Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_3/V16NO338.ZIP/V16NO338

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 34KB

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 93 05:23:09
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #338
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 19 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 338

Today's Topics:
                           Aurora spotted?
       Clueless Szaboisms  (Was Re: plans, and absence thereof)
               Just a little tap (was Re: Galileo HGA)
                            Launch Windows
                          NASA and Congress
                     Need MIR packet Frequency's
     Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise (2 msgs)
                     Space Tug (OMV) info sought
                     SR-71 Maiden Science Flight
  The REAL explanation (was Re: Winding Trails from Rocket Launches)
                         waste management...
Water Simulations (Was Re: Response to various attacks on SSF) (2 msgs)
               What do we do now with Freedom. (2 msgs)

    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: 18 Mar 93 07:43:12 GMT
From: Fogbound Child <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aurora spotted?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB") writes:

>On Wed, 17 Mar 93 15:55:45 MET, [e-mail] writes:

><It seems that the 1991-1992 "airquakes" over California were not like
><those giant booms - these airquakes were described as short rumbles making
><the ground lurch.

>I heard some of those "sonic anomalies" (what the USGS, Cal Tech and other
>earthquake-types call them).  The windows of my house shook for ~ 15 sec.,
>and there was a loud, low-frequency rumbling sound (lowder and lower frequency
>than the rocket tests usually conducted near my house) that sounded like an
>earthquake, but the ground did not shake.  Many people in the L.A. area (from
>San Fernado Valley to the South Bay area) called to report earthquakes and
>were told it was not a seismic event.

In fact, there was another one here in LA on Tuesday, around 3:15PM.

First instinct is "ACK! AN EARTHQUAKE!" but it's over too quickly.

News media report it, saying they don't know what it was, and the AF
denies any knowledge.


>Disclaimer: Opinions stated are solely my own (unless I change my mind).
>Ben Muniz     [e-mail]    w(818)586-3578
>Space Station Freedom:Rocketdyne/Rockwell:Structural Loads and Dynamics
>   "Man will not fly for fifty years": Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901

___Samuel___
--
_________Pratice Safe .Signature! Prevent Dangerous Signature Virii!_______
Guildenstern: Our names shouted in a certain dawn ... a message ... a
              summons ... There must have been a moment, at the beginning,
              where we could have said -- no. But somehow we missed it.

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

Date: 18 Mar 93 13:46:28 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clueless Szaboisms  (Was Re: plans, and absence thereof)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

Dennis,  while I may get long, Pedantic, Fixated  and sometimes obnoxious,
You know that what Nick needs is not a clue,  but Lithium.

pat

PS  quite an impressive resume there.  So were those NCR cash registers
running DOS or Unix?

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

Date: 18 Mar 93 13:55:20 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Just a little tap (was Re: Galileo HGA)
Newsgroups: sci.space

I thought there was still high hope for the Probe release
shocks to maybe shake up the antenna.  My feeling is that they should
go ahead and hammer the antenna during the probe release.

I can understnad not hammering during the OI burn  except maybe the last
half second,   but Probe release should be a short sharp slap.
A few dozen micro hammers during it may gain some ground.

Besides,  if the HGA opened, and the probes went off course, it would
be a wash.  the orbiter would get most of the imaging data, but the probe
mission may get lost.   kinda a trade off.   Lousy deal, but no worse then
the deal we got now.

pat

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

Date: 18 Mar 93 23:28:42 GMT
From: Samuel Bryant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Launch Windows
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Dean Adams) writes:

>Does anyone have the current launch window data
>for the two upcoming DoD ELV flights?

>Last I heard, the Delta II/GPS launch was
>scheduled for Thursday at 8pm (PT)...

>The Atlas/UFO mission was just rescheduled for March 25th (what time?)
>in order to avoid a range conflict with the Shuttle.

>What is the exact window times for these missions?

Based on the 18 Mar 93 schedule message to HQ Air Force Space Command:

Delta II, 19 Mar 93, 0355-0422 zulu time (-5 hrs for Cape Canaveral local)
                    which makes it 18 Mar 93 at 1055 pm to 1155 pm

Shuttle/Columbia, 21 Mar 93, 1452-1852 zulu time

Atlas I (UFO payload), 25 Mar 93, 2131-2251 zulu time

Shuttle/Discovery, 7 April 93, 0531-0931 zulu time


Cheers,
Sam

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 18 Mar 93 22:21:04 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA and Congress

I wrote
>>I'm curious to know what it is you think I've been mislead on. [...]

