Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_9/V16NO937.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-03 | 38KB | 886 lines

Space Digest                Thu, 29 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 937

Today's Topics:
            DC-X Prophets and associated problems (3 msgs)
                   Found your own dark-sky nation?
                       Gagarin: date of death?
              GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB) (2 msgs)
               Hubble solar arrays: how'd they foul up?
              Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!
                       Making Orbit proceedings
                      Space Calendar - 07/28/93

        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, 28 Jul 1993 15:30:57 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <22oloj$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:

>Phil G. Fraering ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: Hmm.... the B-1B still flies more regularly. Perhaps it only looks
>: more like a failure to you because its dedicated mission is nuclear
>: retaliation and we haven't had a reason to show it off yet...

>There are a few more B-1B's than there are orbiters. The limit of
>eight flights per year is due to the low number of available
>vehicles. Give NASA another four orbiters, and they'd probably be able
>to fly around 16 flights a year.

How many billions of dollars are you going to spend on the necessary
extra facilities to sustain that flight rate and how much are you
going to expand the standing army (and at what cost)?

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 15:39:26 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <230ifc$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:

> [re: astronauts reluctance to fly without controls]

>: The answer to that is quite simple. If he don't like it, he ain't
>: gettin' hired on my spaceline. After cooling his heels on the ground
>: in the unemployment queue for awhile, I'm sure he'll see the light.

>: The DC/X is being "flown" by Pete Conrad. He clicks a mouse on a
>: Macitosh screen to change pre-programmed flight modes. One click
>: sends it into the abort sequence. He states that like it or not, THAT
>: is the way of the future. The stick and rudder has seen it's day. Sad
>: (I fly now and then myself, more then than now) but true.

>: So saith Pete.--

>Only one small problem with these beleifs about "anybody" just flying
>the missions.. I'd like to see the company willing to just loft a non-pilot
>type in their launch vehicle. (At least until it's flown a good number of
>times.) These vehicles cost LOTS of money, and they want the best to fly them
>generally. Now maybe, just mabye, MD has decided their ship is so reliable
>that even an idiot can fly it, or perhaps it doesn't need a "crew" at all
>and they can just install bucket seats and give anybody rides on it, but
>somehow I doubt it.

It doesn't need crew at all.  Believe it.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 15:46:45 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <231b5s$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:

>Doug Mouser ([e-mail]) wrote:
>:              Brilliant condems or "Great Explorations"...LLNL's plan for an inflatable
>: space
>: station and a maned mars mission.  Effectivaly kill by NASA's turf fighting
>: and
>: politics.

>: Doug

>: PS.  The plan called for a maned mars mission in seven years, for 40
>: billion!

>..and you blame NASA for that? $40Bil is a LOT of money.. (why not
>compare that to the yearly budget of NASA for instance..) it's
>important to note also that a significant portion of NASA's budget
>is spent on non-space related research and development.. (the first
>A in NASA stands for Aeronautics.. and NASA does a LOT of aeronatical
>research..) I don't see where this is NASA's fault, unless you think
>that if NASA was eliminated, all of it's funds would go to that projects,
>which in it's own way is far fetched.. I'll admit I know little
>(more like nothing) about this set of inflaables.. but I strongly doubt
>it's all the big bad NASA's fault that it isn't being flown/developed..

Let me see here.  A plan that for $40 billion gives us a station and a
manned Mars mission within 7 years, as opposed to a plan that spends
$25 billion and ten years for a station, leaving $15 billion and -3
years to produce a manned Mars mission.

Which one of those sounds like a more expensive plan to you?

[To be fair, the NASA plan manages risk better.  This is a Big Deal
when it comes to playing the games in Washington.]

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 28 Jul 1993 11:54:33 -0400
From: Robert Bunge <[e-mail]>
Subject: Found your own dark-sky nation?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.geo.geology,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]> writes:
>In article <233ni7$[e-mail]> Robert Bunge, [e-mail]
>writes:
>>So was using a 6-inch f/5 reflector from a ship on the equator
>>in the middle of the Indian Ocean (during the winter).
>
>OK, Bob, let us in on how one defines winter on the equator.

