Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_4/v9_436.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 20KB

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/EYPdK:e00UkZRgEk4u>;
          Mon, 15 May 89 05:16:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 15 May 89 05:16:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #436

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 436

Today's Topics:
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #428
      Re: Rendezvous with Rama (was Re: Re: Asteroid Encounter)
          Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST
   Re: Hubble Space Telescope, orbit and data format/relay question
Revolving Door to Shut (was Re: Moser to leave NASA May 13 (Forwarded)
        Moser to leave NASA May 13 (Forwarded)
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #428
        Re: using Enterprise for braking tests
Re: In-flight liquification of air (was Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST)
               Re: more 747 drop tests?
              Flying Enterprise
        Re: Private spending for space science
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 12 May 1989 11:15-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #428

> be done. (Probably several organizations are already doing this.) Among
> the projects that might not be too ambitious for an initial attempt are

In particular there is the very good work being done by SSI, and the
quite serious attempt, in progress, to jointly build and fly a Lunar
Polar Orbiter using the resources of the National Space Society, Space
Studies Institute, AMSAT, (and World Space Foundation?)

These types of efforts are really only JUST beginning to become
feasible. Partially it is a growing change of attitude. For many years
it was impossible to get people off their duffs because they were
willing to sit back and wait for the government to do it. They EXPECTED
the government to do it.

This malaise undermined a great deal of the vibrancy of this country
for a decade or more, but seems (in some circles at least) to be on the
wane. It is being replaced by the attitude that the government is
incompetant, corrupt and UNABLE to accomplish anything. Thus, if you
want anything done, you really do have to get off your buns and do
something about it yourself. Otherwise, it ain't a gonna happen. Ever.

Private projects can only work in this kind of atmosphere. Otherwise
people will not make the individual sacrifices necessary to make dreams
into reality.

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

Date: 12 May 89 17:32:00 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce![e-mail]  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Rendezvous with Rama (was Re: Re: Asteroid Encounter)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Hosgood) writes:
>Assuming you put them out in orbit around the sun a bit
>furthur out than Mars, would you get sufficent warning to launch defensive
>missiles? Does anyone know if it's better to make those probes sun-orbiters
>or far-out Earth orbiters? Obviously, you'd need fewer probes if they orbited
>Earth, but would that give sufficient warning time? I suspect not somehow.
>

It would be interesting to know how far an earth based radar can reach with
the accuracy to detect killer rocks?
--
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) [e-mail] or
Roseville MN 55113                    [e-mail]
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

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

Date: 12 May 89 22:29:38 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]
Subject: Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST

I wrote:
 I think that Robert Casey is referring to some testing that was done once it
 was decided that the Enterprise absolutely, definitely would not be used for
 flight.  To test the ability of GVTs (ground vibration tests, a classical
 structural test technique) to find damage in the Orbiters, structural elements
 (i.e. wing spars) were cut. GVTs run before and after the damage was inflicted
 were then examined to see if they could be used in place of other methods
 (actual inspection, I think) to assess the structural integrity of the
 Orbiters, particularly for less than total damage to a structural element.
 The structural elements were cut to various depths, although I don't think
 any were completely severed.  After all, it's still strong enough to be
 ferried.

 Thus, the Enterprise is _not_ flightworthy without structural refurbishment.

But I forgot to state specifically that the intentional damage was fairly
minor and that the vehicle is probably flightworthy for low airspeeds (low
qbars, actually) such as those encountered in the ALT program.

I don't remember seeing any results of the study, either, so I can't comment
on how well it worked.
--

M F Shafer
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility
[e-mail] or [e-mail]

NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're
doing, and everybody's happy this way.

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

Date: 12 May 89 21:48:56 GMT
From: dogie.macc.wisc.edu!indri!larry![e-mail]  (Jeffrey W Percival)
Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope, orbit and data format/relay question

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>I would guess that the White Sands TDRS station will simply pass the raw
>data to the HST institute in Maryland, probably via commercial comsat but
>not in any conventional format.

It goes by DOMSAT to Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD.
There, the "data capture facility" reblocks the data and processes
the Reed-Solomon error correction bits, and passes the data to
the Science Institute at JHU.
--
Jeff Percival ([e-mail])

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

Date: 13 May 89 01:21:22 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Revolving Door to Shut (was Re: Moser to leave NASA May 13 (Forwarded)

In case anyone hadn't noticed, the reason for this recent flurry of
departures from NASA HQ is new ethics legislation designed to put a
brake on the "revolving door" whereby executives shuttle back and
forth from the aerospace industry to NASA and the Pentagon at N-year
intervals, alternately selling things to the USG and then turning
around and buying the same things *for* USG. As of June 1 (someone
correct me if I got that date wrong, remembering from the papers)
there has to be a "holding period" after you leave USG employ before
you can work for one of your contractors. Measured in years.

