Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_0/V16NO076.ZIP/V16NO076

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 25KB

Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 05:18:25
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #076
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 24 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 076

Today's Topics:
              2001/2010 Rocket Engines - What are they?
                    Hewlett Packard conin space
                         Mir mission to Mars?
                  NASA Criticism and other taboos...
               Orbital elements of junk in space wanted
                    Planetary Ephemeris Routines?
           ques about earlier "suicides" of SDI scientists
                  Znamya orbiting mirror brightness

    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: 23 Jan 93 23:32:42 GMT
From: Ken Kobayashi <[e-mail]>
Subject: 2001/2010 Rocket Engines - What are they?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (James Thomas Green) writes:

>I seem to recall that the reaction fluid was liquid NH3.   I
>would imagine that it would disassociate under that kind of
>temperature and get the extra boost that H ions would give.

   I believe the Discovery used both - H2 and NH3.  H2 for the initial
boost, stored in expendable tanks, and NH3 for braking and return.  Or
just braking, actually - in the book there was no fuel aboard the
Discovery for a return trip.  Anyway, the book said that the combination
was used because H2 would give maximum performance for initial boost, and
NH3 is easier to store until the braking stage.  Correct me if I'm wrong -
I haven't read it in a while and I don't have it handy.

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

Date: 24 Jan 93 02:42:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Hewlett Packard conin space
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,comp.infosystems.wais

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>>In article <[e-mail]>, I,
>  [e-mail], wrote:
>

>-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
>      [e-mail]  [phone]
>
>     "We at NASA develop cutting-edge technology for our aeronautics and
>      space programs.  We view technology transfer as a way of life.
>      It's one of our top priorities." -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator
>
>Yeah, right.

I think you should check the regulations on this. Anything developed by the
government or under government contract IS in the public domain. All I have
to know is the contract number and make a request, especially if I am at
a University. We here at UAH get tons and tons of software, hardware and
other goodies from NASA with no problem. We also have done this with folks
at JPL. Me thinks that you have not really tried to solve this problem or
have stopped when someone told you that you could not. Give me the
contract or program number and we can request the information.

Disclamer

This is only open to NON profit organizations such as universities and such.
Also it is limited to US citizens. Kinda have to support the home folks first.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

For Each and Every Bureaucratic Action, There is an Equal and Opposite
Creative Solution.

Dennis's fifteenth law of getting the job done.

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

:-)

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

Date: 23 Jan 93  11:00:50
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Mir mission to Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space

The mission you mention is technically feasible, with some risks to the crew
that others here will certainly elaborate upon.

The major obstacle is money. The Russians don't have it, and the US is not
going to fund Russians exploration of Mars.

However, if the Finn government were to provide sufficient funding, I'm sure a
human flight to Mars could be arranged.

--- Maximus 2.01wb

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

Date: 23 Jan 93 17:03:14 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NASA Criticism and other taboos...
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hmmm...

I am not too concerned about incurring anyone's wrath but on the other hand I
am not flaming anyone's opinion so if I do (incur wrath) please count to ten,
or something and remember it is only the "Net" (and my opinion).


I feel frustrated when I see so much inter- and intra- Center  (NASA Centers)
back stabbing, politics, and surruptitious [sic?] program/project aquisition.
However, since I am part of a University beuracracy [sic?] I can understand the
basic reasons.  As the saying goes..."University polotics are more vicious
because the stakes are smaller..."  I don't believe that cognitive, malicious
waste is occuring in NASA because of prolific flagrant disregard or ill intent.

I don't believe "line workers" and hired into "middle management" workers are
being criticized in some of the sci.space postings criticizing NASA.  NASA as
a whole could be arguably called "TOP HEAVY".  Anyone want to disagree with
that.  The government isn't in the position (or shouldn't be) of creating jobs.
Especially with taxes and this years and the rest, Congress caused growing
deficit (FOUR HUNDRED BILLION PLUS).  I say "creating jobs" because in a system
(the civil servant/GS or GM system) that rewards salary raises in part, based
on the number of employees under an individual, you can't but help to create
jobs in order to keep that particular system characteristic satisfied.

