Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V13_4/V13_442.ZIP/V13_442

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 16KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/4c4wX1C00WBwQhMU50>;
          Tue, 23 Apr 91 01:40:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 01:40:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #442

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 442

Today's Topics:
  Overlapping Interests (was Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits)
            SPACE Digest V13 #429
          Re: why _I_ think we need a space station
         NASA Headline News for 04/22/91 (Forwarded)
        Energia (was Re: Saturn V blueprints)
        Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits

Administrivia:

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

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

Date: 22 Apr 91 14:49:49 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!maytag!watmath!watdragon!watyew![e-mail]  (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Overlapping Interests (was Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (25362-roe mcburnett(H053)m000) writes:

    Material deleted

>   I don't wish to flame anyone here but suggesting that *WE* read
>   something about something without the least reference as to what it
>   is or where to even find references to it is, IMHO, impolite at the
>   least.
>
>Jeez, do you want a reference for Spitfires and Hurricanes every time
>someone mentions them, too?  Remind me never to talk fighters if
>you're in the room.  R100 and R101 are just about as well known.

    Is the overlap between folks interested in space and folks
interested in lighter-than-air vehicles as large as it sometimes seems?
Hmmm. Maybe we need a sci.airship newsgroup :)

    I highly recommend sci.space folks read about the history of
the airship industry. Very beautiful machines, doomed by possibly
short-sighted economic and military decisions. We could have a wonderful
argument, for example, over whether or not the US Coast Guard should
have kept using airship instead of planes (unless of course I misremember
and it was the *navy* that dumped airships for search and rescue).

    The return to glory and golden age of LTA vehicles has always
been something that might happen in a decade of so (Especially during
the Oil Embargo and Crisis in the 70s when LTA fuel efficiency looked
good enought to outweight their lack of speed and *perceived* safety
problems), but it never seems to arrive. There seem to me to be great
similarities beween LTA programs and some space programs, but that might
just be my lack of caffine talking :)

                            James Nicoll

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Mon, 22 Apr 91 17:39:03 EDT
Resent-From: Tommy Mac <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Sat, 20 Apr 91 01:59:34 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #429
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: test Einstein's theories during next total solar eclipses

>> With all this talk of observing total solar eclipses, I hope some
>> people are planning to do some real science.  For instance, why
>> not record images (photographic film or CCDs) of the star positions
>> near the sun during totality and compare to the same region at night
>> (ie not during the eclipse) to look for shifts in the stars
>> apparent positions and check Einstein's predicted angular shifts
>> due to space curvature around the Sun.

>  Sounds like a good idea, but I can see a few problems.  First of all,
>to do the experiment suggested you need (I think) an image that shows an
>area about a degree by a degree to show enough reference stars.  So, using a
>CCD is probably out unless you use a *very* short focal length.  Also, if

Not necessarily.  You wouldn't need (or want) the entire sun's image.  It is
more ephemeral than the other nearby stars, and doesn't give you the data you
want anyway.

Perhaps a group of stars with the sun's limb on one edge would be better.  You
could get more potentially shifted stars, and more reference points.

There is still the problem of whether or not you could actually SEE the stars
in question (i've never seen a live eclipse, so i don't know)

P.S> Einstein's theory was proven back in 1917 this same way.  I think they
     concluded that Al was correct to 5 decimal palces.  It's probably been
     done hundreds of times since.

Tommy Mac
18084tm@msu
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 22 Apr 91 22:37:16 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: why _I_ think we need a space station

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Seward) writes:

>Of course, I would like to see a better designed one put up.  I heard the
>other day that NASA has 9 years of R&D in FREEDOM, with the implication
>that they really couldn't start over--it'd take too long.  Horse-phucky.
>When they started, they were probably designing on paper and without the
>help of computer modeling.  Using advanced design technology plus the
>lessons they (should) have learned, they ought to be able to do a complete
>rethink/redesign in 2-5 years, depending on $$ and political/bureaucratic
>BS.
>...IMHO...

