Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V10_3/V10_301.ZIP/V10_301

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 12KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/cZSA0ES00VcJE4vE4i>;
          Sun,  3 Dec 89 01:41:21 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4ZS=[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun,  3 Dec 89 01:40:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #301

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 301

Today's Topics:
        Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars
            Shuttle ignition pyrotechnics
        Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars
        Re: Galileo Astronauts Honored at JPL
           NASA Prediction Bulletin Format
        Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Dec 89 02:14:52 GMT
From: bbn.com![e-mail]  (Nichael Cramer)
Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>Aren't unmanned probes far less expensive and more efficient?
>>Yes.
>
>Unmanned Mars mission -
>  Earth: "Viking, please point your receiving antenna at the ground."
>  Viking: "OK"
>    end of mission
>
>Manned Mars mission -
>  Earth: "Neil, please point your receiving antenna at the ground."
>  Cdr. Colstrong: "Please confirm, Houston."
>  Earth: "OOPS! Cancel that order."
>    mission continues

Unmanned Mars Mission With Non-Unix Based Control Code:

Viking: "Well, I've lost the carrier beam for over N seconds, guess I'd
         better start looking for it.  Ah, there it is."

  mission continues.

Or

Second Unmanned Mars Mission Which Was Funded With Part Of The $399.9 Billion
 That Was Saved By Not Being a Manned Mission In the First Place.

  mission continues.

Or

 [........ ]

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

Date: Sat, 25 Nov 89 10:12:04 PST
From: mordor!lll-tis!ames!ucsd!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail] (Brad Pennock)
To: crash![e-mail]
Subject: Shuttle ignition pyrotechnics

Someone wondered what all the "fireworks" were just prior to SSME ignition as
seen on closeup shots of Space Shuttle launches.  During pre-ignition,
hydrogen gas is accumulated near the rear of the Shuttle stack and once the
mains are lighted that gas has a tremendous explosive potential.  In order
that the rear of the orbiter is not blown off before SRB ignition, small
pyrotechnic sparkers are activated sending those fireworks into any residual
hydrogen gas to burn it off BEFORE SSME ignition.

Another person reported that the sparks were there to CAUSE SSME ignition,
bull pucky!  The main engines have their own ignition system!  Sigh...

      | _
   ---*(_) Brad A. Pennock
      |    SDSU Aerospace Engineering Undergrad & Future Astronaut
           Amiga computer junkie too! "Wanna fly Falcon? I dare ya!"

UUCP: {nosc ucsd hplabs!hp-sdd}!crash!pnet01!benji
ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]
HOME: 4660 Oregon St.#5, San Diego, CA 92116, Earth

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

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 89 15:37 GMT
From: [e-mail]


Hi!

Perhaps this is not the best place put write this, but i don t know where
put it.

I work as a librarian at ASTER, Agrupacio Astronomica de Barcelona
(an astronomy amateur group) founded in 1948 and i would like you to help
us to finish our colection of "Sky & Telescope" magazines.

We have the colection almost completed. These are the issues missing:

year        month(s)
1964        February,March,June,August
1965        April
1966        July,August,November
1968        May,October,December
1969        January

We will be very grateful if you can help us! We will pay them in US
currency. You can get in touch with us following the addresses written
below (e-mail or letters)

Thanks !
*********************************************************************
Jordi Iparraguirre
ASTER, Agrupacio Astronomica de Barcelona
Passeig de Gracia, 71 atic
08009 Barcelona (Spain)

e-mail ASTER:    [e-mail]
mine e-mail :    [e-mail]    (or [e-mail])

**********************************************************************

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

Date: 3 Dec 89 00:57:13 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>>Aren't unmanned probes far less expensive and more efficient?
>
>Yes.
>As evidence, first consider the amount of scientific knowledge gained on
>the Voyager trips vs the entire Apollo program.  Second compare their
>respective price tags.

Let's see.  We add the cost of developing Titan-Centaur to the Voyager
bill, or else deduct the cost of the Saturns from Apollo's.  Then add
multiple outer-planet sample return missions ($$$$$!!!) to the Voyager
budget, and the Ranger/Surveyor/LunarOrbiter missions ($) to the Apollo
budget, so we're comparing apples to apples instead of apples to oranges.
Don't forget to ask the lunar-science people how much they learned from
Apollo -- it is trendy to ignore Apollo's enormous science return, since
the Moon is no longer fashionable.  Then crank in some compensation for
the fact that Apollo had to meet a tight deadline for political reasons,
and would have been rather cheaper if done more gradually.

