Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V12_0/V12_082.ZIP/V12_082

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/YaczqN600VcJARcU5r>;
          Wed, 18 Jul 1990 02:11:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 1990 02:11:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #82

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 12 : Issue 82

Today's Topics:
               Re: clean rooms
   Earth moving (was Re: Is an asteroid capture possible/feasible?
              Re: Titan boosters
                Re: Titan HLV
      CRRES launch delayed one to two weeks (Forwarded)
                   Re: EOS
            Re: NASA's lobbying on the net
          Re: Chinese Long March: curse or blessing?
              Re: Why drop the shuttle?
           Payload Status for 07/10/90 (Forwarded)

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: 16 Jul 90 14:47:30 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (SERRE GLENN)
Subject: Re: clean rooms

Just to give some perspective on "clean rooms" used for payload processing,
the "clean room" at LC-41 is operated as if it were a class 100,000 (10e5)
clean room (LC-41 is were they launch Titan IVs).

--Glenn Serre
[e-mail]

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

Date: 17 Jul 90 00:12:07 GMT
From: agate!sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Gordon J. Mohr)
Subject: Earth moving (was Re: Is an asteroid capture possible/feasible?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dieter Kreuer) writes:
>
>There has been a fairly long discussion about nuking earthbound asteroids
>in sci.astro recently. While I totally agree to try everything to move
>such a dinosaur-killer in any other direction than towards Earth, I would
>strongly refuse to bring such a thing intentionally close to our planet.

And in article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lee Cox)
writes:
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jason J. Levit) writes:
>>  Anybody hear about this new asteroid that passed within 3 million
>>  miles of earth?  If not, here's the details...
>>  [details omitted]
>>  So, another "near miss".  They're coming closer and closer and
>>  closer....how many would have liked to nuke this one?  :-)
>
>Yep, it's about time to build a few more Saturn V IPBMs (Inter-Planetary
>Ballistic Missiles).

Actually, I understand that Russian scientists have calculated that, given
enough warning, it would actually be easier to MOVE THE EARTH than divert
a distant, rapidly approaching asteroid. How? Altering the moon's mass with
nuclear charges. The moon's orbit would change, also affecting the Earth's
solar orbit. A slight change, over time, would mean a gigantic difference
in where the Earth is at some future time.

While I can't remember where I read that tidbit, in a recent Chemical &
Engineering News (perhaps sometime in June), a similar story highlighted our
equivalent ability to change the Earth's tilt and other planetary parameters
by altering the moon. A mathematician (I think..) argued that there's no
reason to assume the current values are optimal for the well-being of man
or other life, and so we could run computer simulations to find better
ones.

How's that for risky?

Gordon Mohr
[e-mail]

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

Date: 14 Jul 90 04:09:18 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Titan boosters

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Hughes - VMS Development) writes:
>... the only in flight SRM failure that I know of was the explosion caused
>by propellant delamination on a Titan 34D. I wonder if that would have been
>survivable, even with a Mercury/Apollo style LES.

I have my doubts.  The escape towers were pretty effective given the
slightest bit of warning -- the Apollo one, for example, took the
capsule off the booster at *twelve gees*, rising (!) somewhat as the
escape rocket burned off fuel -- but on the Titan SRB failure I
think there was no warning at all.  Just BOOM.  (It must have been
an impressive thing to see; even the still photos in AW&ST looked
like a spectacular fireworks display.)
--
NFS:  all the nice semantics of MSDOS, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
and its performance and security too.  |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 14 Jul 90 13:48:25 GMT
From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Charles Radley)
Subject: Re: Titan HLV

A small company (OSC) can build a small launcher (Pegasus), but it takes
a big company (Martin Marietta) to build a big launcher (Titan).
There is no free lunch.


--
Charles Radley
Internet: [e-mail]
BBS:      714 544-0934   2400/1200/300

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

Date: 16 Jul 90 01:53:33 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: CRRES launch delayed one to two weeks (Forwarded)

Brian Dunbar
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      July 12, 1990
(Phone:  [phone])

George Diller
Kennedy Space Center, Fla.
(Phone:  [phone])

Jim Sahli
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.
(Phone:  [phone])


RELEASE:  90-98

CRRES LAUNCH DELAYED ONE TO TWO WEEKS


     A computer problem with the spacecraft's command and data
processing system will delay the launch of the Combined Release
and Radiation Effects Satellite (CRRES) 1 to 2 weeks.

