Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V12_1/V12_227.ZIP/V12_227

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

From @po7.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:[e-mail]  Thu Aug 16 06:04:37 1990
Return-Path: <@po7.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:[e-mail]>
Received: from po7.andrew.cmu.edu by FED.EXPRES.CS.CMU.EDU (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-1.0 jgm1.0)
    id AA05990; Thu, 16 Aug 90 06:04:37 EDT
Received: by po7.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA05262>; Thu, 16 Aug 90 03:25:35 EDT
Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail];
 Thu, 16 Aug 90 03:25:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po8.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq1/QF.kamYD8q00Udg42FXIy>;
          Thu, 16 Aug 90 02:57:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.wamY:oi00VcJ8XXE4u>;
          Thu, 16 Aug 90 02:52:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 1990 02:51:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #227

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 227

Today's Topics:
            Re: Artificial Gravity
             Re: Intelsat salvage mission
Re: Ulysses spacecraft showing, briefing set for Aug. 16 at KSC (Forwarded)
             Re: Skylab resupply?
            Re: Astronomy vs. Astrophysics
           Jonathan's Space Report, Aug 14
             International Space Programs
             Re: GW Engineer Taha
            Re: Artificial Gravity
    Re: SSX Program Starts, Man-Rated Expendables, X-30 Realities
              Re: SPACE Digest V12 #167

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: 14 Aug 90 12:40:40 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!tcdcs!swift.cs.tcd.ie!csaran![e-mail]  (Dominic Herity)
Subject: Re: Artificial Gravity

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Tiller N2KAU) writes:
>How about wearing a suit  with metallic (ferrous) threads in it and have
>superconducting electromagnets (exposed to free space < Tc) to hold you down?

This is a *complex partial* solution to the problem of living and working in
space.  On the other hand, a vehicle that divides into two parts with a kevlar
rope between them and spins is a *simple complete* solution.
Moving around, eating, drinking, other bodily functions, dropping things
and sneezing are much simpler
propositions in a 1g environment than in 0g environment hampered by a
suit.

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

Date: 14 Aug 90 15:55:44 GMT
From: clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Intelsat salvage mission

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>   Skylab never attempted to be an operational station  and in
>>  particular was not capable of being resupplied in orbit.
>I believe the three Apollo spacecraft which docked with Skylab DID carry up
>supplies with them...

They carried up very small amounts of supplies, alas.  Most of what the
astronauts ate, drank, and wore was pre-packed aboard Skylab.  The Apollo-
Saturn IB combination simply didn't have a very large cargo capacity.
And certain key consumables, like oxygen and maneuvering fuel (nitrogen),
came from supply tanks that could not be refilled in orbit.

>... Apollo was afterall was much bigger than the Soyuz
>or Progress vehicles which resupply Mir.

It was much bigger than Soyuz, but Soyuz's cargo capacity is roughly one
toothbrush per passenger.  Progress is roughly the same size, but it is
a dedicated freighter -- no life support and no reentry capability --
which can carry quite a bit.
--
It is not possible to both understand  | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
and appreciate Intel CPUs. -D.Wolfskill|  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 14 Aug 90 21:19:43 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!unicorn![e-mail]  (Worth Henry A)
Subject: Re: Ulysses spacecraft showing, briefing set for Aug. 16 at KSC (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]>
   [e-mail] (Doug McDonald) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>
   [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>>
>>          NOTE TO EDITORS AND BROADCAST NEWS DIRECTORS:
>>
>>          ULYSSES SPACECRAFT SHOWING, BRIEFING SET FOR AUG. 16 AT KSC
>>
>>               Participating in the briefing will be:
>>
>
>Note well: only one scientist out of 6 - this shows again, quite clearly,
>where scientists figure on NASA's totem pole.
>

   Yes, another scientist has to waste valuable time at yet another "Dog
and Pony" show! ;-)

   Actually, most of those managers probably have science or engineering
backgrounds. In true bureaucratic fashion, they probably are being moved
up thru the management hierarchy until such time as they reach a level
at which they are completely incompetent. They will then be allowed to
remain at that level until they retire. :-(

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

Date: 14 Aug 90 21:06:20 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!pbs![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Skylab resupply?

Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA
Lines: 18

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
> The Apollo- Saturn IB combination simply didn't have a very large cargo
> capacity.  And certain key consumables, like oxygen and maneuvering fuel
> (nitrogen), came from supply tanks that could not be refilled in orbit.

