Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_0/V15NO082.ZIP/V15NO082

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 23KB

Date: Fri,  7 Aug 92 05:15:07
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #082
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri,  7 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 082

Today's Topics:
               basic electrodynamic tether description
                         Calendar and Zodiac
                 Congressional Cutting Continues ...
                       Energiya's role in Space
                       Galileo issues (2 msgs)
                           GPS Availability
                        Meteor Soaks Datona FL
                        Soyuz as ACRV (2 msgs)
                       SPS and light pollution
             Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 00:19:29 GMT
From: Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: basic electrodynamic tether description
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>Yeah.  Webster's is wrong.  They are only the same in a uniform gravitational
>field, to which the Earth is an approximation *if you stay at or near the
>surface*.

That's terribly misleading. The Earth's gravitational field becomes
more  nearly uniform as one gets farther from the surface. The reason
the approximation of uniform field does not hold is because the
structure in question is large, not because it is far from Earth's
surface.

Leigh

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

Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 03:00:01 GMT
From: John Harper <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calendar and Zodiac
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gregory N. Bond) writes:
>
>Easter is defined as (from memory) the first new moon after March
>21st (equinox? Coincidence?  Wrong date?).  The orthodox easter uses
>the Julian March 21st, the western church uses Gregorian.  So the
>easters will either coincide or differ by 28 days, in some fixed but
>not obvious pattern.
>
Close. IMHO the actual definition is as follows. The Orthodox Church uses
the true equinox and new moon, as observed from Jerusalem. Easter Sunday
is the first Sunday on or after the 14th day after the first new moon
after the March equinox. (One must specify the longitude of the observer
as it's Saturday or Monday in some places when it's Sunday in others. The
Western churches (Catholic and Protestant) use Mar 21 instead of the
equinox, and Clavius's algorithm instead of the real moon. The combined
effect is that the Orthodox Easter is 0,1,4 or 5 weeks after the Western
one. The Orthodox Easter never precedes Passover; the Western one may,
about 1 year in 5 at present. Now go and re-read the Venerable Bede
(the date of Easter was one of the main points of dispute between Celtic
and Catholic churches) to see how what was of vital importance about 1300
years ago is now a non-issue. Should all this go in a FAQ? - it keeps
cropping up here and in sci.astro
See 1 old (11th ed) Encyc. Brit. (newer ones seem to give less detail)
    2 Explanatory Supplement to the Astro. Ephemeris and Naut. Almanac
    3 Calendar Act 1752 (for USA and British Commonwealth), or the
      (Anglican) Book of Common Prayer (often easier to find)

John Harper Mathematics Dept. Victoria University Wellington New Zealand

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

Date: 6 Aug 92 20:09:31 GMT
From: Kim DeVaughn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Congressional Cutting Continues ...
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics,talk.politics.space

I ran into the attached article in sci.research, and felt it should be posted
to a broader audience.  Followups have been directed to talk.politics.space.

Note in particular that the recommendation, if followed, would kill SETI as
well as NASP, and would all but kill the Space Exploration Program.

Fortunately, the Senate will be making its own report/recommendations, and will
hopefully reverse much of this.  Thankfully, I hear that Traxler has resigned,
and won't be around much longer!

/kim

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

From: [e-mail] (Russel Shermer (R43))
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: fyi 103  House Appropriations Committee Report: NASA
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Aug 92 19:57:13 GMT
Organization: NAVSWC DD White Oak Det.


Posted for:
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

House Appropriations Committee Report: NASA

FYI No. 103, August 4, 1992

Accompanying all appropriations bills is a report written by
committee staff providing the committee's recommendations on how
agencies should spend the money which is appropriated to them.
Although these reports are not binding, federal agencies are
usually quite reluctant to implement policies contrary to those of
the committee which has jurisdiction over their budget.  Both the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees write reports, with a
final "conference report" issued to accompany the final bill.
Details of the Senate and conference reports will be provided in
future editions of FYI.

Below are selected portions of House Report 102-710, accompanying
H.R. 5679, the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for
fiscal year 1993, as it pertains to NASA.  Two major changes were
made since this report was released.  When the bill went to the
House floor, the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM) program was
reduced by $380,000,000, leaving $100,000,000; and an
across-the-board cut of 1% was applied to all programs in the
VA/HUD bill except veteran's medical care.  This reduction is not
included in the numbers below.