I wonder how the people at NASA who don't feel a burning urge to
slip out that revolving door before it closes, feel about the parade
of veterans who evidently do.  I notice every press release makes
sure to include a few Ollie-esque lines about how the gol durn
Congress is forcing good people to leave, etc., etc.  My own feeling
is that anything we can do to increase the percentage of NASA people
who *don't* view their work as a rung on the ladder to the mahogany
suite at Rockwell, will probably benefit the program in the long run.
--
Tom Neff                UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."    Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 May 89 19:47:02 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Moser to leave NASA May 13 (Forwarded)

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                       May 12, 1989


RELEASE:  89-72

MOSER TO LEAVE NASA MAY 13


     Thomas L. Moser, acting associate administrator for the
Space Station Freedom program, will leave NASA effective May
13.  Moser, who was appointed deputy associate administrator for
the Freedom program last December, has been serving as the acting
associate administrator since April 30.

     "My decision to leave is in no way a reflection on the
status of the program," Moser said.  "I am convinced that the
Space Station Freedom program is absolutely necessary for this
country to maintain its leadership in space and that NASA, along
with the contractor team and international partners, will make it
a success given the proper support.  I'll sincerely miss NASA,
but after 26 truly fulfilling years, I feel that it's the right
time to go."

     Moser served as the first program director of the Freedom
program, a position he held from October 1986 to December 1988.
He oversaw the establishment of the Space Station Freedom Program
Office located in Reston, Va., and guided the program through
extensive reviews by the Administration and the National Research
Council and through the formation of the design, development and
technical support contractor teams for Freedom.

     Moser also helped put in place the structure for
international cooperation in the Freedom program, which was
formally adopted by the United States and the 11 participating
countries last year.

     From February 1986 until he was named to the space station
post, Moser was deputy associate administrator for space flight
at NASA Headquarters.  Prior to that, he was director of
engineering at Johnson Space Center, Houston.

     Moser began his career with NASA in 1963 as a mechanical
systems design and analysis engineer.  From 1966 to 1971 he was
the structural subsystem manager for the Apollo command module.
In 1972, Moser was named head of structural design and manager
for orbiter structure and thermal protection system.

     He became technical assistant to the JSC director in 1981
and was named deputy manager, Orbiter Project Office, in 1982.

     Born Aug. 12, 1938, in Houston, Moser received a B.S. degree
in mechanical engineering from the University of Texas in 1961,
an M.S. degree in mechanical engineering from the University of
Pennsylvania in 1963 and completed candidacy requirements for a
Ph.D. at Rice University.

     Moser has received numerous honors, including the
Presidential Rank of Meritorious Executive, the Exceptional
Leadership Medal and Exceptional Engineering Medal and is a
Fellow of the American Institute for Aeronautics and
Astronautics.

     Moser and his wife, the former Nelwyn DeLaney, reside in
Reston, Va.  They have two children, Matthew and Meredith.

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

Date: Fri, 12 May 1989 11:34-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #428

> people were wrong. Thus, Boeing didn't design it for altruistic reasons.
> The 757 & 767 were designed in response to Boeing's internal marketing

Naturally they didn't. But Boeing has a history of risk taking with
large R&D projects. They did the 707 the same way. What Boeing has had
that no other giant aerospace "company" has had is the gumption to take
risks. Not for altruistic reasons. They bet the company on ideas that
will probably work but are a step ahead of everyone else.

Boeing is probably the only large aerospace firm that I have any
respect for at all.

The also declared, at high levels a long time ago, that they would
privately fund a launch vehicle when they felt it had a market. I
expect that time will come AFTER the small operators like AMROC create
whole new markets in the small cheap payload classes. There will never
be a significant launch business (in our terms) if comsats are the
business mainstay. They are big and they are few.

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

Date: 12 May 89 14:19:35 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl![e-mail]  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: using Enterprise for braking tests

There seems to be plenty of speculation about using the good old
Enterprise for landing and braking tests. Does any body know exactly
what state that orbiter is in? I.e. avionics, power systems, external
surfaces etc.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | [e-mail] (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

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

Date: 12 May 89 16:27:53 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: In-flight liquification of air (was Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes:
>    How is liquification of air to be done without the use of horrendously
>heavy equipment and huge energy expenditure?  (It seems that both would be
>needed to liquify air, especially at the rate that would be needed.)

I don't understand all the details, but the heat exchangers Mitsubishi is
testing simply use liquid hydrogen to cool the air.  Liquid hydrogen is
the fuel anyway, so it's around, and it is a *very* good heat sink.