Opps!  There's nothing like a case of northern hemisphere bais!  By that,
I mean in the Indian Ocean, near the equator, in the Oct - Jan time
frame.  This is sort of important because during other months, some
sections of the IO become very humid and suffer from dust being
blown off the Arabian pensulia... very bad for transparency!


>
>Leigh

Bob Bunge

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 93 16:34:22 GMT
From: Krystina Hill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gagarin: date of death?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Apologies for intruding; but this is the most apt
group, I have been told, for the following question:

Does anyone know the date (yr/mn/day) of Yuri Gagarin's
death?

E-mail would be best, to save bandwidth.

Many thanks in advance,

K. Hill UK.

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 15:11:36 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <22jnuo$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <22fid4$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>
>>>It is possible to Take advantage of cheap soviet flights,
>>>without sacrificing US capabilities.
>>
>>Thus even further raising the cost of things.  After all, if you also
>>maintain that U.S. capability, where are the 'savings' coming from?
>>If you are buying your actual operational capability from overseas,
>>where is the incentive to maintain and develop your own capability?
>>

>Fred,  it costs us on average,  500 Million per shuttle
>flight.  if we can pass these costs onto the soviets,  we
>can then use the shuttle flights ofr other programmed
>activities.  it's   called re-programming and juggling
>money.   Lot's of Missions are stalled awaiting shuttle missions,
>they are already authorized and funded,  you move those up
>into the near term.

What makes you think the Soviets are going to pay us $500 million for
the privilege of flying our missions for us?  This seems to be what
you are arguing here ("pass these costs onto the soviets").  Pat, you
are talking about flying the same number of Shuttle missions (but with
different cargos), flying *more* missions for SSF (higher inclination
means less payload) and/or paying some significant dollars for Shuttle
improvements, increasing the cost of the Station (that more
challenging environment that you tried to use as an excuse for a
high-inclination orbit -- the "do it the hard way" rationale), *and*
trying to make it sound like it all saves money?

Pat, look at what you're saying in various articles here.  You want to
put SSF at a higher inclination orbit so that we can use Russian
launchers so as to move stuff off the Shuttle to make room for other
payloads that are currently flying on European and Russian launchers.
In other words, the net effect of what you propose is that we spend
more money (total), build the station in a more inconvenient orbit for
us, put the station in a more difficult environment to build and work
in, and shuffle some payloads around (SSF off Shuttle to expendables,
other things off those same expendables onto Shuttle) for no net gain
otherwise.

Pat, review the sum total of what you've argued on this issue and get
back to me once you decide just what your position is.

>Don't   confuse cash flow expeniditure for savings.  the government
>works on a multi year basis.

Since when?

>>>If we swap to a high inclination orbit,  it means  we can
>>>swap some of the construction flights to the soviets,  while
>>>flying other shuttle dependent missions, like SIRTF or
>>>KH-12 repairs,  or LDEF 2-3 (Not that it's programmed).
>>
>>But this is a different argument.  First you have to get funding for
>>those missions, otherwise your domestic hardware just sort of goes
>>away.  Putting the whole bill for supporting that domestic capability
>>on fewer programs makes those programs more expensive due to the fixed
>>costs of maintaining your own capability.  Besides which, why wouldn't
>>all those other things simply go with foreign hardware as well,
>>killing the American launch industry?
>>

>Well,  if things are strictly going to be done on a cash cost
>basis,  why aren't those programs being aimed at russian hardware now?

Because we have all these technology transfer rules.  You open up
Russian launchers by officially putting NASA payloads on them and do
you seriously think that a lot of those payloads *aren't* going to
move (unless they need the lower inclination orbits)?

>why don't we see missions bailing off the STS for protons as we
>speak.  the use of russian hardware  or non use of russian
>hardware does not mandate the activities of other programs.

It doesn't mandate them, but ignoring the fallout effects is
disingenuous, at best.

