Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_0/V16NO093.ZIP/V16NO093

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 35KB

Date: Sat, 30 Jan 93 05:04:26
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #093
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 30 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 093

Today's Topics:
                              Beanstalk?
            Catch-22: (was Using off-the-shelf components)
                             Mars Mission
                   Mir and Solar Sail Combo, more.
                   Reason for SSTO/DCX and Market+
          Rent Mir/Commerical SS Fred not build it. (2 msgs)
                    Saving an overweight SSTO....
              Space Sta.Freedom pics/gifs/sketches info?
            Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger (4 msgs)
                    Using off-the-shelf-components

    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, 29 Jan 1993 00:34:27 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Beanstalk?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Does anyone know anythng about how to build a beanstalk?

First you get some magic beans.....

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 28 Jan 93 15:37:58
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Catch-22: (was Using off-the-shelf components)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:

   Funny, I've never had an airline ask me if my equipment was
   "air-qualified," much less subject it to vibration, outgassing,
   or ECM tests.  That's the difference between a transportation
   system and an expendable artillery shell.

Yes, you have, you were probably just too oblivious to notice.
Next time you fly on commercial air, look for the little list
of electronic equipment you cannot operate on an airliner,
or just walk into the cabin carrying a medium sized radio
with battery pack and tell them you want to call a ham
friend from 30,000 ft.
(or try carrying a propane tank into the passenger cabin,
or a lead-acid battery, or a detonator...)

Airlines restrict equipment allowed onboard according
to outgassing, EM emission and vibrational stability,
never mind what you can operate.

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 17:32:05 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Mission

From: George Hastings <[e-mail]>

Micael Adams sez;
>>Im not sure if this idea is feasible, but, its an idea..`
>>What about pre-positioning feul/food/gear packets along the route of the Mars
>>mission or maybe send a unmanned mission ahead maybe by Solar Sailer(s).
>>And pre-[.positioning the craft to be near na..mars when the Mir mission
>>arrives at Mars.

George Hastings replies:
>  Your first idea would be good on an arctic expedition, or
>even on a lunar traverse, but not on a trip to Mars, since
>everything bewteen here and there ALSO has to be revolving
>around the Sun: different distances from the Sun = different
>periods of revolution. You could drop stuff off evenly spaced
>between here and Mars, but when you got to that distance, they
>would no longer be lined up, having travelled along their
>orbital paths since they were left.

Sure, it's a trick, but it's just a matter of positioning in time
as well as space.  If NASA could guarantee schedules better...

To first approximation, it's only a 3-d problem, since the extra
time dimension is balanced by the fact that the route would be
a 2-d one (roughly).

Still, resupply being pre-positioned at the destination would be
a lot easier.

-Tommy Mac
------------------------------===========================================
Tom McWilliams               |Is Faith a short '  `      '   *.;     +%
[e-mail]       |cut for attaining    +    .      '
[phone] -or- 353-2986 |  . knowledge? ;"'       ,'    .   '     .
a scrub Astronomy undergrad  |      *     ,    or is it just  .       .
at Michigan State University |   ';   '        * a short-circuit?   ,
------------------------------===========================================

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

Date: 29 Jan 93 00:40:23 GMT
From: Philip Young <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mir and Solar Sail Combo, more.
Newsgroups: sci.space

 [e-mail] writes:

|> >  ([e-mail]) writes:

|> >> What about pre-positioning feul/food/gear packets along the route
|> >> [...] send a unmanned mission ahead [...]
|> >> And pre-[.positioning the craft to be near na..mars when the Mir mission
|> >> arrives at Mars.
|>
|> Question what would you use to get it there?? Automated Solar Sail would be
|> nice.. Seems you only need rockets and such when you have to get someplace
|> quick.. The auto-mission would do surveys of possibel landing/survey sights..
|>
|> Any better ideas are expected..
|>
|>
|> Michael Adams

Who needs it?  Just beseech THE DIVINE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE to
TRANSENDENTALLY translate the CREW to the appropriate OUTER SPHERE.
Since they'd be in ASTRAL form, they wouldn't need any KIT at all.
I suppose this would mean prior TERMINATION of their CORPOREAL FORMS,
so we should perhaps choose VIRGINS ...

