Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V10_4/V10_406.ZIP/V10_406

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

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/MZehVaa00VcJE3Wk5V>;
          Wed, 10 Jan 90 01:38:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 01:38:08 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #406

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 406

Today's Topics:
           Payload Status for 01/09/90 (Forwarded)
       Re: NASA Headline News for 01/09/90 (Forwarded)
     Electromagnetic Braking (was Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space)
       Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles
            Re: Photographer of the decade
              Galileo Update - 02/09/90
       Re: NASA Headline News for 01/09/90 (Forwarded)
       Re: NASA Headline News for 01/09/90 (Forwarded)
           Re: Soviet lunar module to be revealed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Jan 90 21:46:59 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 01/09/90 (Forwarded)

Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 01-09-90


- STS-31R HST (at VPF) -

MUE validation was worked yesterday and will continue today.
HST lifting and fit check to the scuff plates was performed
yesterday.

- STS-32R SYNCOM (at Pad A) -

Launch was delayed 24 hours to this morning with a launch
time of 0735 hours and it was a beautiful launch.

- STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at O&C) -

Cite testing continued yesterday with troubleshooting being
performed most of the day.  BBXRT activation was completed
and interface checks were performed.  SPDB removal is planned
for today.  Tomorrow will power up for additional cite
testing and on Thursday plan to perform the cite closed loop
test for igloo.

- STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) -

Weighing of racks 7 and 11 began yesterday and will continue
today.  Cable tie struts were worked on rack 4.  Module leak
check was performed.  Pyrell foam replacement continues.

- STS-42 IML (at O&C) -

No activity.

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

Date: 9 Jan 90 23:48:05 GMT
From: att!cbnewsh![e-mail]  (benjamin.reytblat)
Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 01/09/90 (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> NASA sez:
> >This is NASA Headline News for Tuesday, January 9.....
> >
> >The New York Times says the world's most powerful optical
> >telescope will become partially operational this spring.  ...
>
> Here's what I don't get about this regular "NASA News" release.  Why in
> hell do we need to pay NASA to tell us what the New York Times said that
> morning?

Because not all of us have the time to wade through NYT every morning
just to find the one or two small stories per week that have anything to do
with space. Thanks, Peter.

Ben Reytblat
[e-mail]

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

Date: 9 Jan 90 20:24:12 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Terry Hancock)
Subject: Electromagnetic Braking (was Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>
>In all this talk of nuclear vs. solar arrays for outer planetary
>missions, another possibility hasn't been mentioned.  A spacecraft in
>orbit around Jupiter is moving rapidly through a strong magnetic
>field.  It should be possible to generate power with an electrodynamic
>tether, especially when very near the planet.
>Now, this will slow the spacecraft,
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>but the available kinetic energy is very large (Jupiter
>has a very deep gravity well), and the orbit could be pumped up again
>by slingshoting off Jupiter's moons.

>It would let
>you, for example, place a spacecraft into low circular orbit
>(not possible with ordinary chemical rockets without aerobraking),
>and would give that LJO spacecraft a lot of power to play with
>(maybe for radar observations of Jupiter's atmosphere?).
>
>    Paul F. Dietz
>    [e-mail]

    Suppose you were interested mainly in the braking effect, how
efficiently could you get it to brake?  Also, how does the braking effect
scale against the relative velocity between spacecraft and magnetic field?
What about with the strength of the field?   How would a high-velocity
plasma effect it?  How would you design a system to brake against plasma?

    In particular, how would it work for a vehicle moving at perhaps
0.01 - 0.1 c into the interplanetary medium.  How about into the magnetic
fields associated with stars?

    My point is that if an efficient enough system could be designed,
this would permit a Daedelus-Class starship to stop itself upon entering
another star system -- a possibility not considered by the original proposers
of the idea.

    Clearly the efficiency required is great, such a vehicle would need
to be braked at several hundred gees in order to successfully enter stellar
orbit in a sufficiently short distance to remain inside the interplanetary
medium, and thousands if it must depend on the magnetic field.
    However, if indeed the energy can be captured rather than dissapated,
can't such a system increase its efficiency even further by creating a stronger
field or some such?  (obviously, I'm a tad vague on the mechanism to use,
this doesn't necessarily have to be an electrodynamic tether, of course).

    Just how far is this beyond current technology?

*******************************
Terry Hancock
[e-mail]
*******************************

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

Date: 9 Jan 90 16:53:48 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Borsom) writes:
>I thought that one of the objections to several of the SDI proposals
>was that they would require orbiting nuclear reactors to power them
>and such stuff was prohibited by the ABM treaty (which, of course, the
>US never ratified, but which we pretty much observe)...

