Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_5/V16NO571.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 9KB

Date: Fri, 14 May 93 05:24:47
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #571
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 14 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 571

Today's Topics:
                        Life on Mars. (2 msgs)
       Man-rating boosters (was Re: Why we like DC-X) (3 msgs)
                     Who is Henry Spencer anyway?

    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: Fri, 14 May 93 03:58:11 GMT
From: Robert Clark <[e-mail]>
Subject: Life on Mars.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio

References: <1sk847$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: State University of New York at Albany
Keywords:

  In the article in _Final Frontier_, Levin claims that the Gas Chroma-
tography experiment sent aboard Viking simply wasn't sensitive enough to
do the job. He says that the version sent aboard Viking was NOT sensitive
enough to detect Antartica organics, whereas his Labeled Release experi-
ment was.



                    -Bob C.

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

Date: 14 May 1993 06:53:50 GMT
From: Robert Clark <[e-mail]>
Subject: Life on Mars.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio

In a previous article, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) says:

>

>expected from life.  The devastating blow was the failure of the GCMS
>experiment to find any organic molecules at all in the soil; it would
>give positive results even on Antarctic soil, but it came up negative


  Levin says that the version of the GCMS wasn't sensitive enough to
detect organics in the amounts you might expect. He gives the example
of an Antartica sample which the GCMS was unable detect the organic
compunds but which his Labeled release experiment was able to.

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

Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 03:22:32 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Man-rating boosters (was Re: Why we like DC-X)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>>... And they must have considered the Proton, for
>>example, as a possible personnel launcher from time to time.
>
>...9 [Proton] launches in 1969, of which two were successful.  Am I wrong
>about something or were they really going to try to put people on this thing?

They may have tried.  There was speculation for a long time that the
ill-fated Soyuz 1 had gone up on a Proton, and that the nasty launch
environment might have contributed to the problems that culminated
in Komarov's death.  In fact, I thought I'd seen something that looked
like confirmation of this a year or two ago, but I don't remember details.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 05:57:41 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Man-rating boosters (was Re: Why we like DC-X)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>
>I believe the Proton was the launcher for the Zond series of lunar orbiting
>spacecraft.  When Georgy Grechko came to speak here he stated that the Zond
>program was ready to make its first manned launch when the Apollo landings made
>Zond politically pointless.  Since he was in the Lunar training group he seemed
>very dissapointed.  On the other hand, looking at the Proton's launch record
>in 1969 I wouldn't have touched the thing with a ten foot cattle prod.  The data
>I have shows 9 launches in 1969, of which two were successful.  Am I wrong
>about something or were they really going to try to put people on this thing?

Yep.  In "Chariots for Apollo",  Pellegrino and Stoff report that Pavel
Belyayev aboard Zond 7 almost beat Apollo 8 to the moon in December 1968.

  "On the morning of December 8, 1968, Zond 7 stood on the pad with
   Pavel Belyayev curled inside.  He was scheduled to be the first man
   to feel the gravitational tug of a world that was not his own.  He
   would have been, if not for bad luck, if not for a glitch that showed
   up in the first-stage booster with less than four hours to go in the
   countdown.  Belyayev was called out of the capsule, and after a thorough
   inspection of the rocket, Zond 7 was launched unmanned.  About
   twenty-seven miles out, the pogo effect set in, and Zond was shaken
   apart and strewn about the stratosphere and blown up."

So the Zond program was preparing for its first manned launch even before
Apollo 8 flew...   The next successful Zond mission (unmanned) was flown in
August 1969 and was also called Zond 7 since, officially, the Dec 1968 flight
had not occurred....

--
Dave Michelson  --  [e-mail]  --  University of British Columbia



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

Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 06:17:28 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Man-rating boosters (was Re: Why we like DC-X)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>>Well, I sure wouldn't want to ride a launcher which demonstrated excessive
>>Pogo and would happily see funds spent to correct the problem.
>
>Perhaps I would as well; but that's not what Henry and I are talking
>about.

Ergo my call for clarification.  Man-rating involves more than just
making a vehicle "ultra-reliable".  I agree, in principle, that one
could waste a lot of time and money in such a quest.  However, the
only detailed references that I have found (and, admittedly, they are
quite old) stressed the launch environment, fault detection, and certain
structural modifications.  It certainly didn't seem like they had spent
90% of their time trying to achieve "ultra-reliability" as such.

So, what exactly would be involved in man-rating, say, a DC-?, according
to current NASA practice.  Assume that test flights had already verified
that the launch environment (pogo, etc.) was acceptable, approriate safe
abort modes were available, and that reasonable engineering judgement
had been used to ensure that "no single failure would lead to loss of
a mission and that no double failure would lead to loss of the crew".

Just curious.

--
Dave Michelson  --  [e-mail]  --  University of British Columbia


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

Date: 14 May 93 03:19:57
From: Jeff Moersch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who is Henry Spencer anyway?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

>   Henry Spencer is God.

I think one of my personal criteria for knowing when I've become a
successful planetary scientist will be the day Henry Spencer contacts
*me* for inside information!  It may be a long wait...

Jeff Moersch
Gradual Student
Department of Astronomy
Cornell University

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


To: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utzoo!henry
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SDIO kaput!
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 03:52:06 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 25
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> Ben Burch <[e-mail]> writes:
>I just heard on the radio (CNN Radio News) that the SDI has been renamed the
>"Ballistic Missile Defense Initiative".  It is to concentrate on ground-based
>interceptors.
>
>Does anybody have a clue if this means the end of DC-X and Clementine?

Anything can happen in Washington, but the name change appears to be
purely cosmetic, and the emphasis on ground-based interceptors has been
openly announced for months by everyone from the Secretary of Defense
on down.  Note that there is still considerable interest in space-based
*sensors*, even though space-based *interceptors* have been relegated
to the indefinite future.

Clementine is simply too far along for anything except massive political
disaster to stop it.  It's slated to launch in nine months!  (One huge
advantage of getting programs from start to launch *quickly* is that
the window for political interference is short.)

DC-XYZ's future remains very much in doubt, but this announcement hasn't
changed that much.  Allen has been posting details on who to write to if
you care about this project.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 571
------------------------------