Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_0/V16NO098.ZIP/V16NO098

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

Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 05:07:01
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #098
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 31 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 098

Today's Topics:
                     Cosmonaut Vladimir Vasyutin
                      Galileo Update - 01/29/93
                          Precursors to SSF
           Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger (11 msgs)
         Wishful thinking: was Using off-theshelf-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 16:06:42 GMT
From: & Ore Nugent <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cosmonaut Vladimir Vasyutin
Newsgroups: sci.space

I've read several brief references to Cosmonaut Vasyutin lately.
He was a crew member of the Soyuz T-14 mission when he had to be
evacuated for "emergency medical reasons" in November 1985.  In
fact all three crew members of the T-14 mission were evacuated at
that time.  The official reason for the evacuation was that
Cosmonaut Vasyutin had an abdominal problem which required surgery.
However, I've read several suggestions that Cosmonaut Vasyutin
actually suffered from a psychiatric illness.

I can't seem to find more specific information, like what kind of
breakdown Vasyutin may have suffered, why he suffered it, and what
subsequently happened to that crew.  Does anyone know or have a
pointer to an information source?

Thanks,

Janna Ore Nugent

|`If this young man expresses himself in terms too deep for me,
|Why, what a very singularly deep young man this deep young man
|must be!"  - W.S. GILBERT

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

Date: 29 Jan 1993 19:49 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Update - 01/29/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from Neal Ausman, Galileo Mission Director

                                 GALILEO
                    MISSION DIRECTOR STATUS REPORT
                               POST-LAUNCH
                          January 22 - 28, 1993

SPACECRAFT

1.  On January 22, real-time commands were sent to turn the Ultraviolet
Spectrometer (UVS) on for approximately one hour to exercise its grating
drive mechanism.  Additionally, the Plasma Wave (PWS) instrument was turned
on from the stored sequence and remains on.

2.  On January 22, real-time commands were sent to modify the System Fault
Protection (SFP) for science instruments.  Specifically, the Energetic
Particle Detector (EPD) science alarm monitor was modified to turn the EPD
replacement heater on instead of the EPD supplemental heater.  Also, the
SFP was modified to turn the Plasma Wave (PWS) and Heavy Ion Counter (HIC) on.
These changes were primarily necessitated by the changing thermal environment
as the spacecraft exceeds 1.2 solar AU.

3.  On January 22, cruise science Memory Readouts (MROs) were performed for
the Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrometer (EUV), Magnetometer (MAG) and Dust
Detector (DDS) instruments.  Preliminary analysis indicates the data was
received properly.

4.  On January 22, an Ultra Stable Oscillator (USO) test was performed to
verify the health status of the USO and collect gravitational red shift
experiment data; long term trend analysis is continuing.

5.  On January 25, the AACS (Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem)
12.0 inflight load activities commenced.  Real-time commands were first sent
to turn ranging off and the Two-Way Noncoherent (TWNC) on in order to maximize
the telecommunications performance.  Then, the spacecraft was configured to a
quiescent state in preparation for the inflight load which included disabling
AACS system fault protection and setting the command loss timer to 18 hours.
Commands were then sent to load the "memory test" into the A memory which was
then used to validate the B memory.  Upon successful validation of the
B memory, the original AACS 10.3 flight software was loaded into the B memory
and verified to be correct via Memory Readouts (MROs).

6.  On January 26, approximately seven hours after the AACS B memory was
verified to be correct, commands were sent to swap to the B memory.  Commands
were then sent to load the "memory test" into the B memory which was then
used to validate the A memory.  Upon successful validation of the A memory,
the original AACS 10.3 flight software was loaded into the A memory and
verified to be correct via Memory Readouts (MROs).

     Approximately seven hours later, real-time commands were sent to set the
command loss timer to 36 hours and to enable AACS system fault protection for
the intermediate wait period (approximately 23 hours) prior to loading the
new AACS flight software.  Additionally, real-time commands were sent to turn
the Two-Way Noncoherent (TWNC) off for the purpose of collecting two-way
doppler data for navigation purposes.  During the wait period, a NO-OP
command was sent to reset the command loss timer to 36 hours.