I think you've confused several treaties, actually.  The US did ratify the
ABM treaty.  However, said treaty says nothing about reactors in space.
There have been proposals for a ban on reactors in Earth orbit, but none
has yet reached the stage of serious negotiations.  The Soviets have an
operational series of reactor-powered radarsats (which, interestingly
enough, they say they'd be willing to sacrifice for a no-reactors treaty).

The ABM treaty presents severe problems for SDI in much more direct ways:
with slight exceptions, it flatly bans antimissile systems and development
of same.
--
1972: Saturn V #15 flight-ready|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1990: birds nesting in engines | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 9 Jan 90 22:14:50 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!cluster!metro!otc![e-mail]  (Wayne Robinson)
Subject: Re: Photographer of the decade

in article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Hix) says:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Terrell Drinkard) writes:
>>
>>  [e-mail] (Edwin R. Carp) writes:
>>  [e-mail] (David Anthony Kramer) writes:
>> >>The editors of the magazine 'American Photo' nominated Voyager 2 as
>> >>the photographer of the decade, although they leave the final award
>> >Voyager, my eye!  Ansel Adams gets MY vote.
>>
>> Not to be overly picky, but Adams' most famous pictures were taken
>> during his 1916 trip to Yosemite, not during the 1980s;

So make him photographer of the century!!! ;-)





---
Do not fold, spindle            |    Wayne Robinson
or mutate.                 |    Development Unit
                    |    OTC Limited.
                    |    [e-mail]

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

Date: 9 Jan 90 18:11:43 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 02/09/90



                          Galileo Mission Status
                             January 9, 1990

     Galileo is now 14,308,100 miles from the Earth, 14,731,150 miles from
Venus and is travelling at a Heliocentric velocity of 71,6390 miles per hour.
Round trip light time is 2 minute, 32 seconds. The spacecraft's spin rate is
3.15 rpm and the attitude sun point angle is 2.05 degrees.

     Four SITURNS to the Sun were successfully performed without incident on
December 26, 29 and January 2 and 5.

     A command was sent on December 22 to turn off the EPD detector bias
voltage.  This action was taken to preclude damage or degradation to the
sensitive detectors/electronics as a result of the AC bus voltage imbalance
condition.   An indefinite removal of bias voltage will not cause
damage/degradation to the detectors, however, a voltage bias-on condition is
preferred.

     The science checkout portion of the EV-4 sequence was successfully
performed from December 27 through December 30.  Prior to the instrument
checkout activities, science covers were released/deployed for the DDS, EUV,
UVS, and the PPR.  All spacecraft pyro event indications associated with cover
actuators were as planned and without incident.  It is pointed out that the PLS
and EPD covers were deployed/opened several weeks earlier; the SSI cover, which
is transparent, is not planned for release until after Earth 2 flyby.
Subsequent to the cover events, a fairly extensive science instrument checkout
was performed.  In general, the scientists were pleased with the nature and the
extent of the checkout activities and the operation of the instruments.
Detailed data analysis is in process.

     The NIMS optics and radiator covers were released on January 3 as planned.
Prior to cover deployment, the scan platform was moved from the 153 degree
cone position to the 30 degree cone position and the spacecraft was
transitioned from dual-spin to all-spin to ensure no possibility of cover
deployment contact with any part of the spacecraft.  Shortly after cover
deployment, the scan platform was repositioned to 153 degree cone location.
Spacecraft pyro event indications were as expected with no anomalies observed.
Subsequent to the pyro events, NIMS temperatures began dropping thus providing
some additional evidence of cover deployment. However, the rate of temperature
decrease was substantially slower than expected. Concern was raised that
possibly the radiator cover did not fully deploy and may be "hung-up" and
subsequently come free and perhaps hit some part of the spacecraft.

     An intensive analysis performed by the flight team and design personnel
concluded that it is extremely unlikely that the NIMS cover if not deployed
could hit the spacecraft or damage would occur if it did.  The flight
team is now investigating possible actions to confirm cover deploy and if not
deployed alternate actions to assure full deployment.  Navigation data is also
being analyzed to help determine the state of NIMS cover deployment.

     Continued with telecommunication subsystem tests performed on January 4;
all tests were completed without incident.

     A Delayed Action Command (DAC) was sent on January 4 to close the PPR
cover prior to the scheduled sun acquisition on January 5.  The PPR cover was
left open as a result of the thruster fire all clear alert code associated
with an earlier performed HGA correction. The cover close command was needed
to protect the PPR from possible thruster plume contamination associated
with the sun acquisition.