Had the space shuttle been available when it was originally scheduled to be,
there were plans to launch a module that would have been able to boost Skylab
into a higher orbit and perform orbital maneuvering tasks.  This could have
been designed to have consumables resupplied by the shuttle, which did have the
cargo capacity.  Perhaps Skylab wasn't designed to be resupplied when it was
launched, but that does not mean it could not have been resupplied with a
little "yankee ingenuity".  Don't forget much of the Skylab program saw
improvised solutions to turn an initial failure into a resounding success
story.  (Those tempted to immediately give up on Hubble, should review the
tribulations of Skylab's launch which really banged it up good. ... Ripped off
a meteor shield and one solar panel, jammed the other one and left Skylab,
practically  dead in orbit.)

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

Date: 14 Aug 90 17:32:23 GMT
From: frooz!cfa250![e-mail]  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Astronomy vs. Astrophysics

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]:
> Would someone please explain to me the difference between astronomy and
> astrophysics (e.g. education, professional role, etc.).

Astronomy vs Astrophysics: a personal and polemical viewpoint

In practice, the distinction between astronomy and astrophysics is being
eroded in normal use; most working researchers in the field consider
themselves primarily astrophysicists and, possibly, secondarily
astronomers.  Observers may consider themselves to be doing largely
astronomy while theorists will think of themselves as astrophysicists,
but often the terms are now used synonymously.  However, historically
there is an important distinction.

 Astronomy is the history and geography of the universe, and
specifically of our past light cone (the events in spacetime whose light
is just reaching us now).  It is a description of individual stars and
celestial objects, how they move, and how they change; and astronomy is
also the botany of the universe; which objects look similar, which
groups of objects are slightly different but may form a sequence.
Astronomy is the where and the when and the what.

Astrophysics is the how and the why.  Astrophysics is not (primarily)
concerned with individual objects, but with idealizations of types of
objects and how they work.  Astronomy discovers the Ring Nebula and the
Helix nebula; it knows where they are and how bright they are; it
discovers that they have similar spectra; it notices that they and other
objects are more similar to each other than any of them are to the Orion
Nebula or to the Crab Nebula, and classifies them as members of a group
called "planetary nebulae".  Astrophysics then takes over and attempts
to explain what a planetary nebula is in physical terms; that it is made
of gas, that the gas is very hot and is ionized because of a bright star
in the center of the nebula; that this star is an old star, once the
core of a star like the sun; that by using the laws of physics we can
make an idealized model of a planetary nebula and predict how it will
evolve in the future.  We have lost interest in the Ring and the Helix
except as real examples of our idealized model; and we have tied in
their story to the story of the evolution of the stars.  Without
astrophysics we just have a collection of different types of object
without realizing the connections between them.  (Of course, the
relationship between astronomy and astrophysics is really less clear cut
and more synergistic; for instance, the distance scale, a key part of
astronomy, is crucially dependent on astrophysical clues).

Astronomy asks: what is there in the Universe? Astrophysics is
the search for the rules of the game.

Astrophysics was made possible at the turn of this century by the use of
the spectroscope to reveal the secrets hidden in starlight; the chemical
composition of the stars, the Doppler shifts due to motions, the line
strengths affected by ionization and temperature and density.  Initially
a junior partner of astronomy, it has become so dominant that
"astronomy" is used as a derogatory term ("there's no science in this
paper, it's just astronomy" - a confusion of the concepts of "science"
and "physics").  A purely observational paper has to have some
discussion of the light it sheds upon physical questions, and something
is not worth doing unless it will answer a problem in astrophysics;
looking at a star cluster that hasn't been studied before is considered
worthless if there is no reason to believe the cluster is significantly
different from others already known.  I really don't like this attitude:
it's like saying there's no point in exploring the Western hemisphere,
the geophysics there is just the same as in the Eastern hemisphere.
Astronomers should hold their heads up with pride and not accept that
astrophysics is the only thing with value in the field.  Astronomy is
worth doing for its own sake; let's go out and chart the distant
galaxies; let's explore the neighbourhood and get a feel for where Earth
is among the stars.  Declare an Astronomy Pride Day at your local
astrophysical research department!

 Jonathan McDowell (astronomer and astrophysicist)

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

Date: 14 Aug 90 15:44:52 GMT
From: frooz!cfa250![e-mail]  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Jonathan's Space Report, Aug 14

Jonathan's Space Report

Aug 14 1990 (no.48)
----------------------------------------------------
Magellan entered Venus orbit on Aug 10.

Solov'yov and Balandin landed successfully in Soyuz TM-9
on Aug 9. Manakov and Strekalov continue the crewing of the
Mir complex. Next major mission event will probably
be the launch of Progress M-4.

Kosmos-2089, launched by Soyuz on Aug 3, is a recon satellite.  Despite
some press reports, the launch was almost certainly scheduled and not in
response to the invasion of Kuwait; however its orbit is favorable for
Middle East observations.

Kosmos-2090 to Kosmos-2095, launched on Aug 8, are six lightsats which
form part of a Soviet Navy communications relay network.