Actually, they have done at least the last two or three redesigns on
paper. According to hearsay: they did a lot of work in the project's
first year and a half or so, and have spent all the time since
redesigning the station over and over and over to fit varying needs
and the procrustean bed of the projected launch capacity of the time
the station will be launched, which IMHO is the biggest problem facing
the station.

Given the assumption (or even better) the reality of a decent launch
capacity for whatever time the station(s) is (are) going to be
launched, and if the engineers on the project are really given the
Freedom to go ahead with what _they_ (and the biologists and the
material science people) want, a decent design will emerge.

Of course, if the station is to fufill various needs, like biology
etc., why not simply give each set of researchers the money needed to
accomplish (or whatever appears to be the needed amount) the job and
let the various groups deceide on their own how to do the job. Various
groups could team up and 'merge' their projects onto one platform/
station or deceide to go it alone.

I don't like imagining how much hard disk space all the various
redesigns take up.

--
Phil Fraering
[e-mail]
"The Soviet Union has neither soviets nor unions." - Eric Hoffer (in 1974).

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

Date: 22 Apr 91 23:45:18 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Headline News for 04/22/91 (Forwarded)


             Headline News
Internal Communications Branch (P-2) NASA Headquarters

  Monday, April 22, 1991    Audio Service: 202 / 755-1788

This is NASA Headline News for Monday, April 22, 1991 . . .

With the exception of the weather, everything is on track for the
launch of Discovery on the STS-39 Department of Defense mission
tomorrow morning at 7:05 am.  Kennedy Space Center test director
Al Sofge said today that the countdown process, which began last
night at 8:45 pm, is right on schedule and is going "pretty much
according to the book."  The flight crew arrived from Houston on
Saturday evening.  Commander Mike Coats and pilot Blaine
Hammond spent much of yesterday in the Shuttle Training Aircraft
flying test landing runs.  The vehicle is currently in the middle of a 12-
hour hold, which it will come out of at 4:45 pm this afternoon.  At
10:45 pm tonight, the KSC launch team will begin the STS-39
external tank liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen loading operation.
The crew awakes at 2:10 am tomorrow and should be secured in
Discovery's cabin by 5:25 am.

The situation with the weather is due to a front located over western
Florida and in the Gulf of Mexico.  This front is expected to produce
strong winds and possibly thunderstorms.  The current probability
of violating launch and return-to-launch-site abort mode
constraints for Tuesday is 50 percent.  The probability of a
violation for a Wednesday or Thursday launch is 30 percent both days.
Weather at the trans-Atlantic emergency landing sites, Zaragosa and
Moron, Spain and Morocco will support a launch.

                   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Payload Operation Control Center at Goddard Space Flight
Center, reports that the Gamma Ray Observatory is continuing to
perform nominally.  Both the Oriented Scintillation Spectrometer
Experiment and the Burst and Transient Source Experiment are
operating and have successfully measured data during orbital passes
through the South Atlantic Anomaly.  The spacecraft will be pointed at
the Crab Nebula later this week for the beginning of instrument
calibration.  The operations team expects to begin science
operations early next month.

                   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Johnson Space Center announced several shuttle flight
crew assignments last week.  David Hilmers has been named a
mission specialist on the STS-42 International Microgravity
Laboratory flight.  He will replace the late Manley Carter.  JSC also
named Jerry Ross payload commander for the Spacelab D-2 mission
on STS-55.  Ross, along with Jay Apt, just completed space station
extravehicular activity engineering work on Atlantis' STS-37 flight.
Both Hilmers and Ross have three previous shuttle flights
under their belts.

                   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Galileo project management at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
reports that intensive analysis of the problem that prevented
deployment of Galileo's high-gain antenna is continuing.  A
"tiger team" of specialists from a variety of JPL and industry
engineering disciplines has been assembled to study the problem and
how to correct it.  Project officials say they expect to carry out
considerably more analysis and ground testing before determining a
date for another deployment effort.  The deployment difficulty
poses no immediate problem for the spacecraft, which
otherwise is functioning properly.  One side of the antenna
appears to be deployed more fully than the other side, suggesting that
some restriction may be affecting a portion of the antenna's movement.
Project officials say Galileo is still scheduled for its planned flyby of the
asteroid Gaspra on October 29, even if the antenna is partially
deployed.