If you define the range of interesting activities for space missions as
those that unmanned probes do best -- remote sensing -- then of course
unmanned probes are better.
--
Mars can wait:  we've barely   |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
started exploring the Moon.    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 2 Dec 89 02:39:48 GMT
From: sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Galileo Astronauts Honored at JPL

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen R Fleming) writes:
>>Time was then set aside for the
>>JPL employees to chat with the astronauts and to get their autographs.
>... the thought of people at JPL, the *real* space-science heroes
>of the last couple of decades, clustering around a bunch of
>Right-Stuffers like teenage groupies...

As has been pointed out several times of late:  space is more than
just space science.  It's not their dedication to space science that
makes them cluster around astronauts enthusiastically.
--
Mars can wait:  we've barely   |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
started exploring the Moon.    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 2 Dec 89 21:27:07 GMT
From: ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird![e-mail]  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format


As a service to the satellite user community, the following description
of the NASA Prediction Bulletin's two-line orbital element set format is
uploaded to sci.space on a monthly basis.  The most current orbital elements
from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513)
427-0674, and are updated several times weekly.  Documentation and tracking
software are also available on this system.  The Celestial RCP/M may be
accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop
bit, no parity.

==============================================================================

Data for each satellite consists of three lines in the following format:

AAAAAAAAAAA
1 NNNNNU NNNNNAAA NNNNN.NNNNNNNN +.NNNNNNNN +NNNNN-N +NNNNN-N N NNNNN
2 NNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NNNNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NN.NNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Line 1 is a eleven-character name.

Lines 2 and 3 are the standard Two-Line Orbital Element Set Format identical
to that used by NASA and NORAD.  The format description is:

Line 2
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 10-11     International Designator (Last two digits of launch year)
 12-14     International Designator (Launch number of the year)
 15-17     International Designator (Piece of launch)
 19-20     Epoch Year (Last two digits of year)
 21-32     Epoch (Julian Day and fractional portion of the day)
 34-43     First Time Derivative of the Mean Motion
        or Ballistic Coefficient (Depending on ephemeris type)
 45-52     Second Time Derivative of Mean Motion (decimal point assumed;
           blank if N/A)
 54-61     BSTAR drag term if GP4 general perturbation theory was used.
           Otherwise, radiation pressure coefficient.  (Decimal point assumed)
 63-63     Ephemeris type
 65-68     Element number
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)
           (Letters, blanks, periods = 0; minus sign = 1; plus sign = 2)

Line 3
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 09-16     Inclination [Degrees]
 18-25     Right Ascension of the Ascending Node [Degrees]
 27-33     Eccentricity (decimal point assumed)
 35-42     Argument of Perigee [Degrees]
 44-51     Mean Anomaly [Degrees]
 53-63     Mean Motion [Revs per day]
 64-68     Revolution number at epoch [Revs]
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)

All other columns are blank or fixed.

Example:

NOAA 6
1 11416U          86 50.28438588 0.00000140           67960-4 0  5293
2 11416  98.5105  69.3305 0012788  63.2828 296.9658 14.24899292346978

Note that the International Designator fields are usually blank, as issued in
the NASA Prediction Bulletins.

--
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
[e-mail]          Air Force Institute of Technology

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

Date: 3 Dec 89 05:18:18 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>If you define the range of interesting activities for space missions as
>those that unmanned probes do best -- remote sensing -- then of course
>unmanned probes are better.

You don't have to "define" only remote sensing as "interesting" to come out
on the unmanned side, for heaven's sake.  You could, for instance, concede
that certain manned activities *would* be interesting, but judge this
incremental interest unjustificatory of the ruinous expense of
mounting a manned mission.

An unmanned sample return / rover mission seems like a very workable baseline
that gives scientists dizzying amounts of data without waiting out another
fifteen years of NASA plodding and contractor shell games.  No doubt the rover
needs to be smart given the long signal turnaround, but it's about time we
pushed AI a little harder instead of trying to figure out how to build
zero G dishwashers.  If we can't meet that technical challenge, we're
wussies and don't deserve to go to Mars.  Then the sample returner gives
our happy scientists tubsful of rocks; all in all, what else did we want
from a Mars mission?  To hit a few golf balls for the folks watching back
home on Japan-owned network TV?  To build a super far flung SDI outpost??
--
Annex Canada now!  We need the room,    \)      Tom Neff
    and who's going to stop us.         (\      [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #301
*******************