Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V11_1/V11_126.ZIP/V11_126

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 16KB

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/UZxonKe00VcJM1O04z>;
          Fri,  9 Mar 90 01:27:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri,  9 Mar 90 01:27:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #126

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 126

Today's Topics:
     Americanisms (was: Ulysses Update - 03/06/90 {sic})
      Re: Ejection seats (was Re: Challenger's Last...)
      Re: Fun Space Fact #1: Launcher Development Costs
          HST Wasps (was Re: hubble telescope power)
           Payload Status for 03/06/90 (Forwarded)
             Re: SR-71:  LA to DC
                 NASA SR-71's
      Re: Ejection seats (was Re: Challenger's Last...)
           Payload Summary for 03/06/90 (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 90 17:37:05 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!cam-cl![e-mail]  (C.E. Thompson)
Subject: Americanisms (was: Ulysses Update - 03/06/90 {sic})

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>
> ...
>
>             10/05/90 - Launch from Space Shuttle
>             12/30/90 - First Opposition
>             08/24/91 - First Conjunction
>             02/01/92 - Second Opposition
>             03/11/92 - Jupiter Closest Approach
>             09/07/92 - Second Conjuction
> ...

It can be quite confusing for us to read dates in your weird local format :-)
I am not suggesting you should use *our* weird local format, though. How
about using ISO format dates? (e.g. 1990-03-06, though the ISO standard
does allow some other seperators than '-' to be used, I think)

I suppose this comes in the same category as the complaints about miles and
feet. Sorry to pick on this particular and interesting posting.

Chris Thompson
JANET:    [e-mail]
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Mar 90 17:48:26 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!yunexus!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Ejection seats (was Re: Challenger's Last...)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jon C. R. Bennett) writes:
>> ... Is it
>> correct that such a system was once installed in a U.S. bomber but
>> failed completely in the first *real* accident? ...
>
>I belive that the incedent in question refered to the second XB-70...
>...The crew of the XB-70 had an ejection capsule (a cross between a
>seat and a pod) which was designed to protect the crew in the event of a
>ejection at high mach numbers. It was belived that the high g's
>encountered durring the dive prevented the capsule from deploying...

Not quite correct.  The XB-70 had encapsulated ejection seats -- sort
of individual escape capsules -- to give ejecting crew more protection
at Mach 3.  When the second XB-70 went out of control after a collision,
one of the two pilots ejected successfully.  The other didn't, and as I
recall his seat was found, unfired, in the wreckage; why he didn't eject
is not known.

There has been at least one incident of an F-111 going violently out of
control and the high acceleration or spin rate preventing successful
use of its escape capsule; perhaps that's what you were thinking of.
--
MSDOS, abbrev:  Maybe SomeDay |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
an Operating System.          | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 8 Mar 90 03:29:54 GMT
From: mailrus!b-tech!kitenet![e-mail]  (Russ Cage)
Subject: Re: Fun Space Fact #1: Launcher Development Costs

In a long-forgotten article, someone wrote:
> But I don't think the 747's safety margins are much smaller than
> those of a Cessna; if anything, it has to meet rather tougher
> standards.

So far as acceleration stresses go, the C-152 is designed and
built to far more stringent standards than is a 747.  The Aerobat
variant of the C-152 is rated at +6/-3 G's; the C-152 is certified
in both the utility and normal categories, and is rated for +4.6/
-2.3 G's.  I believe transport category ratings are like +3.3 G's,
quite a bit less stringent.

Of course, a transport is far less likely to run into a wind-shear
which can impose a 3.3-G jolt, unlike the lightly loaded wing of a
C-152.  The limits for both are quite adequate for normal purposes.
--
  I am paid to write all of RSI's opinions.  Want me to write some for you?
[phone]        Forewarned is half an octopus.
Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc.            [e-mail]

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

Date: 8 Mar 90 10:54:15 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma![e-mail]  (Andy Clews)
Subject: HST Wasps (was Re: hubble telescope power)

Current discussion about the HST prompts me to return to the vexed
question: did they got rid of the wasps in the HST clean room? How was
this achieved? Did they employ my grandad's suggestion of a jar of beer
and jam strategically placed?  Enquiring minds want to know!  :-)
--
Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, England
JANET: [e-mail]   BITNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Mar 90 20:09:00 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 03/06/90 (Forwarded)

Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 03-06-90



- STS-31R HST (at VPF) -

Yesterday VPF to MILA interface checks were performed along
with HST closeout operations.  Today HST battery charging
and functional testing will be performed and MMSE preps for
P/L transfer to the pad will continue.


