Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_4/v9_416.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/QYNHvoy00UkZB8Kk4k>;
          Mon,  8 May 89 03:17:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon,  8 May 89 03:17:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #416

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 416

Today's Topics:
            space news from March 27 AW&ST
        Re: Private spending for space science
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #407
            Monitoring of Shuutle systems
       Re: Final Frontier June 1989....EXCELLENT ISSUE
                Asteroid query
         Re: Brilliant (but old hat) Pebbles
               Space software problems
        Re: Private spending for space science
             is the world still there????
       Re: Final Frontier June 1989....EXCELLENT ISSUE
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 May 89 03:32:50 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from March 27 AW&ST

Satellite controllers fired Gstar-3's thrusters for a total of 48 hours
in Jan and Feb to move it closer to Clarke orbit (it was placed in the
wrong orbit last fall by a motor failure).  It's now in an orbit where
it may be of some use:  Geostar (the commercial navsat firm) hopes to
begin using its part of the satellite this fall.

Soviet Union delays launch of the first Mir add-on module, due to delays
in completion of the second add-on, which must follow the first fairly
quickly to keep the configuration symmetrical.

Quayle makes favorable noises about Brilliant Pebbles SDI concept.

Discovery lands after highly successful mission.  NASA had hoped to
conclude the mission with a crosswind landing, but the winds didn't
cooperate and NASA instead used the concrete runway at Edwards so
that hard-surface braking tests could be run.  [Radical, innovative
thought:  if they want landing and braking tests, why not dust off
Enterprise and run some more 747 drop tests?  Nah, too simple and
effective.]  NASA says the orbiter is in good shape, with tile damage
much reduced from what Atlantis took on the previous mission.  A small
leak in the #1 engine's cooling system was found, which permitted a bit
of hydrogen to leak into the exhaust; it definitely was not there before
launch.  The engine will be replaced before Discovery flies again in
August.  There was an earlier pinhole leak in a similar area of an engine
flown on STS-26, although the two do not seem related.  The next mission
(Atlantis) is not expected to be affected.

Space Services readies "Consort 1" commercial sounding rocket mission for
launch at White Sands; the customer is NASA, on behalf of a microgravity
research consortium including U of Alabama and several companies.  The
two-stage Starfire rocket uses a first stage from Morton Thiokol [boo]
and a second stage from Bristol Aerospace [yay] [Canadian content here].

Pictures from the late lamented Phobos 2, including one quite striking
one of Phobos against the Martian horizon.

Intelsat will buy three Ariane launches and two Atlas launches for the
Intelsat 7 series, starting in 1992.

Italian Space Agency to buy a 1993 Atlas launch for the SAX X-ray satellite.

NASA picks Atlas as the baseline launcher for the NASA/ESA solar
heliospheric observatory ("Soho"), set for launch in 1995.

[Sounds like a good year for General Dynamics.]

Atlantis moves to pad 39B March 22.

Stephanie Lee-Miller, top public affairs official at Dept of Health and
Human Services, named to head Office of Commercial Space Transportation.
Commercial space people were sort of hoping for someone with experience
in (a) business, (b) space, or (c) high technology; no such luck.

Intel 386 flies in space [gag barf puke excuse me a moment...] [...okay,
I'm back and will try to be brave... :-)] as NASA evaluates an updated
version of the Grid Systems laptops that it has been using on shuttle
missions since 1983.

Letter from Richard Anglin of Los Angeles, saying that NASA is overlooking
the fundamental problem leading to its personnel crisis:  the lack of
leadership and vision in NASA's upper levels and in the White House.
The people now being lost joined during "the Kennedy era -- a time of
vision and commitment to leadership and excellence".  "The Reagan era
was filled with empty words about space.  There was no vision and
certainly no commitment to leadership or excellence.  Whether President
Bush chooses to overturn the legacy of his predecessor remains to be
seen."
--
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 May 89 21:41:34 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Daniel Alexander Davis)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

There is an article about making money off of
Landsat images in the April or May Ad Astra.
a)It gives some information.
b)I do not know enough to know
  whether the article wants people to keep it at NASA or
  privatize it;  So I have no idea how it is slanted.

Dan Davis,
Disclaimer:  I don't even work for THOSE kinds of people. (Yet.)

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

Date: 5 May 89 23:55:20 GMT
From: uflorida!indri!aplcen![e-mail]  (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #407

>>    -  In lieu of governemental impedances on private sector space
>>       efforts, what type of organization (public or private corp.,
>>       representative or total democracy, 100% enfranchisment, secede
>>       from the US and start your own country (-: ...)
>Starting a country might not be such a bad idea. Maybe the libertarian
>group that tried this in the Pacific will get their country back
>through world court someday. ...