For all of NASA, "the Committee has recommended a total program
level of $14,036,102,000 in fiscal year 1993, which represents a
reduction of $956,925,000 below the request, and $278,948,000 below
[the] 1992 level."

For Research and Development:

"The Committee recommends a total of $6,670,650,000 for the
research and development activities of NASA.  This is
$1,060,750,000 below the budget request.  That reduction includes
the following increases, decreases, and changes to the program
areas described below:

     -$525,000,000 from space station.  The Committee directs that

this reduction be taken in recognition of the existing
understanding between the Committees on Appropriations and the
agency.  Under that arrangement, NASA should implement any schedule
slip first in the permanently manned capability while making every
effort to preserve current first element launch and man-tended
time-lines.

     -$159,000,000 from space transportation capability development
including:
          -$115,000,000 from the national launch system leaving
$10,000,000 for a continued NASA presence.

     -$150,000,000 from space science including:
          A. -$30,000,000 from life sciences maintaining the
program at the 1992 level.  The Committee directs that the
reduction be taken at NASA's discretion except that not less than
$10,000,000 be applied to the request of $18,000,000 for
development of the centrifuge.
          B. -$75,000,000 from the earth observing system platform
(EOS).
          C. -$20,000,000 from materials development.
          D. -$10,000,000 from research operations support.
          E. -$5,000,000 from information systems.
          F. -$13,500,000 (the full request) from the search for
extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) program.
          G. -$50,000,000 as a general reduction to be taken at
NASA's discretion.
          H. +$20,000,000 to continue work on the gravity probe "B"
program.
          I. +$33,500,000 to continue the consortium for
international earth science information network (CIESIN) program.

     -$80,000,000 (the full request) from the national aerospace
plane (NASP).  The Committee regrets that because of budget
pressures this program must be given a lower priority.  The
Committee believes, however, that the NASP effort is important to
the country's future aeronautical preeminence and would fund the
activity if additional allocation was available.

     -$28,800,000 of $31,800,000 requested for the space
exploration program.  The reduction should be taken from the
request of $28,800,000 for exploration precursor missions."

Other report sections include: Space Flight, Control and Data
Communications; Construction of Facilities; Research and Program
Management; and Office of the Inspector General.

###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
[phone]
##END##########

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[  Any thoughts or opinions which may or may not have been expressed  ]
[  herein are my own.  They are not necessarily those of my employer. ]

--
UUCP:  [e-mail]  -OR-  [e-mail]
DDD:   408-746-8462
USPS:  Amdahl Corp.  M/S 249,  1250 E. Arques Av,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086
BIX:   kdevaughn     GEnie:   K.DEVAUGHN     CIS:   76535,25

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

Date: 03 Aug 92  08:03:04
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Energiya's role in Space
Newsgroups: sci.space

Concerning the use of former Soviet space launchers to
orbit spacecraft in the 28 degree orbit of Space Station Freedom:

The Soyuz spacecraft has a mass of 7 tons. The Soyuz launcher cannot
possible put this mass into a 28 degree orbit, as it is designed to place
the 7 ton spacecraft into a 51 degree orbit (when launched from Baikonur).

However, the Proton, when launched in a dog leg maneuver, could place a
stripped down Soyuz into a 28 degree orbit. This would involve launching
the Soyuz due east from Baikonur (46 degrees latitude), and then, over China,
turning southeast. The Proton would have to have four stage; presumbly this
configuration would require a new payload shroud and extentions to the
Proton service tower.

The Proton KM, a modification of the current design, could easily send a
Soyuz to the orbit of SSF. In this case, the Soyuz would be fully loaded.

Energiya, on the other hand, could easily send large masses to the orbit
of SSF, assuming it carried an orbit stage that burned hydrogen. At
least 30 tons, one and a half times the mass of the largest SSF component,
could be carried into orbit.

It is likely that no current SSF payload will be orbited by Energiya for
political reasons. However, I would not be surprised to see an agreement
where the former Soviets would link up a large module with SSF.....



___ WinQwk 2.0 #0

--- Maximus 2.00

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

Date: 03 Aug 92  08:03:10
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Galileo issues
Newsgroups: sci.space

HS>>Ulysses will come somewhat close to Jupiter in 2004.  Same arguments
HS>>Cassini plus it is not known what Ulysses' operational status will be
HS>
HS>Plus Ulysses isn't built for high-speed data transmission at all.  Sin
HS>has no imaging instruments, it doesn't need it.  I believe its peak da
HS>rate is something like 8kbps -- better than 40bps, but given that you'
HS>get only one quick flyby, hardly a huge advantage.
HS>--

JPL is certainly making heroic efforts to return data from Galileo at
Jupiter. My original questions still stand: can Ulysses and Cassini
be used as relay stations for Galileo when they appraoch Jupiter in
the early part of the next century?

