Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_5/V16NO528.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 29KB

Date: Wed,  5 May 93 06:54:12
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #528
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed,  5 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 528

Today's Topics:
   A Little Pace o' My Heart Now (was Re: Long term Human Missions)
        Another SF Irritation RELIEVED! Doctor Who vindicated.
      Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing) (2 msgs)
                         Boom!  Whoosh......
               Cosmic Gears (bump, harmonics, and such)
                    Drag-free satellites (3 msgs)
         Earth's gravity field (was Re: Drag-free satellites)
         HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days (4 msgs)
                         Info about JSC tours
                    large accelerations revisited
                  Mars Observer Update #2 - 04/30/93
            Need help on information about satellite cost
                               PCSPACE
                        Sarsat for tracking pa
          Transportation Question, REF: JSC Tours! (2 msgs)

    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: 3 May 1993 23:45:51 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Little Pace o' My Heart Now (was Re: Long term Human Missions)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

Nuclear pacemakers had some real problems  logistically.

They were NRC controlled,  if the patient got vremated, ordied
it had to be removed.  You had  real trouble with air-lines,

especially if it set off the metal detectors.

Besides,  as bill points out,  most people just don't live that
long after getting one.

pat

Now i've seen some designs  where teh pacemaker  gets an inductive charge current
through the chest wall.  that may have also  helped  the problem.
assuming the ELF  doesn't give the patient cancer :-)

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

Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 06:05:56 GMT
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another SF Irritation RELIEVED! Doctor Who vindicated.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.space

This "reverse the polarity!" crap always bugged the hell out of me, too,
until I found an actual, live, real-life example of it working! I quote
from Aviation Week and Space Technology for 2 July 1990, page 25:

    He [Colonel Charles F. Stirling, speaking of the problem of
    fuel bubble formation in Titan 4 Aerojet LR87 engines] said
    engineers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory had run into
    the same problem and suggested that the Air Force look at the
    effect of Aerozene 50 decomposition. The fix, now flown three
    times without incident, was to reverse the inlet and outlet
    portions of the hot gas cooler.

! Once again, life imitates art.

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

Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 05:45:57 GMT
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:


>Well said. The goal is low cost access to LEO, not how you do it.

Amen. If Boeing can build a supersonic ramjet and a winged vehicle to put it
on, for less than GD can build an RL-10 derivative and a set of tankage to
put it in, more power to them.

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

Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 13:15:10 GMT
From: Dave Stephenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>One thing I think people need to be careful about is falling into the
>>One True Faith mode of thinking where SSTO (as represented by Delta
>>Clipper) is the One True Way to better and cheaper access to space....

>Well said. The goal is low cost access to LEO, not how you do it.

>  Allen

Agreed. The two things wrong with the DCX program IMHO are a) they
only built one DCX. They should have built 3. If two dont get bend
they are not trying hard enough. B) There should be at least two
other competing programs (possibly in other countries) running
parallel track fly a bit, build a bit, with different configurations,
just to keep everyone on their toes.

--
Dave Stephenson
Geological Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 4 May 93 01:16:56 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boom!  Whoosh......
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]+ [e-mail] (Bruce Watson) writes:
+In article <[e-mail]+ [e-mail] (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:
++In article <[e-mail]+ [e-mail] (Bruce Watson) writes:
++++
+++Once inflated the substance was no longer
+++needed since there is nothing to cause the balloon to collapse.
+++This inflatable structure could suffer multiple holes with no
+++disastrous deflation.
++
++preasure (and the internal preasure that was needed to maintain
++a spherical shape against this resistance) caused them to
++catastrophically deflated.  The large silvered shards
++
++The billboard should pop like a dime store balloon.
+
+No, you're wrong about this. Give me some time to get my references.
+
+
Echos I and II were "large spherical balloons made of 0.0005-inch
thick Mylar plastic (not rubber) that were aluminized in a vacuum
to provide good reflectivity for radio waves. "

Echo I inflated "under the pressure of the traces of air within it.
The orbit was at a region where the atmospheric density was of the
order of only 10^-17 gram per cubic centimeter."

"Dusted inside the evelope before it was folded accordion-fashion
within its container were 10 pounds of benzoic acid and 20 pounds
of anthraquinone. Warmed by continuous sunlight in which the
satellite was bathed during its first 12 days in orbit, the
powders sublimed, giving an internal pressure of 0.00004 pound
per square inch. This was enough to keep the balloon distended
against exterior air pressure and solar radiation pressure."
[Ok, I was wrong about this.]