7.  On January 27, after approximately a 23 hour wait period, real-time
commands were sent to set the command loss timer to 18 hours and to disable
the AACS system fault protection.  The uplinking of the AACS 12.0 Flight
Software into memory A then began and continued for approximately 12 hours.
Memory Readouts (MROs) were performed to verify the uplink.

8.  On January 28, after approximately 6 hours from the time of the AACS
12.0 Flight Software MROs of memory A, commands were sent to swap to the A
memory.  Immediately after the swap, a Scan Actuator Subassembly (SAS) anomaly
occurred indicating that SAS slew rate errors occurred.  The uplinking of the
AACS 12.0 flight software into memory B was temporarily suspended pending
anomaly resolution.  Commands were then sent to reset the command loss timer
to 18 hours at 1530 UTC and 2245 UTC.  Anomaly resolution is continuing at
the time of this writing.

9.  The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements have not exhibited significant change
(greater than 25 DN) throughout this period.  The AC measurement reads 18DN
(4.1 volts).  The DC measurement reads 142DN (16.7 volts).  These
measurements are consistent with the model developed by the AC/DC special
anomaly team.

10. The Spacecraft status as of January 28, 1993, is as follows:

       a)  System Power Margin -  74 watts
       b)  Spin Configuration - All-Spin
       c)  Spin Rate/Sensor - 2.89 rpm/Acquisition Sensor
       d)  Spacecraft Attitude is approximately 7 degrees
           off-sun (lagging) and 36 degrees off-earth (leading)
       e)  Downlink telemetry rate/antenna- 1200bps(coded)/LGA-1
       f)  General Thermal Control - all temperatures within
           acceptable range
       g)  RPM Tank Pressures - all within acceptable range
       h)  Orbiter Science- Instruments powered on are the PWS,
           EUV, EPD, MAG, HIC, and DDS
       i)  Probe/RRH - powered off, temperatures within
           acceptable range
       j)  CMD Loss Timer Setting - 18 hours
           Time To Initiation - 17 hours


TRAJECTORY

     As of noon Thursday, January 28, 1993, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory
status was as follows:

    Distance from Earth         36,574,100 km (0.24 AU)
    Distance from Sun           176,192,200 km (1.18 AU)
    Heliocentric Speed          125,900 km per hour
    Distance from Jupiter       711,152,400 km
    Round Trip Light Time       4 minutes, 6 seconds


SPECIAL TOPIC

1.  As of January 28, 1993, a total of 64758 real-time commands have been
transmitted to Galileo since Launch.  Of these, 59699 were initiated in the
sequence design process and 5059 initiated in the real-time command process.
In the past week, 376 real time commands were transmitted: 370 were initiated
in the sequence design process and six initiated in the real time command
process.  Major command activities included commands to turn the UVS on/off,
turn the PWS on, modify SFP, turn ranging off, turn TWNC on, disable AACS SFP,
reset the command loss timer, enable the AACS SFP, turn the TWNC off, and
upload the AACS 12.0 flight software.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Every once in a while,
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | try pushing your luck.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jan 93 09:19:45 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Precursors to SSF

-From: [e-mail] (Doug Mohney)
-Subject: Re: Precursors to Fred (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.)
-Date: 27 Jan 93 19:22:24 GMT
-Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park

-So how do you suggest NASA tests hardware and flight procedures before Freedom
-goes up?

[This is really more of a response to Allen's statements in the context of
your question - "what is being done in orbit that's expected to be useful
for SSF?" I thought the subject was worth mentioning, separate from the current
debate.]

They seem to be doing a lot of it already. And not just the experiment setups
that Dennis Wingo gives a very good description of - they also have done or
have scheduled tests that should give information on station fabrication
and assembly techniques. Both of the EVA activities of Endeavour's first
mission were somewhat related to in-orbit assembly and service - the second
one more so, as it involved assembling beam structures. The recent addition
of several EVAs to the Shuttle mission schedules (when the opportunity
presents itself) was largely a result of the discovery on the Intelsat
rescue that the water tank tests did not provide nearly as good a simulation
of microgravity work involving large objects as had been supposed.