>in fact,  the use of STS for SSF construction and logistics,  would
>most likely push  science missions onto russian hardware.
>any slips and delays on SSF will have serious ripples into
>the science manifest.  and they are much more able to move
>onto other vehicles.

>and you forget,  most of these missions are funded already.

Then they are flying already.

>>>Besides,  given the high probablity of a SHuttle Loss and
>>>Fleet shut-down,  would you not want to be able to continue
>>>Logistics flights from somewhere?
>>
>>Yes, but the last time I checked Russia didn't have the only
>>alternative launch sites on the planet.
>>

>So do you think  construction could take place off of Ariane 4?

>or that Ariane  has the reserve capacity to run logistics for SSF?

>Please cite your alternative launch complex.

Please cite yours.

>>>If we take Hurricane LeRoY,  and it seriously screws up
>>>KSC for a couple months,  it would be very useful to have
>>>an alternate launch site open.
>>

>Please name some alternate launch sites other then KSC.

Feel free.  Right now, *NO* sites have the proven capability.  Hell,
reopen Vandenburg.  No matter how many you have, you can always
postulate a reason why none of them would be available, Pat.  What are
the odds?  What kind of hurricane would it take to make KSC totally
unusable?  What if you go to high inclination, the Russians have a
revolution, and your improvements to the Shuttle got their funding
cut?  Then you're not talking a matter of months.  You're talking not
being able to get the big loads up there *at all*.

>>>A high Inclination orbit, does not require  we actually
>>>buy any russian flight services.  it merely makes it possible.
>>
>>And adds a minimum of $400 million in extra costs.
>>

>Are you seriously worried about  half a billion dollars  in DDTE
>on a $ 80 Billion dollar  station project?  You must be joking.

You should run for Congress.  This 'money is not important' attitude
is why we have the mess we have.

>Besides,  you seem to be advocating capital costs in enhancing KSC
>or  other launch complexes.  you suggest that very thing
>just  a few paragraphs later.

True.  But so what?  You're talking about justifying spending
*specifically* to allow the higher inclination orbit.

>>>|>2)  Improved Earth Observation Missions.
>>
>>>What can I say.  THis is the one I hear a lot about.  51 degrees,
>>>just about doubles the earth observations science.
>>
>>But does it double it in a way we care about?  I don't think we can
>>just measure the percentage of the Earth's surface we can see at each
>>inclination and claim 'double the science'.
>>

>I have no idea on this one.  Does anyone from planetary sciences know better?


>>>>>3)  Improved Logistics Flow missions.
>>
>>>KSC can only process N flights per year.  Vandenburg does not
>>>launch  to 28 degrees.   Let's  say SSF desperately needs a
>>>smoke shifter,  a rapid launch from Pletkesk (sp)  or baikonur
>>>is possible.  It certainly is not from KSC.  I doubt KSC could push
>>>a critical launch through in less then 30 days.
>>
>>But do you have a requirement for that kind of logistics flow?  If so,
>>is it better to make your own capability or spend extra money to
>>launch to a high-inclination orbit, thereby making things more
>>difficult for yourself so that launches from elsewhere are feasible?
>>

>well,  let's  look at Skylab.  moments after launch  they discovered
>they needed  one solar array  and some thermal barriers.

>luckily they were able to package that onto  the SKylab I  flight.

>or look at the Mir.  Just a few months ago, they lost a handle,
>and they are stuck waiting for a progress flight to bring it up.
>now if this was a more critical item,  it could get very uncomfortable
>waiting for the re-supply mission.

>well  as for wether it's better done  by imrpoving us capacity,
>please tell me how we avoid a single point catastrophe at KSC
>and are you volunteering to Build another SPaceport in the US?
>and wouldn't said new spaceport be at a higher Inclination?

Please tell me how you avoid such a failure if you structure things so
that you need the Russians.

>>>If you are going to do some serious materials processing in Orbit,
>>>you want to get re-supply missions  often.  That means either some
>>>real big improvements at KSC and risk of single point failure,  or
>>>the option to do launches out of several space-ports.
>>
>>Sounds more like an argument for more American capability rather than
>>an argument for a high-inclination orbit, per se.
>>

>Please venture how much money these improvements would cost.

