Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_5/v9_569.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.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/gYogTGq00UkVM8y05b>;
          Sun, 30 Jul 89 05:18:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <MYogT=[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 89 05:18:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #569

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 569

Today's Topics:
Science observations selected for NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope (Forwarded)
               Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10
Re: Apollo-11 lunar experiment still useful after 20 years (Forwarded)
               Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10
           Re: Kuiper Airborne Observatory
           Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10 and Apollo books
              Re: Apollo Ascent Modules
              Re: Apollo Ascent Modules
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 17:50:22 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Science observations selected for NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope (Forwarded)

Paula Clegget-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     July 19, 1989

Ray Villard
Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, Md.


RELEASE:  89-121

SCIENCE OBSERVATIONS SELECTED FOR NASA/ESA HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE

     The Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, Md., has
completed selection of the first science observation proposals
from the astronomy community to be carried out using the
NASA/European Space Agency (ESA) Hubble Space TelescopeMd
     The Hubble Space Telescope (HST), scheduled for launch in
March 1990, is the first major international optical telescope to
be permanently stationed in low-Earth orbit.  Capable of viewing
the universe with a tenfold greater resolution than ground based
observatories, the HST has a tremendous potential for fundamental
scientific breakthroughs in astronomy.  Observing opportunities
on the powerful space facility are open to the worldwide
astronomical community.

     "It is exciting to see the many excellant proposals and to
think of the scientific discoveries that will soon emerge when
the Hubble Space Telescope uncovers the mysteries of fundamental
scientific questions," says Neta Bahcall, Head of the institute's
Science Programs Selection Office.

     The selected observations will make use of HST's unique
capabilities to study a wide variety of astronomical objects,
from nearby planets to the horizon of the visible universe.  The
observations should help to dramatically improve current
understanding of the size, structure and evolution of the
universe.

     Among the accepted proposals are plans to search for black
holes in neighboring galaxies, to survey the dense cores of
globular star clusters, to better see the most distant galaxies
in the universe, to probe the mysterious core of the Milky Way
galaxy and to search for neutron stars that may trigger bizarre
gamma-ray bursts.

     The 162 proposals were accepted following an intensive
scientific peer review of 556 proposals submitted by astronomers
from 30 countries.  Approximately 20 percent of the proposals
were from member nations of the European Space Agency, a joint
partner with NASA on the HST project.

     The HST is such a powerful, new resource for optical
astronomy, that observing time was heavily oversubscribed.
During the first 12-month observing cycle, 11,000 hours of
observing time were requested, with only 1200 hours available.
The average length of an accepted observation is 10 hours.

     "Unfortunately, because of the high oversubscription rate,
many excellent proposals could not be accommodated," says
Bahcall. "We expect that the available observing time will be
somewhat larger in the second cycle, due to a higher anticipated
HST observing efficiency and a lower fraction of time committed
to guaranteed time observers (GTO)."

     When HST is launched, it will undergo a 7 month check-out
and instrument calibration period.  During that time some of the
first science observations will be made by the GTOs.  They are
the astronomers on the six teams which developed HST
instrumentation, as well those astronomers who contributed to the
design of the 12-ton observatory.

     General observer proposals will begin 7 months after launch
and most will be completed within a 12-month period, though a few
key projects will be extended over 3 years.  Slightly more than
half of HST's observing time for the first year of operation will
be available for general observers.  The remainder of the
observing time will be used by the GTO's.

     To utilize every moment of observing time and hence maximize
efficiency, HST is "over-booked" with accepted general observer
proposals by a ratio of 3:1.   One hundred eight accepted
proposals are high priority and represent 90 percent of HST
observing time.  The remaining 54 supplemental proposals
essentially "fly standby."  They will only be executed if
appropriate scheduling opportunities arise.

     Sixty-two scientists including 10 from ESA member nations
participated in the proposal review and selection process.  The
scientists were divided into six peer-review panels which covered
sub-disciplines in astronomy such as solar system, stellar
astrophysics, stellar populations, interstellar medium, galaxies
and clusters, quasars and active galactic nuclei.

     Each proposal was judged primarily for scientific
importance.  Other selection criteria took into account such
factors as the technical feasibility of the proposal and an
observer's need for the unique capabilities of HST.

     The ranked lists of proposals assembled by the various
panels were then reviewed by a cross-discipline Time Allocation
Committee (TAC).  Space Telescope Science Institute Director
Riccardo Giacconi made the final selection based upon a review of
the TAC's recommended list of proposals.