     The DC and AC bus voltage imbalance measurements continued to fluctuate.
All other power-related measurements continue to reflect as expected operation.
A Tiger Team is investigating the AC/DC bus voltage imbalance. To date, no
credible single design or component failure has been identified which could
produce the observed anomalous measurements. Furthermore, the team concluded
based on flight data and/or circuit analysis, that it is highly unlikely that
the RTG, the CDS interface measurement electronics, the CDS, or the PPS
imbalance sensor are the cause of the imbalance. Several other potential
causes are still being investigated including coupling between the AC and
DC power busses internal to the power subsystem and possible Spin Bearing
Assembly (SBA) contamination.

     A total of 1114 realtime commands have been sent since to the spacecraft
since launch; 192 were transmitted; of the 192, 51 were preplanned as a
part of the sequence design; 141 were not.  Many of the unplanned commands
were associated with the issuance of noninteractive instrument commands during
the science checkout.  This two week period was the most active
period of realtime commanding since launch.

 Ron Baalke                       |    [e-mail]
 Jet Propulsion Lab  M/S 301-355  |    [e-mail]
 4800 Oak Grove Dr.               |
 Pasadena, CA 91109               |

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

Date: 9 Jan 90 20:13:22 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 01/09/90 (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> NASA sez:
>This is NASA Headline News for Tuesday, January 9.....
>
>The New York Times says the world's most powerful optical
>telescope will become partially operational this spring.  ...

Here's what I don't get about this regular "NASA News" release.  Why in
hell do we need to pay NASA to tell us what the New York Times said that
morning?  A lot of this reads like someone just sits at a desk each
morning, zips through a dozen newspapers and magazines for interesting
headlines, slaps NASA's name on top and hands it out.

Will someone please find this agency a mission!

[No disrespect to Peter Yee who just passes this on...]
--
"We plan absentee ownership.  I'll stick to       `o'   Tom Neff
 building ships." -- George Steinbrenner, 1973    o"o   [e-mail]

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

Date: 9 Jan 90 20:55:36 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 01/09/90 (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:
>>This is NASA Headline News for Tuesday, January 9.....
>>
>>The New York Times says the world's most powerful optical
>>telescope will become partially operational this spring.  ...
>
>Here's what I don't get about this regular "NASA News" release.  Why in
>hell do we need to pay NASA to tell us what the New York Times said that
>morning?  A lot of this reads like someone just sits at a desk each
>morning, zips through a dozen newspapers and magazines for interesting
>headlines, slaps NASA's name on top and hands it out.

NASA Headline News is an amalgam of internal and external space related
news.  It is not really published for external use, but is really intended
to supply a concise cull of current news to NASA readers.  You may have
noticed which NASA organization (LPC) puts the news together.  I post the
whole thing since some of the contents may be of interest to non-NASA readers.
I'm under the impression that the NASA Headline News is used as an internal
agency radio broadcast script -- what you see if the printed copy.

                            -Peter Yee
                            [e-mail]
                            ames!yee

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

Date: 9 Jan 90 15:19:11 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma![e-mail]  (Nick Watkins)
Subject: Re: Soviet lunar module to be revealed?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (CUP/ASG,
MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283 18-Dec-1989 1201) writes:
>        I was told by a friend who was watching CNN this weekend that the
>    Soviets are going to display in the Moscow Space Museum an actual
>    manned lunar module (or parts at least) from their manned lunar
>    program of the 1960s and early 1970s.  He said the Soviets revealed
>    their biggest problem in the program was getting a powerful enough
>    booster, as the one they had exploded three times.  I presume they
They have revealed it was actually four.
>    Does anyone have more information on this?  Thanks.
Check out Aviation Week for January 8, 1990. Mission was 2 man. Lunar
module (small compared to Apollo LM) would be launched by N-1, plus
upper stage for TLI. Modified Soyuz (including orbital module) would then be
launched by Proton, rendezvous with LM and stage, and be sent to moon.
Rest of mission is as per Apollo except only one crewman descends.
 AW&ST has one picture, of LM descent stage only, but says upper stage is
a modified Soyuz orbital module also. Has anybody else seen any other pictures?
Report is based on a visit by Caltech/MIT engineering professors to the
Moscow Aviation institute where the hardware was.
 I know this is redundant to those who see AW&ST but hope it is of
interest to others. Closest mission profile to the real one that I
recall seeing was in an article by Dave Woods years ago, but I think he
had an A-2 involved somewhere as the Proton was never man rated.
 There are further details of the (never) manned Zond missions in the January
edition of Spaceflight. The Cosmonauts interviewed say that there never
was much chance of the landing mission actually occurring, hardware
notwithstanding. The lunar flyby seems to have been a different story.

Nick
--
Nick Watkins, Space & Plasma Physics Group, School of Mathematical
& Physical Sciences, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton, E.Sussex, BN1 9QH, ENGLAND
JANET: [e-mail]   BITNET: [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #406
*******************