You're going to have to make them anyway, and I'd frankly prefer to
spend the money to put in improvements over here where we control them
rather than give it to the Russians and just hope like hell that they
don't have another revolution.

>>
>>>You learn more about working to solve hard problems then easy problems.
>>>High Inclination  acts as a driver towards STS getting the AL-LI
>>>ET  and the ASRM,  really not bad ideas in my book.
>>>High Inclination, means they work  on radiation resistant systems.
>>>a interesting engineering problem.
>>
>>Doing something the hard way for no other reason than that it *is* the
>>hard way is just plain silly, Pat.  I'm also unconvinced about the
>>utility of pouring money into Shuttle just so that we can do things
>>the hard way.  You seem to be running your logic backwards here.  If
>>those things are good ideas, inventing a program so as to deliberately
>>justify them is unnecessary.  If they are otherwise not sufficiently
>>good ideas, it seems rather stupid (as well as dishonest) to 'bend'
>>the program in such a way as to try to create justification for them.
>>

>My neighbor has on old saying.
>the hard way is the easy way"  You are just playing logic games.

**I** am just playing logic games?  BWWAAAAAAAHHAAAAhhaaaaaahhaaa!

>NASA at this point in time developes nothing without a mission
>to support it.  ASRM and AL-LI tanks  need a mission.  that is the
>nature of the agency.
>a
>look at all the science platforms.  they were used to justify
>shuttle,  the shuttle got built on the basis that it would
>support hundreds of science activities.

No, they develop nothing without a reason for it (we hope).  This is
somewhat different than creating a mission so that you can spend some
money to make improvements to the launch vehicle.  If they are using
your logic (and I don't think they are), I would suggest criminal
charges be lodged.

>>
>>>>>5)  Apparently ACRV return is simplified( This is what i was told,
>>>>>   I can't see an intuitive reason why this is).
>>

>Still a good reason for a high inclination orbit.


>>
>>No, it's a problem with 'horizon'.  We see a lot of that from folks
>>advocating the use of Russian hardware, too.
>>

>Horizon is a difficult guess.  it's  a fuzzy thing to
>say what's right and what's wrong.

So of course you advocate not looking at all.

>Canals  were the great technical operation of the 1700's.
>and they were obsoleted by Rail Roads.  would you have advocated
>continued canal developement,  because  of the R&D issues
>involved and the need to keep up american canal building
>capacity.   and railroads died to road travel.  and trucks
>to airlines.

Actually, yes, I would have.  You will note that we now spend orders
of magnitude more to move things than we would have had to spend if we
sent them by train, or even by barge.  And in case you are unaware,
ever hear of the InterCoastal Waterway?  Big canal project.  Out there
were you live.  Works good.  Saves lots of money.  Yep, we should have
flushed canals and not built it.  Send all the stuff via China on
clippers or something, instead.  Panama CANAL.  Yep, another one of
those obsolete canals.  We should just put that stuff on airplanes.

>Horizons are funny things.

Indeed they are, particularly when they are ignored.

>>
>>>WOuld they be healthier  if they were  pouring money into
>>>large IC Fabrication plants every year?  DEC can't afford more then
>>>one large design project at a time,  do you think they could do more
>>>after pouring money into a DRAM plant?
>>
>>DRAM is easy.  That's why foreign countries that want an SC business
>>start there.
>>

>And if it's  so easy,  why don't IBM and DEC and Intel and AMD
>still make them?  only your employers are still at it,  and I
>think they get some money from the feds to keep at it.

Because it's cheaper to buy the dumped chips from the startups, Pat.
Take a look at the industry.  Japan dumped DRAM all over the world to
get their startup FABs going, then they started transitioning to ASIC
just as Korea was trying to get started and began dumping DRAM all
over the place.  There is more money in ASIC -- higher profit margin
and all that, but they're harder to do.  That's why everybody starts
with DRAM.

