Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V12_0/V12_042.ZIP/V12_042

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/0aaLqBW00VcJ0GAE5W>;
          Tue, 10 Jul 1990 03:02:38 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 1990 03:02:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #42

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 12 : Issue 42

Today's Topics:
              Re: man-rated expendables
             Latest on the Space Station
              Re:  SPACE Digest V12 #16
             Re: HST down and out
              Investing in NASA
            Re: Investing in NASA
              Why wasn't Hubble Tested?
                (none)

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Jul 90 03:27:01 GMT
From: clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: man-rated expendables

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>>[Just for all those despairing about the lack of man-rated expendables...
>>with any luck one of my projects will lead to proposing to man-rate the
>>Pegasus ... ].
>
>You going to launch midgets into orbit, George? ;-)

There's plenty of people who'd be willing to scrunch up a little for
half an hour for the sake of getting into orbit...!  I thought about
this briefly when I first saw the Pegasus specs --  the space is tight,
the payload is small, and the accelerations looked a bit high, but it
did not look impossible.
--
NFS is a wonderful advance:  a Unix    | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
filesystem with MSDOS semantics. :-(   |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 13:08:16 GMT
From: usc!samsung!umich!umeecs!itivax!vax3.iti.org![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Latest on the Space Station

I recently received some information on the current status of the Space
Station program which might interest the group. This information comes
from Tim Kyger (a congressional staffer) and as far as I know has not yet
been officially released.

The current official baseline is that assembly will take 31 shuttle
flights of which 16 are assembly only. The rest are for resuply and
utilization. Assembly is to be completed by the end of the decade.

The new unofficial baseline is 40 to 50 shuttle flights for assembly
alone. Assuming the same rate of resuply/utilizaiton we are now looking
at 60 to 75 flights for assembly. Since this is about a seven year suply
of shuttle launches, assembly will not be done until well into the next
decade. These extra shuttle flights alone will raise program costs by $9
to $13.5 billion.

Design of the modules is out of control. They will need to shrink in both
weight and volume. One option being talked about is to assemble the truss
only and wait until 2000 or so to assemble the modules. [I however, wonder
how they can consider this; the truss is where all the (unsolved) structural
problems are].

Another rescope and redesign is either underway now or about to begin. NASA
will use cuts in FY '91 station budget as a cover story for the new problems
and redesign but they would have happened even with full station funding.

  Allen
|                          |      In War: Resolution                      |
| Allen W. Sherzer         |      In Defeat: Defiance                     |
|   [e-mail]            |      In Victory: Magnanimity                 |
|                          |      In Peace: Good Will                     |

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

From: [e-mail]
Date:     Mon, 09 Jul 90  14:12:15 EDT
Subject:  Re:  SPACE Digest V12 #16

> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 5 Jul 90 17:51:15 GMT
> From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
> Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future
>
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca)
>  writes:
> >...We had people up in orbit for 84 days almost 20 years ago, and the
> >only difference between that and a year, as the Soviets have done, is the
> >number of resupply missions...
>
> No, sorry, the *big* difference is the biomedical aspects, in which they
> are light-years ahead of everyone else.  Their six-month cosmonauts had
> to be carried out of their capsules; their twelve-month cosmonauts get
> up and walk out under their own power, if allowed to.  They've obviously
> learned a lot about how to handle the problems of long-term free fall,
> and what works and what doesn't.  The US hasn't even had a chance to
> start experimenting.
>
> Incidentally, even just considering the technological angle, the add-on
> modules are also a noteworthy advance over what the US did.  And don't
> forget that it's not just the *number* of resupply missions, but the
> fact that they can do them at all -- it wasn't possible with Skylab.
> The cargo payload of the Apollo capsules carrying crews up was minimal;
> all three Skylab crews lived mostly on the supplies loaded into Skylab
> itself before launch.
>
> >... any signifigant advances in life-support...they're still sending
> >up air and water on resupply flights...
>
> Kvant 2 apparently included an electrolytic oxygen system, although they
> have not been talkative about how it works.  (It's a sensible thing to
> do, since human beings generate surplus water from food metabolism, and
> you might as well get some use out of it.)  The Soviets are at least
> working on closed or semi-closed life support; the US has done *nothing*
> on it for two decades.
>
Not that I wish to paint the picture any blacker than it already is,
but "Janes" from England indicates that in a great many aspects of space
travel, the Russians are "three decades ahead of the u.s., and the u.s.
will NEVER close the gap." Judging from the fine work being done here
of late, I believe that I will have to accept "Janes'" prognosis.