As to NASA's purpose (outlined, mandated, ordered,...whatever, in  1958)
Congress said: "learn to operate automated and manned vehicles in space beyond
Earth's atmosphere; explore our solar system and the universe for the
advancement of knowledge; make certain that all NASA discoveries and technical
advancements are made promptly available for bettering human lives, for
peaceful use by all mankind.

I have to go buy paint equipment with my wife so I will call this post "PART I"
and continue when I get the time (hey!...I have my priorities! :)  ).

Sincerely,

Paul Sylvester Shanley
Researcher ad Infinitum et al
School of Human Sciences
Auburn University
308 Spidle Hall
Auburn University, Alabama  36849
United States of America
VOICE: 205 844 1339 office
VOICE: 205 887 7440 home
FAX:   [phone] office
e-mail  [e-mail]



ad astra per mylanta

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 06:06:24 GMT
From: David Fuzzy Wells <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orbital elements of junk in space wanted
Newsgroups: sci.space

>> something unknown that is not in the catalog.....
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> found pieces that NORAD did not know about or had reported lost.
>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Russia (ex-USSR) ?
> Other known launching nation(s) (China, Japan, France, etc...) ?
> Unknown launching nation(s) ?
> Meteorites ?
> Little natural satellites ?
> High altitude physical phenomena ?
> Very high-flying secret aircraft ?
> Other ?
> Within the computer software analysing these events, is there some
> kind of filter eliminating the objects (if any) which disappear soon
> after being detected, or which don't obey strictly the laws of
> gravitation and/or atmospheric re-entry ?

J. Pharabod,  Thanks for writing.

[for the novice out there:  satellite: anything going around the earth, not
just your MTV comm-sat]

    95% of those "unknown" objects are cataloged as debris pieces.  We
do not have 24 hour coverage of every little piece up there, so if a debris
"event" (explosion, breakup, asat, whatever) occurs, unless a sensor is lucky
enough to catch it in the act, we get surprised on the next observation.  It
is quite exciting (for my group) when a rocket body we had been tracking for
X years goes missing and XX number of little satellites show up on the screen
in the same general orbit.  You ever try to reverse-engineer an explosion??
    Another type of "unknown" is the lost satellite or the administratively
decayed satellite.  Once a satellite gets below the 90min period mark and
atmospheric drag starts to become a factor, our software starts losing
satellites.  If anyone wants to figure out exactly how to model atmos. drag
for any given object, feel free to send us the code.
    For any elset to be "good", at least three observations are needed.
Make that "three observations that correlate to a single elset within our
tolerances".  If an elset comes out that seems good but doesn't correlate to
any known object, then that becomes a UCT (uncorrelated track) and gets
thrown into the back numbers of the satcat for more analysis until it can
be found reliably, can be given a name/origin and then find its way into
the 2XXXX numbers.
    Back to your questions:  We do what is called NFL (new foreign
launch) to find elsets on non-US launches.  Thus, those unknown pieces
have just as much chance of being ours as anybody elses.  And EVERYBODY who
makes a launch from earth is included...even if we didn't think they could.
Meteorites are possible...and DSP satellites can track them as they reenter,
but most are very short-lived and not really "orbitting".  High altitude
physical mysteries...sure, although I HIGHLY doubt it.  BTW, there are lots
of work-arounds for the Northern Lights, so they are no biggie.  If you can
fly an aircraft (even at LEO) then you need to talk to the NASP people and
quick!  Nope, no aircraft can fly where we look...save that really big white
and black jobbie with the giant doors and NASA scrawled alongside it.
    Oh, back to natural satellites...those are a teaser and one of the
big topics that our group is working on...

"Other?"
<warning...silly stuff ahead (UFO talk)>

    And for the computer software...if three or more obs line up, then
you have a track...realistic or not.  And yes, people have made claims of
tracking an object that ascended radially outward from the center of the
planet, pausing occasionally.....but the latest person to make that claim
was tracking it more than 15 years ago and I have not heard of any other
claims that date later.  So, you UFO groupies can chew on that for a while.
(BTW, I have _NO_ more info on those incidents.....I have no interest in
them and don't wish to pursue.....<ie: I have better things to do with my
time than to write stories for the tabloids>)  BTW, given the bugginess of
both the software and the sensors (even now, problems creep up), I would be
more apt to place blame on the equipment than to UFOs.