And I believe you're mistaken.  So far as I know, we're not getting
"money from the feds to keep at" memory manufacture -- but I don't do
SC, so you can take that for whatever it's worth.

>>>And IBM used to do everything in-house,  and it left them technologically
>>>adrift come the 80's.  They had drifted so far from the main-stream
>>>they had no products to sell to the other electronics firms.
>>
>>No, what left them 'adrift' was cutbacks in research.
>>

>I think all those people who won nobel prizes in the 80's from
>IBM Research  will dispute your thesis.

Have you talked to any of the research people at IBM lately?

>IBM has spent twice as much on research as any of their competitors.
>it was because they ahd to conduct reserarch in all areas.
>IBM failed because they lost touch with the market.

No, they failed because they thought they could *control* the market.
And they could, for a while.  I think Microsoft is going to learn that
same lesson over the next several years.

>>>The only way they could develope a PC, was to buy entirely from
>>>outside sources.
>>
>>No, that's the only way they *wanted* to develop a PC, since it wasn't
>>seen as a real big market at the time.  Your version strikes me as
>>slightly revisionist history.

>Depends on how you look at it.  ESD had i believe one year and 8
>million dollars to crank out a box.   that meant they couldn't
>have  a 2,000 person developement team writing software,  building hardware
>and debugging a production plant.

>IBM built other desktop machines at the same time as the PC.

>the IBM 3000  workstation,  the DATAMASTER (predecessor)  the
>Displaywriter.  but these all cost so much to build,  that they
>were un-competitive on the market.

>they wanted to make a market competitive product.  that meant
>a low cost out sourced developement effort.  just like the fiero.

No, they just didn't want to spend very much money on it.  They didn't
think the market was that big, just like T.J. Watson didn't think the
computer market was that big (I think he said there was a market for
TWO).

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 15:20:39 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:

>However, to give Fred a little flame :-), $400 million in resulting performance
>improvements between the Al-Li tank and ASRM isn't a bad envestment no matter
>what orbit we end up in.

Perhaps, but let's justify it on the basis of need, not create a
mission as justification.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 15:24:35 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble solar arrays: how'd they foul up?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]> writes:

>In article <22kejf$[e-mail]> Pat, [e-mail] writes:

>>What i was wondering is how could this kind of design flaw
>>sneak past any sort of reasonable test procedure?

>Good grief, man. How can you ask such a question, even
>rhetorically, when the most conspicuous related example
>of our time is the mirror on the same spacecraft?

>The answer to your question is, no doubt, the same.
>There was not a reasonable test procedure in place, or
>if there was, some committee decided not to believe its
>negative results, which amounts to the same thing.

Oh come now!  The two pieces weren't even done in the same *country*.
Do YOU have a clever way to simulate sufficiently long periods of
zero-g so as to test for such a resonance mode?  I can't think of any
good ones.  All in-gravity tests are going to require some damping of
motion, either because of the effects of gravity itself on the parts
or because the test article has to be suspended *somehow*.

Ever build anything real?  If so, you would know the impracticality
(and impossibility) of 100% testing of *any* complex system.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 15:15:12 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Anyone have sites for getting the info on old tech, low tech that was passed
>over for the current high tech stuff..
>
>Reason for uestion: Maybe a way to get commericialization and private use of
>space is to take a few steps back from the current high tech ways, and use low
>tech ways to get companies started and people into space.. As has been
>expressed by the Challenger accident, and the shuttle delays is that high tech,
>high complexity launch systems are not reliable enough yet for day to day,
>scheduled launches.. When so far most shuttles have had to reschedule for up
>to weeks after scheduled launch..

Actually, Shuttle is *old* tech, 1970s vintage. The SRBs can be traced,
with little change, back to Chinese fireworks over 3,000 years old. Like
much old tech, such as vacuum tube computers, it takes constant maintenance
to maintain readiness. Newer technology is, in general, more reliable than
old as we've learned better ways of doing things. The microprocessor in
your computer is expected to last for 20 years without constant swarms of
technicians pushing tube testers down it's rows of racks. That despite
it's higher performance and higher tech.

