Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_4/V16NO461.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 20KB

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 93 05:11:31
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #461
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 15 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 461

Today's Topics:
                           Clementine name
              Clementine Science Team Selected (2 msgs)
          Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter? (2 msgs)
                       How many read sci.space?
 How to get there? (was Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?)
        Mir 2's planned orbit [was Re: Degrees vs. experience]
          New aircraft TU-154M for leasing, set spare parts.
                        Orbital RepairStation
               Russian  Operation of US Space Missions.
                           Solar Sail Data
                             Space Debris
                Temp Station for Orbital Repair/Scrap!
             Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle

    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 12:48:00 -0500
From: Mark Prado <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clementine name
Newsgroups: sci.space

Reply address: [e-mail]

 > From: [e-mail] (Max Nelson)

 > Since the mission could provide information for future
 > prospecting, it was felt that the name should reflect a
 > mining theme - thus, was Clementine named.

Please go just one step further:
How has the word "Clementine" been associated with mining?

Thanks,
- Mark
  [e-mail]

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 22:06:36 GMT
From: "Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clementine Science Team Selected
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eric H Seale) writes:
>>Basically, SDIO wants to test out new sensors for potential anti-missile
>>use -- international treaties won't allow you to test them on satellites...
>
>Nonsense, SDIO has run sensor tests against satellites repeatedly.  There
>is no treaty prohibition against it.
>--
>All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

Weapons tests too.  What was the name of the astronomical research satellite
they destroyed?

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 06:26:58 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clementine Science Team Selected
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:
>>Nonsense, SDIO has run sensor tests against satellites repeatedly.  There
>>is no treaty prohibition against it.
>
>Weapons tests too.  What was the name of the astronomical research satellite
>they destroyed?

A vulgar myth.  The USAF -- *not* SDIO! -- destroyed an old DoD satellite
in a test of their F-15-launched antisatellite weapon.  The satellite in
question did carry a couple of instruments that were still returning good
data to civilian investigators, who were on board basically as guests of
the military.  It's unfortunate that they chose to knock down a satellite
that was still scientifically useful, but there is no question that DoD
had the right to dispose of their own property as they saw fit.  And
SDIO had nothing to do with this, although they were unquestionably
interested in the test and its results.
--
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 03:54:39 GMT
From: Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> , [e-mail] writes:
>The Martian satellites are in highly circular, co-planar orbits.  If
they were
>indeed "captured" from somewhere else, it presumably happened during an
epoch
>in which there was still lots of viscosity (unaccreted gas and dust) in
the
>near vicinity of Mars.

I believe tidal dissipation will accomplish the same end in the absence of
gas and dust. It will certainly circularize an orbit, the small, negative
delta-vees occuring near periapse, where the tidal interaction is
strongest.

Leigh

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 04:12:17 GMT
From: Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> Henry Spencer,
[e-mail] writes:

>Wouldn't be surprised if it was comparable to the last group.  Those
outer
>retrograde satellites are widely suspected to be captured asteroids, and
>they may be somewhat temporary on a geological time scale.

I would be very surprised if the cometary particles were in orbits
comparable to those of the outer satellites of Jupiter. The acquisiton of
such satellites through the violent fragmentation of larger bodies is,
indeed, an interesting possibility, but this sort of interaction has been
observed before, and the association has always been transient.

Those outermost satellites are rather tightly gravitationally bound to
Jupiter, though they do appear rather far from him on the sky. I don't
think anyone really expects they are temporary, but of course that is an
unsolved problem; the permanence of Earth's being bound to the sun is
subject to the same sort of uncertainty.

Leigh

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 93 07:24:29 GMT
From: Ross Borden <[e-mail]>
Subject: How many read sci.space?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Prado) writes:
>
>One could go on and on and on here, but I wonder ... how
>many people read sci.space and of what power/influence are
>these individuals?
>
    Quick!  Everyone who sees this, post a reply that says:

            "Hey, I read sci.space!"

Then we can count them, and find out how many there are! :-)
(This will also help answer that nagging question: "Just what is
the maximum bandwidth of the Internet, anyways?")

    As for influence, I happen to be a close, trusted advisor
of none other than Robert E. McElwaine himself!  I help shape all
of his important space-related policies. ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  I shot a man just to watch him die;    |     Ross Borden                   |
|  I'm going to Disneyland!               |     [e-mail]            |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 05:13:09 GMT
From: Paul Gilmartin <[e-mail]>
Subject: How to get there? (was Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey ([e-mail]) wrote:
: > This concept of a temporary orbit is new to me, what mechanism enables
: > a comet to break free from Jovian orbit, once is has strayed into it?