Could someone please give me some details on this?  Trying to start a
country?

(Note the Followup-to line)
--
"Do you know what this is????"  "No, what?"  "I don't know either..."
  -- Who said it, what story?

Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!ins_akaa; BITNET: g49i0188@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: [e-mail]) (please, no mail to arrom@aplcen)

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

Date: 4 May 89 22:20:04 GMT
From: tektronix!percival![e-mail]  (Gary Wells)
Subject: Monitoring of Shuutle systems

I have been pondering the events leading up to the most recent shuttle mission
scrubbing, and have a question that I can come up with no reasonable answer for.
I'm hoping some one in the areospace industry can shed some light on this:

As reported here in the local paper, the scrub occurred when a 25Amp surge was
detected in a circuit which normally carries 2Amps.  OK, so there's a short
somewhere, we scrub and fix.

Question: How do we _know_ it was a 25A surge in a 2A circuit?  I can't beleive
that the instrumentation is that overbuilt generally.  My experience is that a
2A circuit is lucky to have instrumention to 5A.  Sure, there should be some
burned out parts, which we could duplicate and see where similar damage occurs.
It don't think the circuits would be that overbuilt either, that they could
accept a 10 fold increase in current without damage.

So, what's the answer?  Are the circuits built to withstand this kind of over-
load condition?  Are the instruments normally capable of reading 10 times the
expected values under monitor?  If so, what is the rationale used to justify
the additional costs and weight (for flight components)?  Or does this
particular circuit normally carry large amounts of current, just not at this
point in the flight?

Nosey people want to know!

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still working on _natural_ intelligence.

gary@percival   (...!tektronix!percival!gary)

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

Date: 3 May 89 18:10:47 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpfcdj![e-mail]  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: Final Frontier June 1989....EXCELLENT ISSUE

>>>"Should NASA resume its program to take ordinary citizens on the shuttle?"
>>
>>No.
>>
>    Why do you say this?  I think the answer is most definitely
> yes.

Well, maybe.

There.  Now we've heard all the possible answers.  Anyone care to give some
REASONS for their pet position?

Personally, I'd give a qualified "no."  At present, a seat on the shuttle
is simply too blinkin' expensive to be able to justify a joy ride for an
"ordinary citizen", even if we had a system which was 100% safe (which we
most certainly do NOT have at present).  As much as I'd LIKE to see (and BE)
an "ordinary citizen" flying in the Shuttle, there's simply no argument I
can make for spending zillions to put him/her/me there.

Some may argue that such a program hads "publicity value", that it puts
the "common man" in touch with the space program.  Well, NASA could spend
a *little* money on some publicity for the astronauts and mission specialists
who NEED to be there; after all, they're not supermen/women.  The Original
Seven ("The Sacred Seven") were promoted as national heroes.  The current
crop of astronauts are faceless technicians as far as the general public is
concerned, yet it's still their butts on the line - and piloting the Shuttle
strikes me as a much more demanding task than riding a can up and down.
Not to belittle the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo astronauts - they were, after all,
riding that can into the Great Unghknown - but this still isn't a commuter
flight!


Bob Myers  KC0EW   HP Graphics Tech. Div.|  Opinions expressed here are not
                   Ft. Collins, Colorado |  those of my employer or any other
{the known universe}!hplabs!hpfcla!myers |  sentient life-form on this planet.

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

Date: 5 May 89 17:09:55 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Jim Washburn)
Subject: Asteroid query



    A few days ago someone mentioned the close encounter of
an asteroid thru the atmosphere.  It was also mentioned that some
good photos were to be found in Sky & Telescope of 1977 or 1978
of this event.  The object passed over the rocky mountains then
bounced back into space rather than hitting the earth.
    Well I have searched the magazine for both of those years
and did not find any reference, photo or news whatsoever.  Does anybody
have any other information?  I would like to see these pictures.

            -- Jim Washburn

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

Date: 5 May 89 21:32:34 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!censor![e-mail]  (Jeff Hunter)
Subject: Re: Brilliant (but old hat) Pebbles

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Sean Malloy) writes:
> ...     | "The proton absorbs a photon
> ...    | and emits two morons, a
> ...     | lepton, a boson, and a
> ...    | boson's mate. Why did I ever
> ...    | take high-energy physics?"

    The reaction (as described) exibits a clear violation of the
conservation of parody. To balance it you must add the chargeless gnutrino.