"Later when the satellite began spending part of each revolution
inside the earth's shadow, the internal temperature would drop
so low that the vapors would temporarily condense."

"A major problem is posed by leakage from meteorite punctures.
According to scientists of NASA, about 1.4 square inches of
perforation would be expected each day, on the average. During
the first days aloft, when the earth was carrying the satellite
with it through the Perseid meteor swarm, the rate may have been
six times greater."

[Echo I lasted over 7 years, Echo II over 5 years. Pageos lasted
9 years before it broke up. Its pieces are still in orbit.]

This material is from Sky & Telescope magazine, issues Feb
and Oct, 1960.
--
Bruce Watson ([e-mail])

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

Date: 4 May 93 10:36:13 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cosmic Gears (bump, harmonics, and such)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Correct me if I am wrong:

Teh interaction between the moon and the earth, harmonics and bumps and all,
and also energy transferance, sounds interestingly enough like how gears work
(kind of).. BAsically cosmic gears?? I know its a broad jump for some to
picture it, but.. try..

Sorry I got turned around in physical science and into theoretical sciences and
got wierd..
==
Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: 3 May 1993 23:30:07 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drag-free satellites
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew R. Feulner) writes:
>In article <1s3jqi$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Isaac Kuo) writes:
|
||> Even if the Earth were significantly flattenned, it would be flattenned on
||> the axis of rotation, and thus the gravitational field does not rotate and
||> thus no orbiting satellite can derive energy from the non-changing
||> gravitational field.
|

LEt's try this as a hypothesis.

The earth rotates aroound the poles.  Any oblateness  is seen
at teh equator.   Now put a small sat in LEO  in Polar orbit.

I imagine,  this case would see the maximum  change in gravitational
field variation.

Now  i have to admit,  i am a real piker in  Orbit and quantum mechanics,
but i think this will work.

|What a proof!  Why didn't I think of that?  I haven't seen the references
|myself, but it's possible it's supposed to gain energy in the sense that
|the mean semi-major axis is increasing - not necessarily in the total energy
|sense.  Or it could be total energy.
|

I don't know  anout the changes in  semi major axis.  anyone care to
translate this to english?

|You shouldn't be so quick to nitpick.  Why don't you actually look up
|some of the references given in other posts if you don't believe it.
|
|Matt
|[e-mail]



I think Isaac, just has too much time on his hands  and not enough
sexual satisfaction ;-)   maybe he can integrate these two factors
for a  4th order harmonic expansion :-)


actually,  maybe he's trying to beat out Patrick  klavenger  for the
Fred McCall  flame derby award ;-)

pat

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

Date: 4 May 1993 08:06:01 GMT
From: Isaac Kuo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drag-free satellites
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>[e-mail] (Isaac Kuo), U.C. Berkeley Math. Department
>asks:
>>Before I go searching for these references, I have a question.  Where does
>>the energy come from?  The rotation of the Earth?  Is it "free" energy?
>>Am I right in inferring that the Moon's gravitational effect has nothing to
>>do with these "harmonics"?
>     Yes, the energy comes from the rotation of the Earth. (AIEE! The Russian
>satellites are stealing our energy!!!)

Yes!  Finally a serious answer to that question rather than a flame!  (I
dislike flame wars since they're juvenile and solve nothing.)  NOW I'm really
interested.

>    The interaction which adds energy to a satellite's orbit is somewhat
>analogous to that which moves the Moon outward at the expense of the
>rotational energy of the Earth. In the Earth-Moon case, friction and tides
>form a feedback system which ensures that energy and angular momentum flow
>into the Moon, independent of the details of its orbit. In the Earth-satellite
>case, the satellite has to be put into just the right orbit to be pulled along
>by existing bulges in the geopotential.

>     To repeat an earlier offer: I'll ship anyone who wants them the NORAD
>orbital elements of some satellites which appear to be gaining energy through
>resonant interaction with the (rotating, lumpy) geopotential, and they can
>decide for themselves what, if anything, is happening.

I can see how the Earth may be lumpy in the sense of it's oblateness, but that
does not "rotate", in the sense that it does not result in a changing
gravitational field.  I can see how the lunar tides add a slight oblateness
off axis, but of course it rotates with the moon rather than with the Earth's
rotation, and is the way in which Earth's rotational energy is transferred
(slowly) to energy in the moon's orbit.

