Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_4/V15NO429.ZIP/V15NO429

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

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 05:00:01
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #429
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 17 Nov 92       Volume 15 : Issue 429

Today's Topics:
                       Challenger Legal Action?
           Commercial Space Report, Russian remote sensing
                          COSTAR adjustments
                    Feynmann's legacy... (2 msgs)
                  Japanese X-ray satellite: Astro_D
                          Reality check (2)
                           SATELLITE PHOTO
                   Saturn V for Freedom deployment
                     Shuttle replacement (2 msgs)
              Space launches online databases -- found !
                         Space suit research?
                 Two sticky questions on astrophysics
              What kind of computers are in the 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: 16 Nov 92 18:42:57 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Challenger Legal Action?
Newsgroups: sci.space

   Maybe somebody could help me out here.  Referring to the Challenger
accident, was any legal action brought against any of the contractors (such as
Morton Thiokol)?  If so, what was the result of this legal action?  Thank you
in advance for any help you may be able to provide.

Joe
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 13:42:46 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Commercial Space Report, Russian remote sensing

> Folks who've analyzed the data say it's in the 1.5-2

> meter resolution range .... Some rumors circulating in the

> industry claim the data could have even a higher resolution quality,

> but the data has been poorly digitized from photos.  This data is

> obvious from a former "strategic asset" of the Soviet Union.

>

>    As a side note, on 2 October, a top Russian space commander

> stated the Russian military space program will only survive by

> sharing its expertise and hardware.  Col General Vladimir Ivanov was

> quoted in a Krasnaya Zvezda interview as recommending Russian

> military space systems be used for commercial and civilian purposes.

> In particular, he was reported to have stated "Reconnaissance

> satellites can be successfully used for long-distance probing of the

> Earth's surface and for ecological monitoring without impairing

> their main task."

>

>   Due to policy considerations, the US government

> has been reticent to release high-resolution Earth Observation data,

> and has encouraged the use of 100-meter resolution Landsat Data for

> commercial or non-critical government needs.

It is really hard to believe isn't it? Total role reversal. I suddenly find US
defense department acting like a bunch of socialists and the former evil
empire's military acting like capitalists... And I find myself rooting for the
russians to win this round. Down with the Socialist Pigs! Up with Capitalism!
You have nothing to lose but your chains!!

Incidentally, I ran across this DOD doublethink on remote sensing over a
decade ago when I had a chance to question a General at a AAAS session. As I
think back on it, his answers to pointed questions about the need for high
resolution in commerce were very similar to a parody of the old Communists
answers to everything. Ie, you know he didn't really believe a word he was
saying. He knew he was lying through his teeth, you knew he was doing so under
orders, and he knew that you knew. And both of you realized that the answers
he was giving made about as much sense as Lysenkoism.

I must admit there is little else about Clinton I care for, but maybe he'll at
least take a broom to the Pentagon and put the Cold Warriors out in the
Dustbin Of History.

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

Date: 16 Nov 92 16:28:15 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: COSTAR adjustments
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Roberts)
writes:
>
> Anything on what degrees of motion can be adjusted? (i.e. swing angle,
> arm length, tilt, spacing.)
>

Basically, each optical channel of COSTAR is adjustable for focus, x-tilt,
and y-tilt via stepper motors.  After deployment, each mechanism will be
scanned back and forth through a successively finer range, and images will
be taken to find the best settings.

The WFPC-2 should be installed at the same time as COSTAR and has stepper
motors to adjust the pick-off mirror in x or y.  Also the tip and tilt of
fold mirrors inside three of the four cameras will be adjusted via electro-
strictive devices - a bit of exotic technology, since there isn't room
for stepper motors there.

Ben

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

Date: 16 Nov 92 06:16:12 GMT
From: Miroslaw Kuc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Feynmann's legacy...
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael K. Heney) writes:
>HL-20 and consideration of a "skunk-works" style program for developing
>a successor to the shuttle.
>--
>Mike Heney                |   Senior Systems Analyst and     |  Reach for the
>[e-mail]   |  Space Activist / Entrepreneur   |  Stars, eh?
>Kensington, MD (near DC)  |     * Will Work for Money *      |

What does "skunk-works" mean?

