Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_3/v9_360.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/4YEjTgy00UkZIQMU4a>;
          Wed, 12 Apr 89 03:17:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 03:16:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #360

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 360

Today's Topics:
               Re: NASA Select
        Re: Russian unmanned missions to Mars
             Soviet Mars probes - ZOND 2.
        QUESTION? ASTRONAUTS AND F-19 STEALTH.
             Re: Gigantism of SPS
             Re: Gigantism of SPS
            Re: Apollo [non] Fire
            Re: Apollo [non] Fire
              Re^2: bored public
              Re: Hubble Space Telescope
           U.S. vs Soviets (was Re: Alien contact)
            Re: Re^2: bored public
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 17:44:11 GMT
From: crdgw1!steinmetz!sunspot![e-mail]  (Emmett Black)
Subject: Re: NASA Select

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Smithwick) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>In article <Added.4Y=[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lou Surface) writes:
>>>... My question is why were there no cabin views during
>>>the launch? Come to think of it, I don't recall cabin views at launch
>>>on any mission - from Apollo to STS.

I worked at JSC during the Apollo-Soyuz (spelling?) mission,
and I distinctly remember seeing "cabin views" during the mission.
I also remember watching the crew mount "special" cameras in the
cabin for the "network tv" link.

--Emmett
    J.E.Black; GE Research/K1-3C26; Schenectady, NY 12345
    [e-mail];   ...!uunet!steinmetz!crd!blackje

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

Date: 11 Apr 89 00:05:57 GMT
From: ames.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Russian unmanned missions to Mars

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
>
>     It's interesting to note, isn't it, that for all the Russian talk about
>sending men to Mars, they have yet to send one successful mission to the
>planet.  I don't think that we'll be seeing any manned Soviet missions to the
>red planet until they get their probes in order.  Curiously, they have good
>enough luck with Venus, so it's not like they are completely deficient in
>sending probes beyond the moon's orbit.  Anyone believe in jinxes?
>
>--

Ahhh, but this might actually serve to promote a manned Mars mission, since
both problems would have been easily correctable were a pilot on board.

The Soviets have demonstrated fairly reliable technology in the fields of
propulsion, long term life support and communications. They have also proven
technology in interplanetary navigation as demonstrated by the Venus, Hally's
and Mars probes. Their problems come from (at least with the Phobos probes)

1. Ground Control error (should have been recoverable with proper onboard
   software)

2. Some sort of small electrical problem (easily overcome by a cosmonaut
   on station . . . "I detect a problem with the AE-35 unit, Yuri. . .")

I would be hesitant to give them the contract for the Mars lander, since
that must work reliably the first time, but perhaps they could handle the
orbital module.


          *** mike (cerbral GURU, insert M&Ms to restart) smithwick***
"Oh, I'm just a NOP in the instruction set of life, oh, ohhhh, hmmmmm"

[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

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

Date: 10 Apr 89 17:53:00 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com![e-mail]  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: Soviet Mars probes - ZOND 2.


    In regards to Steve Roseman's reply about the 1964 Soviet Mars
probe ZOND 2, I purposely omitted it from my list because all information
I read on it stated that the probe was a "test vehicle" for future
unmanned Mars missions, and was not sent to Mars (at least the Soviets
claim this was not its goal).  I do appreciate your inclusion of it,
though, as it did play an important role in that program, even though
it did not go to the planet directly.

    Larry Klaes

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

Date:         Mon, 10 Apr 89 21:33:44 EDT
From: Jean Hill <[e-mail]>
Subject:      QUESTION? ASTRONAUTS AND F-19 STEALTH.

     DEAR SUBSCRIBERS:
          I am a new participant in this discussion group.  I would like to
     know more about the program for the astronauts in the United States and
     the qualifications needed to be accepted into this program.  If anyone has
     any information regarding this subject, please pass it on to me.

         Besides being interested in space and NASA in the United States, I am
     also interested in aviation, at which I am currently working on my pilot's
     license.  I have a couple of questions regarding the Stealth(F-19 Fighter)
     I know it's highly classified, but I was wondering what high-tech
     modifications it holds and the recorded speed of the aircraft?  Also what
     will be it's main objective? Fighter? Recon.?  I realize this is a
     discussion group about space, but any information will be helpful. Thanks.
                                   Jean (344IZDA@CMUVM)
Acknowledge-To: <344IZDA@CMUVM>

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

Date: 10 Apr 89 15:19:44 GMT
From: calvin![e-mail]  (John Sahr)
Subject: Re: Gigantism of SPS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ray Lubinsky) writes:
>
>>I hate to break the news to you, but SPS never had a chance anyway.  For
>>starters, it requires a huge infrastructure, massive startup costs, and
>>potential biohazard (at least, I'll pass on living anywhere near the microwave
>>collectors, thank you).
>
>SPS gets more practical if you posit the existence of moderately
>efficient sun-pumped lasers.  At constant beam power density, the
>power output of an SPS scales linearly with the wavelength of the
>beam.  If a lambda = 1 cm system needs 10 GW, a 1 micron system could
>operate at 1 MW.  The aperture of the transmitter and receiver shrink
>by a factor of 100.  Probably it pays to make the beam a bit more
>intense to burn through clouds.