I am therefore curious: What lumpiness to the Earth's gravitational field
rotates along with Earth?  For example, over what longitude is the
field the strongest?  By how much is this greater than the weakest longitude?
--
*Isaac Kuo -->[e-mail]<--       *       ___
*                            * _____/_o_\_____
*    Who am I?  Where am I?  What do        *(==(/_______\)==)
*    I do?  The address says it all.        * \==\/     \/==/

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

Date: 4 May 1993 14:49:36 GMT
From: Rob Unverzagt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drag-free satellites
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1s5859$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Isaac Kuo) writes:
>
>        [stuff deleted]
>
> I can see how the Earth may be lumpy in the sense of it's oblateness, but that
> does not "rotate", in the sense that it does not result in a changing
> gravitational field.  I can see how the lunar tides add a slight oblateness
> off axis, but of course it rotates with the moon rather than with the Earth's
> rotation, and is the way in which Earth's rotational energy is transferred
> (slowly) to energy in the moon's orbit.
>
> I am therefore curious: What lumpiness to the Earth's gravitational field
> rotates along with Earth?  For example, over what longitude is the
> field the strongest?  By how much is this greater than the weakest longitude?

The earth's equator is not a circle, but has some eccentricity.  One
of the "stable longitudes" is 75.1 deg east and I _think_ the other
is 180 degrees from it, though higher order terms may tweek that a
little.

To add my 2 cents about an earlier question, the nonsperical terms
in the geopotential are more powerful than the solar and lunar
gravity effects at geosynchronous distance by a factor of 2 or 3.
At LEO, the effects are even greater.

Shag

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
       Rob Unverzagt        |
  [e-mail]   |       Tuesday is soylent green day.
[e-mail] |

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

Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 14:20:32 GMT
From: "Matthew R. Feulner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Earth's gravity field (was Re: Drag-free satellites)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1s5859$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Isaac Kuo) writes:
|>
|> I can see how the Earth may be lumpy in the sense of it's oblateness, but that
|> does not "rotate", in the sense that it does not result in a changing
|> gravitational field.  I can see how the lunar tides add a slight oblateness
|> off axis, but of course it rotates with the moon rather than with the Earth's
|> rotation, and is the way in which Earth's rotational energy is transferred
|> (slowly) to energy in the moon's orbit.

The spherical harmonic expansion of the earth's gravity field include terms
which are longitude dependent as well as latitude dependent.  It is the
longitude dependent terms which are seen to rotate with the earth.  These
are smaller than the purely latitude dependent terms (generally, I think),
but when the altitude is low enough, they are still important.

|> I am therefore curious: What lumpiness to the Earth's gravitational field
|> rotates along with Earth?  For example, over what longitude is the
|> field the strongest?  By how much is this greater than the weakest longitude?

I'm not sure there is an answer to this since at each longitude, the field
varies with latitude.  There may be a point at which the field is strongest,
but people generally work with the coefficients of the expansion and use them
as such.

The moon is usually modeled as a point mass since we're so far away and
the moon always shows the same face towards us.  These two facts allow us
to ignore the moons "lumps" and such.  The sun is also modeled as a point
mass.  These two objects have their own separate effect on orbits, but they
have different characteristics than the higher order gravity expansion terms'
effects.

People are aware of the tidal (solid and liquid) effects of the moon, but
I don't think they are taken into account by orbit people.  Actually, they
probably are by the ultra high precision orbit determination people, but the
effects may be small or hard to estimate.

Matt
[e-mail]

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

Date: 3 May 1993 23:20:26 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott Stallcup) writes:
>: Gyros.
>  Reaction Wheels


So what is the semantic or practical difference between a Reaction Wheel,
a Momentum Wheel, or a Gyro?   I know gyros are generally used for
reference frames,  but  how would a big gyro and a small  momentum wheel
differ.

pat

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

Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 12:55:18 GMT
From: Doug Loss <[e-mail]>
Subject: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro

In article <1s4ndq$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott Stallcup) writes:
>>: Gyros.
>>  Reaction Wheels
>
>
>So what is the semantic or practical difference between a Reaction Wheel,
>a Momentum Wheel, or a Gyro?   I know gyros are generally used for
>reference frames,  but  how would a big gyro and a small  momentum wheel
>differ.
>
>pat
>

   A small momentum wheel is used to stabilize a spacecraft; a big gyro
is a Greek sandwich with a lot of pressed lamb, feta cheese, and
tzatziki sauce.