                    Cheers,
                            Fuzzy.

==============================================================================
_ __/|       | Lt. David "Fuzzy" Wells |"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
\'o.O'       |    HQ AFSPACECOM/CNA    |
=(___)=      |      "We do debris"     | "You must be," said the Cat, "or you
   U  ...ack!| [e-mail] |       wouldn't have come here."
==============================================================================

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

Date: 23 Jan 93 14:47:25 GMT
From: Chris Brown <[e-mail]>
Subject: Planetary Ephemeris Routines?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,comp.lang.c

Try Astronomical Algorhythms - Jan Meeus

Chris

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

Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 12:04:00 GMT
From: Charles Packer <[e-mail]>
Subject: ques about earlier "suicides" of SDI scientists
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.misc,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Daniel Burstein) writes...
>down the results of any investigations.  The only stuff I've found has
>been news articles simply describing the venets.["events", presumably]


How about recalling where you saw the news articles, and when?
Try real hard...

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

Date: 22 Jan 93 19:57:15 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Znamya orbiting mirror brightness
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

As early as next month (February) Mir Complex cosmonauts are planning to
unfurl a large sheet of aluminized mylar to test the concept of a space mirror
to reflect sunlight to illuminate an area 10's of kilometers in diameter
(probably European Russia or Siberia) with the equivalent light of several full
moons. The mirror (called Znamya or "Banner"), which is aboard the Progress
cargo resupply craft that is currently attached to Mir, will be 20 meters in
diameter when deployed.

This is reminscent of the large aluminized mylar balloons of the 60's: Echo I
launched in the summer of 1960 at 30 meters in diameter, Echo II in 1964 at 41
meters, and Pageos in 1966 at 30 meters and two Explorers each at 3.6 meters.
The Echo balloons were zero magnitude at 1600 kms and Pageos at +3 at 4000 km.

The amount of sunlight reflected to the target area from a flat specularly
reflecting mirror is the square of the fraction of the subtense of the mirror
at slant range to the subtense of the sun from the earth:

(1)        B_sat/B_sun = (subtense of mirror/30 arc-min)^2

where subtense of mirror at 350 km (Mir's minimum distance to an observer)
is arc-sin(20/350x1000) = 12 arc-sec.

So, from (1), B_sat/B_sun = 0.0066 and magnitude M is related to brightness
B by:

(2)        M_sun - M_sat = +2.5 log_10 (B_sat/B_sun)

The magnitude of the sun is M_sun = -26.7 so, from (2), M_sat = -15.8 (the
full moon has a magnitude of -12.5, so -15.8 is 20 full moons). Of course,
the magnitude estimate assumes 100 percent specular reflectivity of the mylar
and an optical flat surface--neither of which will be realized.

This magnitude is for observers in the relatively small directly illuminated
area. However the off-axis brightness seen by observers not in the direction
of intended illumination will be observed as an increased brightness of the
Mir Complex of perhaps a few magnitudes. Mir is commonly 0 or -1 magnitude,
but with the mirror deployed, the Mir Complex may appear brighter than -4.
This is about the brightness of Venus seen in the southwest after sunset.

Mir will be visible from North America in the pre-dawn hours in the month of
February (from the 1st to the 26th) until it returns to visibility in the
evening hours after sunset (from Feb 26th to Mar 19th). Mir spends a great deal
of time passing low to our north. With this increase in magnitude it may be
more easily observable during these times.
--
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131

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

Newsgroups: sci.space

From: [e-mail]
Subject: NASA Criticism and other...PART II
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 184
Sender: News Account <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: ducvax
Organization: Auburn University, AL
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 05:31:03 GMT
Lines: 184
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

(For Part I, see NASA and Criticism Taboo...)

                           PART II

OK, I left off at the recap of Congress's mandate to NASA, as it was
established in 1958:

    "Learn to operate automated and manned vehicles in space beyond Earth's
atmosphere; explore our solar system and the universe for the advancement of
knowledge; make certain that all NASA discoveries and technical advancements
are made promptly available for bettering human lives, for peaceful use by all
mankind."