- STS-32R SYNCOM/LDEF (at SAEF-2)

LDEF deintegration continues.


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

Velcro patch installation and MLI closeout were worked
yesterday and will continue today along with canister preps
for P/L transfer to the opf.  The CITE SIP panel was also
removed yesterday.


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

The systems test was active Friday and will continue today.
Experiment functional checks will also continue today.


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

Racks 4, 8, 9, and 11 staging operations were worked yesterday.
Racks 3 and 8 staging operations are scheduled for today.


- STS-45 Atlas-1 (at O&C) -

Orthogrid hardpoint installations were worked yesterday and
will continue today.
                                Payload Status Report
                                Tuesday, March 6, 1990


          George H. Diller
          NASA/Kennedy Space Center


          HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE

               Power for the telescope is on today and tomorrow to meet
          periodic electrical requirements for the faint object camera and
          the wide field planetary camera.

               HST closeout operations continue.  Last week the "cocoon"
          was removed to permit a final cleaning of the telescope.  A new
          cocoon has now been placed over the spacecraft.  This is designed
          as a protective sanitary liner which further assures cleanliness.
          Other work this week includes an electrical test of the solar
          array, configuration of the high gain antenna in preparation for
          installation into the payload canister, and removal of "red tag
          items" which are nonflight hardware.

               Upcoming schedule milestones include the installation of the
          spacecraft's nickel hydrogen batteries on Mar. 19, HST
          installation into the payload canister on Mar. 23, move to the
          launch pad on Mar. 26, and installation of the telescope into the
          payload bay of Discovery on Mar. 28.  An Interface Verification
          Test with the Space Shuttle Discovery to verify connections is
          planned on Mar. 30.  The payload bay doors are scheduled to be
          closed on April 10th.

               The launch of HST is scheduled at the beginning of a 2 1/2
          hour window which opens at 9:21 a.m. EDT.  The opening of the
          window is determined by sunlight available at the overseas abort
          sites and Edwards Air Force Base.  The close is limited by the
          amount of time the astronauts are in their seats aboard
          Discovery.  Enough light would be available at the contingency
          sites for a four hour "launch period."


          GAMMA RAY OBSERVATORY

               GRO was turned on Feb. 26 to begin Observatory Functional
          Testing.  Data is collected by test equipment on site at the
          checkout facility for analysis by NASA and TRW spacecraft
          engineers.

               Tests completed include the Electrical Power Distribution
          System which checks onboard computers, tape recorders and data
          handling systems, and the spacecraft transmitters and receivers.

               Also completed is the propulsion system testing, and the
          testing of the thermal control system of heaters and thermostats.

               The four primary science instruments were turned on for the
          first time Mar. 2 and will be on much of this week.  Also being
          tested this week is the Burst and Transient Source Experiment
          which senses bursts of transient Gamma Rays and then activates
          other science instruments.  To follow is testing of the sensors
          used by the Attitude Control and Determination system of the
          spacecraft.

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

Date: 8 Mar 90 12:40:16 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu![e-mail]  (Doug Krause)
Subject: Re: SR-71:  LA to DC

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kral) writes:
#Their flight path was such that they watched the sun rise and set 3 times
#(this from an interview with the pilot).  A truley awsome experience.

How is this possible?  The only thing I can think of is that they
were constantly changing their altitude.