Miroslaw Kuc
--
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: 16 Nov 92 14:26:40 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Feynmann's legacy...
Newsgroups: sci.space

Miroslaw Kuc ([e-mail]) wrote:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael K. Heney) writes:
> >HL-20 and consideration of a "skunk-works" style program for developing
> >a successor to the shuttle.
> >--
> >Mike Heney                |   Senior Systems Analyst and     |  Reach for the
> >[e-mail]   |  Space Activist / Entrepreneur   |  Stars, eh?
> >Kensington, MD (near DC)  |     * Will Work for Money *      |
>
> What does "skunk-works" mean?
>
> Miroslaw Kuc

Its any kind of special project or program that is removed from the "normal"
design process, where brilliant people are basically just let loose without
having to spend much time keeping suits and bureaucrats happy.

Originally a team at Lockheed adopted the title for their own dept., taking
it from Al Capp's cartoon strip "Li'l Abner".  They felt shunned by the rest
of the company and took the name of the odious factory in the strip
to reflect this.

Legend has it that the name became widely known when one of their number
received a conference call intended for someone else, picked up the phone
and announced "Skunk Works here!" to a meeting of puzzled executive types.


||Dave Jones ([e-mail])|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY |

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

Date: 16 Nov 92 13:25:56 GMT
From: Patrick Slane <[e-mail]>
Subject: Japanese X-ray satellite: Astro_D
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Robert W Murphree):
> [e-mail] (John A. Nousek) writes:
>
>>The instruments consist of four conical foil X-ray telescopes
>>built by Pete Serlimitsos of Goddard Space Flight Center, two
>>X-ray CCD cameras built by George Ricker of MIT (with Penn State
>>Co-I's) and two gas scintillation proportional counters built
>>by Prof. Makashima of Tokyo University.  The four telescopes

[remaining summary deleted]

>
> I gather that Astro-D is a superlative x-ray spectrometer.
> Is it "the first x-ray spectrometer" or only the first wiht
> with this wide and bandwidth, resolution, and apeture?

The imaging capabilities are not to be ignored. However, the
spectroscopy WILL be the cause of much excitement. The fact
that it will be spatially resolved (at low angular resolution)
is, for course, very important for sources with significant extent
(e.g. clusters, SNRs...)

> Is the 1 arc minute resolution a significant handicap for
> many objects?

Yes, it is. The Einstein and ROSAT catalogs are filled with sources
observed with the High Resolution Imager (HRI) which reveal very
significant structure on small angular scales; better spectroscopy
with HRI-like spatial resolution (the HRI provides very little
spectral information) would be great. We'll have to wait for AXAF-I
to get this, but there are still LOTS of other exciting science that
Astro-D will address. There are many, many objects for which the lower
resolution will not be a serious handicap.

> Is this a "major" observatory like ROSAT
> and/or AXAF.

The term "major" may be a bit subjective here. The fact that, like Einstein,
ROSAT and AXAF (when launched), Astro-D is characterized by high
sensitivity with a range of capabilities, and an active Guest Investigator
program, I would certainly consider it a "major" observatory.

> science, and the fact that the japansese have launched 3-4
> small missions in the x-ray band in 10 years may actually
> be much more significant in terms of science than a behemoth
> like AXAF that gets launched every 10-15 years or not at all.
> The US hasn't launched any free-flyers in the X-ray since
> HEAO or Eistein 10 years ago, have they? A few detectors on
> other people's satellites of course, but nothing big since
> Einstein.

Yes, the US space program has had it's difficulties with the concept
behind these "Great Observatories" and this is changing. AXAF, while
still undeniably a "big science" project, has been streamlined and
divided into two missions. AXAF-I will provide the very high angular
resolution mirrors necessary to do arc-second imaging - and will have
spectral resolution like that of Astro-D (using a CCD developed by the
same folks who are providing the Astro-D versions) plus gratings for
higher resolution studies. AXAF-S will provide higher spectral resolution
capabilities, with lower angular resolution mirrors. And though these
missions are long overdue, the US x-ray community has hardly been
sitting on its collective hands. Let's not forget that ROSAT was launched
by the US and carries the HRI which is a US instrument, and that MAJOR
portions of Astro-D (as John noted) were developed by US investigators.
I know this is the "few detectors on other people's satellites" you
were talking about, but between the two missions you've got US mirrors,
CCDs, an HRI and a launch...

..........................................................................
                        "Images of broken light
Pat Slane                     Which dance before me
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics      like a million eyes
[e-mail]                 They call me on and on
                         Across the Universe"
..........................................................................