Great goals and impetus given to NASA by a very politically motivated Congress
(The utilitarian Soviets were already in "space beyond Earth's atmosphere...").
Politically motivated but at least motivated.  Well, I would dare say that NASA
and the United States have gone on in the last 55 some-odd years and
accomplished most, if not all the mandates, to a substantial degree....except
the last one -

"make certain that ALL NASA discoveries and technical advancements are made
PROMPTLY available for bettering human lives, for peaceful use by all mankind."

As a recent post alluded to, Tang, Velcro and Teflon (PTFE'S) were not the
"inventions" of NASA, they were utilized to such a degree by NASA that they
received a big boost and underwent intense refinement by and due to NASA
programs.  I don't know about the preceding statement as it applies to "Tang"
but many other "new" technologies were either created by or adopted and
enhanced by NASA.  These include integrated circuits, high performance gas/jet
turbines, structural analysis computer programs & CAD, insulation for cryogenic
use, and so on...

Anyone who gets Tech Briefs can see some highly esoteric technology gadgets,
gimmicks and processes that are making their way out of the woodwork.  But Tech
Briefs has really only hit the main stream user group over the last decade.  I
believe  (I spoke to one of their editors)  it began in the 70's as an internal
bulletin within a or several NASA centers.

If you are one of those lucky souls to aquire the publication slick "SPINOFFS"
you will also see PR coups in the form of better soles for tennis shoes,
advanced fire-fighting equipment and training processes, superior protective
metal coatings for outside structures (IC 531) and so on and so forth.  Who
gets these publications?  How many go out of NASA proper?  When I was
instructing a group of NASA PAO's and related workers, they claimed that very
few issues were actually published and that they were not easy to get a hold of
(sort of a status symbol on coffee tables or something).

Each NASA center has a Technology Utilization Office/Center.  I am aquainted
with several of the Tech Ute officers and I know that these "underpaid" workers
are very dedicated to their jobs but the importance of their job is underscored
by the severe lack of manpower each center experiences.

Most, if not all of the NASA centers put out an Annual Research and Technology
publication, very similar to "SPINOFFS", although not quite as slick.  I JUST
found out about these publications last year and I have been involved with NASA
and the space program for the last 8 years and technology transfer for the last
three (I am currently working on my master thesis which is focused on
technology transfer in the spacesuit program).

WHERE AM I GOING WITH ALL THIS?

Good question.  Has anyone ever wondered why NASA has to constantly fight for
what seems to be its very existance, almost every fiscal year?  I do.  If all
this great stuff is going on within all these great programs, why is begging
for money always the posture that NASA has to take?  Not all agencies or bureaus
have this problem.  Veteran's Affairs actually got more than it asked for
during Budget Fiasco 1990 (thanks to pork barrelling by Congress not Bush)
while the only way NASA could get the budget it got that year was because of
what some claim to be (and I am not so sure I don't agree) pork barrelling by
Bush in the form of SEI and the Space Station Freedom (this, all against his
Veep's specific studies and advisory panels [the choir!!] first
recommendations).

They have to fight because they are seen as a luxery expenditure by John Q.
Public.  Mark Oderman, a space industry consultant suggests that

"The U.S. space agency is perceived as a luxury expenditure by the public...
NASA will NOT survive the coming decade unless it pursues technology with direct
civilian applications, and works more closely with industry."

Yeah, ok, so Oderman is one man and he is not God but he does have a point.
Cut the waste, regain managerial balance (i.e. top heavy bureaucratic
organizational charts, padded middle management structures, programs just to
have programs, employees just to have employees.).  I am not cold-hearted, I am
not insensitive but I am not stupid.  The end results of obese and obtuse
organizations is more obesity and more obtusity (new word :)  ) if not checked
by comprehensive changes.  I doubt "gradual" changes ar going to work.  Not on
a four year, admisnistration to administration fiscal and political cycle. The
only thing gradual about much of NASA's bureautypical speed, is the rate at
which it toots it's own horn.  NASA, as an entity mind you, has been asked to
do deep soul searching so many times, and by the very people (Congress) who
have already sold theirs.

