Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V10_4/V10_435.ZIP/V10_435

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

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/UZhK5e600VcJM6hU5Y>;
          Thu, 18 Jan 90 01:25:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <EZhK5=[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 01:25:18 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #435

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 435

Today's Topics:
          NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle
            Re: booster pollution
          Re: SSX: Space Ship Experimental (summary)
            Re: retrieving Galileo
              Voyager Update - 01/16/90
            Re: Big Bang:  Did it happen?
                 NASA Funding
    Re: SSX: Space Ship Experimental (stolen propaganda?)
         Re: Frequently Asked Space Questions
            Re: NASP Recon. Drones
        Re: Any NASA COBE Personnel Out There?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Jan 90 21:16:03 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird![e-mail]  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, [phone], and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  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.

STS 32
1 20409U 90  2  A 90 16.14622610  .00106925  00000-0  54737-3 0   245
2 20409  28.5014  92.5012 0001779 156.9438 203.1626 15.79767348  1059
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
[e-mail]          Air Force Institute of Technology

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

Date: 17 Jan 90 08:21:42 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Kim Flowers)
Subject: Re: booster pollution

Hey, what about all those HOH molecules them hydrogen-oxygen boosters
are spreading all over the place!  Could be a real problem... :)

mAd_QuArK!

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

Date: 16 Jan 90 22:41:57 GMT
From: thorin!grover![e-mail]  (David Becker)
Subject: Re: SSX: Space Ship Experimental (summary)

In article <[e-mail].> [e-mail] writes:
"The following was extracted from the Byte Information Exchange in the
"space/long.messages #750, from hvanderbilt, 13708 chars, Fri Jan 12 02:24:37 1990
"                      Space Ship Experimental
"

An area where this concept might need some serious new techonology would
be rockets designed to operate for hours instead of minutes.
Expendables run for minutes and chuck the engine.  The shuttle .. well
excessive maintainance is what this SSX is supposed avoid.  When have
have rocket engines been designed to operate with low maintainence for
lots-o-launches?  Otherwise this sounds like a sound idea for some
goverment agency to throw big bucks at.

David Becker  [e-mail]

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

Date: 17 Jan 90 16:43:12 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!watyew![e-mail]  (Brian or James)
Subject: Re: retrieving Galileo


 The designers of Galileo had a strong motive to use RTG designs that don't
leak large amounts of hard radiation: Galileo's electronic systems. It
wouldn't make sense to use a power source that toasted the system it was
powering, and electronics can be pretty unforgiving of doses of short
wavelength EMR and charged particles. (I had a co-op Electrical Engineering
student comment to me about the poor performance of circuit boards exposed
to 5000 Rads, although he -wouldn't- what working environment his test boards
were intended to be used in.)
                            James Nicoll

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

Date: 16 Jan 90 18:20:33 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Voyager Update - 01/16/90


                      Voyager Mission Status Report
                           January 16, 1990

                             Voyager 1

The  spacecraft collected routine cruise science data  throughout
this period.   A TLC test was performed on 1/1 and the X-band TWT
was  switched  to the high-power mode on 1/2.    A high-rate  UVS
observation  of omicron Andromedae on 1/3 and playback of  Uranus
photometric images on 1/4-5 were lost due to the continuing  non-
availability of DSS 63 (failed elevation bearing).

On 1/2, the Bay 1 Heater was turned off and the X-Band TWT
commanded to the high power mode in preparation for Playback #6.

Activities for this period included the collection on low-rate UVS
data from the source omicron Andromedae, and low-rate F&P&W data
throughout the week.

A PRA POR occurred on 1/4.  The FDS algorithm successfully
restored the PRA to its nominal configuration.  This is the 35th
POR to occur since launch.  The most recent previous occurrence
was on 8/7/89.

A   total  of 62:45 of tracking time (exclusive of overlaps)  was
obtained.   Of this,  none was large-aperture coverage.  While no
significant real-time telemetry outages were  experienced,  minor
losses  amounted  to 1:11 - 1.9% of the total  scheduled  support
time.

                             Voyager 2

Routine  cruise  science  data  were  collected  throughout  this
period,  although  substantial  amounts  were  lost  or  severely
degraded  due  to  the  spacecraft's  passage  through   superior
conjunction.   The  minimum Sun-Earth-Probe angle (0.75  degrees)
was attained on 1/2.

The collection of low-rate F&P&W data continued throughout this
reporting period and two frames of PWS were recorded, one each on
12/21 and 12/27, for later playback.  In addition, the scan-
platform was slewed to the target plate on 12/15 and the UVS read-
out mode was inhibited through 12/21.  On 12/21 the read-out mode
was enabled for a successful readout.  Shortly thereafter, the
read-out was inhibited again through 12/27 at which time the read-
out was enabled for a second successful read-out.