Doug Loss
[e-mail]

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

Date: 4 May 1993 14:24:14 GMT
From: John F Carr <[e-mail]>
Subject: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro

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

>Asymmetric external torques eventually have the wheels spinning
>faster and faster to compensate, so you need some way of dumping momentum,
>which HST does with electromagnets that exert a torque against Earth's
>magnetic field.

Can the magnets be used for propulsion or only rotation?

--
    John Carr ([e-mail])

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

Date: 4 May 1993 14:48:18 GMT
From: Dieter Kreuer <[e-mail]>
Subject: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Scott
Stallcup) wrote:
>
> Pat ([e-mail]) wrote:
> : |If it has no propulsion system, how does it maneuver itself?
>
> : Gyros.
>
>   Reaction Wheels
>

Then, how are the Reaction Wheels desaturated?

-----------------------                  ---------------------------------
     Dieter Kreuer      ##     ======== / [e-mail]
Lehrstuhl Informatik IV __   /// /#    /  dieter%informatik.rwth-
     RWTH Aachen        ##  /// # #   /             [e-mail]
     Ahornstr. 55       ## /// ##### /...!informatik.rwth-aachen.de!dieter
W-5100 Aachen, Germany  ====      # / PHONE:  [phone]

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

From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info about JSC tours
Newsgroups: sci.space

Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: lonestar.utsa.edu
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 03:58:19 GMT
Lines: 11
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]


I'm planning a trip to Houston later this month, and I was curious about
info on public tours, such as what days, times, etc.

btw- I hate to have to ask this, but does anyone know if the JSC buildings
are wheelchair accessable?

thanks-

Simon

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

Date: 3 May 1993 23:41:49 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: large accelerations revisited
Newsgroups: sci.space

Of course, if you are going to de-couple the pilot from the physical
frame of the aircraft,  both in positioning and sensor systems.
Control systems have been decoupled for the last 10 years.

Why not go the distance and remove the pilot.  If he has to fly using
a virtual reality helmet,  take him out of the aircraft,  and make it
a "guided"  missile.   kinda like a next generation  smart bomb.


pat

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

Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 07:44:50 GMT
From: Jurriaan Wittenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update #2 - 04/30/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

So the observer is closing in on Mars isn't he ? My question is:

Is the probe making pictures frequently so that you guys can get behind your
edit tables to make another fabulous movie like the Earth-Moon-Conjunction ?
Seems pretty nice to me:
We will have   -Earth (+Moon)
               -Mars (+Moons ???)
            -----------------------
               -Jupiter (in the near future ??)
               -Saturn  (Voyager must have done something like it)
               ...
               ...
Well actually I think it must be possible to make a movie for every great
body in our solar-system (except Pluto & Charon). Why don't you do so ??
Is it really the weird thing that you guys aren't allowed to make profit?
I think that it is time to go commercial: people love to watch things from
outer space. And why would the Government be so stubborn not to let you guys
do what you want: make money and explore. I think that is the ideal that
America is build on: the American-Dream, or isn't it alive anymore :-( Well
mine still is!!! (and I don't even live near America :-)

C-ya,
Jurriaan.



--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|----=|=-<- - - - - - [e-mail]- - - - - - - - - - - - ->-=|=----|
|----=|=-<-Jurriaan Wittenberg- - -Department of ComputerScience->-=|=----|
|____/|\_________Utrecht_________________The Netherlands___________/|\____|

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

Date: 4 May 93 09:25:53 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need help on information about satellite cost
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ferry 'Dr Pepper' Siamena) writes:
> Can someone help me find out the cost of an
> ATS_6-type satellite ?
> It's a satellite with two antennas, one is a
> 10 m diameter antenna dish, and the other
> is a transmitter to the earth.
> I just need a rough estimate of the cost.
> Please send your reply to :
>     [e-mail]
> Your help is very much appreciated.

Easiest thing to do:  Hit the library, look at the *Reader's Guide*
under "Satellites" or "Satellite Communication," etc., for the year it
was launched, and see if any of the press coverage mentions the cost.

Let's see if I can give you a little more help... (when will they put
*TRW Space Log* out on disk?  Fumbling with my paper copy...) Here we
are.  ATS-6 (Applications Technology Satellite) was launched 30 May
1974 from Cape Canaveral aboard a Titan IIIC.  It was still in orbit
as of 1991.

Weight:  930 kg
(yes, I know kilograms aren't a unit of weight.  Tell TRW.)
Period: 1412.1 minutes
Perigee: 35,191 miles
Apogee: 35,438 miles (pretty circular)
Inclination: 8 degrees (seems unusual)

So go pull down the 1974 *Reader's Guide*.  Have fun.