I'd like to see them test the structural interfaces - send up two dummy
"ends" of SSF modules on a single Shuttle mission, fasten them together,
pressurize them, then test them for susceptibility to various combinations
of the vibration modes - compression/tension, translation, and torsion.
This wouldn't be as good as a fully integrated test, and it wouldn't give
direct information on parameters such as long-term fatigue, but with lots
of instrumentation it could tremendously increase the tested information
available to simulators - you could get a much better idea of how much SSF
would flex/oscillate under various conditions, and given some knowledge of the
materials used, you could get a better idea of how quickly the SSF components
would wear out. I don't know whether anything like this is planned.

There are also items that have been inadvertently "tested" on the Shuttle,
that give at least some idea of the issues that need to be addressed on SSF.
For example - air circulation patterns, and clogging of air filters with
dust. Dust is much more of a problem in microgravity than on Earth. Several
experiments have nearly been ruined when equipment overheated because air
filters in the equipment had clogged, preventing the effective flow of cooling
air. SSF will have to manage dust and air filters much more effectively than
the Shuttle, and charting air flow may turn out to be an important part of
that. The Shuttle astronauts have also gained considerable experience fixing
water leaks (and other equipment breakdowns), which could be useful on SSF.

One problem for which no solution has been found yet: in-orbit fax machines.
If SSF uses the same fax design as the Shuttle, and they want to have a
working fax most of the time, then they'll have to ship up 52 new fax machines
a year. One good feature of this - as each fax machine jams, it can be
lowered from SSF by tether, thus reducing the orbital debris problem, and
boosting SSF's orbit at the same time. :-)  :-)  :-)

(I haven't finished analyzing the tapes from STS-54 yet, but I haven't heard
of the fax machine jamming on that mission. If in fact they had the fax on
board and used it, and it *didn't* jam, that would be a major milestone! :-)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 17:47:24 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <5=[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Sean Michael Gallagher) writes:
>
>Where were you?  I was in grade school, and it was raining so we were inside
>for our lunchtime recess.  The teachers let us watch the launch live (My
>teacher was a teacher-in-space candidate.)  We spent the whole afternoon
>trying to figure out what happened, and the flag was lowered to half-staff
>that day and for the following week.  I can't believe they wouldn't let you
>discuss one of the most tragic events in recent history.
>Sean

We tried to find out the real motives for this, but we never did.  All we
knew was that there was this unwritten prohibition covering anything that
was pro-space.
What really p---ed me off was that in April when Libya was bombed all these
people were going around saying how we should feel sorry for the Libyans!
And in May those who told jokes about Chernobyl (myself included) got alot
of flak.

In both cases, I would always hear someone say 'But that's not funny-people
died and everything.....'

My reply-'Gee, people died aboard Challenger and you didn't seem to give
a DAMN about that!!'

I even went as far as to denounce ANYONE (students, teachers, administrators)
telling jokes about the disaster or making any anti-space travel comments
as 'cowards, Communists, and traitors of the worst possible sort.'
                                                                     :
'Those @*(@**(%% Soviets!'  I hope the President has the guts t get back into

As you can see the Challenger disaster affected me probably worse than it
did others.

I do think, IMHO, that if we had been allowed to discuss it openly these
thoughts and opinions would have been a little different.

But the day it happened I stood up and swore that if I was called to go on the
next flight, I'd go without giving it a second thought.

Well, I doubt I'll actually go into space (unless the DC gets off the ground
for passenger flights :-) ).  But at least the space program inspired my
interest in other technical matters, and even my interest in a career as
a writer of science fiction.

And now it's funny- in 1986 I called those who discussed joint US-Soviet
spaceflights as 'traitors and madmen', now I wouldn't mind seeing a US-
Russia collaboration in future space flights.


