Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/v08/V8_255.ZIP/V8_255

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

From ota Fri Jun 17 03:07:36 1988
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA22764; Fri, 17 Jun 88 03:07:20 PDT
    id AA22764; Fri, 17 Jun 88 03:07:20 PDT
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 88 03:07:20 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #255

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 255

Today's Topics:
                Space Agencies
          Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST
               Re: Space suits
                women in space
             Placing shades at L1
        Soviet manned space plans for the rest of 1988
          Re: space news from April 18 AW&ST
            skintight space suits
          Re: one more bit about crew escape systems
                  Summit Ad
               Re: Space suits
          Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST
           Yet another (Fletcher's) speech
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 May 88 23:46:38 GMT
From: unmvax!charon!ariel.unm.edu![e-mail]  (SPACE EXPLORATION)
Subject: Space Agencies



    Hello everyone.   We need the addresses for ESA and the Soviet
                      space program.  Trying to get some info.  Could
                      someone either e-mail or post them?

    Thanks,

    Ollie Eisman - N6LTJ

======================   [e-mail]   ==========================
SEDS-UNM : Students for the Exploration and Development of Space
Box 92 Student Union, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM  87106
[phone]

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

Date: 24 May 88 21:44:59 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST

> One of the British V-bombers (possibly the Vulcan) did have ejection
> seats for the pilot and copilot, but none for the rest of the three
> crew. I believe the ejection seats were even used once. Does anyone
> remember this better than me?

Well, a bit better anyway...  My recollection is that several of the
V-bomber-era large British aircraft had this setup, and that there were
several fatal crashes in which the pilots got out but nobody else did.
Note the B-1 birdstrike crash some months ago in which extra crew, aboard
for training, suffered the same fate.
--
NASA is to spaceflight as            |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the Post Office is to mail.          | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 25 May 88 00:38:22 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space suits

> >...the "space activity suit" concept, in which the body of the suit is just
> >extra-stretchy fabric to supply pressurization...
>
> How long would an astronaut have to be EVA to have a 50% chance of being
> injured by a chunk of crud (either artificial or man-made)?
> Do harder suits provide protection, or is the energy too high?

Debris protection is definitely one of the strong points of the hard suits.
However, you would want some sort of overgarment for a space activity suit
anyway, to supply thermal insulation and micrometeorite protection.  Said
garment is a lot easier to build if it doesn't have to be pressure-tight.

Note that we're not talking about the equivalent of bullets.  Things like
paint flakes will vaporize the instant they hit -- the effect is more that
of a tiny explosion.
--
NASA is to spaceflight as            |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the Post Office is to mail.          | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry

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

Return-Path: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 25 May 88 17:03:40 -0700
From: "Carlos A. lopez" <[e-mail]>
Subject: women in space
Sender: [e-mail]

Favorite Drink: RC Cola


> Admittedly, women are at an advantage as astronauts as they tend to be
> shorter and lighter and just as smart. More bang for the buck as it were.

   I remember hearing on one of those half hour "Gee, isn't science neat"
shows that women have lower metabolisms (overall) than men.  Some comments
were also made that the first interplanetary crews might be mostly women
to reduce the demands on the life support system.

   That doesn't mean that all women have lower metabolisms than all men.
But the idea of having a "biologically efficient" crew (for lack of a
better term) does make sense.  Have any experiments been done or are
planned to test the effects of 0-g on metabolism?  It seems to me that
individuals with slow-twitch muscle fibers might be better suited to
extended voyages than those with a fast-twitch physiology, regardless of
sex.  They use oxygen better, and tend to have less muscle mass.

   (Quick biology lesson: slow-twitch muscle fibers contract slower, but
can do so longer because they use oxygen better.  Fast-twitch fibers
contract faster, and more powerfully, but tire quickly.  Runners, bikers,
and such have a higher proportion of slow to fast fibers.  Weight lifters,
sprinters, and such have a higher proportion of fast to slow fibers.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos A. Lopez   (clopez@ucivmsa) | Q: Why won't there be a full moon again?
University of California at Irvine | A: The astronauts brought part of it back.

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

Date: Wed, 25 May 88 20:13:47 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Paul F. Dietz)
Subject: Placing shades at L1

Instead of placing a large subshade at the L1 point, how about putting
dust into the upper atmosphere?  This has actually been discussed as a
way to get around an increased greenhouse effect from CO2 pollution.