--
Philip R. Young
Data General Australia Pty. Ltd.


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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 00:11:33 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Reason for SSTO/DCX and Market+
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>>>The ticket will cost (round trip) $100,000 to $200,000 (assuming you pack
>>>them in like sardiens for a very uncomfortable trip).
>
>>On what do you base that estimate?
>
> 50 people flying round trip (and in a 15X15X30 space it won't be
> comfortable) at a cost of $5M to $10M per flight.
>
>>What I heard from Boeing was "an order of magnitude more than
>>existing jet aircraft," which puts it an order of magnitude
>>below your figures.  Other estimates support this.
>
> round trip to Australia is about $3,000 so Boeing is estimating
> $30,000 or so which is well below an order of magnitude less than
> my estimate.
>
> As to the difference, there are too many factors which could expalin
> it. Indeed, it may be possible to cut the cost to $30K in volume but
> you won't be able to offer those prices initially. As it is I don't
> think the market for $30,000 airline tickets is that great.
>
>>As for being packed in like sardines, have you ever flown a
>>cattle ca... er, jet airliner?
>
> You need to compare it to first class.
>
>>I'd rather spend 45 minutes,
>>stuffed into a rocket, than 12 hours stuffed into an airplane.
>
> All things being equal, so would I. However, I wouldn't pay
> $27,000 more for it. Would you?
>
>   Allen
>
> --
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
> |  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
> +----------------------138 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

I think the SSTo will more like in the begiining be used for high price cargo,
and some cargo that has to get theri the next day. Such as express mail..
I actually thinkn that there will be a few seats in the SSTO and the rest will
be cargo space.. Similiar to how they configure the local Alaska Air 737, where
the front 2/3 to 3/4 of the airplane is cargo (in igloos (inclosed pallets))
and the rear is passenger space..

==
 Michael Adams, [e-mail]
 Im not high, just jacked

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

Date: 28 Jan 1993 19:27:16 -0500
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rent Mir/Commerical SS Fred not build it.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>>I know Mir is far from ideal, but what is.. Why reinvent the wheel when the
>>>wheel is already in Orbit??

>>Because if you just keep using the same wheel, you never develop better
>>wheels. [...]

>I'm not sure our current path will result in any difference. As it is,
>NASA is avoiding cheaper commercial services as much as it can. We are
>pouring more and more money into an infrastructure which is getting more
>and more expensive. The end result has been a statis of the US space
>arm for a long time.

Agreed, we aren't doing the best we can with what we have.  However, look at
how much worse it would be if we just gave up and bought Russian or
whatever; we'd have almost no space-related aerospace industry at all, and
we'd be ceding the future to those nations who *do* maintain a space
industry.

>Maybe intelligent leverage of Russian technology (like Soyuz) combined
>with US capabilities in ELV and cheap commercial HLV's will allow space
>to become large enough to become self sustaining and end the stasis.

Limited use of things like Soyuz for specific applications (such as the
ACRV for the station) in lieu of spending large sums of money developing
a domestic alternative is okay.  Scrapping domestic capability in such a
way (such as killing the Shuttle in favor of sending astronauts up on
Soyuz, or scrapping the station in favor of leasing space on Mir) that we
become dependent on others for access to space is suicidal.