Although I still wouldn't mind seeing the US flag on Mars.  :-)
(no flames for being a bit nationalistic please :-) )

Simon

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 17:56:51 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>I was at work in the service department of Bill Utter Ford in Denton TX
>(working my way thru my undergrad physics degree).  Joel Petty (another
>mechanic) and I listened to the launch on his radio while we worked.  I
>recall hearing the comment, "...looks like a major malfunction..." and
>feeling the same way I would if I saw flashing lights in my rear view
>mirror -- a gut wrenching fear.
>
>After another minute or so the word started to circulate that "the shuttle
>blew up".  The owner called all employees up to the showroom where we
>watched the TV and waited for further results.  After ~45 minutes we knew
>the worst was confirmed and went back to work somewhat dazed.
>
>-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute

We were in class when it happened. A teacher walked in, whispered something
to our teacher and they both left for a few minutes.  Someone in the class
said'the shuttle blew up'.  I had this bad feeling, but I remember saying
'That's not right, I think you mean a Soviet rocket blew up. An American
spacecraft cannot suffer a malfunction like that-it's scientifically
impossible....'
(yeah, I used to say things like that)

But the teacher came back and confirmed that it had happened.

There was talk of sabotage, but I was even more angered to find out about
the defective booster rockets, and all the mismanagment going on that let
up to the disaster.

Simon

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 17:58:48 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Patrick Campbell) writes:
>In article <[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?
>>
>Well, I was done class early that morning and went home for lunch (I was on
>M.S.Time).  I flipped on the T.V. and saw the shuttle about to launch.  I
>found out later that this was post-explosion coverage, but when I switched
>on the 'tube they had decided to show the launch sans commentary, just
>listening to mission control.  So for me, it was "real time" with no
>warning.  I just thought "cool--a shuttle launch," and couldn't believe it
>when it exploded.
>
I had set the VCR to tape something else (I had kinda forgotten about the
shuttle launch).  So we ended up with an hour or two of footage about it.

Simon

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 18:16:05 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (FRANK NEY) writes:
>
>> I can't believe they wouldn't let you discuss on of the most tragic
>> events in recent history.
>
>I can.  Public schools are notorious for the collection of politically
>correct liberals infesting them.  They probably thought that the money
>would have been better spent on welfare and that NASA and the
>Challenger Seven deserved what they got.
>
>God, I hate PC Libs!  Especially when they are in positions to
>indoctrinate our future.

Well, this was several years before PC started to creep into things.
But I do recall getting a 'C' on an English project- we were studying
Greek mythology, and the project was to design a star constellation based
on a myth of our own making but using the guidlines of Greek mythology.
So naturally I came up with one called 'Astronauticus' (ok, lame title,
but this was high school english :-) )
Anyway, it went something like this (pardon the bad ascii artwork)

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


                 outline of shuttle orbiter with 7 stars within it.


  So, I turn in my tribute to the Challenger crew, and I get it back with
  a 'C; on it, with the messege 'It's obvious that the Challenger tragedy
  inspired your work, but I think you could have been more original.'
                      .  Pretty lame excuse, IMHO.


  Simon



  Lack of orgininality?  Geez, some joker in the class ripped of a 'Rush'

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 18:19:55 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Michael Sambrook) writes:
>
>Where was I when the Challenger accident occurred?
>
>I was an eight grader at Chestnut Junior High School.  I distinctly remember
>being told by one of my teachers, Mr. Roche.  However, he had a reputation of
>being a joker, and nobody believed him.  He wouldn't even put on the TV to
>prove it, so we didn't believe a word he said.  Our next class was Social
>Studies with Mr. Mills.  Unfortunately, he was out that day, and we had a sub
>who ALSO told us the bad news.  By this time, it started to sink in.
>Needless to say, very little was done for the rest of the day.  I don't
>remember much of what happened for the rest of the day, I was in a state of
>shock.  To this day, I still get chills when I see the explosion.  Let's ALL
>hope that it never happens again...

Something that to this day still offends me is that whenever footage of the
disaster is shown, there's also footage of the high school auditorium
at the school where McCulliffe (sp?) taught.  I hope I'm grossly mistaken,
but the way the footage looks, it almost seems as if the kids cheer louder
around the moment of the explosion.

I really do hope I've been wrong all this time and it's just bad editing of
archival footage.

Simon

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 18:24:20 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I was attending the CommNet convention in Washington DC that day.  I didn't
>find out about the accident until late afternoon while driving back to my
>hotel in Crystal City.  I remember an especially somber atmosphere in the
>restaurant that night - a lot of military and govt employees stay in that
>area while visiting DC.  The USAF folks were really down.
>
My dad was in the Air Force at the time as an instructor, and the class he
was teaching at the time set up a small but permanent 'monument' inside one
of the numerous display cases inside the building (ATC NCO Academy at Lackland
AFB, here in San Antonio for those who might be familiar with it).