Brian answers;
>I did not intend to imply that your conception of problems within NASA
>was incorrect. What I was referring to was the fact that most of the
>public does not have a true scope of the enormous breadth and difficulty
>of NASA's programs.  NASA is designing systems to operate in an environment
>where there is very little past experience. While there have been and will
>continue to be failures, there have also been many successes.
>I do believe that space will have to be commercialized before it is widely
>accessible, but the tasks to be surmounted are so large right now that only
>the government has the financial resources to do it.

I see the point about enourmous scope, and the very real problems that
can and do occur, but I have a real problem with 'only the gov can...'
For one thing, gov only gets it's $$ from citizens or inflation, so
it's patently fallacious to say that only gov can afford it.  And, even
if one were to accept that assertion, not all tasks fall into that
category.  There are some that could be commercialized that aren't being.

And that still doesn't address insurmountable problems causes by
NASA's nature as a gov agency.

>> Flubs I can deal with.  We're all human here; mistakes get made.  But
>> some mistakes are systemic.  And here you are, saying PR isn't good
>> enough.  The problem is not the public learning of NASA's flaws.  The
>> problem is NASA's flaws being ignored.  Better PR will only exacerbate
>> the problem.

>This is not true. The Augustine report had major impact on NASA operations
>and philosophies. It is a learning experience, I assure you.  I think NASA
>should be held accountable for its mistakes and the public (i.e., the
>customer) should be kept aware. However, to be fair (and this was my
>original point), the PR should include the successes as well as the
>failures.

The PR I have seen did.  Indeed, there are still people trying to call
Fred and shuttle successes, when others disagree.  Providing information
is good.  Convincing people what is and isn't a success is propaganda,
but that's exactly what many NASA-folk do, right here on this list.

>There is a great annual publication which comes out called NASA Spinoffs.
>However, it is almost impossible to get a copy.  Something like this should
>be mass marketed and at every library in the country.

Sounds interesting.  Gov has always been best when it informs, instead
of forcing.

>> I have are those that result from NASA's nature as a gov. agency.
>> Slowness to respond to circumstances.  Projects being directed by
>> political, not design and cost concerns.  This is why the classic
>> 'congresses fault' defense is bogus.  Since much of NASA's history
>> and funding has come from congress-directed goals (Shuttle, Apollo,
>> Fred), problems with congress are problems at NASA's heart.  You
>> can't work around them, but the people at NASA could get out from
>> under them.

>I actually somewhat agree with this. But private industry does not have
>the financial muster to develop all the core technology to utilize
>space.  Rather than destroy the one entity that does, I think Congress
>should be educated and forced by the voters to remove these barriers
>to national research and technology development.

They *may* not have all the resources to develop all the technology, but
if they have the resoucres to develop some, NASA should not use
monopoloy tactics to destroy their efforts.  When NASA does, it wastes
NASA's $$ and effort, in addition to the wreck they make of PI.

Also, hinging success of NASA on getting congress to listen to the
voters... Well, we all want to change the world, right :-)

Finally, if NASA keeps dragging it's feet, we may see the day when
even a streamlined gov agency, with confiscatory tax powers, can't
manage it.  I think it time we look for other options, and letting
NASA re-work themselves *once again* is not what I'd call 'new'.
I'd call that 'the same damn thing we've heard for decades.'  I mean,
looked at objectively, how bad does NASA have to fuck up a program
before you'd admit that trying other options would be better than
waiting for a rework, hearing excuses, and seeing it fuck up again?

>I would like to remind you that the vast majority of actual work on
>NASA programs is done by private industry (Rockwell, McDonnell Douglas,
>IBM,
>etc.) under the direction of NASA.  NASA has one of the most ambitious
>programs for giving work to small minority-owned and disadvantaged
>businesses.

The intentions are great.  But since these guys have NASA as a customer,
rather than someone who spends their own money, there are several
deleterious effects.  Cost over-runs.  Sloppy or inefficient work, since
they are living high on the hog (subsidized).  Really good at making
obsolete things (There's still a question of whether Fred is even
worth doing, let alone doing for nnn billions).   They are, after all,
under the direction of NASA.  "Oh, you don't think you can work with
our fickle or unreasonable needs?  See ya.  Hope you like being an
ex-aerospace company."