Big dumb vehicles like Saturn were horrifingly expensive, $500 million
per launch and you threw away the vehicle after one use. Shuttle was
an early first cut at using newer designs to reduce costs by salvaging
the expensive bits thrown away in expendibles. At present flight rates,
it still costs $500 million a flight, though flights can accomplish
more due to the large crew volume and cargo bay available. Still, it's
Rube Goldberg complexity is a function of older technology piled in
layers to accomplish the task. To keep all those baroque bits working
takes swarms of technicians.

In the 20 years since Shuttle's design was frozen, we've developed
new materials and new methods that can simplify a launcher by replacing
many baroque bits with a few new improved bits with better performance
and better reliability. For example, one of the main concerns about
the SSME is the reliability of the turbopumps. We now know how to make
much better turbopumps than we did in 1970, thanks in part to the
experience we gained with Shuttle. We know how to make one piece SRBs,
or even liquid fueled alteratives with fly back capability as was orignially
intended. We know how to make ligher stronger ETs. ETC.

Another area is thermal protection. Shuttle uses thousands of small
tiles glued to the craft. We've now developed large flexible blankets
with as good a protection without the high labor cost of installing
and inspecting the crazy jigsaw puzzle of tiny tiles. Even better,
we have spray on coatings that can do the same job. Shuttle is fragile
because it was ahead of it's time. It demanded things that were hard
with 1970s tech. AND IT WAS FROZEN IN PLACE.  Many of those things are
now easier.

Rather than retreat to even older lower tech solutions, we should
press forward to develop even better new high tech that simplifies
designs and increases reliability. If DC succeeds, it will be an
example of higher tech, not lower tech than Shuttle. It still uses
many bits though, a single engine has fewer failure opportunities
than multiple engines. Redundancy can sometimes add safety, but at
the cost of increased complexity and loss of performance.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 93 13:09:30 EDT
From: Jerry Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Making Orbit proceedings

Hi all.  Has anyone received the proceedings from the Making Orbit
Conference?  I didn't attend, but ordered them from someone on the net
who offered to send extra copies for a nominal fee.  Alas, I haven't
heard anything since.  I have lost the ordering information so can't
contact them directly.  Anyone know what's up?

Thanks.

Jerry

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

Date: 28 Jul 1993 15:45 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Calendar - 07/28/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary,sci.space.shuttle

     The Space Calendar is updated monthly and the latest copy is available
at ames.arc.nasa.gov in the /pub/SPACE/FAQ.  Please send any updates or
corrections to Ron Baalke ([e-mail]).  Note that launch
dates are subject to change.

     The following people have made contributions to this month's calendar:

     o David Ward    - ETS-VI launch is now February 1994.
                       TOMS launch is now May 1994.
     o Nick Moriarty - IRS-1E India launch is August 1993
     o Mike Kenny    - OREX launch is January 1994
                       Feng Yun 2A launch is February 23, 1994
     o Paul Schlyter - The maximum for the August 12 Perseid meteor shower
                       is expected to be more interesting at 1h UT.

                          =========================
                               SPACE CALENDAR
                               July 28, 1993
                          =========================

* indicates change from last month's calendar

July 1993
  Jul 28 - S. Delta Aquarid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 19:00 UT,
           Solar Longitude 125.7 degrees)
  Jul 29 - NASA's 35th Birthday
* Jul 29 - First Test Flight of the Delta Clipper (DC-X), Unmanned
* Jul 30 - Safir Zenit Launch (Germany)

