Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_5/v9_583.txt

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

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/4YqdGx:00UkV838U45>;
          Sat,  5 Aug 89 03:18:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat,  5 Aug 89 03:18:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #583

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 583

Today's Topics:
           Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
           Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
           Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
         Re: The Soviet PHOBOS 2 Mars probe.
          Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
          What is the Solar Impact Mission?
               Re: Voice channel beeps.
             Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)
              Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon
             Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)
          Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
           Magellan Status for 07/25/89 (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 20:12:33 GMT
From: sally![e-mail]  (John Plocher)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

+---- M F Shafer writes
| Then buy a BD-5J.  There isn't one cent of government money in BD-5Js.
|
| Since a private market for high-performance, jet "fighter" aircraft
| does exist, why is this market _so_ small?
+----

It's not the market that's small, it's the plane :-)  Actually, the
BD-10J sounds like an even hotter bird - Mach 1+ !!!

    -John Plocher

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

Date: 24 Jul 89 21:18:04 GMT
From: concertina![e-mail]  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Berry Kercheval) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, stadler@Apple (Andy Stadler) writes:
> >I used to consider that a stereotype until about the 3rd time a Bonanza
> >tried to run me down....  Why is it always Bonanzas making straight in's
> >at uncontrolled airports?
>
> Alene calls this the "Cadillac driiver" phenomemon, as she has noticed that
> a disproportionate number of Cadillacs seem to be driven by jerks.

Or watching the 310 driver sail into a *WIDE* down wind leg to Angwin
(top of a ridge north of Napa) which just happened to coincide with
an active jump zone at nearby Pope Valley (I *told* you it was wide...),
apparently with his head down in his lap.  Could just as well been under
the hood at the time.

Couldn't understand why everyone was, like, irritated at him.  (I *called*
in on Unicom...!")

The jumpers in the air (on their way down, literally) were just glad
that he missed all of them.

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

Date: 24 Jul 89 17:54:41 GMT
From: mailrus!sharkey!itivax!vax3![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
>Since a private market for high-performance, jet "fighter" aircraft
>does exist, why is this market _so_ small?

Price.

>Why is there essentially only one entry in the market?

There are more than one. I know of people who own F-86's. A company in
Addison Tx. has imported some Alpha jets which it sells (for about 2M
each). A company in CA inports MIG-19's from China and is attempting to
get permission to import MIG-21's. The Alpha and Mig-21 will do better
than mach 1.

Finally, although not jets, there are a lot of WWII fighters out there.

>Maybe the market has decided that this
>isn't an appropriate place to allocate resources?

The great thing about a free market it that it isn't monolithic. There
is nobody allocating resources.

    Allen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Allen Sherzer                     | DETROIT:                            |
|  [e-mail]                       | Where the weak are killed and eaten |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 24 Jul 89 20:06:40 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: The Soviet PHOBOS 2 Mars probe.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283) writes:
>    The most likely explanation for the failure of PHOBOS 2 a few
>    months back was a technical problem - the Soviets are roughly ten
>    years behind the United States in space technology.

    More like twenty years - they have Energia.
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

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

Date: 24 Jul 89 20:51:34 GMT
From: agate!astroplasma.berkeley.edu![e-mail]  (Michael Richmond)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?


  As to why HST only has 1200 hours of observing time in its first
year: I'm not sure whether that figure includes several months of
testing, but one thing I did learn recently is that,
on those occasions when an observation is being
made for more than one half-orbital period (45 minutes), the
telescope is left pointing at the object - and hence looking at
the EARTH - for another 45 minutes, until the object comes back
out from behind the Earth. It seems that it's more practical
(timewise? propellent-wise?) to leave the telescope where it
is pointing than to move it to another object for a short time,
then go back and re-acquire the first one.

  I'd be glad to learn that I am mistaken - can anyone tell us
more about this "feature" of ST? I realize that you lose a lot
of observing time being in LEO, and that it really needs to be
there, but ...

  Oh well, I imagine that probably only a small number of ST
observations are being made this way; most are probably less
than 45 minutes long.




--                                          Michael Richmond
"This is the heart that broke my finger."   [e-mail]

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

Date:     Mon, 24 Jul 89 09:32:31 BST
From: [e-mail]
Myname:   Geoff. Lane. (Phone UK-061 275 6051)
Subject:  What is the Solar Impact Mission?


