I have a question.  Why was SDIO given the necessary funding levels
to conduct the "Clementine" fly-by of the Moon?

None of the arguements concerning the testing of new-technology
sensors and autonomous navigation techniques for near-Earth operations
seem to consistent with this flight's intent of orbiting the Moon and
eventually fly-by the asteroid Geographos.

I wonder if the funds and resources that SDIO has received for this mission,
at least for the lunar and asteroidal fly-bys, would have been better
spent by NASA in its attempt to fund the Lunar Resource Mapper and
a proposed JPL micro-craft to go to an asteroid.  Although I have not
seen the actual costs of the Clementine mission, whatever number is
published most likely will not reflect the development cost of the
sensors and autonomous GNC suite.  This is a question of relevance.

In many respects this sounds like a throwback to the late-1950s and early-
1960s when Air Force generals cited that going to the Moon was a good
idea since it could be used both as a reconaissance platform, which
is done today in an indirect manner, however; and as a staging base
for nuclear interceptors.

If anyone "out there" has more information concerning the Clementine
mission I would truly appreciate if I could get some pointers as to
where to go get it.


Sincerely
Rudy Cazabon
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 04:24:34 GMT
From: Bob Egan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Will the launch be visible from NJ?
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter Jarvis) writes...
>
>You may have seen attitude thrusters firing. The Shuttle has no beacons.
>It doesn't need them.
>

As I said..I was Very surprised....and was not aware of them...

I think we/I got an earlier accurate explanation..thanks
>
>>now..was this a "fly w/ us and see the shuttle by a departing airline
>>out of logan, or is this a chase plane for NASA" ????
>
>It was probably neither. Departing airliners have dedicated routes to follow
>with ground controllers telling when and where to turn. As far as I know,
>NASA does not chase its ascending Shuttles.
>

Well..I donno...I am a pilot...and I am very well versed (sp) in the
routing to/in the Boston TCA and the ARSA at Providence. This plane was
outside both, but in controlled airspace.

Assuming it was a commercial airliner, he could have requested a deviation
which, assuming a quiet airspace, and occasion, might have been approved
by NY or Boston Center....it just seemed all to unusual.

Someone raised the point about what is NASA's plan should the shuttle
need to abort its ascent...failed OEMS burn perhaps?? and land/ scrub
along the east coast...wouldn't it make sense they have people in this
airspace ?

Also, to answer someones question...the Shuttle does indeed have VHF
and UHF 200 Mhz radio on-board. I can't post the frequencies here,
but I will be willing to e-mail them. drop me a note.


>
>Peter Jarvis..........

Thanks Peter,

Bob

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 458
------------------------------