I know that Galileo is not *supoosed* to be functional at that point in
time, but neither are Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, Voyuager 1, and Voyager 2.
And I know that neither Cassini or Ulysses are able to funciton fully
as relay stations, but both can certainly outperform the current
Galileo configuration of 10 bps.


___ WinQwk 2.0 #0

--- Maximus 2.00

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

Date: 7 Aug 92 02:51:49 GMT
From: "James T. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo issues
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] speakith unto us:
>HS>>Ulysses will come somewhat close to Jupiter in 2004.  Same arguments
>HS>>Cassini plus it is not known what Ulysses' operational status will be
Why use Cassini?

As I Understand it, Cassini's observational abilities are equal or
better than G's, so why clog it's signal with extra stuff, even if it's
possible?

/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: [e-mail] :-)~~~\
|                                                              |
|      M y   K a r m a   r a n   o v e r   m y   D o g m a !    |

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

Date: 6 Aug 92 22:47:46 GMT
From: "Mr. Lyn R. Kennedy" <[e-mail]>
Subject: GPS Availability
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.electronics

Can anyone tell me the status of the GPS system? I understand there are
not always three satellites visible in the U.S. When will that be the
case? Thanks in advance.


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

73,            internet     | [e-mail]
Lyn Kennedy    packet radio | K5QWB @ N5LDD.#NTX.TX.US.NA
               pony express | P.O. Box 5133, Ovilla, TX, USA 75154

-------------- "We have met the enemy and he is us."  Pogo --------------

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

Date: 7 Aug 92 01:29:30 GMT
From: Jim Scotti x2717 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Meteor Soaks Datona FL
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rick Emerson) writes:
>[e-mail] (Greg F Walz Chojnacki) writes:
>
>> From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (FRANK NEY):
>> >
>> > -----I quote-----
>> > A giant wave that drenched Datona FL and caused a lot of damage
>> > in July turns out to have probably been caused by a 1 meter
>> > meteor!
>> >
>> IS there any source on this <alleged> meteor event other than a TV news repor
>>
>> Greg
>
>Yes.  A very definative report from a guy in a boat who saw a flash around
>the same time the wave hit.  I guess that wraps up that issue.
>
>Bwa-hahahahahahha!
>
>If a 1M rock dropped in at speeds roughly on the order of kilometers per
>second, there'd be a darn sight more than a splash.
>
A couple of comments:  First, from the numbers of 10 meter asteroids
(or perhaps I should call them meteoroids) which have been discovered
in the last two years by Spacewatch, and from the number of bright
fireballs, we can estimate the number of impacts per year that should
be expected from objects less than 10 meters in diameter.  We expect
that about 10 objects of about 10 meters or larger should impact the
Earth each year.  Most of them will burn up or fragment into smaller
pieces high in the atmosphere probably resulting in a shower of smaller
objects which are occasionally seen to land.  We can also estimate that
about 5000 objects of 1 meter or larger impact each year, or about 14 each
day!  In other words, impacts of these sized objects are a common occurance
and almost always results in simply a bright fireball and occasionally
in falls of meteorites.  Second, if a small object were to actually
survive to hit the surface of the Earth with cosmic velocity intact, a
1 meter object would probably make a crater about 10-20 meters in diameter.
A 10 meter object, impacting at around 20 km/sec would make a crater
around 200 meters in diameter.  It is unlikely however, that such an
object would maintain its cosmic velocity.  Rather than impacting at
20 km/sec, it would more likely be decelerated to perhaps only 5 km/sec
if it survived intact.  A 1 meter object deposits about 0.6 kilotons of
TNT equivalent into the atmosphere/ground, while a 10 meter object deposits
about 60 kilotons of TNT equivalent into the atmosphere/ground.  An object
10 meters in size surviving to impact at 5 km/sec would deliver about
4 kilotons of TNT equivalent energy and I suspect might make the kind of
wave seen here.  I would guesstimate that maybe 1 in 100 objects of this
size are strong enough to survive the dynamical stress of atmospheric
entry to reach the surface of the Earth more or less intact.