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

Date: Thu, 26 May 88 12:14:30 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soviet manned space plans for the rest of 1988

    The Soviets have a rather aggressive mission schedule in man related
activities for the rest of this year.  First is the June 7th Bulgarian
mission, for which they held the "traditional" preflight press conference
on May 22 (well they have done it for the last 4 missions).  The crew
consists of Victor Savinyhk (commander with 75 days on Soyuz T4/Salyut 6 and
168 days on Soyuz T13/Salyut 7 in June '85 - the Salyut rescue mission),
Anatoly Stoyanov (rookie cosmonaut: Flight engineer) and Alexander Alexandrov
(Bulgarian - backup on Soyuz 33 - Apr. '79).   Then in August there will be the
Afghan guest mission (crew not yet named), and in October/November the French
month long mission with Jean-Loup Chretien.  In addition the next Mir expansion
module will lift off about September (according to Alexander Dunayev of
Glavcosmos - their commercial marketing agency).  It is described as an
energetics module, with more living area, and possible a larger air lock
(weight about 10-20 Tonnes and living area addition 50 - 100 cubic meters:
my estimates).  It probably will contain more solar panels just by its name
(and the drawings of some of the modules).
     For the future additional "star" modules (also called heavy Cosmos) will
be launched every 5 months, with 1989 containing first a technology module,
followed by the Priroda remote sensing addition.  The French should be upset
about that - Priroda was planed to be up for their mission as of last year.
1990 will see either the Medilab life science addition or a scientific
research module.  Mir will be completely assembled by mid 1990 under current
plans.  Mir 2 is in advance design, planed for 1994-95, and will use Energyia
for launching the core section.
     On board Mir/Kvant Vladimir Titov and Musa Manarov have now been up for 5
months.  They are preparing to do a space walk to repair the failed British
/Dutch X-ray telescope on board Kvant.  For the record it appears that the
Progress 35 tanker was undocked on May 5, and the Progress 36 launched on May
13th (to clear up the uncertainty generated by my May 11th posting).
     In the unmanned area the major mission is the two Mars/Phobos flights
which will lift off this July 7th and 12th.  Also on May 15th their new
medium (SL-16) booster was used to orbit Cosmos 1943, an intelligence satellite
the size of a school bus.  The SL-16 is similar to the strap on booster of
the big Energyia launcher.
     The strength of the Soviet's manned program is shown by the percentage
of their launches that are devoted to that activity.  If things go according
to plans there will be 3 Soyuz flights in 1988. This should give them about
825 man days of orbital experience, (with an additional 47 man days for guest
cosmonauts).  Progress tankers are now arriving every 45 days on average,
so that you would expect 8 this year, delivering 18.4 Tonnes of cargo/fuel/air
and boosting the station each time they leave.  With the Mir module addition
that will give them at least 12 man related mission, or about 12% of their
flights (without counting the shuttle mission).  They also would have 767
manned days for Mir, against Salyut 7's 712 days total, and 23 months of
permanent occupancy.
     Success goes not to the swiftest, but to the most persistent in the
space business.  Consistency of policy has not happened in this country in
Space exploration for nearly two decades now.  It shows.  Let us change that.

                                               Glenn Chapman
                                               MIT Lincoln Lab

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

Date: 25 May 88 17:42:11 GMT
From: pioneer![e-mail]  (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: space news from April 18 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>[If you're wondering why there's been somewhat of a hiatus in my AW&ST . . .
>and partly as a deliberate policy to avoid direct competition with AW&ST.]
>NASA is to spaceflight as            |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>the Post Office is to mail.

Somehow, Henry, I don't think AW&ST has to worry about competition from
the Usenet.  (At least until you start releasing color pictures and images.)
Nor do the postal services for that matter ;-).

A small observation from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, [e-mail]
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene

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

Date: 25 May 88 17:17:50 GMT
From: pacbell!att!alberta!ubc-cs!fornax![e-mail]  (Zeke Hoskin)
Subject: skintight space suits

I'm willing to accept that human skin makes a good enough
space suit, with a little mechanical support. What about
human guts, human bladders, and human wombs? I have the
gut :-) feeling that with my head in a pressure bowl and
the other end exposed, I wouldn't need external propulsion.
How is that problem handled? Matching pressure shorts?

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

Date: 25 May 88 21:01:59 GMT
From: pioneer![e-mail]  (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: one more bit about crew escape systems

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Note the B-1 birdstrike crash some months ago in which extra crew, aboard

I was wandering the Mtn. View Public libray the other day when I found a
book on the B-1.  Note the Crew Capsule was unstable after 350 MPH and
was abandoned.  Any shuttle escape system has some pretty stiff working
envelopes.

--eugene

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

Subject: Summit Ad
Date: Thu, 26 May 88 09:10:01 -0400
From: Fred Baube <[e-mail]>


In today's Washington Post, the daily paper of Federal big-whigs,
are articles about summit preparations and about a summit T-shirt
authorized by Tass's popular music branch on sale here in DC,

There is also a full-page ad in the
first section by the Planetary Society.

        THE WAY TO MARS

    We have before us a historic opportunity to
    fulfill an ancient dream, to help preserve
    this world and to venture forth to another.

    The Planetary Society is the largest space-interest group
in the world.  For the last four years it has advocated Mars as
the principal long-term goal for the US and Soviet space programs
- robotic exploratory missions and long-duration space flight,
leading to the epochal first landing of humans on another
planet.  Since then the moribund US-Soviet Space Co-operation
Agreement has been renewed; US scientists will work on the
forthcoming Soviet _Phosos_ mission, and Soviet scientists will
work on the US _Mars_Observer_ mission, and three bills are now
before the US Congress setting the goal of human exploration of
Mars and encouraging US-USSR cooperation towards that goal.