The Scan Platform was pointed to a UVS dark sky position.  Data
were of poor quality from 1/1 through 1/3.  This was not
unexpected, due to the low SEP angle of less than 2 degrees. There
was a PRA POR on 1/4.

A  total  of 75:45 of tracking time (exclusive of  overlaps)  was
obtained.  Of this, 4:20 was large-aperture coverage.


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

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

Date: 16 Jan 90 17:10:34 GMT
From: ames.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Big Bang:  Did it happen?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Scott) writes:
<In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James P. Galasyn) writes:
<>
<> I just heard from a fairly reliable source that CalTech has demonstrated
<> the Big Bang never happened.
<
<Actually it has just been postponed until a more suitable date.
<
<Peter Scott ([e-mail])

The delays are due in part to Congress refusing to pass the BBBA, the Big Bang
Budget Act. Thank Gramm-Rudmann for that.

And even then the preparation of the environmental impact report will
no doubt delay the thing for centuries. . .

We may have to settle for a Little Bang, but after all a little bang
is better then no bang.

                                                      *** mike smithwick ***

"Never trust a surgeon with shaving cuts. . ."
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

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

X400-Trace: US*ATTMAIL*WIDE; arrival Tue, 16 Jan 90 18:43:21 -0500 action
          Relayed
Date:     Tue, 16 Jan 90 18:43:21 -0500
P1-Message-Id: US*ATTMAIL*WIDE; 5A0110121F340076-MTABWIDENER
Ua-Content-Id: 5A0110121F340076
From: [e-mail]
Subject:  NASA Funding

  Please excuse me if this topic has been discussed previously, or it falls
into the catagory of "too stupid to consider".

  Given the large amounts of media coverage generated by events such as a
Shuttle mission and the Neptune encounter, why doesn't NASA use these
opportunities to raise extra funds for its work.  If NASA were to enter the
world of advertising, if only in a small way, surely it would be able to
bring in several millions of dollars.  For example, if the ET were to act as
huge billboard, I am sure that a company such as Coca Cola would pay massive
amounts to have it painted like a giant Coke can.
  Although there would probably be some legal issues to be cleared up, I can
not think of any practical reasons why this could not happen.  After, for the
companies that might want to advertise, the Shuttle has to be a better bet
than Mike Tyson or Madonna.

Andy Greenshields [[e-mail]]

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

Date: 16 Jan 90 22:55:53 GMT
From: milton!maven![e-mail]
Subject: Re: SSX: Space Ship Experimental (stolen propaganda?)

In article <[e-mail].>, [e-mail] writes:
>>Organization: Ciba Geigy ZIT (Central Engineering) Basel, Switzerland
>
> The following was extracted from the Byte Information Exchange in the
> 'space' topic.  The author is one of the reigning space technology
> gurus in that conference.  I thought it might be of interest to readers
> of this list, so I'm passing it along...
>
> Apparently this vehicle (SSX) has been approved for concept validation
> studies by SDIO (the "Star Wars" people), as a cheaper possiblity for
> access to space.  (God knows we need one!).
> US Vice President Dan Quayle, who seems to be the administration's point
> man for space, has made some supportive comments about the need for lower
> cost access to space, etc., so far without referring to this project by
> name, anyway.
>
> ------------------ start of included material --------------
> ==========
> space/long.messages #750, from hvanderbilt, 13708 chars, Fri Jan 12 02:24:37 1990
> ----------
>                       Space Ship Experimental
>
>                           The Case For SSX
........  Vast quantities deleted here.
>
> ------------ end of included material -----------
>

Is this for real?  I don't mean the concept, I mean the statement about
Star Wars Concept Validation.

This article is almost a direct steal from the Gary Hudson/Project Phoenix
literature.  the points, concept,presentation layout, and a lot of the
phraseology(sp?) are identical.

The government wants 1 billion to do this?  Gary Hudson says that he needs
only 25 million to get a prototype in flight. (Or is that 25 million more than
he has now?)  In any case if the government gets going on this, what will
he do, consult with them on the project?

What I would like to find out is : Who is the brilliant guy that stole his
literature, and is passing it off as a new SSX?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trendy footer by:
            John Stevens-Schlick
            Internet?: [e-mail]
            7720 35'th Ave S.W. Seattle, Wa. 98126
            (206) 935 - 4384
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My boss dosn't know what I do.

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

Date: 17 Jan 90 06:32:46 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Frequently Asked Space Questions

At the request of an old reader friend, I briefly checked in on the old group.
Sorry I don't have more time, but the SNR [signal to noise ratio is
still a bit low] and I am really busy.  I did notice an attempt
try and really serious answer questions and collect new references.