In a recent edition of "New Scientist" there is an article about
matter/anti-matter drives. There was  an incidental mention of a
project  called   the  "Solar   Impact  Mission"  and   that  an
matter/anti-matter drive would be ideal for this.

OK, What is the "Solar Impact Mission"  and why is it so hard to
hit the Sun? After all we have already had close ups of Mercury.


Geoff.
MCC

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

Date: 24 Jul 89 21:03:51 GMT
From: n3dmc!gronk![e-mail]  (John Limpert)
Subject: Re: Voice channel beeps.

In article <[e-mail]> bill@berlioz (Bill Bencze) writes:
>What function do the ever present "beeps" serve in the voice
>communication between spacecraft and the ground? These are the
>1~3 kHz beeps of about a half second in duration which seem to
>occur at random duning the transmissions.  Are they electronic
>"Over" signals automatically sent at the end of a transmission or
>some other type of timing signal.

The beeps are called "QUINDAR tones".  I believe QUINDAR was the
manufacturer of the equipment that decodes the tones.  The tones are
used to control transmit/receive switching in the air-to-ground voice
communications equipment.  Two tones are used, one when a transmission
begins, the other when it ends.

--
John Limpert        [e-mail]    uunet!n3dmc!gronk!johnl

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

Date: 24 Jul 89 23:53:53 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:
>I treasure Henry's acerbity,

Perhaps I should make a comment about this.  On occasion I enjoy Henry
as well.  As NASA gets more connected into networks of the world (and as
many of the computer security types don't learn about them), some of the
stuff I mentioned at HQ and other NASA sites become more common knowledge
[for instance they were considering a policy on freeware].  As time
has progressed and I have become more cynical (climbing DOWN the ladder,
so to speak), I encounter more and more NASA people who discover the
space mailing list or at Ames (News).  And they comment on the readership,
Henry among others.  In large part they just ignore his (and others)
more negative ramblings (no one ever listens to me).  Its not a matter
of not listening to one's critics: there are traditional paths of
comment and review, and networks aren't one of them.  But the point of
this note to you is to illustrate how NASA is changing and how
some of the bureacracy reacts to people (since people asked).  Water off
a duck's back.  There is a point where people just regard things as noise
and that point is reached very quickly by people reading who have work
to do (unless you have a news window on a multiwindow workstation).
So Henry has pushed most people's internal button's too far and lost
credibility.

>What's missing is getting down and dirty on the inner planets, in my
>view.  That's where the excitement lies.  IMAX on a sample return and
>rover mission!  How bout it!

Sounds great.  Don't see a question mark.  The problem is understanding
the scale of these endeavours.  Consider holding a conversation
in light-time.  That's a real problem going to places like Mars or
Venus.  Just so long as you don't have the short-term "must have it now"
mentality.  Space is big, really big...... 8)

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, [e-mail]
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
                  Live free or die.

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

Date: 24 Jul 89 20:52:19 GMT
From: n3dmc!gronk![e-mail]  (John Limpert)
Subject: Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John DeArmond) writes:
>The question at hand is did NASA leave the transmitter on the moon running?
>You could probably answer this as well as anyone.  I read a new report in
>the local yellow rag that the transmitter had been left on and that only
>the tracking station had been shut down.

The usual procedure for mothballing a spacecraft is to shut off the
transmitter and non-essential systems.  The receiver and command decoder
are left on so the spacecraft can be reactivated later.  I suspect this
is what happened to ALSEP.  The tracking stations were _not_ shut down.
There were plenty of other activities to keep them open.  The ISEE
(International Sun Earth Explorer) spacecraft replaced ALSEP in the
"track it and record telemetry for many hours a day" category.  There were
a pair of instrumentation recorders at Ascension that had been dedicated
to supporting ALSEP.  After ALSEP was shutdown, quite a bit of effort was
needed to repair all of the circuit boards that hadn't been used in
the ALSEP recorder configuration.

With the advent of an operational TDRS system, the ground tracking network
is finally being reduced to a minimal number of stations.  Bermuda and
Merrit Island (KSC) are being kept open for launch support.  The rest are
going to be shutdown, turned over to JPL's Deep Space Network or the
Air Force.