And, there is the problem of how NASA treats their competitors.  If they
have a competitor, it's proof that PI can do what NASA is doing (at least
in that one market).  For NASA to destroy them, then claim that PI
just doesn't have the resources, is just, well, evil is the only word
I can think of that covers it, but reprehensible, ridiculous, criminal,
lame, and shitty all come to mind as well.

>I personally have seen (and recommended) many small-business innovation
>research programs (SBIRs) funded by NASA for commercial launch vehicles.
>One major component of NASA's charter that has taken on more emphasis now
>than ever before is technology transfer into the private sector.  The goal
>has always been to develop the core technologies to a point where the
>proven methods of capitalist investments can take over.

I thought that was the goal, too, but they seem quite reluctant to
let competitors do anything with those methods.  I have a terrible
memory for the details, but I remember reading of laws that essentially
force Shuttle on people that might otherwise choose another, or the
case of the private company (OSC?) that wanted, started, to build an
HLLV.  NASA decided to do the same, putting them out of business, when
stockholders saw NASA gearing up to subsidize their way to certain
market dominance.  When this group folded, NASA dropped the HLLV.

Technology transfer in that kind of climate might as well be no x-fer.

>You really should try to get a copy of NASA Spinoffs that I mentioned.
>Contact the Public Affairs Office at Johnson Space Center:
>713-483-5111

Thanks for the info.  I'll check it out.

>> Given the same resources, what special skill/quality does NASA posess
>> that would make it more effective than a private group?

>The money and the freedom to draw on a pool of national collective
>resources.

'Freedom'?  Give me a break.  Drawing on the "national resources" is
part of the reason that private citizens have a hard time affording
things, like, say, cheap access to space.  You sound like an ad for
FICA, the same group that brought us the S&L problems.  Besides, I
said the same resources.  Anyone can do anything, given the confiscatory
tax power the IRS has.  Or is that what you actually meant?

>The task to be done are too mounmental still to be attempted by multiple
>companies duplicating efforts in competition. We need all American
>resources
>to contribute a different part.

Sweet talk.  Propoganda.  Bullshit.  You haven't told me what NASA
can do, that anyone else can't.  Pointing to their access to funds
is a joke.  It leads to inefficiency, since they can't lose, monopoly
behavior, since they'll lose their mission in life if funding is cut,
and unrealiability, since they have to beg funding from a fickle group
like congress.  These limitations of gov agency-ness are more than
adequate to wipe out any possible advantage because of centralization.
And, they are also adequate to muck up a free market enough to make
the already substantial risk, in an area like aerospace, high
enough that only gov is stupid enough to invest.  But it's easy to
do risky things with OPM.

>> What's wrong with breaking NASA into it's component pieces, and allowing
>> them to get funding based on thier results.  Then, the Shuttle ops,
>> a monopolized, inefficient transportations system, would no longer be
>> supported by a public that likes what JPL does.  I bet we'd have a
>> CRAF, if it had been done that way.

>I don't oppose this at all. The only thing that is critical is that some
>power be maintained in integrating all efforts into a common set of goals.

Why?  What if the 'common goals' aren't shared by some?  Then they
won't really be putting their best work up.  What if the 'common
goals' are just plain dumb.  It'd be nice to have someone not working
on them, using their efforts for something as a back-up.

>This, btw, *is* NASA's biggest internal weakness.  There has been way too
>little effort devoted to central integration issues of all the various
>programs devoted to a project (case and point - Space Station).

I see it just the opposite; Focussing on Plans, and Goals is a waste,
when there are straightforward things to worry about, like, say,
cheap rockets, native materials, and life sciences.  Thinking about it,
lack of knowledge in those three areas are what I'd list as NASA's
biggest weaknesses.

SSF was designed based on the 'next logical step' system.  What with
cost overruns and it's decreasing ability, I'm surprised that people
still think Goals, Plans, and Programs is the way to do things.  It

>Skylab did not have the capability to be a permanently manned station.
>However, I do agree that we as a nation have dragged our feet way too long.

Nothing personal, but "we as a nation" weren't running Skylab.  NASA
was.  Phrases like that are only meaningful to me when I realize what
they are; propaganda.