--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 23:59:45 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Rent Mir/Commerical SS Fred not build it.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>
>>>I know Mir is far from ideal, but what is.. Why reinvent the wheel when the
>>>wheel is already in Orbit??
>
>>Because if you just keep using the same wheel, you never develop better
>>wheels.  Sure, we can do as some people have suggested and rent Mir and
>>buy Soyuzes and use Energia and save lots of money, but the end result would
>>be the complete stasis of the space arm of the U.S. aerospace industry,
>>coupled with Russian dominance of space down the line.
>
> I'm not sure our current path will result in any difference. As it is,
> NASA is avoiding cheaper commercial services as much as it can. We are
> pouring more and more money into an infrastructure which is getting more
> and more expensive. The end result has been a statis of the US space
> arm for a long time.
>
> Maybe intelligent leverage of Russian technology (like Soyuz) combined
> with US capabilities in ELV and cheap commercial HLV's will allow space
> to become large enough to become self sustaining and end the stasis.
>
>   Allen
>
> --
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
> |  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
> +----------------------138 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

We can rent Mir and such mostly to be able to build our own SS Fred.
Maybe as a base for construction.. Maybe also have a module that is attached to
Mir, but which is US.. I still liek the commercial prize idea.. It is tiem the
FED gave up space to commercialization and got out of the Space Race and got
back to Space Science..


Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 23:24:25 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saving an overweight SSTO....
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>True, but what's to stop them from simply stuffing some cargos in
>>AIRPLANES and taking them to a pickup point?  After all, flying a C-5
>>to Ecuador would have to be cheaper than flying a spaceship back from
>>Ecuador to pick up a load.

>The US Customs and State Department, to begin with, if you're
>talking about satellites and other high-tech payloads.

That would only apply to U.S. payloads, I would think, and perhaps not
even then.  After all, people contract to launch on Ariane out of
French Guinea (sp?).

>However, the marketing studies say that satellites are only
>a small part of the market.  The major markets are overnight
>or same-day letter/package delivery, intercontinental passenger
>flights (less than one hour to any point in the world, no time
>for an inflight movie), and space tourism.

>Space tourists might accept Ecuador as a jump-off point -- many
>cruises depart from out-of-the-way points today -- but it will
>reduce the size of your market.  But Federal Express and Northwest
>Airlines passengers won't.  They want to go directly from San Francisco
>to Tokyo.

For S.F. to Tokyo you wouldn't have a problem.  But we seem to be
talking about two different sets of circumstances.  My post was in
response to the question of what you do if the thing is too heavy to
make orbit.  Well, that's what you do.  For things like point-to-point
between two busy points, if you have the range to do it you would have
loads both ways.  However, for orbital loads, you want to take
advantage of the spin of the planet if you are too heavy to get on
orbit with the vehicle.  That's how the whole discussion of 'hopping'
around the world picking up loads came about in the first place.







--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 23:14:55 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Sta.Freedom pics/gifs/sketches info?
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.d,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> writes:
>Greetings. In search of: Space Station Freedom maps/schematics as jpegs,
>gifs, tiffs, ascii line sketches/drawings; preferably with areas labeled.
>No technical details needed - just simple geometric shapes for educ.purposes;
>also general dimensions of modules/parts & whole.  FTP info specially
>welcome.  Simple lists of modules also welcome. Thanks in advance.
>If replying, e-mail to:    (internet) [e-mail]
>                             (bitnet) [e-mail]


This is a re-post of an article from last year.  I hope it helps.