Around a year or two later a monument was erected at the local airport.

Impressive, but hard to admire when in a car fighting the traffic rushing
into the main terminal areas!  I wished they had set up something that
you could stop and look at.

Simon

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 18:28:03 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>I was watching the launch in the conference room here at JSC.  I had worked for
> NASA for 6 months.  51-L was the first flight I worked with in one of the
> simulators here.  I knew some of the crew.  They were wonderful people.
>
>
>Keith A. Grimm
>NASA-JSC
>Houston, TX  77058

My apologies if my posting was inapropriate. I forgot about the aerospace
personel who might have known the Challenger crew.

But IMHO those of us who are space euthasiasts, whether we knew the crew
personall or not, shared in the loss equally.

Simon

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 18:33:00 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert A. Lentz) writes:
>
>    John Gillespie Magee, Jr.
>Pilot Officer Magee joined the Royal Canadian Air Force in October 1940, at
>age 18.  He went to England to fly Spitfires.  After qualifying, he was
>piloting one on a test flight into the stratosphere at 30,000 feet when
>he got the inspiration for "High Flight."  Magee was killed in action during
>a dogfight December 11, 1941, at age 19.
>
>     Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
>       And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
>     Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
>       Of sun-split clouds -- and done a hundred things
>     You have not dreamed of -- wheeled and soared and swung
>       High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there,
>     I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
>       My eager craft through footless halls of air.
>     Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
>       I've topped the windswept heights with easy grace
>     Where never lark, or even eagle flew.
>       And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
>     The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
>       Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.

This is own of my favorite poems.  I made sure to read it before another
English class around the time of the first anniversary of the accident.
>
>  "If we die, we want people to accept it. We hope that if anything happens
>to us it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk
>of life." -Gus Grissom

I think we should all be reminded of statements like this whenever doubt
is cast upon our desire to explore space.


>"Why the Moon? Why Mars?
> Because it is humanity's destiny to strive, to seek, to find.
> And because it is America's destiny to lead."
>-President George Bush on the Space Exploration Initiative

I hope Clinton feels the same way.....


Simon

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 18:38:53 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (no one of consequence) writes:
>
>The day the Challenger exploded I was a sophmore in high school. I was
>sitting in my English class doing some assignment when the PA system came up
>and the principal announced that the shuttle had exploded. The rest of the
>day went by in a dazed sense of shock. Seeing a picture or a recording still
>hurts sometimes.

I know the feeling.  At least in the PBS docmentary 'Space Age', the launch
was shown but faded to black so the explosion was not seen.
>
>I share the hope that it will never happen again but I know that something
>like it will. As spaceflight becomes more common, accidents will happen
>sometime. I just hope the accidents are only minor though.
>
>I also hope it takes less time for the launching agency to have the courage
>to try again instead of covering their tails.
>
This is onw thing I always gave the Soviets some credit for- were they
ever set back by any of their accidents to the extent that we were
post-Challenger?

>An upbeat note: One of my better days in life was watching the first
>post-Challenger shuttle launch when I was a freshman in college. Everyone
>in the room was applauding when the shuttle went up while I caught myself
>muttering "Come on, go go go go go go. You can do it!" :-)
>
I was taking a year off between college and high school, so in September
1988 I was home and able to follow the whole Discovery mission.

I was up early listening in on the audio rebroadcast on shortwave, while
watching it on CNN.  When it launched I just sat there for several minutes
thinking 'They did it!'.  And it was something to hear on the shortwave
the entire acsent right up to MECO!


Simon


>--
>/----------------------------------------------------------------------\
>|Patrick Chester                             [e-mail]|
>|"If the Earth is our Cradle, then why are we still here?"             |
>|Everything your side says is Truth. All else is Propaganda....        |
>|I only speak for myself. If I *did* speak for UT, would anyone listen?|
>\----------------------------------------------------------------------/

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

Date: 29 Jan 93 14:24:32 GMT
From: Tom Coradeschi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) wrote:
>
>
> Just a reminder- 7 years ago today- 11:38am EST....
>
> So, where were you when the Challenger disaster took place?