     The proposals now will go through a phase II process where
the guest observers will specify the technical details of their
observations.  The proposals then will be checked for technical
feasibility, such as availability of guide stars required to aim
the telescope in space and other possible problems.  At the
conclusion of phase II this fall, a catalog of approved
observations will be made available.

     The Space Telescope Science Institute is operated for NASA
under a contract with the Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt,
Md., by the Association of Universities for Research in
Astronomy, Inc.  The institute is located on the Johns Hopkins
University campus in Baltimore, Md.

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

Date: 19 Jul 89 20:56:11 GMT
From: ames.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Galloway) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
<> There was some discussion about whether Apollo 10 was really needed; why
<> get to within 10 miles of the lunar surface and then go home?  But a lot
<> of people felt that an all-up test, including a real lunar-orbit rendezvous,
<> was a good idea before landing.  What finally settled the matter was that
<> Apollo 10's LM was overweight and could not have flown a complete landing
<> mission.
<
<The last was probably a good thing. I remember as a kid thinking that if I was
<on 10's flight, I would have gotten some printouts before leaving of what
<information would be needed to land and revendevous later, and gone ahead and
<landed. So what if I would've been court-martialed....Just imagine what the
<temptation would have been like if a landing and return had been possible.
<
>tyg   [e-mail]

Problem is, what would you have done once you reached the surface? Apollo
10 carried no proper EVA equipment, no scientific packages. All the crew
could have done was to land, lookaround and leave (assuming they could
have taken off).

They probably had some emergency portable oxygen system in the case they
had to perform an EVA in order to get back to the CM due to a docking
malfunction.

As I remember, Tom Stafford was himself asked if Apollo 10 should have
been the landing, and he said no, the LM needed further testing.




          *** mike (still looking for a publisher) smithwick ***

"Los Angeles : Where neon goes to die"
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

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

Date: 19 Jul 89 21:36:15 GMT
From: cwjcc!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!csri.toronto.edu![e-mail]  (Wayne Hayes)
Subject: Re: Apollo-11 lunar experiment still useful after 20 years (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>     Once the laser beam hits a reflector, scientists at the
>observatories use sensitive filtering and amplification equipment
>to detect the return signal.  The reflected light is too weak to
>be seen with the human eye, but under good conditions, one photon
>-- the fundamental particle of light -- will be received every
>few seconds.

Is this right? I would think that many more than that would get back.
Besides, if you only got one back every few seconds, it would be
useless for the accuracy of timing needed to calculate the moons
distance with "unprecedented accuracy".
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Open the pod bay doors, HAL."   "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
Wayne Hayes    INTERNET: [e-mail]    CompuServe: 72401,3525

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

Date: 19 Jul 89 05:03:00 GMT
From: mailrus!caen.engin.umich.edu![e-mail]  (Tom Galloway)
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> There was some discussion about whether Apollo 10 was really needed; why
> get to within 10 miles of the lunar surface and then go home?  But a lot
> of people felt that an all-up test, including a real lunar-orbit rendezvous,
> was a good idea before landing.  What finally settled the matter was that
> Apollo 10's LM was overweight and could not have flown a complete landing
> mission.

The last was probably a good thing. I remember as a kid thinking that if I was
on 10's flight, I would have gotten some printouts before leaving of what
information would be needed to land and revendevous later, and gone ahead and
landed. So what if I would've been court-martialed....Just imagine what the
temptation would have been like if a landing and return had been possible.

tyg   [e-mail]

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

Date: 19 Jul 89 12:49:31 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Kuiper Airborne Observatory

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Willner) wrote:
}Just a tiny correction.  The KAO is entirely operated by NASA - no NSF
}or other agency involvement whatever.  The next-generation airborne
}observatory (SOFIA - Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy)
}will be a joint project of NASA and the West German space agency.
}(BMFT, I think, though darned if I know what the initials stand for.)
  ^^^^
I'm pretty sure it's "Bundesministerium fuer Forschung und Technologie"
(Ministry of Research and Technology).

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=-=- Voice: [phone] (school)
ARPA: [e-mail]  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46
FAX: available on request                      Disclaimer? I claimed something?