--
John Limpert        [e-mail]    uunet!n3dmc!gronk!johnl

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

Date: 25 Jul 89 05:02:33 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (The Miya-creature) emerges
from the NAS-cave and writes:
>Perhaps I should make a comment about [Henry's acerbic manner].  On
>occasion I enjoy Henry as well.  As NASA gets more connected into
>networks of the world ...
>                        I encounter more and
>more NASA people who discover the space mailing list or at Ames (News).
>And they comment on the readership, Henry among others.  In large part
>they just ignore his (and others) more negative ramblings (no one ever
>listens to me).  ...
>                So Henry has pushed most people's internal
>button's too far and lost credibility.

This is easy to believe -- I cannot imagine Henry's views being welcome
at much of any level within NASA.  I would just point out that
convincing NASA staff is not the only legitimate agenda for
editorializing here.  The opinions of informed, educated and interested
citizens (such as one imagines reads the newsgroup) are worth much more,
if only by sheer numbers (though I have high regard for NASA grunts, as,
I think, does Henry).

>>What's missing is getting down and dirty on the inner planets, in my
>>view.  That's where the excitement lies.  IMAX on a sample return and
>>rover mission!  How bout it!
>
>Sounds great.  Don't see a question mark.

That's because I'm cheerleading more than I'm honestly questioning.  We
NEED to do this.  It would be a bonanza for science and, if properly
managed, for public perception.  What kind of bucks would Spielberg
contribute to this for the sake of (a) a kick-a** planetary journey
he could produce and present on 70mm movie screens, and (b) immortality.
If someone knew how to sell our real life Solar System the way they sell
BATMAN, the sky would be the limit, or so it seems to me.

>                        The problem is understanding
>the scale of these endeavours.  Consider holding a conversation in
>light-time.  That's a real problem going to places like Mars or Venus.

Completely solvable.  The AI wonks posit totally self sufficient rovers,
which I consider an evident shuck -- I'd orbit a powerful CPU and engage
in hour long exploration programs at most, with frequent ground based
interaction.  At all events it's a purely technical issue, and could
be handled with the proper funding.

>Just so long as you don't have the short-term "must have it now"
>mentality.  Space is big, really big...... 8)

I challenge the Miya-creature to define "now."  I would like to have a
tub of Martian soil in the JPL vaults before the century is out.  I
think we have everything we need to do it, except the will.  If we
insist on taking meat there next after the paparazzi orbiters,
however, it won't happen.

btw I bet the NASA readership doesn't comment on me much either, after
the "Dance Band" parody  :-)
--
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\    Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\    uunet!bfmny0!tneff

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

Date: 25 Jul 89 04:36:14 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>Why does [HST] really need to be LEO?  Why not put it in a higher orbit?

HST is a very heavy payload designed to be serviced by the Shuttle, which
cannot visit orbits higher than about 300nm under any circumstances.  Hence
it lives in LEO.  Welcome to the joys of "manned presence in space."
--
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\    Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\    uunet!bfmny0!tneff

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

Date: 25 Jul 89 22:32:27 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Magellan Status for 07/25/89 (Forwarded)


                     MAGELLAN WEEKLY STATUS
                          July 25, 1989


     This is a weekly status report. The Magellan operations
team is continuing investigations into star scanner glitches and
attitude calibrations. The spacecraft is performing well,
however.

     The hottest Rocket Engine Modules were running at 69 degrees
C (156.2 F) to 74 C (165.2 F) with the temperature rising to 80 C
(176 F) during momentum wheel desaturations. The current red
alarm limit is 87 C (188.6 F), but tests are underway at Rocket
Research to try to push this limit higher. The head end of the
Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) is running at 34 degrees C (93.2 F)
versus its current red alarm limit of 70 C (158 F). Recent tests
were performed at Motor Thiokol.

     The spacecraft is continuing twice daily momentum wheel
desaturations and daily star calibrations. Additional star
calibrations were commanded as part of the gyro scale factor
calibrations, and two others were performed to test the star
scanner performance for a future star pair.

     All the star calibrations involved in the spacecraft
attitude knowledge updates performed during the past week were
successful except for the one on July 20. That Starcal failed due
to a glitch on the second crossing of the first star, but the
partial update from the second star was sufficient. A preliminary
report indicated solar activity may have caused the problem.

     Cruise load 7, the computer command sequence, was uplinked
July 21 and a non-standard sequence was uplinked to Magellan on
July 19 which specified a new star pair, Alpha CEN and Gamma
Cru.


     SPACECRAFT
     Distance From Earth (mi)                   11,979,386

     Velocity Geocentric                        11,477 mph
              Heliocentric                      69,445 mph

     One Way Light Time                         1 minute, 04 sec

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #583
*******************