KJ>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Grant Smith) asks some reasonable questions:
KJ>>I have [heard] a lot about space station Freedom, but still don't know
KJ>>quite a few things.....
KJ>>.
KJ>>1) What will it look like (circular, conical etc.)
KJ>>.
KJ>>2) Above where will it orbit? Will it's orbit be fixed?
KJ>>.
KJ>>3) Will it be put into a spin for gravity purposes?
KJ>
KJ>
KJ>Before I begin, I'll warn you: I'm a Shuttle guy, not a Freedom guy.
KJ>I'll give you the best beginner-level answers I can, but there are some
KJ>real SSF folks on the Net who may be able to shed more light.
KJ>
KJ>>1) What will it look like (circular, conical etc.)
KJ>
KJ>The current plan, under review yet again, is to have pressurized
KJ>modules hanging in the middle of a 90-meter long truss.  The four
KJ>white, cylindrical modules are to be about 10 meters long, and five
KJ>meters in outside diameter.  Toward each end of the truss are to be
KJ>solar panels for electrical power generation.  Between the modules and
KJ>the solar panels are to be some thermal radiators to rid the spacecraft
KJ>of excess heat.  (One recent re-design concept calls for half-length
KJ>modules.  They're less efficient, by almost all measures, but they're
KJ>cheaper up-front.)
KJ>
KJ>The four modules are to be connected end-to-end to form a "race track,"
KJ>with "nodes" in between the modules.  Atop one of the nodes is a
KJ>"cupola" to allow external observation and visual navigation to assist
KJ>rendezvous operations.  (The modules have no windows, so the cupola is
KJ>the only place to look out through glass.  There will be several
KJ>externally-mounted TV cameras.)  Space Shuttles (and maybe other
KJ>spacecraft) will be able to dock with one of the nodes.  (There's a
KJ>big fracas in the SSFP about docking vs. berthing.  Don't ask.)
KJ>
KJ>Those are the major features.  Now, for my next trick, I'll try an
KJ>ASCII picture:
KJ>
KJ>     SSSS                                               SSSS   SSSS
KJ>     SSSS      T                                    T   SSSS   SSSS
KJ>     SSSS      T                                    T   SSSS   SSSS
KJ>    tSSSStttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttSSSStttSSSSt
KJ>    tSSSStttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttSSSStttSSSSt
KJ>     SSSS      T            nMMMMMMMn               T   SSSS   SSSS
KJ>     SSSS      T            cMMMMMMM                T   SSSS   SSSS
KJ>     SSSS                                               SSSS   SSSS
KJ>
KJ>    Legend:  t = truss, S = solar panel, T = thermal radiator,
KJ>             n = node, M = module, c = Cupola
KJ>
KJ>I've "drawn" the solar panels facing perpendicular to your line of
KJ>sight, and the thermal radiators parallel to your line of sight, but
KJ>they will gimbal to maintain this geometry with respect to the Sun, so
KJ>the panels get as much incident solar radiation as possible, and the
KJ>radiators get as little as possible.  Think about it.
KJ>
KJ>
KJ>>2) Above where will it orbit?  Will it's [sic] orbit be fixed?
KJ>
KJ>SSF will be in a circular orbit, about 250 nautical miles up, at a 28.5
KJ>degree inclination to the equator.  (I'm unsure about the exact
KJ>altitude, but that's close.)
KJ>
KJ>The spacecraft will be in one of the less stable "gravity gradient"
KJ>positions, with one end of the long structure always pointed in the
KJ>direction of travel, and the modules always pointed at the Earth
KJ>below.  I'll try another ASCII sketch.  Think of this as a sequence
KJ>of pictures, with "0" being the Earth:
KJ>
KJ>                        _
KJ>            /                       \
KJ> |  0         0         0         0         0 |       0         0         0
KJ>                                                        /       _       \
KJ>
KJ>    1         2         3         4          5        6         7         8
KJ>
KJ>
KJ>Picture a stick (SSF) running clock-wise around a ball (Earth).  This
KJ>is certainly not to scale.  Earth's diameter is around 7,900 miles.  A
KJ>250 nm orbit is just skimming the surface, barely outside most of
KJ>the atmosphere.
KJ>
KJ>(For the orbital mechanics on the Net, this is an incredible
KJ>simplification, and even blatantly wrong, because the orbit is
KJ>counter-clockwise if Earth is viewed down the North Pole axis.
KJ>For everybody else, it's probably just gibberish.)
KJ>
KJ>Just as with the Space Shuttle and every other large spacecraft, you'll
KJ>be able to see it from Earth as a bright, moving spot at sunset and
KJ>sunrise if the light is right.
KJ>
KJ>
KJ>>3) Will it be put into a spin for gravity purposes?
KJ>
KJ>No.  The structure isn't strong enough to do this.  Strong structures
KJ>tend to be heavy, and minimizing launch mass is one consideration.  If
KJ>we wanted spin "gravity," we'd put at least one module at the end of
KJ>the truss, instead of clustered in the middle.  Or, more likely, we'd
KJ>use a tether that we could reel in and out for variable gravity.
KJ>
KJ>Spinning spacecraft make for a treacherous rendezvous.
KJ>
KJ>I'll try to get some introductory SSF briefing material scanned in and
KJ>posted to ames.arc.nasa.gov.  No promises.
KJ>
KJ>-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
KJ>      [e-mail]  [phone]
KJ>
KJ>     "The earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind will not stay in
KJ>     the cradle forever." -- Konstantin Tsiolkvosky