Wasn't Skylab the biggest space station in the History of Humankind?
Losing it was a damn shame, and directly related to the efforts to
create Common Goals, Plans, and Programs, with the flag-ship Shuttle.

>> There are goals in space that would be better met by private free
>> enterprise.  Yet NASA has consistently blocked these efforts, trying
>> to protect the Shuttle, for example, from competition in launching
>> services.  Do you defend this as well?

>No, I would not defend it - if it were true. Can you enlighten me?
>Everything I have seen from NASA Headquarters has encouraged
>commercialization of space.

Do you mean you see them encouraging, or you see them telling you that
they are encouraging?  The actions are what count, right?

Well, I mentioned two things, specifically.  One was the HLLV that
was designed, and even started getting built.  Then NASA, seeing that
PI went to build one, decided there was a market for one, and started
their own.  Since they are subsidized and unbeatable, investors got
understandably cold feet, and the company folded.  NASA saw this, and
decided there wasn't a market after all, and stopped building theirs,
too.  The other thing, which I don't think is as bad as it was, is
the defacto monopoly they have on launches in the US.  Supposably,
it's to help shuttle operations, which it probably does, but the
other very real effect is to insure no launch competition.  Allen can
probably tell you more about the laws than I can.  I can't remember
what the name of that company was, either, which probably makes me
sound like a real bonehead, but I didn't imagine it.  Maybe Henry
can help on this one.

It may be that NASA is getting a clue, starting to focus back on their
original mission, serving the American public.  But any changes in
focus are noticably opposite to the inertia of gov agencies, dependent
on personalites in charge, rather than incentives, built-in, for the
people that make up NASA.  How long can it really last, assuming it's
even true?

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
[e-mail]  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 18:52:38 GMT
From: Timo Patana <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need MIR packet Frequency's
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.ham-radio.packet,rec.radio.amateur.packet

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George Rachor) writes:

> Article-I.D.: agora.C43B35.HsK

> Anyone remember the frequency's used by the MIR space station packet radio system?

 I remember they are using 145.550, same freq as with their FM simplex
qso's...as a matter of fact i have heard them on this freq, but i dont
know if they do use it nowadays...

  Timo

--------------------------------------------------------
  Timo Patana, OH6NVG        [e-mail]
  Tel. [phone]        Mobile [phone]



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

Date: 18 Mar 93 12:58:50
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics

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

   In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]. (Thomas E. Smith) writes...

   >How much more sensitive is the setup with the three spacecraft than the
   >ground-based interferometer antennas?

   It's not, so far as I understand.  But LIGO is still vaporware, so you
   do what you can do.

Actually LIGO junior is operational (40m interferometer) and
LIGO proper has funding to start construction

However, this experiment is sensitive to gravitational
waves of much longer wavelength then anything LIGO can see,
the separation is few AU so that's roughly the wavelengths they're
sensitive to. The only sources that could generate that wavelength
with enough intensity to hope to see are supermassive black holes
in last stages of spiral in and relic radiation from the big
bang. The former are expected to be relatively rare, the latter
are already constrained from pulsar timing - the pulsar timing
is usually senstitive to wavelengths a couple of orders of magnitude
smaller, but you expect big bang perturbations not to be sensitive
to wavelength on these scales and I'd be surprised if any were
detected - the real shot is to catch a pair of black holes in
mid-merger, a long-shot, but worth it - and of course we could
always be _real_ surprised.


   >I am glad to see that you have taken advantage of a fantastic opportunity!
   >A High 5 to the scientists who proposed this! Let's just hope that nature
   >cooperates and gives us something to listen to :)

   This is not the first time it's been proposed, or even done.  See, for example.

   J.D. Anderson et.al, "Gravitation and Celestial Mechanics Investigations
   with Galileo," Space Science Reviews V60, no.1-4, pp 591-610, May 92.

   I suspect that the experiments contained in this paper won't be done
   because of the problems with Galileo...

   There was also a Phys. Rev. paper in the last six months or so reporting
   a measurement that actually *was* made, using one of the Voyager spacecraft,
   if I am not mistaken, which found no gravity waves.