[I post rather than e-mail because other students tempted to ask a
"use the library" question may learn from this.  One may hope.]

--
     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 10:05:50 GMT
From: Jeff Swanson <[e-mail]>
Subject: PCSPACE
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

I was messing around via FTP this evening, and stumbled across a program
in Germany, at "ftp.uni-kl.de" -- it was in the pub/games section, I believe.
This program is called PCSPACE, for the IBM-PC -- it's utterly fabulous.
Has 800 stars in the catalog, fully mouse-driven, plenty of relevant info,
and features a point-and-click "travel" mode, where you basically fly to
whichever star you click on -- once you're there, you see the galaxy
from the POV of THAT star!
    Anyway, maybe I'm a Johnny-come-lately on this program, but here's
the deal -- the text is ALL in German. Of course. Which I don't know. If
anybody's heard of this, do you know if there yet exists a version in
English?

--Jeff Swanson
***>[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 04 May 1993 00:53:17 -0500
From: Keith Stein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sarsat for tracking pa
Newsgroups: sci.space

Michael, I worked with the Indian Space Research Organization
(ISRO) on
developing their own SARSAT system back in December 1988. I'll
have to
look around and maybe write some letters to my contacts at Goddard
Space
Flight Center and India. If you could, please send me some
information
about this next mission you have planned so I can see if my group

(Educational Satellite Tracking Organization (ESTO)) can help
maybe:

Keith Stein
7830 Water Valley Court
Springfield, VA 22153

Leave me your address an I'll send you information on ESTO. I
think we
could help.

 * Origin: No. VA Astronomy Club 703-256-4777 (1:109/118)

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

Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 10:27:52 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Transportation Question, REF: JSC Tours!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
> I'm planning a trip to Houston later this month, and I was curious about
> info on public tours, such as what days, times, etc.
>
> btw- I hate to have to ask this, but does anyone know if the JSC buildings
> are wheelchair accessable?
>
> thanks-
>
> Simon
>


Do hate asking.. If it does not have access via wheel chair (such as ramp) it
had better soon.. Federal and State Law and such..

On the tour question, I wish I could answer.
Wish ya the best time, thou..
Do you know a ladys whose email address is [e-mail]
I think she has the same transportation as you..
Wheeled.. a person who walks on two legs is a biped? what do you calla person
who rides on two wheel??

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

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

Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 13:08:50 GMT
From: "Bruce T. Harvey" <idsssd!bruce>
Subject: Transportation Question, REF: JSC Tours!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> I'm planning a trip to Houston later this month, and I was curious about
> info on public tours, such as what days, times, etc.

I believe the hours are 10:00 am. to 6:00 pm.  Depending on the day and
time of year, the hours may be 9:00 am. to 7:00 pm., but I wouldn't count
on it.

> btw- I hate to have to ask this, but does anyone know if the JSC buildings
> are wheelchair accessable?

My wife and I were just there in April.  Although I am still using the
old-fashioned low-tech locomotion (bipedal) and don't see the world
from your point of view, I do recall wheel chair access to all the buildings
both at the 'display' center (movies, exhibits, lunchroom) and at JSC across
the way.

'Space Center Houston' (designed by Disney, I believe) has mainly the
'general public' information in large-screen and IMAX format, with access
available to all.  The gift shop seems to have its items arranged to a great
extent to duplicate 'down below' whatever is 'up above.' The soups are
wonderful.  The main dishes excell in the salad arena.

JSC is accessed through one of two 'tram' tours.  Each tram has at least one
wheelchair lift in the front car (a 'well-wheeled' gentlemen took the tour
on our visit).  We didn't get to go on the 'Mission Control' tour, as an
unsuccessful launch was being attempted.  (Well, they didn't _try_ to be
unsuccessful!) Our tour took us to various simulators, including the payload
bay simulators, the giant vacuum chamber, and the neutral buoyancy
simulation tank, where Story Musgrave was actually testing some stuff for
the repair of Hubble in December.

As far as I recall, it is as accessible as any building complex I've seen.

--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Bruce T. Harvey    (B-{>::      UUCP:    ... {uunet|mimsy}!wb3ffv!idsssd!bruce
Manager Appli. Devlopmt.::  INTERNET:     wb3ffv!idsssd!bruce%uunet.uu.net@...
INsight Distribution Sys::CompuServe:                               71033,1070
[phone] x315, x352:: SnailMail: 222 Schilling Cir.,Hunt Valley, MD 21031
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 528
------------------------------