To which, Tom Russell replied:

TR> Article 3219 of sci.space.shuttle:
TR> Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
TR> Path: aio!sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov!russell
TR> From: [e-mail] (thomas russell 283-4007)
TR> Subject: Re: SSF
TR> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
TR> Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
TR> Organization: McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company
TR> References:  <[e-mail]>
TR> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:13:03 GMT
TR>
TR> In Article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
TR> says:
TR>
TR> >SSF will be in a circular orbit, about 250 nautical miles up, at a 28.5
TR> >degree inclination to the equator.  (I'm unsure about the exact
TR> >altitude, but that's close.)
TR>
TR> >The spacecraft will be in one of the less stable "gravity gradient"
TR> >positions, with one end of the long structure always pointed in the
TR> >direction of travel, and the modules always pointed at the Earth
TR> >below.  I'll try another ASCII sketch.  Think of this as a sequence
TR> >of pictures, with "0" being the Earth:
TR> >
TR> >                        _
TR> >            /                       \
TR> > |  0         0         0         0         0 |       0         0         0
TR> >                                                        /       _       \
TR> >
TR> >   1         2         3         4          5        6         7         8
TR> >
TR> >
TR> >Picture a stick (SSF) running clock-wise around a ball (Earth).
TR> > ... <deleted>
TR>
TR>
TR> After the Station Builds reach the Permanently Manned Configuration (PMC),
TR> it will spend most of its time in an attitude such that the truss is
TR> purpendicular to the direction of travel. Thus the station rotates about
TR> its long axis at approx. 6 degrees/min to keep the module pattern oriented
TR> towards earth.  This general attitude is refered to as the Local Vertical
TR> Local Horizontal (LVLH) orientation. This is only a general attitude because
TR> the station flys with its principle axes more or less aligned
TR> with the LVLH frame. Deviations from the principle axis alignment are
TR> used to generate gravity gradient torque to oppose the small aerodynamic
TR> torques which are experienced in LEO. This attitude is normally called the
TR> Torque Equilibrium Attitude (TEA) and must be maintaned to prevent
TR> momentum saturation of the Control Moment Gyros (CMGs).
TR>
TR> To borrow Ken's picture:
TR>
TR>
TR>                       Velocity into page
TR>
TR>                                O-------> Out of Orbit Plane Direction
TR>                                |
TR>                                |
TR>                                |
TR>                               \|/
TR>
TR>                              Earth
TR>
TR>
TR>      SSSS                                               SSSS   SSSS
TR>      SSSS      T                                    T   SSSS   SSSS /|\   |
TR>      SSSS      T                                    T   SSSS   SSSS   \ _ /
TR>     tSSSStttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttSSSStttSSSSt
TR>     tSSSStttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttSSSStttSSSSt 6 deg/min
TR>      SSSS      T            nMMMMMMMn               T   SSSS   SSSS   rotation
TR>      SSSS      T            cMMMMMMM                T   SSSS   SSSS
TR>      SSSS                                               SSSS   SSSS
TR>
TR>     Legend:  t = truss, S = solar panel, T = thermal radiator,
TR>              n = node, M = module, c = Cupola
TR>
TR>
TR> Clear as Mud right? Hope this helps a little.
TR>
TR> The Attitude which Ken refers to is used for orbit reboost prior to PMC.
TR> The SSF attitude control community refers to it as the Arrow Orientation.
TR>
TR> As for the rest of Ken's response, I'll go along with his simple answers...
TR>
TR>    - Tom Russell / MDSSC-Houston

