Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_5/v9_579.txt

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

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/MYqFe9i00UkVA1Dk5:>;
          Fri,  4 Aug 89 00:24:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri,  4 Aug 89 00:24:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #579

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 579

Today's Topics:
      Re: Does this proprosal make sense ? (was RE: SPACE QUEST)
             Old observations of Neptune
              Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon
                Neil Armstrong
        Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)
               Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10
      Re: Does this proprosal make sense ? (was RE: SPACE QUEST)
              Re: Apollo Ascent Modules
      Re: Does this proprosal make sense ? (was RE: SPACE QUEST)
 Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
            Re: Questions about Apollo 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 89 02:08:04 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Re: Does this proprosal make sense ? (was RE: SPACE QUEST)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fred Walter) writes:
>The work would be done by the members; all money raised would be put back
>into the organization to better the facilities/do R&D/etc.
I was hoping that people who could afford to spend their on something
such as this, would do just that.

>The administration of the group would serve to connect people together
>into working groups. They would gather information on the members
>(regarding what everyone can do/will do) and give the information to its
>members and ask the members for possible plans of action. The
>administration would then gather all the plans and try and condense them
>into one plan, which would be given back to the members. This would bounce
>back and forth until a plan was had that everyone could live with.

The reason for the suggestion of the space contractors owning the
adminestration corporation was so that the designers could use
off-the-shelf components as cheaply as possible.

Even if the contractors don't want to be part of the corporation, we
should still be able to use off-the-shelf components.  Supposedly, we
could have built massive space stations ten years ago with existing
technology and have space for a population of 30,000.  That should be
more true today.
- Daniel

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

Date: 21 Jul 89 19:04:30 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utfyzx!sq![e-mail]  (Mark Brader)
Subject: Old observations of Neptune

> Neptune was discovered in 1846, and the planet takes 165 years to
> orbit the Sun; thus, Neptune won't return to the position where
> astronomers first saw it until 2011.  This leaves great uncertainty in
> the precise knowledge of Neptune's orbit ...

Actually this isn't quite true.  Several astronomers saw Neptune before
it was discovered, recording it as a star each time.  The first of them
was Galileo, who was watching satellites of Jupiter at the time.
He didn't have any way of accurately measuring positions of celestial
objects, but he did record the positions in relation to Jupiter of
whatever stars it was near at the time.  One night he found that one of
them wasn't in the place he'd last put it down--

And he assumed he'd made a mistake, and it happened that he did not get
another look at Jupiter until Neptune was too far away from it to see.

This was all written up in Scientific American a few years ago, and it was
also noted that the position implied by Galileo's notes did not match
the current knowledge of Neptune's orbit.  Perhaps the Voyager II
observations will help resolve this.  Or perhaps not.

This article is crossposted to sci.astro and sci.space, with followups
directed to sci.astro.  This article is in the public domain.

--
Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]
    MARTIANS BUILD TWO IMMENSE CANALS IN TWO YEARS.
    Vast Engineering Works Accomplished in an Incredibly Short Time by Our
    Planetary Neighbors.        -- N.Y.Times headline, August 27, 1911

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

Date: 21 Jul 89 21:22:05 GMT
From: cadnetix.COM!cadnetix![e-mail]  (Rusty Carruth)
Subject: Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Limpert) writes:
->I started working at a NASA tracking station shortly after ALSEP was
->shut down.  The story I heard was that NASA ran out of money to receive,
->record and process the telemetry data....
->--
->John Limpert        [e-mail]    uunet!n3dmc!gronk!johnl

So, we shut down the transmitter so that NOBODY could recieve it.

Makes sense to me. :-(

----------
Rusty Carruth  UUCP:{uunet,boulder}!cadnetix!rusty  DOMAIN: [e-mail]
Daisy/Cadnetix Corp. [phone]\  5775 Flatiron Pkwy. \ Boulder, Co 80301
Radio: N7IKQ    'home': P.O.B. 461 \  Lafayette, CO 80026

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

Date: 21 Jul 89 19:46:46 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!novavax!hcx1!hardy![e-mail]  (Fred Sabernick)
Subject: Neil Armstrong

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283) writes:
>
>                         The Apollo 11 Astronauts
>
>    Neil A. Armstrong, commander of Apollo 11, the first man to set foot
>    on the Moon, was born in Wapakoneta, Ohio, August 5, 1930.  Armstrong
>    was the only civilian member of the Apollo 11 crew.  He was selected
>    as an astronaut in 1962 and served in Gemini 8 before being assigned
>    as commander of the Apollo 11 mission.  Armstrong is now Chairman of
>    Computer Technologies for Aviation, Inc., Lebanon Ohio.
>

There is a humorous but rather unflattering story about Neil Armstrong in
Chuck Yeager's autobiography _Yeager_. The gist of the story is that Chuck
and Neil were flying together at Edwards and Neil wanted to try a touch and
go on the lakebed beneath them. Chuck from past experience tried to convince
Neil that the lakebud was really mud and if they landed they would not be
able to take off again, but Neil was apparently determined to try. Well, they
touched down and got stuck in the mud, and had to wait hours before they were
picked up and returned home. Wonder what the cockpit conversation was like
while they were waiting @8-).