Yup. And re: Dale's question about how to pick it from the noise,
the signal if seen will have definite form and the black hole signal
has a very characteristic frequency variation - go read one of Kip
Thorne's reviews for details.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson               Lick Observatory          *
*  [e-mail]        "standard disclaimer"      *
*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict            *
*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*

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

Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 20:24:07 GMT
From: "Thomas E. Smith" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics,alt.sci.planetary

>     Okay, but how does one rule out ordinary environmental perturbations
>     that happen to occur at the appropriate times?  How does one distinguish
>     between an ordinary dynamical triple-coincidence event and
>     a gravitational one?
>
>                                  dale bass

It is possible that rondom noise from different sources would be picked up
by all three spacecraft at the same time. But it's not very likely. I mean
take a look at what might cause the random noise:

  1. Vibrations on the spacecraft. These can usually be accounted for and
     either be predicted, or ruled out if you know where it's comming from.
     Space is perfect for eliminating vibrations.

  2. A solar flare or some sudden activity on the sun that would heat the
     spacecraft's dish and cause it to transmit a higher frequency.

  3. A dust cloud that the spacecraft flies through.

  4. Vibrations near the DSN dishes.

  5. Temperature variations on the DSN dishes.

  etc.

These events are pretty rare, especially for the spacecraft. And extremely rare
for seperate occurances to happen at the same time, producing the same effect
for all spacecraft.

As for any one source of noise that could cause the three spacecraft to wobble
in the same manner, at the same time, even though seperated by millions of
kilometers, I can't think of anything that could do that without us knowing
the source of it. Other than gravity waves. If this event, whatever it is, is
in the vicinity of the solar system, then the spacecraft nearest it would
probably be affected more, since the event is relatively closer compared to the
other two.

But then, I could just be missing something :)


--
------------------------------------------------------------------- ._________
| It's not my damn planet, understand | Tom E. Smith                |= (0_, \ \
| Monkey Boy?!!       John Bigbootey  | [e-mail] |= |0 ` / |
------------------------------------------------------------------- |---u----/

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

Date: 18 Mar 93 08:05:30 GMT
From: Fogbound Child <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Tug (OMV) info sought
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,talk.politics.space

Hello Everyone.

A classmate of mine is doing research on the history and politics of the OMV
(Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle aka "Space Tug").

She's had some difficulty finding people from NASA or TRW who are knowledgable
and willing to talk about the program.

If you know anything about the program and can provide this kind of infor-
mation, please either call Laurel L. Noel at 310-607-4488 (tell her Samuel
sent you) or reply to me with information about how she can get in touch with
you.

Thanks!
___Samuel___
--
_________Pratice Safe .Signature! Prevent Dangerous Signature Virii!_______
Guildenstern: Our names shouted in a certain dawn ... a message ... a
              summons ... There must have been a moment, at the beginning,
              where we could have said -- no. But somehow we missed it.

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

Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 21:56:15 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: SR-71 Maiden Science Flight
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John S. Neff) writes:

>Please explain the advantage of the SR-71 over a ballon for UV
>spectrophotometry. The maximum altitude of the SR-71 listed in a previous
>post was about the same, or a little lower, than the normal altitude of
>a ballon flight.

Well, I'm not Mary, Tom, but I saw a program that might touch on this.
They talked about using the SR-71 for UV work and mentioned that the
desirable thing was that you could take off and do a series of
'night-side' to 'day-side' measurements all in one flight and in a
fast enough time so that conditions weren't variable (and neither was
what you were looking at).  This is something a balloon just isn't
going to be able to do (unless you know someone with a Mach 3 balloon
;-)).

It was a piece that aired on the Discovery Channel, I think.

--
"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: 18 Mar 93 11:32:22 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: The REAL explanation (was Re: Winding Trails from Rocket Launches)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> boyd johnson writes:
>> I'm sure many of you in Southern California saw the rocket
>>contrail from Vandenberg Air Force Base last night (Tuesday) at
>>sunset.  [...]
>>Is it the wind currents that twists the contrail or does the rocket
>>follow a looping, circling route?
>
>     It's wind currents in the upper atmosphere.

No, it's not.