Our friend from BITNET also asked for:
>[...]  Simple lists of modules also welcome.  [...]

The US has a Laboratory and a Habitation module ("Lab" and "Hab").  The
Japanese have a module, and the Europeans have a module.  There are
four (?) "nodes" between the modules, one of which provides the
capability for Shuttle docking/berthing (and there's a BIG story behind
the docking/berthing decision).

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "...Development of the space station is as inevitable as
      the rising of the sun." -- Wernher von Braun

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:30:05 GMT
From: Rich Kolker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

All these kids... I was in elementary school, I was in nursary school, geez :-).

I was at work, programming for AT&T.  In those days, Washington DC had a station that b
that broadcast NASA Select because it was free (the station had no budget).
I was watching on one of the first Casio B&W LCD televisions, 1 1/2 inch
diagonal screen.  When the explosion took place, I knoew it was too
early for SRB sep, and expected to see the dot they were follwoing with
the camera to resolve itself into an orbiter in the midst of an RTLS.
Then it impacted the ocean.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
   rich kolker       [e-mail]
                         < Do Not Write In This Space>
--------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 23:06:22 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:


>Just a reminder- 7 years ago today- 11:38am EST....

>So, where were you when the Challenger disaster took place?

I was at work, and I remember not believing it when the first person
told me about it.  Once I heard it from someplace more believable, my
next thought was to wonder who was up, because one of the mission
specialists grew up where I did and his sister was a friend of the
family; I didn't even know who was scheduled.  I didn't think that he
was, but I didn't know.

And I remember my growing outrage over the next several days, both
over the Press's morbid fascination and repetition and over the fact
that so few people seemed to remember that there were SEVEN people on
that bird and not just ONE.  Six professionals and one passenger.  The
prfessionals probably had a better idea of the risks than the
passenger, but the passenger is the one that gets labelled 'hero'.

As you can tell, this still bothers me.  I don't know when they
changed it, but when I learned the word, 'hero' applied to someone who
knew the risks and went in anyway.  Just getting killed or being in
the wrong place at the wrong time didn't qualify.  It seems to these
days, though (a la the 'heros' of the Iranian Embassy, while there's
apparently amnesia about the men who got killed in the attempt to get
them out).

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 21:11:53 GMT
From: Michael Corvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

Where I was: (senior, Mech.E., at TUNS in Nova Scotia)
My best friend Donald and I were shooting the breeze with our
prof Dr. Bell when another of
our profs, Dr. Kujath, looked in, pale faced, and simply
said "..it's blown up, the shuttle has blown up...".

Some lessons have been learned from the tragedy.  It has made us
less complacent and lead to a revitalized Shuttle program.  It is
unfortunate how little is heard in the popular media about the impressive
launch rate achieved last year and to be repeated this year.  We
are doing a lot of 'space trucking' and good science up there...

On the other hand,
organizational reform has been incomplete, as evidenced by the Hubble
problems and the current, ongoing troubles with the GOES-NEXT program.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corvin           PP-ASEL, PP-G        [e-mail]
just another spaced rocket scientist at    Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============    My views, not Martin Marietta's   ========================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 23:25:07 +0000
From: Anthony Frost <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space


  > Just a reminder- 7 years ago today- 11:38am EST....