Sorry this got so long, but I would conclude that the probability of
seeing impacts of objects larger than 1 meter diameter is very high and
that it would require an object of at least a few meters to have caused
a wave as seen in this case.  A 1 meter object would likely not strike
the surface with enough velocity to cause "a darn sight more than a
splash", though it would make a nice little splash.
>
> | Richard B. Emerson     | Reply to [e-mail]                           |

---------------------------------------------
Jim Scotti
{[e-mail]}
Lunar & Planetary Laboratory
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721 USA
---------------------------------------------

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

Date: 03 Aug 92  08:03:08
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

MD>Besides, who is undocking the Soyuz docked to the station?  I don't th
MD>they can fly under complete autonomous control.

Soyuzes have flown under complete autonomous control on several hundred
ocasions.

___ WinQwk 2.0 #0

--- Maximus 2.00

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

Date: 03 Aug 92  08:03:06
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

A few facts might help this thread at this point of the discussion:

1) Landing a Soyuz on water: I don't know why this is an issue, because
there is plenty of land for an ACRV to aim at; the best bet would be to go
for Dryden at Edwards AFB. However, if people here really must worry about
a perceived inability of Soyuz to land on water, not to worry: the Soyuz
has successully splashed down many times. The Zond missions all landed in
water (the Indian ocean and Black seas), and one Soyuz landed unintentially
in water (Soyuz 16, I believe). The Soyuz descent capsule floats.

2) The androgenous docking adaptor designed for Apollo-Soyuz has been
updraded by the Russians. One is already in orbit on the Mir space station
(on the Kristall module). With two Soyuz capsules and two docking ports on
SSF equipped with these adaptors, no EVAs are necessary to rescue 4 astronauts
from a major SSF failure that cuts off the crew from one of the two Soyuzes.
You simply pile all 4 people in the Soyuz they *can* access, detach the
Soyuz, detached the Soyuz automatically from the other port, and dock
the Soyuzes together (which is the main attribute of the androgenous
docking adaptor), and do a shirt sleeve crew transfer. With the automatic
Kurs rendezvous system, the docking of the 2 Soyuzes, on a good day,
could be performed automatically, allowing the crew to rescue themselves
even if a skilled pilot were not available.

The keys to the above are: 1) decide to use Soyuz as an ACRV, and 2) agree
to use a androgenous docking adaptor on SSF.

For those who are making noises about *not* using Soyuz as a rescue vehicle,
I would be interested to know their alternative. I certainly hope they
are neither pinning their hopes on Congress fully funding a US ACRV, nor
expect to leave a crew on SSF without an ACRV.


___ WinQwk 2.0 #0

--- Maximus 2.00

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

Date: 7 Aug 92 04:27:32 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPS and light pollution
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:

> I don't know how much SPS would affect ground-based searches for asteroids
> and comets, since they're basically searches for point sources that move
> over time, without much need to exactly characterize those point sources
> in the initial observations.

It probably would affect them adversely. The SpaceWatch telescope on
Kitt Peak is used for asteroid searches in dark time, when the Moon is
close to New. David Rabinowitz is a regular in the dining hall then (at
dinner time, or when it's cloudy). During bright time, that telescope
is used for a precision radial velocity program, to search for
extrasolar planets.

A telescope with a relatively short focal length and wide field of view
will be easy affected by background; they don't even use the
Burrell-Schmidt during bright time, unless there is an exceptionally
bright comet around. Considering SPS are to ring the celestial equator,
near the ecliptic where the asteroids are, this doesn't bode well.

(My biggest problem with SPS still is: do you really think you can make
a living at it? Seems to me that ground-based Solar would be amazingly
cheaper and less trouble. Wind is making surprisingly good progress,
too. And these contraptions are made of native materials, too: from
Earth.)

Fred Ringwald
Department of Physics & Astronomy
Dartmouth College
Hanover, NH 03755-3528

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

Date: 6 Aug 92 22:23:47 GMT
From: TS Kelso <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, [phone], and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 46
1 22064U 92 49  A 92218.74351504  .00089950  00000-0  25599-3 0   185
2 22064  28.4738 313.3435 0003760 322.1309 119.3474 15.91785710   818
EURECA
1 22065U 92 49  B 92218.41658223 -.00012275  00000-0 -29381-3 0   145
2 22065  28.4578 316.8810 0024198 130.6771 229.6337 15.40526527   163
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
[e-mail]                    Air Force Institute of Technology

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 082
------------------------------