I made a few "envelope" calculations on this idea.
Postulates:
1: the heat capacity of air at constant pressure is about 1 kJ/*K
2: a cloud is opaque until the temperature rises above dew point,
    so that raising the gas temperature a few degrees makes it clear.
3: 1 micron energy is about the same as visible, so clouds look like you
     and I think they look.

Then, the beam power per linear meter to penetrate a cloud deck of depth
D, moving at windspeed V, with temperature deficit T is

P = 10^3 * D * T * V W/m (where the 10^3 is the heat capacity).

Consider clouds that are 1 km thick, wind speed of 10 m/s, and a
temperature deficit of 1 degree need to heat the air so that it becomes
clear.  Then the minimum beam power to penetrate the cloud is 10^7 W
per meter (an odd unit), and all of this power went to heat the cloud,
and is not available for power collection.

In other words, if you have got a 1 GW optical laser, with uniform, circular
beam pattern, then it has to be less than 100 meters in diameter for any
of the power to get through to the ground (through the specified cloud).

Furthermore, we all know that clouds are white, and they are white because
they scatter light.  Scattered light won't heat the cloud, and won't wind
up at your collector.  Also, consider that I have completely neglected
the conductivity of the air, which is going to remove some of the heat
especially for narrow beams.  In addition, the presence of a hot vertical
column of air surrounded by cold air is gong to be a ripe candidate for
instabilities which will try hard to disrupt the column, such as the
"firehose" instability.

Final postulate: my calculations are more or less correct.

Given the above postulate, I think that "optical" SPS can be ruled out
for continuous powering of cloudy places.

caveat: I could be wrong. I often am.

--
John Sahr,                          School of Elect. Eng.,  Upson Hall
                                    Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

ARPA: [e-mail]; UUCP: {rochester,cmcl2}!cornell!calvin!johns

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

Date: 10 Apr 89 15:31:47 GMT
From: calvin![e-mail]  (John Sahr)
Subject: Re: Gigantism of SPS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Sahr) writes:
>I made a few "envelope" calculations on this idea.
>Postulates:
>1: the heat capacity of air at constant pressure is about 1 kJ/*K
                                                             ^^^^^
Those units should have been 1 kJ/*K /m^3 (i.e., 1kJ/*K per cubic meter).
Sorry about that.
--
John Sahr,                          School of Elect. Eng.,  Upson Hall
                                    Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

ARPA: [e-mail]; UUCP: {rochester,cmcl2}!cornell!calvin!johns

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

Date: 9 Apr 89 22:18:21 GMT
From: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax![e-mail]  (John Gregor)
Subject: Re: Apollo [non] Fire

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan Parker) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve) writes:
>>When Apollo 13 had an electrical fire, loss of some power and system
>>failure, they said "uh, Houston, we have a problem." somewhat toned
>>down for public consumption.
>There was no electrical fire.  A tank ruptured.  I suspect that the time
>of that transmission, that is exactly all they knew; that "we have a
>problem".

Well first, the astronauts didn't know what had happened.  Just a 'thud'
when no 'thud' should have happened.  They didn't even know then that it
was a tank had ruptured (probably the 0 pressure clued them in real fast
though).

Second, it was an electrical fire.  A short (of a sensor?) in the O2 tank
caused the teflon coating of the tank to ignite.  Amazing what burns in
pure O2 under pressure. :-)

--

John Gregor                                       [e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Apr 89 00:13:58 GMT
From: ames.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Apollo [non] Fire

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Gregor) writes:
<In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan Parker) writes:
<>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve) writes:
<>There was no electrical fire.  A tank ruptured.  I suspect that the time
<>of that transmission, that is exactly all they knew; that "we have a
<>problem".
<
<Well first, the astronauts didn't know what had happened.  Just a 'thud'
<when no 'thud' should have happened.  They didn't even know then that it
<was a tank had ruptured (probably the 0 pressure clued them in real fast
<though).
<

At first, the crew thought that some pressure relief valve popped open
as was prone to happen from time to time, so they shrugged it off.