    General Secretary Gorbachev has just explicitly called
for a joint US-Soviet unmanned mission of discovery to Mars -
important for its scientific harvest; for its potential to bring
the two nations together in a great common enterprise; and, along
with other robotic missions as a necessary precursor for joint
human voyages to Mars early in the 21st century.  Mars has now
entered the realm of discourse between heads of government.

    [ There follows a Mars Declaration, concluding notes,
      and a long list in small type of Planetary Society
      luminaries ]

/f

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

Date: 25 May 88 23:38:13 GMT
From: thumper![e-mail]  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Space suits

> ... for satellite work, you'll be doing
> a whole lot of outgassing, which is very bad for contaminating delicate
> parts.
>
> Sounds bogus to me.  They don't put satellites in a vaccum canister
> for launch.  Probably (1) NIH  and (2) not expensive enough.

Contamination is something you do have to worry about. Thermal coatings
and solar arrays are especially susceptible.

Satellites are invariably tested in a thermal vacuum chamber before
launching, and one of the purposes of this test is to discover any
volatile contaminants.  When we tested AMSAT Phase 3-C, we first
scrubbed down the surfaces with MEK solvent to remove fingerprints and
such. During the test, a "cold plate" (a piece of metal cooled to liquid
nitrogen temperature) inside the chamber captured any contaminants for
later inspection.  This is one of the things the laucher agency and
primary payload owner want you to do, to show that your payload won't
gum up the works.

Satellites aren't sitting in a vacuum chamber at launch, but they *are*
kept in a well controlled environment. This generally involves
continuous purging with clean, dry nitrogen or air, temperature
controlled to 20C.  During assembly and final preparations for a launch,
spacecraft technicians usually work in a clean room and wear gloves and
special clothing.

Take a look at the statistics on how much nitrogen gas is used for each
shuttle flight. Virtually all if it is used for purging, just to keep out
the dirt and moisture. Two technicians died before STS-1 because they
entered an area being purged, and suffocated.

Phil

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

Date: 26 May 88 14:52:53 GMT
From: hplabsb![e-mail]  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > One of the British V-bombers (possibly the Vulcan) did have ejection
> > seats for the pilot and copilot, but none for the rest of the three
> > crew. I believe the ejection seats were even used once. Does anyone
> > remember this better than me?
>
> Well, a bit better anyway...  My recollection is that several of the
> V-bomber-era large British aircraft had this setup, and that there were
> several fatal crashes in which the pilots got out but nobody else did.
> Note the B-1 birdstrike crash some months ago in which extra crew, aboard
> for training, suffered the same fate.

As well as one of the pilots, whose ejection seat failed.

            David Smith
            HP Labs

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

Date: 26 May 88 07:39:04 GMT
From: sonia![e-mail]  (Eric Behr)
Subject: Yet another (Fletcher's) speech

===========================================================================

NOTE TO EDITORS: FUTURE OF CIVIL SPACE PROGRAM HANGS IN BALANCE

May 20, 1988


     Without adequate funding in this crossroads year, "America's
civil space program stands on the brink of collapse and may not
have a future at all," NASA Administrator Dr. James C. Fletcher
warned today.  "Three decades of progress in space could come to
a grinding halt if Congress fails to act responsibly in funding
the NASA budget for fiscal year 1989," he said.

     Although the future of the program is "hanging by a few
votes," the consequences are not as well understood as they
should be, Dr. Fletcher said in a speech to the Los Angeles
Rotary Club.  "Many in Congress have not reflected adequately on
what's at stake," he said. "Americans must face the fact that the
epitaph of their countries greatness in space could be written
this year because of lack of Congressional support.  And if
Congress doesn't rise to the challenge, it would be a tale of
lack of vision, of hopes betrayed and of opportunities lost.  It
wouldn't make pleasant reading."

     NASA's fiscal year 1989 budget is currently being debated in
Congress.  The House Appropriations Subcommittee has reported a
budget for NASA which, while falling below the Administration's
request, could permit NASA to proceed with the Space Station.
Much deeper cuts are threatened by the budget allocation now
under consideration on the Senate side.

     The NASA Administrator, who has spoken out repeatedly on the
NASA budget crisis in recent months, noted that a new study by
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) also sees this
as a crucial year for the civil space program.  The study says
Congress has a fundamental choice:  either greatly increase the
real resources devoted to the space program, or redirect NASA's
program to accomplish much more limited goals.

     If Congress does not increase NASA's budget, there would be
two alternatives, according to the CBO study.  The first would
require stretching NASA's current programs out well into the next
century, "accepting higher risk and less achievement in space,"
the study says.  The second would restructure NASA's current
program toward unmanned activities in favor of "a less ambitious,
but more concentrated effort."

     "In my view, both clearly would mean loss of United States
leadership in space," Dr. Fletcher told the group.  He said the
consequences would bring a halt to work on the manned Space
Station -- "the key to our future in space" -- and a drastic
slowdown in Space Shuttle missions, which would mean further
delays in launching important science and national security
payloads.

===========================================================================
                                                       Eric

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

End of SPACE Digest V8 #255
*******************