August 1993
  Aug ?? - GEOS-J Launch
  Aug ?? - ORBCOM FDM Pegasus Launch
  Aug ?? - Commercial Experiment Transporter (COMET) Conestoga Launch
* Aug ?? - IRS-1E PSLV-D1 Launch (India)
* Aug 04 - STS-51, Discovery, Advanced Communications Technology Satellite
* Aug 05 - Magellan, End of Aerobraking
* Aug 07 - NOAA-I Atlas Launch
  Aug 08 - 15th Anniversary, Pioneer Venus 2 Launch (Atmospheric Probes)
  Aug 09 - Mars Observer, 4th Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-4)
* Aug 09 - Second Test Flight of the Delta Clipper (DC-X), Unmanned
* Aug 11 - Galileo, Optical Navigation Image #3
* Aug 11 - Landsat 6 Titan 2 Launch
  Aug 12 - N. Delta Aquarids Meteor Shower (Maximum: 07:00 UT,
           Solar Longitude 139.7 degrees)
* Aug 12 - Perseid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 1h UT,
           Solar Longitude 139.9 degrees)
  Aug 13 - Galileo, Trajectory Correction Maneuver #20 (TCM-20)
* Aug 17 - Galileo, Optical Navigation Image #4
* Aug 21 - Galileo, Optical Navigation Image #5
  Aug 24 - Mars Observer, Mars Orbit Insertion (MOI)
  Aug 26 - Galileo, Trajectory Correction Maneuver #21 (TCM-21)
  Aug 28 - Galileo, Asteroid Ida Flyby (9:52 AM PDT)

September 1993
  Sep ?? - SPOT-3 Ariane Launch
  Sep ?? - Tubsat Launch
  Sep ?? - MSTI-II Scout Launch
  Sep 02 - GPS Launch
* Sep 10 - STS-58, Columbia, Spacelab Life Sciences (SLS-2)
  Sep 14 - Advanced Photovoltaic Electronics Experiment (APEX) Pegasus Launch
  Sep 26 - Galileo, End of Ida Data Playback, Part 1

October 1993
  Oct ?? - Intelsat 7 F1 Ariane Launch
  Oct ?? - SLV-1 Pegasus Launch
  Oct ?? - Telstar 4 Atlas Launch
  Oct 01 - Seastar Pegasus Launch
  Oct 05 - Galileo, Trajectory Correction Maneuver #22 (TCM-22)
  Oct 12 - Soyuz TM-20 Launch (Soviet)
  Oct 22 - Orionid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 00:00 UT, Solar Longitude
           208.4 degrees)
  Oct 28 - GPS Launch

November 1993
  Nov ?? - Solidaridad/MOP-3 Ariane Launch
  Nov ?? - Soyuz TM-17 Landing (Soviet)
  Nov 03 - 20th Anniversary, Mariner 10 Launch (Mercury & Venus Flyby Mission)
  Nov 03 - S. Taurid Meteor Shower
  Nov 04 - Galileo Exits Asteroid Belt
  Nov 06 - Mercury Transits Across the Sun, Visible from Asia, Australia, and
           the South Pacific
  Nov 08 - Mars Observer, Mapping Orbit Established
  Nov 10 - STS-60, Discovery, SPACEHAB-2
  Nov 13 - Partial Solar Eclipse, Visible from Southern Hemisphere
  Nov 15 - Wilhelm Herschel's 255th Birthday
  Nov 17 - Leonids Meteor Shower (Maximum: 13:00 UT, Solar Longitude
           235.6 degrees)
  Nov 22 - Mars Observer, Mapping Begins
  Nov 28-29 - Total Lunar Eclipse, Visible from North America & South America

December 1993
  Dec ?? - GOES-I Atlas Launch
  Dec ?? - NATO 4B Delta Launch
  Dec ?? - DirectTv 1 & Thiacom 1 Ariane Launch
  Dec ?? - ISTP Wind Delta-2 Launch
  Dec ?? - STEP-2 Pegasus Launch
  Dec ?? - Soyuz TM-18 Launch (Soviet)
  Dec 02 - STS-61, Endeavour, Hubble Space Telescope Repair
  Dec 04 - SPEKTR-R Launch (Soviet)

  Dec 04 - 15th Anniversary, Pioneer Venus Orbit Insertion
  Dec 05 - 20th Anniversary, Pioneer 10 Jupiter Flyby
  Dec 08 - Mars Observer, Mars Equinox
  Dec 14 - Geminids Meteor Shower (Maximum: 00:00 UT,
           Solar Longitude 262.0 degrees)
  Dec 20 - Mars Observer, Solar Conjunction Begins
  Dec 23 - Ursids Meteor Shower (Maximum: 01:00 UT,
           Solar Longitude 270.9 degrees)