Right here, at work. I'd just come up from the lab to get a drink of water,
and a long-time friend and (at that time) co-worker told me the news.

We spent the greater part of the day sitting out in the parking lot,
listening to radio reports on a car radio (no closed circuit TV back then).

What a bummer.

                  tom coradeschi <+> [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 12:50:05 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Rich Kolker) says:

>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      n
>statio
>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>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------

     That' exactly what I was thinking. Grade & High school. :-)
     I was programming for Murata Erie when the guy I shared a cube
     with wife called and told me to tell him that we had lost the shuttle.
     Other than he and I no one else seemed really affected by it in our
     group.

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 18:00:16 GMT
From: Ata Etemadi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wishful thinking: was Using off-theshelf-components
Newsgroups: sci.space

Before going onto what Dennis said: Are there any commercial companies
out there with enough vision to realise that if their components already
meet military standards, it is probably safe to assume they could pass the
standards required for space applications with little or no modification ?
If you folks get off your arses and do some research into this, you would
increase your profits, get free PR and help bring European and American
space research up to state-of-the-art. Currently the technology that is
flown by NASA and ESA is atleast a decade out of date.

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (University Space Society)
writes:

>You know I feel like I am the Shell Answer man for space of late.
>You can fly any commercial hardware you like on the shuttle as long as it
>meets the flamablity, outgassing, offgassing and EMI requirements.

Unfortunately I do not have access to a multi-million pound EMC, outgassing
etc.. test facility, or a few thousand pounds per day to hire the facilities
from people like British Aerospace (ESTEC charge a mere 10,000 pounds per week).
Furthermore, ESA require that *each* component (that means every resistor,
capacitor, etc..) be serialised, and manufatured on an ESA approved production
line. I am sure this is the same at NASA, but it seems you managed to get away
with it.

>Let me give you an example. I recently, along with others working at the
>University of Alabama in Huntsville, built tested and delivered to the
>SpaceHab module (STS 57) a major payload for the measurement of the
>microgravity levels inside of the SpaceHab module.  This experiment has
[some lines deleted]

Is that the Huntsville near Marshall and the multi-million pound test
facility :-)

>The problem is that non of you so called big shots out there with the big
>mouths and no follow through are willing to do the work necessary to make
>this happen on a day to day basis. I guarantee that if a few of you would
>bid on NASA announcment of opportunities when they come out, and do the hard
>work necessary to use the commercial equipment, you could lower the cost of
>the program by at least 2/3. How can I say that? IT is because this is
>exactly what we did here. Talk is cheap and there is a lot of cheap talk on
>this group. Get offa your rears and do something to help lower the costs
>of moving into space. I can't do it all. (but I damn sure am trying)

I am willing to do the work, if I know there is a chance of succeeding.
The technology that is being currently flown is approx. 10 years behind
(atleast the non-military applications). I have a definite project in
mind which could be done using something like the Hobbit hand-held
computer, an optical disc drive and a UV camera I could buy from Maplins.
With the technology currently being flown not only could I NOT do my project,
but even a scaled-down version would cost atleast 100,000 times more than
the 5-10K pounds it would take me to build it as I described. I am sure I
can make the final system pass the EMC, outgassing etc.. tests. However I
am equally sure that neither ESA or NASA would fly the instrument since
the individual components are not space qualified. If you say that this
is not the case then send me the information on how to go about getting
my proposal considered.

>Yours was probably a legitimate question and I try to answer nicely but
>you must realize that NASA is not the enemy. On the contrary, NASA will
>help you to help NASA because if for no other reason it looks good to be
>able to show costs savings on programs and reverse technology transfer is
>the primary way in my estimation that this is going to happen.

I consider NASA and ESA as human resources. After all its our tax money
that paid for them (ESA in my case). If anyone from NASA is reading this
then I'd certainly like to know where you folks stand.

    regards
        Ata <(|)>.

Imperial College, Space & Atmospheric Physics group

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 098
------------------------------