     During a spacecraft countdown practice at Cape Canaveral Air
Force Station, Fla., Launch Pad 36B, on Wednesday, July 11, an
intermittent failure occurred when commands were not properly
received and executed by the command and data processing system.

     Additional testing indicated that the malfunction probably
is within the primary command decoder unit (CDU), which receives
and decodes commands from the ground, then formats and
distributes the commands through the spacecraft.  Tests to
pinpoint the location of the failure should be completed by late
Thursday.

     The spacecraft's backup CDU functioned properly.  However,
under NASA launch-commit criteria, both CDUs must be fully
operational for a launch to take place.

     If the problem lies in the CDU, which was tested
successfully twice at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), the box
containing both units will be removed from the spacecraft and
returned to the manufacturer, Gulton Data Systems Division, to
determine the cause of failure and to effect repairs.

     A new launch date will not be set until the CDU has been
repaired and returned to KSC.  The mission was originally
scheduled for launch July 17.

     CRRES is a joint NASA/U.S. Air Force Mission to study the
effects of chemical releases on the Earth's ionosphere and
magnetosphere and to monitor the effects of the space radiation
environment on sophisticated electronics.  The spacecraft will be
launched aboard an Atlas I (Atlas-Centaur 69) vehicle, with
launch services provided by General Dynamics Space Systems
Division.

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

Date: 16 Jul 90 19:29:14 GMT
From: groucho![e-mail]  (Steve Emmerson)
Subject: Re: EOS

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Liam
Gumley) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (David Anderman) writes:

>> If EOS becomes a big project, NASA will screw it up.

>However, this does not mean that NASA will screw it up.  NASA has for the last
>30 years or so taken the lead in fostering initiatives in satellite remote
>sensing of the earth. This has led, among other things, to the operational use
>of weather satellites.  It has involved a high level of interaction between
>NASA and other research institutions.  The trend in the past seems to have been
>that NASA sponsors the development of experiemntal platforms (e.g. the early
>ATS, TIROS, Nimbus) and instruments, which are then upgraded to 'operational'
>status (e.g. GOES, GMS, TIROS-N/NOAA).  When you consider that these days it
>takes the best part of 100 million US dollars and 5 to 10 years to develop,
>test, and launch a major earth remote sensing payload, who else is capable
>except NASA ?

For smaller projects, I know several institutions that could -- and have.

>> Furthermore, NASA will make EOS into a technology development program,
>> rather than an applications program.

>Technology development runs in parallel with the development of new remote
>sensing instruments for particular science missions.  For example if you want
>to fly a Michelson interferometer onboard a spacecraft to sense atmospheric
>temperature, moisture and trace gases, you need to develop infra-red detector,
>laser, cryogenic,  electronics and data communication technology to do it.
>However the technology developement is not the point of EOS.  The point is that
>there are some very important questions about the nature of the earth
>environment that need prompt investigation.

One of the problems from a user's (i.e. meteorologist's or
oceanographer's) perspective is that the increasing size of the
projects causes them to become relatively insulated from the user
during design and implementation -- the project becomes so large that
it's simply no longer feasible to have a significant amount of
scientific oversight (and veto power!) on the design process.  There
are simply too many cooks.

Smaller projects tend not to suffer from this problem.  (Fewer cooks).

Another problem is that large projects have a tendancy to incure cost
and time overruns, which are very bad when attempting a prompt
investigation.

An example is the next-generation GOES satellite.  It's a three-axis
stabilized platform rather than the original spin-stabilized platform.
This design change has resulted in technical and cost-overrun problems
and, furthermore, means that the scan lines can now overlap or even be
unrelated to one another -- considerably increasing the complexity of
the subsequent data analysis.  Yet, I haven't met a remote-sensing
meteorologist or oceanographer who is happy with this change.

It's almost as though: 1) people realize that a better system is
theorectically possible and go for it -- failing to realize that the
increased managerial overhead can result in a poorer product; and 2)
the bureaucratic/industrial complex -- for reasons of its own --
prefers large projects.