[ The previous summary is from memory. My apologies if I don't have all the
  details correct. ]

Fred Sabernick              (Damn, can't think of a good space quote.)
[e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Jul 89 17:14:52 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James P. Galasyn) writes:
>
> Off-the-wall observation here, which probably belongs in
> talk.religion.newage:

It does :-)

>  the Dogon tribe, among others in Africa, have rather
> precise astronomical information on the period of Sirius B, the white
> dwarf companion of Sirius.  It can't be seen by the naked eye (by a long
> shot), yet this knowledge is thousands of years old.

The precision of the astronomical information is more or less limited to
its existence and invisibility to the naked eye.  (I think I've heard that
they also know the period, but I don't know how accurately they know it.  If
my God were a double star, one of the possible periods I might use would be
the typical time it takes a person to die of old age.  (Although a more likely
period owuld be one Human generation time.  The choice depends on the God.)
The actual period of Sirius B is 50 years.)   They also have information
about Sirius C, D, E ... (I forget the exact number of companions they know
about.)  This 'knowledge' goes far beyond anything which has shown up on
astronomical plates of Sirius.

        David Palmer
        [e-mail]
        ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer
    "Only 10% of the 4000 mile long coastline was affected."
        -Exxon's version of the oil spill as reported to stockholders

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

Date: 20 Jul 89 13:49:47 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!infinet!ulowell!tegra![e-mail]  (Johnathan Vail)
Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Galloway) writes:

   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.

I remember a documentary about the X-15.  There was one pilot that
with just a little more pressure on the stick could have been the
first into space.  He followed the mission and didn't do it.  Of
course on later a mission a pilot died when his plane re-entered
backwards...

____//|
  O \\|
 _____
|     | Johnathan Vail | tegra![e-mail]
|Tegra| [phone] | N1DXG@145.110-,145.270-,444.2+,448.625-
 -----

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

Date: 22 Jul 89 23:20:38 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Does this proprosal make sense ? (was RE: SPACE QUEST)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel Pezely) writes:
>The reason for the suggestion of the space contractors owning the
>adminestration corporation was so that the designers could use
>off-the-shelf components as cheaply as possible.

One trouble is that the aerospace contractors, by and large, do not have
off-the-shelf components.  They custom-build everything.  The word "cheap"
simply is not in their vocabulary.
--
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 20 Jul 89 19:45:19 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!infinet!ulowell!tegra![e-mail]  (Johnathan Vail)
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.

Is there an electronic version of this available somewhere?  Maybe on
floppy or tape or something?  It would make searching and sorting for
things easier.  Thanks.

"The crux of the biscuit, is the apostrophe" -- This is the dog talking...
 _____
|     | Johnathan Vail | tegra![e-mail]
|Tegra| [phone] | N1DXG@145.110-,145.270-,444.2+,448.625-
 -----

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

Date: 23 Jul 89 00:54:45 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Re: Does this proprosal make sense ? (was RE: SPACE QUEST)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>One trouble is that the aerospace contractors, by and large, do not have
>off-the-shelf components.  They custom-build everything.  The word "cheap"
>simply is not in their vocabulary.

Even if the contractors don't have "off-the-shelf" components, those
contractors will certainly produce and sell the parts with a lower
price tag to a subsidiary than they would to NASA.  After all, NASA will
pay what the contractors think they can get away with.

- Daniel

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

Date: 22 Jul 89 23:13:02 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:
>>            ... You can ride the bus, but you have to pay in Swiss francs
>>and learn Russian first...
>
>The UK will be sending a cosmonaut up in 1991 (oooh, where are you Eric
>Blair!), they are not paying in SFr and although, with 13,000
>applicants[!], HMG has the luxury of making an acquaintance with Russian
>a requirement, I don't believe the Soviets themselves impose it on
>visitors.

I was exaggerating a little bit for effect; payment in "hard currency"
is what's wanted.  Rubles are specifically not included (!).  (I don't know
how they feel about US$... :-))  I believe the official price is stated in
Swiss francs.

As for speaking Russian, my understanding is that that is a non-negotiable
safety requirement, and yes, the British cosmonaut will have to either know
Russian or learn it damn fast.  In any case he's got to spend a while (one
year?) in training at Star City, and that will undoubtedly require Russian
as a practical matter.

>The most dangerous fallacy in this editorial is the equation of
>*conquering space* with *you [the reader] going.*

We have not realistically "conquered" space, in the sense that we have
conquered the oceans, until anyone with a good reason or a good credit
rating can go.  *Without* waiting years, *without* begging permission
from 57 layers of bureaucrats, and *without* having to justify it to
anyone except himself.

>It's pointless to
>cheerlead a guaranteed non-starter.  None of us will go to Mars, unless
>someone's kid is reading this.

Some of us disagree... the odds are not good but not zero.

>But we could put a rover and sample
>return mission there before your present lawn mower gives out if we
>wanted to.  How about some space activism about THAT.