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

Date: 16 Nov 92 14:16:46 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reality check (2)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>-True enough for electricity but that's not what I had in mind. At first
>-electricity will be hard to get (until the solar cell plant becomes
>-operational) but raw heat is abundantly available with a few light weight
>-mirrors. Many processes can use heat.

>Like burning nylon, for instance. :-)

Exactly! I think that's a great idea.

>One such application was mentioned
>on "Space Age" - using solar mirrors to heat lunar soil until it partially
>fuses, forming a building material that's stronger than concrete.

That was the SSI funded work done by McDonnell Douglas. You could also
heat the regolith to melting, spin it, cool it and differentiate the
components that way.

>I think a lot of the initial work could be done with robots, more cheaply than
>sending humans there right away. (Once we know more, and hopefully have more
>appropriate launchers, we can send humans.)

Absolutely. Almost all the serious Lunar colony approaches I have seen
use autonomous and tele-operated robots for site characterization and
site prep.

Both robots and people will be needed to do the job. (At least until
Nick allows the robots to do a heart bypas on him).

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------159 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 16 Nov 92 16:08:15 GMT
From: IEGS000 <[e-mail]>
Subject: SATELLITE PHOTO
Newsgroups: sci.space

COULD SOMEONE HELP ME: SUPPOSE A HURRICANE JUST BLEW IN! WHERE CAN I
FIND A SATELLITE PHOTOS OF IT'S PROGRESS?
PLEASE REPLY TO MC.BER

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:03:20 GMT
From: Chris Coley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saturn V for Freedom deployment
Newsgroups: sci.space

My name is Chris Coley, and I am an undergraduate student at Purdue Univesity
studying Aerospace Engineering.  I am currently working on a research report
proposing the use of a Saturn V derived heavy launch vehicle, instead of the
Space Shuttle, for the deployment and resupply of Space Station Freedom.  I
would like to know if there are any resources available that I could use for
this topic.  Any information would be greatly appreciated.  Thank You.

login: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:29:49 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>It seems to me that in 1992, Space Shuttle is offering one of the best
>returns on investment in the space community!

Atlas and Delta are providing profits for the companies which build them.
That means they offer a return on investment.

How can the Shuttle possibly be said to offer ANY (much less the best) return
on investment? Shuttle has LOST billions.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------159 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 16 Nov 92 02:51:46 GMT
From: Charles Behre <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

|>   What about the SSTO DC-Y?  It's my understanding that the DC-1 should be
|> able to do just about everything that the shuttle can do (with the possible
|> exeption of carry the SpaceLab).  And a lot cheapter to boot.
|>
|>
|>   ##########################################################################
|>   ##   /   ##               Progress Before Peace!               ##   /   ##
|>   ##  //   ## Matt J. Martin, Technosociology and Space Politics ##  //   ##
|>   ## ///// ######################################################## ///// ##
|>   ##   //  ##        Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN       ##   //  ##
|>   ##   /   ##           [e-mail]            ##   /   ##
|>   ##########################################################################
|>

What level of success would the DCX testing program have to show to make it a
viable candidate?  Does this program have the ability to fascinate congress and
Al Gore if it demonstrates what it intendend to do? On the other hand, would a
DCX program shifted to taking on the duties of a HL-20 be a disasterous
move in terms of the programs efficiency?

Also on a side note, the Nov 2 issue of Av Week reports that Pratt & Whitney has
finished testing the DCX's preproduction version of the RL10A-5 engines and will
begin shipping them by years end.

--Chip

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:33:23 GMT
From: Hartmut Frommert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space launches online databases -- found !
Newsgroups: sci.space

Thanx to all who responded to my semi-recent quest.