>Let's hear from some more remote sensing people on this, and other topics !

I used to be in remote-sensing.  I would like to see more smaller
projects -- each having more scientific oversight -- than currently
exists.  I believe that this would be more cost effective and more
scientifically efficatious.

Naturally, the above opinions are my own.

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

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

Date: 13 Jul 90 19:16:44 GMT
From: n3dmc!gronk![e-mail]  (John Limpert)
Subject: Re: NASA's lobbying on the net

[e-mail] (Nicholas J. Szabo) writes:
>I might point out that the use of NASA equipment itself is also at issue.
>I would guess that the same ethical, and probably also legal, guidelines
>apply to the use of this equipment whether by employees, contractors, or
>anyone else.  Also, promoting NASA funding, insulting Congressmen  (the
>source of NASA's funding :-) and disparaging competing agency's efforts
>sound pretty close to political activity to my ears.

So I can't post an article to sci.space with a NASA computer unless
it meets Mr. Szabo's standards for political content?

I would rather unsubscribe than submit to this sort of censorship.

--
John Limpert        [e-mail]    uunet!n3dmc!gronk!johnl

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

Date: 14 Jul 90 14:01:56 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Charles Radley)
Subject: Re: Chinese Long March: curse or blessing?

There are no PC clones from the soviet union, US export controls have
prevented them from acquiring that technology.
Your scenario is interesting, but alas unrealistic.
The Chinese will stimulate the market for THEMSELVES.   Right now there
is a GLUT of launchers, and little demand.   Existing companies are
struggling to compete.   Pacific American Rocket comapny, and SSI have
both folded in the last year.
The real fear in the short term, is the Chinese destroying Western
launch comapnies by taking away their business.
By the time demand for launchers increases it will be too late.   The
western suppliers will have been wiped out of business, and the Chinese
will have a monopoly, which they will of course use for their own
political and foreign policy objectives.


--
Charles Radley
Internet: [e-mail]
BBS:      714 544-0934   2400/1200/300

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

Date: 14 Jul 90 19:39:17 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!percy!3cpu![e-mail]  (Bryce Nordgren)
Subject: Re: Why drop the shuttle?

>Not very practical: The shuttle weights 90 tons, more than 4 Mirs, and

Egads!  I had no idea.  I knew it was heavy, but didn't know quite how much.

[Stuff deleted...]
>For instance, for the glidding abilities, I have read somewhere that the
>best the shuttle can do is 1:2.27 i.e. each time it looses 1 mile in
>altitude, it travels 2.27 miles horizontaly... So what do you want to
>do with that in a Martian context (Perhaps Venus will do... Oh!!! Great
>idea for me!!!!!). Besides, how 2 or 3 people (not 7 I guess :-) ) are going
>to live for many month in a place designed for 1 week max.?
>
>Mark S.
>-------

I thought that the shuttle had been up for longer than that at a time.  In any
case, I was thinking that the expendible stuff could be stored in the cargo
bay, and they could go fetch what they needed when they needed it.  In any case,
this becomes a pointless discussion because of your first and second points.
(Not to mention the fact that the Shuttle is supposed to need maintenance every
300 hours of use.  (This I received in the mail from another alert user in the
know.))

  Sorry for wasting the net's $$$ and time.  I just thought of this, and it
  *seemed reasonable at the time. ;)

    -----Brycen

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

Date: 16 Jul 90 02:43:51 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 07/10/90 (Forwarded)


    Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 07-10-90.


    - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at OPF) -

    Experiment monitoring continues.


    - STS-37 GRO (at PHSF) -

    GSE checkout will be preformed today.


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

    Closeout inspections and STT preps continue.


    - STS-41 Ulysses (at Hanger AO) -

    At the VPF, CITE preps continue.


    - STS-42 IML-1 (at O&C) -

    Rack, floor, and module staging is continuing.


    - Atlas-1 (at O&C) -

    Freon line and electrical cable installations are
    continuing.


    - STS-46 TSS-1 (at O&C) -

    No work is scheduled for today.


    - STS-47 Spacelab-J (at O&C) -

    Rack staging continues.

    - HST M&R -

    MLI installation will be active today.

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #82
*******************