: While you're at it, comet experts, explain how a comet gets into
: Jovian orbit to begin with!

: There are non-gravitational forces from heating and outgassing when a
: comet gets into the inner solar system.  Also, if it breaks up, the
: chunks go in different directions in a way that conserves momentum.
: So I can see how Jovian capture might work in a handwaving way. ...

Don't forget the Galilean satellites of Jupiter.  Even as the Voyager
spacecraft were freed from the Solar system by "slingshot" encounters
with Jupiter and Saturn, a weakly bound comet might be freed from the
Jovian system by similar encounters with Io, Europa, Ganymede, and
Callisto.  And since the laws of orbital mechanics are time-reversal
invariant a capture is likewise possible.


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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 05:08:19 GMT
From: "Gregory N. Bond" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mir 2's planned orbit [was Re: Degrees vs. experience]
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1q7v8f$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

   What's the status of cape york,  is that going up still?

As far as I can tell, it's dead but hasn't stopped breathing yet.
Which is to say, they have missed a couple of firm deadlines to line
up funding with zero success, but have not yet officially given up.

The original proposal was basically a real estate deal (a spaceport
being a way to increase the value of swampland) but the collapse of
the Japanese property and equity markets over the last few years have
killed it off.

Greg.
--
Gregory Bond <[e-mail]> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
   Knox's 386 is slick.            Fox in Sox, on Knox's Box
   Knox's box is very quick.       Plays lots of LSL. He's sick!
(Apologies to John "Iron Bar" Mackin.)

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 21:20:10 GMT
From: "Dan J. Declerck" <[e-mail]>
Subject: New aircraft TU-154M for leasing, set spare parts.
Newsgroups: misc.forsale,misc.invest,misc.jobs.contract,rec.aviation,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Larion Tyshler) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (gozdz,antoni s) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>>Category: Offers to leasing
>>>>Headline: New Aircraft TU-154M
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Mr. Director Agabalaevich:
>>>
>>>No bombs included?! what a rip-off... I'll pass this one.
>>>
>>>--T.
>>>
>>>BTW, are these guys out of their [....] minds, or was
>>>our propaganda so effective that they believe some
>>>netters could actually buy such stuff and land in
>>>their driveway? Too much soda pop, too quick...
>>
>>
>>You *WANT* bombs?  Just ask!
>>
>  BOMBS?
>Go look up Tu 154M, it should be in most AIRLINER hand-books.
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Sgt. D.J. Morton            Environmental Resource Sciences
>Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment    Trent University
>                    Peterborough, Ontario
>                    K9J 7B8  Canada
There are a few things wrong with the potential sale of this aircraft:

There is starting to be a glut of new aircraft on the market
(Airlines are taking delivery, then mothballing their new planes).

Unless the fuel efficiency is better than the Airbus 320 or Boeing
767, this plane is not economically feasible for the major players (airlines).
Unless the price is real cheap, and you have an owner that doesn't care about
fuel economy (Saudi Family, maybe??) sales ought to be pretty glim.



--
=> Dan DeClerck                        | EMAIL: [e-mail]     <=
=> Motorola Cellular APD               |                                  <=

=>"Friends don't let friends wear neon"| Phone: [phone]            <=
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 00:21:01 -0500
From: Mark Prado <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orbital RepairStation
Newsgroups: sci.space

Reply address: [e-mail]
 >   = [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
 > > = [e-mail] (Michael Nielsen) writes:

 > > It seems to me that so many billion of dollars are floating
 > > around in orbit around the earth...
 >
 > > It seems like a huge opportunity for the development for an
orbital
 > > station capable of carrying out a repair of a vehicle in
orbit,

 > The biggest problem with this is that all orbits are not alike.
 It can
 > actually be more expensive to reach a satellite from another
orbit than
 > from the ground.

If we got the fuel propellants from asteroids near Earth and
established a decent permanent presence in space, then some
entity would have a good business.  But first, we need to
implement supply of those near Earth asteroidal fuel propellants
...

 > Clarke orbit is about the only place where there are
 > a lot of satellites in the same orbit, reachable relatively
cheaply from
 > a single repair base... and it is awkwardly high up, and in the
fringes
 > of the outer Van Allen belt -- a poor place for a manned
station.

Unless it had massive shielding.  Again, if we remove the
assumption that all materiel must be blasted up from Earth
(or blasted up using the Shuttle instead of old ICBMs),
then the analysis changes significantly to where other
program scenarios and conslusions may be reached.

Shielding can be simple, if massive enough.  Sandbags of
asteroid dirt could do the job -- several meters' worth.
Regardless of secondary radiation effects and the like.
Have the robot pull it into the garage ...