Douglas Krause                     One yuppie can ruin your whole day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
University of California, Irvine   Internet: [e-mail]
Welcome to Irvine, Yuppieland USA  BITNET: DJKrause@ucivmsa

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

Date: 8 Mar 90 15:32:52 GMT
From: cica!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!IDA.ORG!pbs![e-mail]
Subject: NASA SR-71's

RE: NASA SR-71'S
   It is my understanding NASA will be receiving three SR-71's for high
altitude research.  With the proper sensors installed and aided by inflight
refueling, could one of these make a nonstop flight around the world, passing
over the North and South Poles to study the holes in the ozone layer?  This
would be an aviation first.  It would also tie in with NASA's Mission to Planet
 Earth.
   As another possible use for these Blackbirds, why not launch Pegasus from
them at 80,000 feet plus instead of from a B-52 at only 40,000 feet?

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

Date: 7 Mar 90 16:49:53 GMT
From: hplabsb![e-mail]  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Ejection seats (was Re: Challenger's Last...)

>>  Is it
>> correct that such a system was once installed in a U.S. bomber but
>> failed completely in the first *real* accident?
>
>I belive that the incedent in question refered to the second XB-70 ...
>The crew of the XB-70 had an ejection capsule (a cross between a
>seat and a pod) which was designed to protect the crew in the event of a
>ejection at high mach numbers. It was belived that the high g's
>encountered durring the dive prevented the capsule from deploying.

The XB-70 had one pod per pilot.  One got out, the other didn't.  The one
who did almost didn't, since the clamshell clamped down on his elbow near
the pivot.  He had to work hard to dislodge his elbow, whereupon the
clamshell closed and successfully ejected.  I suspect that the second pilot
never got his elbow out.

The F-111 has a crew escape capsule.  The original B-1 prototypes had one.
When a B-1 prototype crashed, the parachute suspension lines got fouled,
tipping the cockpit so that it landed on a front corner, rather than on the
bottom shock absorber, and one of the pilots died.
--

            David R. Smith, HP Labs
            [e-mail]
            [phone]

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

Date: 6 Mar 90 20:10:06 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Summary for 03/06/90 (Forwarded)


                                Payload Status Report
                                Tuesday, March 6, 1990


          George H. Diller
          NASA/Kennedy Space Center


          HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE

               Power for the telescope is on today and tomorrow to meet
          periodic electrical requirements for the faint object camera and
          the wide field planetary camera.

               HST closeout operations continue.  Last week the "cocoon"
          was removed to permit a final cleaning of the telescope.  A new
          cocoon has now been placed over the spacecraft.  This is designed
          as a protective sanitary liner which further assures cleanliness.
          Other work this week includes an electrical test of the solar
          array, configuration of the high gain antenna in preparation for
          installation into the payload canister, and removal of "red tag
          items" which are nonflight hardware.

               Upcoming schedule milestones include the installation of the
          spacecraft's nickel hydrogen batteries on Mar. 19, HST
          installation into the payload canister on Mar. 23, move to the
          launch pad on Mar. 26, and installation of the telescope into the
          payload bay of Discovery on Mar. 28.  An Interface Verification
          Test with the Space Shuttle Discovery to verify connections is
          planned on Mar. 30.  The payload bay doors are scheduled to be
          closed on April 10th.

               The launch of HST is scheduled at the beginning of a 2 1/2
          hour window which opens at 9:21 a.m. EDT.  The opening of the
          window is determined by sunlight available at the overseas abort
          sites and Edwards Air Force Base.  The close is limited by the
          amount of time the astronauts are in their seats aboard
          Discovery.  Enough light would be available at the contingency
          sites for a four hour "launch period."


          GAMMA RAY OBSERVATORY

               GRO was turned on Feb. 26 to begin Observatory Functional
          Testing.  Data is collected by test equipment on site at the
          checkout facility for analysis by NASA and TRW spacecraft
          engineers.

               Tests completed include the Electrical Power Distribution
          System which checks onboard computers, tape recorders and data
          handling systems, and the spacecraft transmitters and receivers.

               Also completed is the propulsion system testing, and the
          testing of the thermal control system of heaters and thermostats.

               The four primary science instruments were turned on for the
          first time Mar. 2 and will be on much of this week.  Also being
          tested this week is the Burst and Transient Source Experiment
          which senses bursts of transient Gamma Rays and then activates
          other science instruments.  To follow is testing of the sensors
          used by the Attitude Control and Determination system of the
          spacecraft.

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #126
*******************