If cheerleading is what you want to do, by all means do so.  But robot
missions that are not part of any sort of ongoing plan for expanding
exploration are a spectator sport for all but a handful of scientists.
I can't get too excited about supporting spectator sports any more.
I'll watch the results, for sure, but invest effort?  No.

>>1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |
>>1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.|
>
>Tell it to the boys at Taurus Littrow... to Skylab... Viking... IRAS...
>Solar Max... Mir... Voyager...  HST... Magellan... and please, don't
>forget to tell Christa.

After discounting a bit for poetic licence in the signature -- obviously
Apollo and its brethren did not drop dead at the end of 1969 -- nearly
all of the programs you cite are remnants from those days.  Some of them
have had a very long wait in the queue.  The queue after them looks pretty
bare.

Voyager, on the other hand, is very much the sort of thing I was talking
about.  I do take my hat off to the Rutans and Yeager.  Oh, you meant the
*space mission*? :-)  Although I'm as eager as anyone to see what comes
of the Neptune encounter, I can't help remembering that (a) Voyager is the
leftovers from a rather more ambitious set of missions, (b) it is the
second project to bear that name, and frankly I'd have preferred the
first, and (c) it too is an Apollo-era leftover with *NO* planned followup.

As for Christa...  The saddest thing about her death is how *significant*
it was that a non-astronaut was finally going up on the shuttle -- the
system that was specifically meant to give non-astronauts access to space.
Followed, as a close second, by the fact that her death has effectively
ended that idea for the foreseeable future.  (NASA would like to end it
permanently, but so far hasn't quite dared to make that official.)
--
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Jul 89 02:16:38 GMT
From: opus!dante![e-mail]  (Lief Kirschenbaum)
Subject: Re: Questions about Apollo 11

Hello again, I've been off the 'net for a while.

As a direct result of Eugene Miya's gracious posting last December concerning
summer jobs with NASA I am now working for Lockheed Engineering and
Sciences Company at NASA'a White Sands Test Facility.  Thanks Eugene.

In a few days I shall have more info., but right now I'm not sure what I'm
allowed to post concerning White Sands.  We do rocket engine testing
(though not right now).  We also do materials testing, tests for offgassing
and stuff, for everything that flies on the shuttle.  Pens, mascara, toothpaste,
flight coveralls, etc. etc.  There's even a painting in one of our lobbies
that will be flown for one of the astronauts.
We also do H2 O2 combustion research to determine their properties of
combustion.  This is to know what would happen if the shuttle blows up on
the pad and also to have a good characterization of those and other fuels
such that they can be better used and more safely handled.
  Materials research also includes testing valves and other parts for
performance under odd condidions: high pressure, pneumatic impacts, etc.
I don't have all the details because I (a physicist by academic study) am
in their computer department (and I've never taken a CS course, and don't
plan to -- that's the government).
   Lastly they have a hypervelocity gun to simulate micrometeroid impacts
in order to determine what would be the best shielding for the space station.

Last Thursday all site employees were encourage to go and see two movies during
working hours in one of our conference rooms.  One was on Apollo 11, the
other was on Apollo 17.  Both were pretty good and were produced at the time
of their respective flights.

Friday we saw a 30 minute new movie on Apollo 11,  some really good footage
of Saturn V take off.

Question:  after the engines fired, some very large structures swung up and
away from the base of the Saturn V, like an oil well pump arm swinging up.
What were those?  Were they clamps used to hold the Saturn V to the crawler?

We also saw a 60 minute taping of a press conference with Armstrong, Aldrin,
and Collins taped last March.  Some of the questions were sort of sticky.
Things like: why haven't you done anything to encourage support for NASA since
'69?  or How do you justify NASA spending over social programs?

I liked Collins answer the best.
(paraphrasing) 'Jamestown and the other colonies were squalid places, a lot
worse off than many of our cities today, and yet we did not endeavor to make
them 100% perfect, but expanded westward.  In the same way, we still have
problems here at home but must continue to expand outward.'  He also said
something about space helping us solve our Earthly problems.

Their answers to questions concerning the future of NASA were interesting.
They said that NASA should go on to Mars and maybe Titan.
When asked about Bush and budgetary appropriations they were clearly
discomfited.  They never said it outright, but they all seemed to strongly
wish that the U.S.'s involvement in space greatly increase and speed-up and
had no faith in the current administartion actually doing anything of the
sort.

  Bush's lack of details concerning timelining of goals and budgetary
apportioning has not made me or any co-workers any more hopeful.

  In summary, I found the Apollo films quite depressing, not because the
films were depressing, but because it made me think about where NASA has not
gone since then.  NASA is like an airplane which was pulled up to go into
a stall; in 1969 the plane was at the peak of the stall, and lost all lift
after that.  I'm waiting for stall recovery.

(Yes, I'm currently working on my pilot's license.  Next is IFR, then
multi-engine, then jet engine, then high altitude and high performance
jets, then a space shuttle :-) )

Any queries concerning White Sands Test Facility address to me.

The views presented here are not those of my employer, but are solely
mine.  -Leif S. Kirschenbaum, Technical Associate, Lockheed Egineering

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #579
*******************