I encourage you guys to organize the group and not let real information
like that fall into /dev/null.  Use those sophisticated tools to
start creating network memory.  Amelia and I will help a little bit. 8)
Only you can solve the cyclic posting problem: raise the quality of the
net, etc.  Some of us are working in other news groups on this problem
where solutions are more tractable.  There is no reason why sci.space
(SPACE-DIGEST on the Internet mail side) can't be as good either.
Peter Yee's doing a good job, as well as quite a few netters.

The one thing I think you MUST realize is that for NASA's 20K civil servants,
there are about 100K contractors.  Because these companies compete against
one another, not everything can be made public, immediately.  When you
see a posting from a NASA site, there is no way to distinguish CS from
contractors (this is both good and bad).  Some of these companies do attempt
gain advantage over their competitors.  There ARE issues of privacy involved
here, and there is on going litagation on a wide variety of matters.
Do think about using more conventional sources of information request
like phone and snail mail.  Bye again for now.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, [e-mail]
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  Do you expect anything BUT generalizations on the net?

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

Date: 16 Jan 90 15:53:48 GMT
From: samsung!cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!csri.toronto.edu![e-mail]  (John Hogg)
Subject: Re: NASP Recon. Drones

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Rehrauer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Larry Smith) writes:
>>There is a secret $3 million Air Force study going on to study the
>>design for a unmanned hypersonic drone that can fly to any continent
>>in under an hour to perform recon. or strikes.
>...
>Why do we need this albatross?  What does it buy that present or improved
>satellite recon couldn't?

Three things: fast results, unpredictability, and potentially better
resolution.

The last point is the most obvious one: the same optics will give
better results at a low altitude (small numbers of kilometres) than at
orbital altitudes (small hundreds of kilometres).  The improvement is
nothing like linear, because most of the atmosphere is down low.
Furthermore, a drone is unlikely to carry the same instruments as a
satellite.  However, the principle holds.

The other two problems with satellites follow from their predictable
orbits.  It may take considerable time and/or fuel to move a ground
track over a point of interest.  Normally, an orbit is chosen that will
cover all points of interest eventually, which means that the locals
have ample warning of when to cover up anything they don't want seen.
These difficulties can be partly overcome by putting up a large number
of birds, but that's expensive, and is not the approach that the US has
taken; they go for a very small number of very high quality satellites.

A good question, however, is, ``What does this drone buy that Open
Skies doesn't?''  Canada has recently completed the first ``open
skies'' reconnaissance flight over Czechoslovakia and Hungary, and the
Hercules aircraft used was indisputably cheaper than any hypersonic
drone.  An overflight of this country by a Warsaw Pact nation will
follow later this year.  This was a ``proof-of-concept'' flight, but
while the details of a treaty must still be worked out, it seems
certain to be signed eventually.

US historical practice has been to freely violate sovereignty of
airspace, except for those countries able to shoot its aircraft down.
Forbidden territory has effectively been the Soviet Union, and thus
its Warsaw Pact allies, only.  (Cuban Missile Crisis objectors, send
email.)  By continuing this policy in tandem with Open Skies, the US
could in future inspect all countries on short notice, without
introducing any new systems.

I don't know how the SR-71 retirement fits into all this.  I suspect
that we're not being told something.
--
John Hogg            [e-mail]
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

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

Date: 17 Jan 90 16:01:16 GMT
From: frooz![e-mail]  (Steve Willner, OIR)
Subject: Re: Any NASA COBE Personnel Out There?

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Goebel) writes:
>>"Spectral Resolution" for FIRAS:
>>   0.2 cm^-1

From article <[e-mail]>, by
[e-mail] (Henry Spencer):
> Looks fine to me.  The spectroscopists have this curious habit of using
> waves per unit length ("wavenumber") rather than length per wave (normal,
> conventional "wavelength").

Right so far; wavenumber is useful because it is essentially a
frequency unit.  It just has the speed of light divided out.  The unit
even has an official name ("kayser"), which is seldom used.

> A wavenumber resolution of 0.2 cm^-1 is a wavelength resolution of 5cm.

This part was a bit too hasty.  Wavenumber resolution of 0.2 cm^-1 is a
frequency resolution of 6x10^9 Hz (in vacuum; very slightly different
in air).  The corresponding wavelength resolution depends on the
wavelength (or frequency) being observed.  The correct formula can be
found by setting dw/w = dW/W, which leads to dW = dw/w^2, where dW is
wavelength resolution, dw is wavenumber resolution, and w is
wavenumber and W is the wavelength.  (It's really easy to get confused,
though; I had to write the conversion formulas down even though I work
with these units all the time.)  I forget exactly what the wavelength
for FIRAS is, but I think it is about 1 mm or 10 cm^-1.  The spectral
resolution stated would then correspond to 0.02 mm.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Willner            Phone [phone]         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #435
*******************