                                             Derdin Valpar
                                             AZM@NIHCU

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 19:19:01 GMT
From: groucho![e-mail]  (Steve Emmerson)
Subject: Re: HST down and out

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Arnold Gill) writes:

> JK> Arnold, was the mirror ever checked out on the ground ???
> JK> Can't believe it was just put up there with on check out. on = no

>      First of all, there are two mirrors, plus the rest of the optical system
>that includes all of the various detectors - about 7 of them.  Second, Hubble
>is designed to work in a micro-gravity environment, which means that it cannot
>be tested as a complete unit on the ground - gravity would distort all of the
>optics to make the test completely meaningless.

Not completely true.  A test to reveal the expected level of error
would have been difficult/ expensive.  A test for the existing level of
error would have been relatively easy/cheap.  The military routinely
does this for its spysats.

Steve Emmerson        [e-mail]        ...!ncar!unidata!steve

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 20:47:20 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (David Anderman)
Subject: Investing in NASA

If investing NASA is not a good idea, where should we invest?


--
David Anderman
Internet: [e-mail]
BBS:      714 544-0934   2400/1200/300

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 21:23:13 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Rick Ellis)
Subject: Re: Investing in NASA

On <Jul 09 13:47> David Anderman writes:

 DA> If investing NASA is not a good idea, where should we invest?

Al Gore?


--
Rick Ellis
Internet: [e-mail]
BBS:      714 544-0934   2400/1200/300

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 23:14:21 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!sharkey!wyn386!wybbs![e-mail]  (Ken )
Subject: Why wasn't Hubble Tested?

According to an article in this weeks Aviation Week, The USAF offered
the use of the KH-9 optical test facility to NASA ten years ago with
the condition that any engineers involved in the test have a Top Secret
clearance. NASA declined, since most of the workers did not have a TS.

Some other interesting items from the article:

  Lockheed was not required by NASA to exert significan oversite of
  Perkins Elmer.

  Kodak cut a backup mirror blank that was never fully polished because
  of the P-E mirror.

  The flaw consists of a 2 micron error in one of the mirrors.

  There is a "spike" at the center of the image focused that has
  close to the original spec'ed performance. Computer enhancement
  may be able to use that are to enhance the rest of the image.


--
Ken Jongsma                                  [e-mail]
Smiths Industries                            [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan                       ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken

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

Date: 10 Jul 90 05:32:00 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!rpitsmts![e-mail]  (Commander Krugannal)
Subject: (none)


   >10554/8535. [e-mail] 08:15 Mon Jul  9/90  17 lines
   >
   > Entered: The Internet        23:38 Sun Jul  8/90
   > Subject: Light-ships
   >
   > I saw this afternoon on CNN that somebody has proposed using high-powered
   > lasers to propel ships (they said up to 5-man in size) into space.  It seems
   > that a properly constructed mirror arraingment could direct the enery of
   > a ground-based laser pulse into an air-heating baffle, which would direct
   > the heat-expanded air towards the rear.  At high altitude an on-board
   > hydrogen gas source would take the place of air.
   >
   > My question is, how many times has this been proposed before?  And why do
   > people keep proposing such silly "Popular Science" tripe year after year?
   > And why did CNN use up a whole 7 minutes on it?
   >
   > What are some of the other ideas for unconventional ways to 'space-out'?7
   >
   > Bruce Wilson, [e-mail]

     Umm, I posted something about this twice previously, but I am not sure it got
   arond to the list.  (I don't think my link is working or something, so
   if someone could confirm getting this message I would appreciate it. )

   First Bruce, I would ask, why did CNN devote ONLY 7 minutes to it.  The
   Sunday thing wasn't much better.

   As for it being a "... silly 'Popular Science' tripe..." hardly.  This is a real
   project that has been going on for several years at RPI.  They have done much
   wind-tunnel testing (including work in our hypersonic shock tunnel) on it and
   are now building a section of a full scale motor for testing.  (I believe
   that they have tested smaller versions.)

   Professor Myrabo has written a good book on ths subject, unfortunately the
   name of it escapes me at this time.  I'll try and get the title if people
   are interested.

   [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #42
*******************