To summarize: There are (at least) two databases of space launches usable on
PC:

1. sat-db, to geet via anon ftp from
       archive.afit.af.mil
       user anonymous        or ftp
       pass <YourUserId>
   in the directory /pub/space (there is also other fine stuff)

2. Computertalk Space Object Catalog
   (unfortunately not via ftp)
   NOTE TO ALL USERS:
     In order to enhance and improve the accuracy of updated editions of this
     catalog, users are urged to report errors, comments, suggestions, criti-
     cisms, etc., to the authors by mail, EMail or phone:
                    COMPUTERTALK RADIO NEWS SERVICE, INC.
                    Attn:  Joel Runes
                    217 Thorndike Street, Suite 203
                    Cambridge, MA  02141-1504
                    Phone:  617 + 494-0498
                    Fax:    By arrangement only
                    CIS:    71177,3700
           Messages may also be left on
           T. S. Kelso's Celestial BBS  [phone]
           or on Dave Ransom's RPV BBS  [phone].
--
 Hartmut Frommert                 <[e-mail]>
 Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
                                           -- Eat whale killers, not whales --

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:01:02 GMT
From: "Adam R. Brody " <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space suit research?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>What's the big push for a earth normal type atmosphere?
>>apollo, etc, ran fine on low pressure pure O2,  does better pressure
>>greatly improve cooling.  or are there long term bio effects????

>The cooling issue is a serious one.  Apollo didn't have that concern --
>since doing an EVA required depressurizing the entire cabin, air-cooled
>equipment could not be used at all.  This was okay, more or less, for
>Apollo, but simply isn't appropriate for a laboratory environment:
>air cooling is by *far* the easiest way to cool electronics, and the
>cost of the hardware goes way up without it.

>And yes, there is some concern about possible long-term biological
>effects, although there is little firm knowledge.
>--

Actually, the latest I have heard is that cold plates will be used
for cooling and the sole reason for high pressure is health.  The fact
that people live in high elevations like Denver and Mexico City, where
the atmospheric pressure is lower than sea level does not hold much weight.

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

Date: 16 Nov 92 12:21:34 GMT
From: Jeffrey Clark <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two sticky questions on astrophysics
Newsgroups: sci.space

This may display my ignorance but:

1. Nothing can travel faster then the speed of light. Therefore
gravitational influence takes time to travel. Therefore the influence of
objects on the other side of the galaxy are being felt in our solar system
as those far flung objects were some 80,000 years ago, yes? More to the
point the massive centre of our galaxy (possibly contains a mega-black hole)
will not influence us from it's current position for another 30,000 years.
Now this (according to my naive musings) should not present a problem if we
are orbiting the centre of our galaxy in a near perfect circular orbit, but
I would surmise that our solar system would have some eccentricity in it's
orbit. According to me the solar system is falling toward a non-existant
centre and has been doing this (as all galactic objects do) since the
beginning of galactic history.  Should this not cause orbital deviations
that are measurable? Can someone help me out here please am I missing some
obvious relativistic point?

2. An object is detected 15 billion light years away, pushing the beginning
of time to at least that many years ago. But surely it pushes that time to
double 15 billion years (ie 30 billion years). Nothing can travel faster
than light. The object that generated that radiation did so 15 billion years
ago from 15 billion light years away. But first we had to get 15 billion
light years away from this object. Both the object and the particles that we
consist of must have been together at the Big bang. In order for the light
to have taken 15 billion years to reach us, the object must have been 15
billion light years away from our current position 15 billion years ago. In
other words the earth and the object relative to each other must have been
travelling for some 15 billion years (at least) to get that far apart before
the light was emmitted from far-flung object. Once again am I missing some
obvious relativistic point or have I just doubled the age of the universe?


Jeff. These couple of questions have bugged me for years and I finally got
       sick of them. Depending on the answers I've got some other queries as
       well.

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

Date: 15 Nov 92 16:24:44 GMT
From: Spiros Triantafyllopoulos <[e-mail]>
Subject: What kind of computers are in the shuttle?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brad Whitehurst) writes:
>    I'm sure that they have to be rad-hard, vibration resistant,
>and otherwise much tougher than Compaqs.  I seem to remember that the
>old computer's memory was the old style magnetic "core" memory.  Is
>that correct?  And what kind of memory does the new unit use?  That
>could explain a lot of the power consumption!  I recall that when
>designed, radiation induced errors in semiconductor RAM was a big
>worry.  Somebody in the know can verify/correct this impression.

Yes.

In fact, one of our divisions still makes 'core' memory, or today's
equivalent, for just that reason.

The analogy presented is the same one as when microprocessors
found their way from TRS-80 or IBM PC compatibles began making their
way into cars. We don't have the radiation problem of course :-) but
have lots of all the other problems to worry about; I don't know how
close to space-spec our stuff is but the specs of what goes under the
hood are fairly tough...

Spiros
--
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    [e-mail]
Software Technology, Delco Electronics       [phone]
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 429
------------------------------