___________________________________
|Current STS status:              |
|Orbiters                         |
|                                 |
|OV-102 Columbia        LC39A     |
|OV-103 Discovery       OPF Bay 1 |
|OV-104 Atlantis        VAB Bay 3 |
|                                 |
|ET/SRB stacks                    |
|                                 |
|STS-35/OV102           LC39A     |
|STS-38/OV104           VAB Bay 3 |
|STS-41                 VAB Bay 1 |
-----------------------------------

(c) 1990 Jonathan McDowell

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

Date: 14 Aug 90 19:01:55 GMT
From: vax5![e-mail]
Subject: International Space Programs

Just wondering:

Almost all the discussion in this newsgroup deals with either the American
or the Soviet space programs (with tidbits about ESA every now and then).
I'm wondering if anyone can tell me a good place to get info about less
publicized progras such as those in Japan, India, and Israel...

Eric

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

Date: 15 Aug 90 04:00:54 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: GW Engineer Taha

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>Has anyone ever heard of Ali AbuTaha, an engineer who has offered an
>alternative theory to why Challenger failed? ...

He offered a steady stream of theories.  Some of them were taken seriously
enough to be investigated -- e.g., his idea that the bend in the crawlerway
to pad 39B had put extra stress on the right SRB's joints *before* launch
was checked during the Atlantis rollout in 1987 -- and results were
completely negative.  Eventually people stopped taking him seriously.

There really is little need for alternative theories; the orthodox one
explains the evidence quite well.
--
It is not possible to both understand  | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
and appreciate Intel CPUs. -D.Wolfskill|  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 15 Aug 90 03:56:39 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Artificial Gravity

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dominic Herity) writes:
>... On the other hand, a vehicle that divides into two parts with a kevlar
>rope between them and spins is a *simple complete* solution.

My friends who know something about control theory say there is nothing
"simple" about controlling a large flexible structure like that.  If
you invest enough mass and complexity to put a reasonably rigid truss
between the two modules -- not trivial, given the distance involved
to get the spin rate down to something safe -- *then* it is simple.

>Moving around, eating, drinking, other bodily functions, dropping things
>and sneezing are much simpler
>propositions in a 1g environment than in 0g environment hampered by a
>suit.

The astronauts, by and large, would prefer the free-fall environment
without the suit.  They are much less concerned about the problem than
the life-sciences people are.
--
It is not possible to both understand  | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
and appreciate Intel CPUs. -D.Wolfskill|  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 14 Aug 90 21:48:02 GMT
From: ogicse!littlei!omepd!omews10.intel.com![e-mail]  (Larry Smith)
Subject: Re: SSX Program Starts, Man-Rated Expendables, X-30 Realities


Fraering Philip writes (via e-mail):
>Just curious, but do you think you could post the details of the other
>proposals (if they have any form as yet) for the benefit of those of us
>who don't have access to the information?

Thanks again for the e-mail, for I have seen NO responses yet via our
Net feed.

I don't have any more information about other concepts. This is the
concept development phase and the contractors are holding these things
pretty close to the vest. I wonder what that says about the information
they already let out? Who knows?

>After all, Aviation Week won't even cover the project, although they
>will go on and on about ALS and NASP until blue in the face.

Yes, that's a long story. According to Max, Aviation Week was at the
SDIO briefing a year ago, but they became more interested in Brilliant
Pebbles, which was also discussed that day. They missed the significance
of SSX (actually according to Max, their reporter left before Max
was on). Defense News didn't miss that story a year ago, and ran a medium
sized story mostly about Max and his efforts at trying to sell SSX.

Well, Aviation Week IS very interested in SDIO-SSTO now. They DID a
long interview of Max. Max gave them a lot of information, which might be
why it's taking awhile for the story to appear. This time, Defense
News missed the Max Hunter/SSX inspiration for SDIO-SSTO, but
Av. Week hasn't (although their story isn't out yet. I hope they
mention the Max Hunter/SSX connection).

In Aviation Week's favor, most of their space guys are really busy
right now trying to learn as much as possible about the recently
opened up Soviet Space program, and its past.

Larry Smith

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

Date: 8 Aug 90 04:09:00 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!tmsoft!masnet!f712.n250.z1.fidonet.org![e-mail]  (wayne finlay)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V12 #167


 h> of its secrets, and therefore don't know how to defeat it.
Hi!
  According to a special on Public Television on Radar, it would seem that
Stelth tecnology is only good in evading high frequency radar. At low
frequencies, such as those used by the old Norad early warning system, the
stelth capabilty does not exist. In fact, most of the early warning systems
used by the Soviets are of the low frequency type.

                Cheer-I/O!
                  > Wayne <


--- Maximus-CBCS v1.00
 * Origin: SOFTOR Systems (1:250/712)

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #227
*******************