I thought I had a point...I lost it.  No, stay with me.  Dennis Wingo rightly
defends his friends, colleagues, and of course livelihood, from critical
comments posted on this newsgroup.  Rightly in the sense that it is not the
little people's fault.  Wrongly in that they are still part of a faulty system
that needs re-genesis not re-vamping.  I wouldn't recommend that they quit
their jobs because of this faulty system (however, the pay-raise might be
enticing*) but a grass roots ground-swell movement (or whatever the trendy
terminology that came out of this last election calls it) from within might be
nice.  Unfortunately, effective movements take sacrifice (usually jobs) and
that sacrifice would be in vain unless enmasse. For there are many hordes of
people ready to take their places, and ready to tow the
corporate/administrative line in order to do what they want AND get paid to do
it.

*   actually, the higher paying corporate job equivalents that former NASA
employees could/might get, are ones that are often funded by NASA (were still
in high reliance on the State)

For lack of brevity, and for plenty of desire to go to bed, I'll now cut this
"short".  NASA:

* Demand fair  "apples to apples" comparison when budgets are being considered
(like Super Collider vs. Space Station [hey! were in a budget deficit "crisis",
we can't have everything] not Space Station versus high priestess Barb
Mckulsky's HUD/VA budget items.)

** Demand Post Office type "waivers" on advertising and profit making regulations
(gee, since you're always asked to show a "profit" in order to get the next
fiscal years budget, you might as well be able to pursue one [a profit, that
is]). P.S. I know that the Post Office is not an "official" ageny of the
government but it still has a congressional committe overseeing it and it had
to have some special ruling on the regs...so same for NASA, get the ruling!

*** Get rid of Senator Robert Byrd (D. WV). Do what it takes de-orbit the mass,
target the ground elements (his Washington office, when no one is there
preferably) but let's put the guy's adulterous (screwing everybody else's
budgets) appropriation "habits' out of business.

OK, SO THAT ONE'S NOT SO PRACTICAL IN PLAYING IT OUT...

****Begin privitization of programs and goals and truly (I would shun that pun
had it been intended) be just an "Administration."

WOW, I JUST SAW THE FREE MARKET SYSTEM KICK IN, IT WAS BEAUTIFUL...IF ONLY...

****Take one, two or more programs high cost, high risk, "non-essential" to the
original congressional mandates (oh yeah, like I can see a review board calling
ANY of its programs "non-essential), cut them and demand the money as
"cost-savings" discretionary funds and begin active promoting of the programs,
processes, techologies and whatever that all these "necessary" centers are
putting out.  Hire the best PR people, give them the best access, institute
engineering/technical liaison positions and networks so that faster (anything
faster than "really slow" for starters) tech-transfer can receive a positive
catalyst.  Think of what it takes ("if we can put a man on the moon, why can't
we...?") and then do what it takes to get it done.

*****Open up space for all (let the free market work [remember Society
Expeditions, c. 1986? It could have worked, it's about to, it's called DX-Y])
mankind.  No ulterior motives (of course I want to go, don't you?!?!?) but I
can count how many people have been in "space" (LEO and a couple TLO) on both
mine and a couple of clones', hands and feet.   Let's face it, space flight is
going to be "experimental" and "hazardous" until we only have to worry about
"Transporter Psychosis" -Star Trek TNG (1992).  So let's open up the two line
elements and reverse the odds.  Ask half of the U.S Astronaut Corps who watched
Charlie Walker (THIS IS NOT A FLAME) fly three times on the shuttle, three
times more than they have yet to fly.  You see, expertise, money and need have
a funny way of getting things done, so let's get things done!!!

There's more but it'll wait.

Sincerely,

Paul Sylvester Shanley
Researcher ad Infinitum et al
School of Human Sciences
Auburn University
308 Spidle Hall
Auburn University, Alabama  36849
United States of America
VOICE: 205 844 1339 office
VOICE: 205 887 7440 home
FAX:   [phone] office
e-mail  [e-mail]
or
[e-mail]  (to be changed by Feb. 1 to
"[e-mail]")



ad astra per Mylanta


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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 076
------------------------------