January 1994
* Jan ?? - DSPSE (Clementine) Titan IIG Launch (Lunar Orbiter,
           Asteroid Flyby Mission)
* Jan ?? - Orbital Re-Entry Experiment (OREX) H-2 Launch (Japan)
* Jan ?? - Eutelsat II/Turksat 1 Ariane Launch
  Jan 03 - Mars Observer, End of Solar Conjunction

February 1994
  Feb ?? - SFU Launch
* Feb ?? - ETS-VI (Engineering Test Satellite) H2 Launch (Japan)
* Feb ?? - Intelsat 7 F2 Ariane Launch
  Feb 05 - 20th Anniversary, Mariner 10 Venus Flyby
  Feb 08 - STS-62, Columbia, U.S. Microgravity Payload (USMP-2)
  Feb 15 - Galileo's 430th Birthday
  Feb 15 - Galileo, Trajectory Correction Maneuver #22A (TCM-22A)
  Feb 21 - DSPSE (Clementine), Lunar Orbit Insertion
* Feb 23 - Feng Yung 2A Launch (China)
  Feb 25 - 25th Anniversary, Mariner 6 Launch (Mars Flyby Mission)

March 1994
  Mar ?? - TC-2C Launch
* Mar ?? - Solidaridad II Ariane Launch
  Mar 02 - GPS Launch
  Mar 05 - 15th Anniversary, Voyager 1 Jupiter flyby
  Mar 08 - Galileo, Ida Data Playback, Part 2 (3 months)
  Mar 14 - Albert Einstein's 115th Birthday
* Mar 25 - DSPSE (Clementine) Lunar Mapping Orbit Change
  Mar 27 - 25th Anniversary, Mariner 7 Launch (Mars Flyby Mission)
  Mar 29 - 20th Anniversary, Mariner 10, 1st Mercury Flyby
  Mar 31 - Galaxy 1R Delta 2 Launch
  Mar 31 - STS-59, Endeavour, SRL-1

April 1994
  Apr ?? - Equator S Scout Launch
  Apr ?? - GOES-I Launch
* Apr ?? - Telstar 4 Ariane Launch
  Apr 04 - Mars Observer, Perihelion
* Apr 29 - DSPSE (Clementine) Lunar Orbit Change

May 1994
  May ?? - ISTP Polar Delta-2 Launch
  May ?? - Soyuz TM-19 Launch (Soviet)
  May ?? - Helios 1 Launch
  May ?? - ISO Launch
* May ?? - TOMS Pegasus Launch
* May ?? - Panamsat 2 Ariane Launch
* May 03 - DSPSE (Clementine) Lunar Orbit Departure
  May 04 - 5th Anniversary, Magellan Launch (Venus Orbiter)
  May 04 - Mars Observer, Mars Southern Summer
  May 05 - STS-63, Discovery, SPACEHAB-3
  May 10 - Annular Eclipse, Visible from Mexico & USA
* May 24-25 - Partial Lunar Eclipse
  May 29 - Ulysses, Begin of 1st Solar Passage

June 1994
  Jun ?? - Soyuz TM-18 Landing (Soviet)
  Jun ?? - RADARSAT Delta-2 Launch (Canada)
* Jun ?? - Brasilsat B1/Turksat 2 Ariane Launch
  Jun 23 - STS-65, Columbia, International Microgravity Lab #2 (IML-2)

July 1994
* Jul ?? - NOAA-K Launch
* Jul ?? - DirecTV Ariane Launch
* Jul 09 - 15th Anniversary, Voyager 2 Jupiter Flyby
* Jul 20 - 25th Anniversary, Man on the Moon (Apollo 11)
* Jul 23-27 - Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e Collision with Jupiter
* Jul 28 - 30th Anniversary, Ranger 7 Launch
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Common sense is not very
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | common.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 937
------------------------------