  > So, where were you when the Challenger disaster took place?

I was sitting in front of a reel to reel video tape machine in the TV
station I worked in at the time, setting up to record an item from studio
for the evening local news program. I saw the newsflash on a network monitor
out of the corner of my eye, switched the machine to the network line and
hit record. We spent most of the rest of the time until transmission going
through frame by frame trying to work out what had happened...

         Anthony

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

Date: 28 Jan 1993 19:24 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Using off-the-shelf-components
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>
>>You know I feel like I am the Shell Answer man for space of late.
>
>Tough job, but somebody has to do it. :)
>
>>You can fly any commercial hardware you like on the shuttle as long as it
>>meets the flamablity, outgassing, offgassing and EMI requirements.
>
>[ Dennis describes his off-the-shelf hardware & experiment ]
>
>>These components were integrated into a structure that fits in a Middeck
>>locker and all of the above components passed the shake tests, outgassing
>>and offgassing tests, as well as near compliance on EMI which  required a
>>waiver, which was granted.
>
>Let me ask you two quickies:
>
>    A) Do you have to recertify every time you fly? I guess you do
>       because no one experiment flies that frequently (yet).
>
>    B) Is there a database of commercial hardware which has been
>       "flight tested"? If, let's say me and DeLuca want to put
>       together our own flight experiment, we can just go to a book,
>       pick out the pieces, integrate them, and get them tested with
>       a better chance of passing pre-flight checks?
>
>


Answer to A)

If you do absolutely nothing to the experiment (possible in our case) then
you do not have to recertify. In 99% of instances you modify the experiment
or replace your materials or such and so forth. You have to basically pass three
major tests to get your hardware on the shuttle in the inhabited area.

1. Shake Test

This is a dynamic test where they put your payload on a table and shake it to
the requirements laid out in either the Goddard or JSC documents relating
to shuttle payloads. If I remember right the spec is +/- 10 g in the thrust
direction and +/- 6 g in the off axis directions. For a comparison the Delta
spec calls for +/- 10 g in all axes plus adding random vibrations, a much
tougher spec. This drives up the cost of payloads, something the Allen's of
the world never consider. You can get out of having to test by demonstrating
by analysis a factor of 2 safety. This is a great pain and it is far
easier to test your hardware.

2. Offgassing/outgassing

This test screens for contaminants that are on NASA's no-no list. These include
things such as PVC's (most commercial electronic connectors and cables are
have PVC coatings). These offgas clorine, a no-no in the orbiter. There are
many other tests that are related to this such as the flamablity tests where
non of your materials can outgas or off gass toxic fumes if they catch on
fire. This greatly limits the choices of materials that you can use and is the
reason that you must modify almost all commercial hardware to fly it.

3. EMI/RFI

You also have to meet the specs on the amount of radiated energy and conducted
energy from your experiment. Conducted energy spec says that your cannont
conduct back into the shuttle main power more than a certain level of low and
radio frequency noise. This spec gets tighter as the frequency rises, with a
Notch at 2.1 Ghz which is the shuttle communications frequency. This spec
covers all radiation (rf) up to 10 Ghz. The second part of this is the
RFI test meaning that you cannot radiate energy over certain levels from
your experiment. Most computers fail this test with flying colors due to the
radiation from quartz crystals, bus transitions of logic states, and
video monitor radiation. This test is the one that gets the most waivers
given to it in the course of qualification. There is work underway to
update the spec to a more reasonable level.

That in a nutshell is it for A

B) No there isn't and it would be a good thing to have. A qualification here
is that none of this hardware flys as is. There is ALWAYS some modifications
that have to be done to meet the above specs.  The Russians do have a more
relaxed set of qualifications regarding materials but the ones for
shock and shake are more rigorous than U.S ones due to the high accelerations
of their launch vehicles

Dennis, UNiversity of Alabama in Huntsville

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 093
------------------------------