 > > with out the clumsy suits (of course this adds problems).

A garage is cheap and easy to build using lunarcrete reinforced
or layered with asteroid steel, and shielded.

Imagine also:  piecing together huge antennas and satellite
systems from more than one Earth launch.  And filling the
shuttle bay with ONLY satellite -- no fuel propellant or
rocket.  After all, it takes two tons of propellant for
every one ton of satellite to go from LEO to GEO.

One could go on and on and on here, but I wonder ... how
many people read sci.space and of what power/influence are
these individuals?

However, the polishing critiques and stimulation are nice!
Three heads are better than one!!!

- el Prod-o
  [e-mail]

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

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

Date: 14 Apr 1993 23:21:01 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Russian  Operation of US Space Missions.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

I imagine we'd have to send them Digital encrypters,  Little toucy
as that is export controlled  equipment,  or the software parameters
so they could program their own.

I suspect those guys are  equipped for this sort of spoofing.
I imagine most us SpySats are also  X-Band equipped,  and if nothing
else a denial of service  attack is easy to carry out.

THey could send old recorded digital sequences just to lock up the
receivers.

Besides.  We are committed to sending the russians aid to preserve
certain vital sectors of
their economy.  wouldn't it be nice to get some marvelous
science data too.

Magellan, pulls some $40 million a year to operate in  Radar mode.
Maybe we could pay the russians  $4 million a year to collect
some of the More esoteric science results.

COBE needs $1 Million / year to run.  I bet for 1/4 of that they
could run COBE.

ANother thing is that If the russians start building DSN compatible
gear,  then we have more dishes  for more difficult science missions.

pat

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 05:17:46 GMT
From: "Frank J. Snyder" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Solar Sail Data
Newsgroups: sci.space

I am looking for any information concerning projects involving Solar
 Sails. I understand that the JPL did an extensive study on the subject
 back in the late 70's but I am having trouble gathering such information.

Are there any groups out there currently involved in such a project ?

                    Frank Snyder
                    Auburn University

                    [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 01:30:29 GMT
From: Farmer Ted <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Debris
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.materials

Are there any "good" books on the subject of the removal of
space debris?

I am currently trying to find some theoretical way to trap or
reduce the energy of LEO space debris sufficiently enough for
it to fall into the atmosphere and burn up or stick to the space
craft I am reducing the energy with and not cause a great increase
the crafts energy.

Is this possible?
Any reply will be helpful.




Rich

No fancy quote as of yet!

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 02:52:42 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Temp Station for Orbital Repair/Scrap!
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

>Clarke Orbit, Van Allen Belt and such, its been said its not a good place for
>a space station. Why not a temporary space station. Inflatable or otherwise..
>basically setup the temporary space station, have a vehicle to catch old
>sattelites and then broing them back to the temp space station for reuse,
>unless they can (satellites) be repaired onsite..

Two things come to mind.  First, comm satellites are very complex things. There
are very few things that can go wrong with them that can be repaired without
replacing parts (with the exact part brought up from Earth).  Generally,
satellites are turned off when their fuel runs out.  Therefore, a more logical
"repair" vehicle would be an automated tanker vehicle that can refuel properly
fitted satellites.  However, since this would be very complicated and advances
in propulsion can be expected to substantialy increase satellite life within
ten years, there won't be much demand for such a vehicle.

Second, there isn't much demand for repairs in geosynchronous orbit.  Modern
communications satellites can be expected to last well over a decade.  Even
the modern Russian comsats are expected to last about 8 years.  Michael
Sternberg, of RIMSAT, is even calling the shorter lifetime of Russian
satellites a plus, because they won't be offering technology to their customers
that is 15 years old - they can launch a new satellite.  In short
there are much more important problems to work on than comsat repair.

Somewhere I have my notes from Sternberg's talk, as well as Grechko's and one
on DC-Y trajectories.  I will try to get them transcribed to the net over the
weekend.
--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
          "Tout ce qu'un homme est capable d'imaginer, d'autres hommes
                     seront capable de le realiser"
             -Jules Verne

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 01:45:47 GMT
From: TS Kelso <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, [phone], and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 56
1 22621U 93 23  A 93104.24999999  .00045467  00000-0  13024-3 0   212
2 22621  57.0049 151.0451 0003962 279.5646  70.3698 15.92828691   954
1993 023B
1 22623U 93 23  B 93103.37312705  .00041032  00000-0  11888-3 0    86
2 22623  57.0000 155.1150 0004422 293.4650  66.5967 15.92653917   803
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
[e-mail]                    Air Force Institute of Technology

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 461
------------------------------