PROGRAM n. A magic spell cast over a computer allowing it to turn one's input
  into error messages.  tr.v. To engage in a pastime similar to banging one's
  head against a wall, but with fewer opportunies for reward.
        -- from a flyer advertising for _Inside_Turbo_Pascal_

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

Date: 19 Jul 89 17:25:02 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha![e-mail]  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10 and Apollo books

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Blake Philip Wood) writes:
> For a long time Apollo 12 was to have been the first moon landing, but
> the successes of the earlier flights allowed NASA to move it up to
> Apollo 11.  Cunningham states that the smart money within NASA (and
> there were bets made) was placed on Charles Conrad to do the first
> moonwalk.  As it turned out, Conrad made the third moonwalk on Apollo 12.
>
Also read "Carrying the Fire" by Mike Collins.  According to Collins, the
schedule was for Conrad to command Apollo 11.  That was screwed up when
Collins, then scheduled to fly on Apollo 8, was taken off the flight list
because of a medical problem in his spinal column.  His backup flew on 8,
and the successive schedule was perturbed.  As a result, Conrad was bumped
back from commanding 11 to commanding 12.  Also as a result, Collins was
assigned to 11 after he recovered from surgery.  Good book.  In this time
of nostalgia, "Carrying the Fire" is another good book to read.

**********************************************************************
Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah
alternate:   [e-mail]

standard disclaimer implied

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

Date: 19 Jul 89 23:11:25 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Apollo Ascent Modules

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Chiarchiaro) writes:
>I checked the NASA Satellite Situation Report, Vol. 28, No. 4, Dec.
>31, 1988 for non-booster Apollo items still in orbit...

Does it state the basis for assuming this hardware is still in orbit?
I greatly doubt that it is possible to track the things in lunar orbit;
that's difficult even in Clarke orbit unless there's a transponder aboard.

>Glaringly absent, however, was any listing of the Apollo 13 LM.
>According to one text I have, that LM was never staged (the ascent and
>descent stages were kept together) and was jettisoned 18,000 km from
>earth.

Right.  It went into the Pacific as the CM reentered.  There wasn't any
alternative, since the LM was needed to maneuver the CM into a proper
reentry trajectory with the SM dead.
--
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 19 Jul 89 16:40:05 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Bill Chiarchiaro)
Subject: Re: Apollo Ascent Modules



I checked the NASA Satellite Situation Report, Vol. 28, No. 4, Dec.
31, 1988 for non-booster Apollo items still in orbit.  Here's what I
found:


Int'l Desig.    Catalog #    Name        Orbit        Mission

1969 043C    3948        LM/DESCENT    Selenocentric    Apollo 10
1969 043D    3949        LM/ASCENT    Heliocentric    Apollo 10

1969 059C    4041        LUNAR MODULE    Selenocentric    Apollo 11

1971 063D    5377        SUBSATELLITE    Selenocentric    Apollo 15

1972 031C    6005        LUNAR MODULE    Selenocentric    Apollo 16


The LMs from Apollos 5 (unmanned, earth-orbit test of LM-1), 9, 12,
14, 15, and 17 were all listed as decayed (actually, only the ascent
stages were mentioned for 12, 14, 15, and 17).

Glaringly absent, however, was any listing of the Apollo 13 LM.
According to one text I have, that LM was never staged (the ascent and
descent stages were kept together) and was jettisoned 18,000 km from
earth.


Notes on Apollo 9 and Apollo 10:

As has recently been stated, Apollo 10 was the mission that was
essentially a lunar dry-run of the Apollo 11 landing.  We must be
careful, though, in saying that its LM "descended" to within some
distance of the lunar surface.  Early in the mission planning, an
abort from powered descent was considered, but was passed up in favor
of a mission that emulated a landing in every regard except for
powered descent and subsequent takeoff from the lunar surface.  With
Young in the CSM (Charlie Brown), Cernan and Stafford in the LM
(Snoopy) performed a DOI (descent orbit insertion).  This orbit had a
perilune of about 15 km above the mean lunar surface -- this was their
closest approach to the surface.  It was from such an orbit that later
LMs began their powered descents.  The ascent and descent staging
occured, but I don't remember at which point.  Also, I believe the
descent engine as well as the ascent engine was used for orbital
manuevers.  Cernan and Stafford spent 8 hours in the LM.  Later, upon
ground command, the ascent stage expended all its fuel and was put
into a heliocentric orbit.

One of the other forgotten Apollo mission was 9 -- the earth-orbit
test of the LM.  Scott stayed with the CSM (Gumdrop) and McDivitt and
Schweickart spent 6 hr 20 min in the LM (Spider).  They achieved a
maximum separation of 185 km and did perform ascent/descent staging.


Bill Chiarchiaro
N1CPK
[e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #569
*******************