                   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NASA Friday issued a request for proposals to establish up to two
additional Centers for the Commercial Development of Space
(CCDS).  This is the fourth solicitation in the CCDS program, and
seeks centers which would specialize in the commercialization of
advanced satellite communications technologies.  NASA's current
nationwide network of 16 commercial development centers specialize
in seven research disciplines:  materials processing, life sciences,
remote sensing, automation and robotics, space propulsion, space
structures and materials, and space power.


Here's the broadcast schedule for Public Affairs events on NASA
Select TV.  Note that all events and times may change without notice,
and that all times listed are Eastern.

Monday, 4/22/91
    2:30 pm    Project and science teleconference on Hubble Space
          Telescope's first year since launch, live from the Goddard Space
          Flight Center (note:  this is audio only).

    10:45 pm    Begin process of loading liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen
          into STS-39 external tank.

Tuesday, 4/23/91
    2:30 am    Live coverage of the STS-39 Discovery mission begins, from
          Kennedy Space Center.

    5:25 am    Discovery crew cabin hatch is closed.

    7:05 am    Scheduled launch of Discovery on STS-39 mission.


This report is filed daily at noon, Monday through Friday.  It is a service of
NASA's Office of Public Affairs.  The contact is Charles Redmond, 202/453-
8425 or CREDMOND on NASAmail.  NASA Select TV is carried on GE
Satcom F2R, transponder 13, C-Band, 72 degrees West Longitude,
transponder frequency is 3954.5 megaHertz, audio is offset 6.8 MHz,
polarization is vertical.

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

Date: 22 Apr 91 23:17:05 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!qucis![e-mail]  (Richard Akerman)
Subject: Energia (was Re: Saturn V blueprints)

Perhaps this has been discussed before, but, at least conceptually, is there
any reason NASA shouldn't use Energia as its heavy-lift vehicle?
I imagine politically that would be far too straightforward, but it seems to
me the Soviets have a launch system and little cash and NASA has no system
and lots of cash.  Couldn't NASA at least license some of the technology?
It would be a shame if civil strife or economic difficulties in the USSR caused
Energia to go the way of Saturn V, leaving the world's two great space-faring
nations without a big lifter.
And, on a slightly unrelated note, as has been mentioned, the Shuttle does
lift a fair amount to orbit, just most of it isn't payload.  Aside from the
orbiter itself, doesn't the external tank reach about 90% of escape velocity?

Richard Akerman
Incompetent Physics Graduate Student
[e-mail]/ Akerman@QUCdnAst/ "I will go mad." -- Arthur Dent

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

Date: 22 Apr 91 00:36:02 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (25362-roe mcburnett(H053)m000) writes:

   OK-- What in the world is R100 and or R101, Can you give any
   references where one could read up on them.

R100 and R101 were airships, one built by the British government, one
built by privat enterprise.  The privately-built one worked
splendidly, with a Canadian visit, etc, and the government-built one
suffered a structural failure in a storm on its maiden voyage to
India.  In one of the few cases of micromanagemental justice, the
bureaucrat responsible for it died in the crash.

Read Neville Shute Norway's biography, "Slide Rule".  Be flexible on
the last name, it may be Shute or Norway, although originally his
fiction was published as Shute since he was a practicing engineer as
Norway and his biography was published as Norway.

   I don't wish to flame anyone here but suggesting that *WE* read
   something about something without the least reference as to what it
   is or where to even find references to it is, IMHO, impolite at the
   least.

Jeez, do you want a reference for Spitfires and Hurricanes every time
someone mentions them, too?  Remind me never to talk fighters if
you're in the room.  R100 and R101 are just about as well known.
--
Mary Shafer  [e-mail]  ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
           NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
                     Of course I don't speak for NASA
            "Turn to kill, not to engage."  CDR Willie Driscoll

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #442
*******************