The real indication of trouble came when they noticed the power and
oxygen meters start to do strange things that they wern't supposed to,
and that something was being vented into space.
          *** mike (cerbral GURU, insert M&Ms to restart) smithwick***
"Oh, I'm just a NOP in the instruction set of life, oh, ohhhh, hmmmmm"

[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

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

Date: 9 Apr 89 08:22:43 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!mucs!liv-cs![e-mail]
Subject: Re^2: bored public

> Sometimes these people do annoy me though - I then fantasise about the
> 'B'-Ark to Golgafrincham. Advertising executives, p.r. people.....
> =====
> Andrew Palfreyman

B-Ark *FROM* Golgafrincham, surely? ;-)

Peter Anderton
(aka Zanussi)

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

Date: 9 Apr 89 18:32:06 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx![e-mail]  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope

>
> What are the capabilities for rotating this baby and using it for
> spying purposes???
>

Why bother?  A KH-12 recon satellite is undoubtedly comparable in
mirror size and probably uses better technology, optimized to such a purpose.

Greg Goebel
Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330
[phone]
INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd
HP DESK:  CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20

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

Date: 10 Apr 89 16:00:38 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: U.S. vs Soviets (was Re: Alien contact)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:

>>You might be right, here.  Of course, in five or six years, assuming no
>>development problems and no erosion of political will, the tables will be
>>turned...
>
>Except by that time, the Soviets will be getting ready to launch Novy
>Mir, which will re-turn the tables.  At the current rate of progress in
>the US, it may even come first.  As for "no development problems", note
>that the Hubble telescope had a lot of difficulties because it had two
>"prime" contractors, with NASA trying to do the coordination between them.
>The space station has *four*.
>
What wondrous capabilities is New Mir expected to have that Freedom won't?
From what I have heard of the Novy Mir project (which, admittedly isn't much,
it sounds like another tin can station, or perhaps two tin cans stuck together.
Again, assuming no further delays (I can always hope), I feel fairly sure that
our station will be better.  As to the contractors, there is a difference
between two contractors working on one object and four (admittedly, this is
three too many) working on several separate objects.  If they can just keep
the connectors standard, this might not be too much of a problem.

[Me going on about the achievements of the American planetary exploration
program.  Edited for brevity's sake...]
>
>The US, decades ago, before it lost interest.  If we're discussing history
>rather than current abilities, we might ask who launched the first Earth
>satellite, the first man in orbit, and the first man-made objects to reach
>the surfaces of the Moon, Mars, and Venus.
>
And what are the current abilities of the Soviet planetary program?  Not a
whole lot, from what I can see.  The Soviets have done precisely two things
that we haven't:  send a flyby to a comet, and get better pictures of Venus.
If you think about it, all planetary exploration is in the past; there are no
'new' missions functioning, and only one 'old' mission returning signifigant
new data.  And for repetition's sake, we are sending out Magellan and
Galileo, to make the definitive map of Venus and the only comprehensive
study of the moons of Jupiter, and the only penetration of the atmosphere
of a gas giant.  What do the Soviets have in the pipeline in this class?  As
for our pipeline, we have Cassini (for Saturn) and the Mars Geology/Climatology
Observer (have they come up with a spiffier name for this yet?).  Not a large
number, but I prefer quality over quantity.

>>... Assuming nothing goes wrong (fingers crossed), we'll be sending
>>new probes out to Venus, to get the highest quality maps of that planet ever,
>
>Do remember that the highest-resolution maps of Venus existing right now
>came from Soviet missions.  This is another catchup mission.
>
The entire history of space exploration is a tradeoff between the U.S. and the
USSR.  They held the lead initially, then we took it and held it through the
early Seventies, and now the Russians are back, and look to hold it until the
mid-Nineties.  And then, who knows?  If we succeed with our plans, we will
certainly be in as good of shape as the Russians, perhaps better.

>>>Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>>>passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>How are they going to ask for passports and visas?  They can't even get the
>>customs station to work properly!
>
>They'll have plenty of time to try again before they start allowing
>foreigners to visit.

And again, and again, and again...ad nausaeum.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Certainty is the lot of those who
ARPA: [e-mail]        :           do not question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 11 Apr 89 01:29:49 GMT
From: nsc![e-mail]  (andrew)
Subject: Re: Re^2: bored public

> > Sometimes these people do annoy me though - I then fantasise about the
> > 'B'-Ark to Golgafrincham. Advertising executives, p.r. people.....
> > =====
> > Andrew Palfreyman
>
> B-Ark *FROM* Golgafrincham, surely? ;-)
>
> Peter Anderton
> (aka Zanussi)

It was my mistake. Of course, it is rumoured to have been built by outside
contractors, and the thought of it arriving fresh, new and empty to receive
all the telephone sanitiser etc. population would have justified the "to".
But I'm lying!    Andrew

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #360
*******************