>    Also, since air is only 21% oxygen, storage of liquified air would be
>quite wasteful of weight and space.  Am I correct in assuming that none of the
>liquified air would be stored (all used right away), and that liquid oxygen
>for use after leaving the atmosphere would have been loaded before launch?

There has been talk of accumulating LOX on the way up, but I don't think
the Japanese are thinking of that; they just want to run the engine on
external air while they can.

>has somebody developed some light equipment for rapid separation of nitrogen
>from oxygen as well as liquifying air?

Simply enriching the liquid in oxygen, as opposed to complete separation,
should not be difficult, since liquid nitrogen boils at a lower temperature
than LOX.  In fact, with a well-adjusted heat exchanger the liquid will
probably be oxygen-enriched to begin with, as the oxygen will condense first.
--
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: 12 May 89 16:23:40 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: more 747 drop tests?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan Larson) writes:
>Does anyone actually know the risk level involved in drop testing the
>shuttle?  How does that compare with the risk of landing with the
>shuttle on the back on the 747?

Considerably higher.  The 747 with a shuttle on its back flies pretty
much like a heavily-loaded 747, which is not a terribly difficult thing
to land, given an adequate runway and good conditions.  A shuttle landing
is much dicier, with a very high descent rate and no chance of going
around for another try.

>(There may be some problems with keeping the shuttle powered up
>for the duration of the trip across the country -- did the drop
>tests use the APUs, or just batteries?)

The APUs are needed for any operation requiring hydraulic power, which
basically means takeoff and landing.
--
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: 12 May 89 20:45:50 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: Flying Enterprise

(re: suggestions for using Enterprise for shuttle braking tests)

Henry suggested in an earlier message that it wouldn't be too
difficult to refit Enterprise to be spaceworthy, although it
would have relatively little payload capacity, due to its
overweight structure. Low payload capacity was a good reason for
not making Enterprise spaceworthy, prior to the Challenger
explosion. Is this still the case?

Consider that the current possible shuttle flight rate is quite
low, low enough to delay many payloads from flying for years.
What is the bottleneck keeping flight rates low? If it is
the amount of time required to turn a shuttle around after landing,
to make it ready for its next launch, then having an extra orbiter
in the queue should speed things up. While Enterprise couldn't be
used to fly Spacelab, it would presumably have >>some<<
useful payload capacity. Even if it was used only for flying
crews to and from the space station (whenever demand for that
particular activity picks up), by doing so it could take pressure
off of the other orbiters, allowing them to be used for other purposes.

Of course, if the bottleneck is caused by some other factor,
adding Enterprise to the fleet mightn't help much. Any comments?
--

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail]
Date: Fri, 12 May 89 20:33:52 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

From: thorin!alanine![e-mail]  (Jonathan Leech)
>    To get guaranteed govt. support for the CDSF, for example.
>After all, it's pushed by a small company which NASA is supposedly out
>to get, so CDSF must be a better place to put federal subsidies than
>the space station.
A CDSF looking for a guaranteed market isn't as good as having CDSF
up there ready and willing to accept customers.  It is a lot better
than wasting two decades and $60billion on tightening NASA strangle-
hold on competing domestic space activities (read Space Station Freedom).

>William Baxter writes:
>>It is not "NASA-bashing" which prevents people from working on other
>>pro-space activities.  It is ignorance of the facts and the problems,
>>something necesssary for NASA-boosting and NASA-apology.  If nothing
>>else, the "NASA-bashing" awakens people to the facts.
>
>    More of the "if you're not with us, you're against us" ideology.
Whoa!  Where did you read "if you're not with us, you're against us"
in Baxter's statements?  There are lots of problems to work on.  To
say that you, Jonathan Leech, are not working on the problem
of educating people about the negative influence NASA has on competing
domestic space activities is not to say you are part of the problem.
However, when you go out of your way to try to discredit those who ARE
trying to educate people about the problem, you succeed in making yourself
part of the problem.  Cut it out and get back to work on your positive
contributions.

>                    ...but I don't react to that by making continual
>anti-NASA postings containing, for example, carefully selected quotes
>from Congressional testimony by NASA officials.
Baxter's posting of Congressional testimony have contained
nothing BUT the exact words of those giving testimony -- no editorialization
or "clarification" is offered by Baxter in these postings.  I, for one,
greatly appreciate Baxter's efforts to dig out these pieces of history we
have difficulty accepting -- and doing so without biasing it with his
own interpretations and comments.  The fact that you find them so
discomforting, coupled with your other behavior on the net, indicates
to me that he is on the right track.  Keep it up William!  Leech is
about to snap to conciousness! (If we're all lucky. :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: [phone]
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #436
*******************