It's the trail of paperwork the rocket leaves behind, scattering in
the evening breezes.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | ASTRONOMY:
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | The early science of the sky.
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | ASTROLOGY:
Internet:       [e-mail]  | How it was paid for.
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | --Michael Rivero

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

Date: 18 Mar 1993 14:10 CST
From: IGOR <[e-mail]>
Subject: waste management...
Newsgroups: sci.space

This is a serious post,


Hello, I am interested to know what is the infrastructure
used nowadays to store (tanks,pumps) and process (?) man produced waste.
Are those wastes processed ? are there been any experiment looking at
 decomposing those waste in zero-g and/or with the ultravacuum availbale
outside> I heard on this newsgroup that when NASA retrieved ER-S1 (??)
some yellowish residue were found on the structure and ended up being urine..
does this means that astronaut urine is not being studied back on earth ??
I find it strange that NASA is spending so much money on sending
something in LEO no to be interested to things that will be extremely
important to future long-term mission in space.
Also, is there any strong consensus among astronauts that eating or drinking
things processed waste is not good ? How is NASA working on that
to convince psychologically their astronauts that there is nothing
wrong with that as long as it is processed properly?
Any answers, pointers or names at Johnson or anywhere else about people
dealing with those issues is greatly appreciated!



Igor
Texas A&M University
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The readiness is all
                Hamlet
--------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 18 Mar 93 21:26:16 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Water Simulations (Was Re: Response to various attacks on SSF)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON) writes:

>Even though they had all that problem during the INTELSAT retrieval,
>the water tanks are still a very good way to train for EVA.

Perhaps. The point is that nobody knows if that is true or not. Water
training is only an approximation of zero G. We don't know what sorts
of things it is good for and what it is bad for. If NASA had been engaged
in a program of EVA research for the past 10 years, we WOULD know to
a far better degree. This would remove a lot of risk from projects
ranging from SSF to Hubble repair.

Tanks may be the best simulation facility available but we also need
to know the differences between tanks and real zero g.

    Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------90 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 18 Mar 1993 16:49 CST
From: IGOR <[e-mail]>
Subject: Water Simulations (Was Re: Response to various attacks on SSF)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON) writes:
>
>
>Tanks may be the best simulation facility available but we also need
>to know the differences between tanks and real zero g.
>

Allen,

when we were flying the Kc-135 two or three months before some shuttle missions
(and the one I recall specifically is the one before the Intelsat rescue).. the
astronauts WERE flying with us in their suits. Their main problem was actually
to go through the 2-g pullout but then again we also had some problems during
those periods :-). The point is that, to a certain extent NASA put every efforts
to make sure that those guys knew what weightlessness in a non viscous
environment was. I am sure that after flying the comet one has a pretty good
idea of what the problem might be. For the intelsat rescue, It is my impression
that the two first failed attempts were mostly due to the fact that
people on the
 grounds did not not really know what the physical challenge was and the
 solution came out pretty clearly when plan decision were made by the
astronauts. It is probably time for NASA to have all the ground-controllers
 go flying in the
comet so that they really understand physically what is going on!
I am sure they won't be against the idea either :-).



Igor
Texas A&M University
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe...
All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain. Time to die.

                        Blade Runner
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What do we do now with Freedom.
Newsgroups: sci.space

Date: 18 Mar 93 21:32:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: iti.1993Mar18.213203.25253
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Lines: 19
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

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

>Okay.  Now that i have thoroughly abused the SSF people let's
>get productive.  What changes in politics/management should be done
>if we want to deliver a working station at some reasonable cost
>and reliability.

There will ba an anonymous editorial published on this in Space News
next week (BTW, Space News normally won't accept anonymous op-ed
articles but made an exception for this). It is an excellent assessment
of the problems.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------90 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 18 Mar 1993 22:29:08 GMT
From: "Michael F. Santangelo" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What do we do now with Freedom.
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Thomas Clarke) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael F.
>Santangelo) writes:
>>
>> Problem is, how do you justify throwing away all that money spent
>> over the last 10 or so years?  So much has been done already on
>> a very specific design for our Space Station.  Doing something else
>> in light of this is very hard to swallow.
>>
>Easy!  Re-charter NASA as a savings and loan and let the Resolution
>Trust Corporation take care of the problem!

Now I hadn't thought of that!

--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Michael F. Santangelo                 + Internet: [e-mail]      [work]
Dept. Head-Computer & Network Systems +           [e-mail] [home]
UMCEES / CBL (Solomons Island)        + BITNET:   MIKE@UMUC  [fwd to mike@cbl]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 338
------------------------------