    I hope this rekindles your interest in fundamental particles :-)

--
      ___   __   __   {utzoo,lsuc}!censor!jeff  (416-595-2705)
      /    / /) /  )     -- my opinions --
    -/ _ -/-   /-     No one born with a mouth and a need is innocent.
 (__/ (/_/   _/_                                   Greg Bear

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

Date: Fri, 5 May 89 11:38:00 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Space software problems

New York Times Reports Shuttle Software Patch

Excerpted from the New York Times 5-5-89 edition
by Henry E. Hardy

[...] In checking the Magellan's control systems two weeks ago,
engineers detected and corrected one potentially catastrophic
problem. A design flaw was found in the software for the spacecraft's
computer. If the craft were to lose its proper orientation to the Sun
and the Earth, the flaw could have prevented the spacecraft from
regaining its bearings. The result could have been the loss of the
spacecraft, as it failed to get enough solar energy to run its
electronics and thus could no longer keep its antenna pointed at to
Earth.
   Project officials said engineers devised a "patch," a substitute set of
instructions, to override the design flaw.
   John H. Gerpheide, the Magellan project manager at the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., said: We're convinced that
we've got a good fix on the problem. The fix has been tested and
thoroughly reviewed. We don't have any concern at all."
   Errors in computer instructions were said to have been the cause of
the failure of Phobos 1, an unmanned Soviet spacecraft, as it was
headed to Mars last September. The spacecraft tumbled out of
control. And the craft, unable to keep its solar panels pointed to the
Sun, ran out of electricity.
   The companion craft, Phobos 2, made it to an orbit of Mars and
then failed as it was maneuvering to drop scientific instruments on
the tiny Martian moon Phobos. Soviet scientists who were here to
view the launching of the Atlantis said the cause of the Phobos 2 loss
was still unclear.

*     Henry Edward [e-mail]                                *
*     Henry Edward [e-mail]                                *
*     "Arbor" on MacNet                                                 *
*       University of Michigan Computer Consultant                      *
*       sysop, Arbor Intelligent Systems                                *
*       President, Althing Communications                               *
*     disclaimer: I could be a brain in a box     - Descartes           *

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

Date: 5 May 89 17:29:31 GMT
From: thorin!alanine![e-mail]  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Baxter) writes:
>My, how experiences differ.  Among "space activists" I know, only the
>"NASA-bashers" do anything.  The rest of them are too busy pretending
>that they will one day sway public opinion so overwhelmingly in favor of
>NASA that the resultant budget increases will force us to have a space
>program.

    Gerry O'Neill by and large ignores NASA, and SSI and Geostar and
are doing lots of interesting things.  The effort spent NASA-bashing
has accomplished nothing comparable.
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])    __@/
UNDERWHELMING OFFER OF THE MONTH:
    "Please feel free to skip the payment on this month's statement.
     Normal finance charges will apply." - NCNB VISA

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

Date: 5 May 89 19:57:12 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha![e-mail]  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: is the world still there????

Is the world receiving any mail that I am trying to send out?
We did have a major system crash, and some of the software may
no longer be working.  Such as 'mail'.
As you may or may not all know, I have been trying to keep a mailing
list for a 'private spaceplane' project.  Well, it appears that
everything I am sending via e-mail is not getting anywhere.  I've
been trying to send updates, etc, and no-one is responding.  So, I
pose this question--is my mail getting anywhere?

Please respond if you were on, or want to be on, the mailing list.
Thanks.  (I am including 2 alternate paths, just in case!)

**********************************************************************
Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah
    [e-mail]     (???  may work  ???)
    [e-mail]     (very reliable!)

standard disclaimer implied

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

Date: 5 May 89 17:30:58 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Final Frontier June 1989....EXCELLENT ISSUE

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Myers) writes:
>>>>"Should NASA resume its program to take ordinary citizens on the shuttle?"
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>    Why do you say this?  I think the answer is most definitely
>> yes.
>
>Well, maybe.
>
>There.  Now we've heard all the possible answers.  Anyone care to give some
>REASONS for their pet position?
>
I said 'no' for much the same reason Bob did; with all the budgetary problems
NASA and the federal government are having, I cannot see spending a couple
of million dollars in training plus whatever 'cost' there is in lofting the
extra 160 pounds to orbit.  There's been muted chuckling at the Soviets in the
past on their 'guest cosmonaut' program, sending up some chap from Angola or
someplace for three days to float about, to 'improve relations' with that
country on the ground.  I see much the same thing here, except NASA is trying
to improve its image with the people of its own country.  Recently, the
Russians sent up a French 'guest'; this is fine, since (I think) there
was a serious French experiment on board.  But our doing the same with a
schoolteacher just doesn't wash with me.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     :          [This space for rent]
ARPA: [e-mail]      :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #416
*******************