Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v10_3/v10_312.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/kZT=9rG00VcJ8=8U4F>;
          Wed,  6 Dec 89 01:32:24 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <gZT=9OO00VcJI=[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  6 Dec 89 01:31:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #312

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 312

Today's Topics:
            Muscle atrophy in Microgravity
                Heavy elements
        Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars
         Magellan Update 12/5/89 (Forwarded)
           Payload Status for 12/05/89 (Forwarded)
        Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars
        Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars
         Re: The International Space Habitat Program
        Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars
        Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars
       Payload Status Summary for 12/05/89 (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 89 13:23:41 GMT
From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!nisc.nyser.net!ncs.dnd.ca![e-mail]  (Craig McQueen)
Subject: Muscle atrophy in Microgravity


     I am a systems design engineer at the University of
Waterloo. Six other students and I are involved with a workshop
project involving experiments in microgravity. The topic we are
investigating is muscle atrophy in space. At the moment we are at
the information gathering phase of the workshop. In January '90
we will start the design phase of the project. The workshop will
be completed in April '90.

     I was wondering anyone would be able to provide us with
information concerning muscle atrophy in microgravity.
Specifically, information on experiments already conducted
and planned experiments would be greatly appreciated.
Material concerning how experiments of this type are
designed and carried out would also be of assistance.

Please email direct if possible.

                                        Thanks,
                                        Craig McQueen
                                   [phone] (work)
Mailing address: R.R. #2 Guelph, Ont.
                 N1H-6H8
                 Canada

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

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 20:44:33 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Heavy elements


>From: fox!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Mark Robert Thorson)
>Subject: Re: Antimatter Drives and Area 51

>At a chemistry course I took in 1975, Glenn Seaborg was speaker for one
>lecture.  He showed a graph which was a two-dimensional representation of
>three-dimensional data, where the dimensions were # of protons, # of neutrons
>and nuclear stability.  The graph suggested what he called "an island of
>stability" out around element 114 (sorry, don't remember the atomic weight
>of the predicted isotope).  In other words, he was expecting that the next
>new element would jump over several others, in terms of atomic number.

I believe these are called the "superheavy elements". I'm not sure whether
any of them are supposed to be entirely *stable*, but they could have very
long half-lives (as opposed to a fraction of a second). I think there may
have been some effort to find these elements in nature (like the search for
a magnetic monopole).
                          John Roberts
                          [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Dec 89 23:18:12 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:
>An unmanned sample return / rover mission seems like a very workable baseline
>that gives scientists dizzying amounts of data without waiting out another
>fifteen years of NASA plodding and contractor shell games...

Except that it will take almost as much plodding and contracting to mount
a sample-return/rover mission, probably.  Sigh... there was a time when
such things got done in years, not decades.

>No doubt the rover
>needs to be smart given the long signal turnaround, but it's about time we
>pushed AI a little harder instead of trying to figure out how to build
>zero G dishwashers...

Personally, I think I'd rather have the job to build the dishwasher; *that*
strikes me as a straightforward (if not entirely simple) engineering job.
The AI people have been promising autonomous robots for thirty years now.
--
1233 EST, Dec 7, 1972:         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
last ship sails for the Moon.  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Dec 89 18:24:20 GMT
From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Update 12/5/89 (Forwarded)


                      Magellan Status Report
                        December 5, 1989

The Magellan probe has finished a third of its 795-million-mile
trip to Venus.  Instead of an expected quiet ride, the trip has
been quite busy.

Instead of the expected 14 transmissions of
operating commands to the spacecraft, 150 command sequences have
been beamed to Magellan so far.  Most have been related to either
high temperatures or solar activity.

Solar flares have degradded solar panels and
seem to be the reason for voltage interuptions in the craft's
star scanner.  High temperatures have plagued the propulsion and
attitude control subsystems.

Engineers will begin testing to calibrate
several instruments and make sure the craft's radar is working.
In January, the high-gain antenna will be calibrated to make sure
it is aligned.  A small mid-course trajectory maneuver is
scheduled for mid-March to keep Magellan on course for Venus.


 Ron Baalke                       |    [e-mail]
 Jet Propulsion Lab  M/S 301-355  |    [e-mail]
 4800 Oak Grove Dr.               |
 Pasadena, CA 91109               |

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

Date: 5 Dec 89 21:28:47 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 12/05/89 (Forwarded)

Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 12-05-89


- STS-31R HST (at VPF) -

The GST-8 test continues with no problems reported by LMSC.
All facility environmental readings remain nominal.  ECS support
and monitoring continues.

- STS-32R SYNCOM (at Pad A) -

The Interface Verification Test (IVT) was completed yesterday.
Due to the late start Hughes personnel decided to postpone
closeout activity to this morning.  Following closeout activity
and the walkdowns, payload bay doors will be closed.

- STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at O&C) -

Started aft flight deck and EGSE power up early yesterday
morning.  IPS par extension cruciform mate was accomplished.
Ground cable connection and ground check were complete.  Hoist of
igloo tilt device to cite test stand 4 and proofload was
completed.

- STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) -

Rack mod work continues on rack 4, 10, and 11.  Eddy current test
was performed with no anomilies reported.  Side mods continue.

- STS-42 IML (at O&C) -

No activity.

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

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 16:21:29 CST
From: [e-mail] (When in fear, or in doubt, run around, scream and shout)
Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars

Actually, all this bull about why (un)manned is superior to (un)manned misses
the big point.  People will go becaus enough people want to go.

If not for the "space race", we wouldn't have all of the information on the
moon, because we wouldn't have sent anything.  But we might have a thriving
shelf colony.  Emotional politics are a very big factor in decisions of the
magnitude of a Mars mission.  The reason the space hut is dying is that the
American people now view it as a prosaic, bland undertaking.  I know that for
my billions, I either want something like a mission to Mars or a war :-)
Seriously, only when the public sees its "heroes" being threatened will it
react, and only when a potential for a threat exists will it sponsor said
"heroes".

Story time:
Ten years ago, while getting ready for a CDR, we had a "coach" come in to work
with us on our pitches.  One of his great rules was "Never give a straight
answer to 'why'"  He recommended the response "because it seemed like a good
idea at the time."

Why should man go to Mars?

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts
TI/DSEG VAX Systems Support          | probably belong to the company.
[e-mail]                  |
[phone]                        | Never let go of what you have until
                                     | you have hold of what you want.
                                     |        - Wing Walker's Creed

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

Date: 5 Dec 89 23:36:37 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>But this is, of course, exactly the point.  Voyager's *overall* mission
>can, and did, survive problems like this.

The point is, this was more luck than planning.  Similar failures can kill,
and have killed, entire missions.  Voyager was lucky, period.  This should
not be extrapolated to some magic ability of unmanned missions to deal with
any unplanned problem that arises -- look at TVSat 1 for a counterexample.
(And a good one, since it was the same sort of problem that could be -- and
was! -- fixed with a few kicks aboard Mir.)

>It means something else altogether, however, to a manned flight to have the
>primary oxygen supply go down and have the backup operate at 10%
>efficiency.  You can't have the water filtration system stop working for 18
>months until you figure out how to fix it...

Entirely true.  You need to fix such systems promptly, or at least
improvise a temporary kludge.  As was done on Apollo 13, and to some
extent on Skylab.
--
1233 EST, Dec 7, 1972:         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
last ship sails for the Moon.  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 10:05:33 PST
From: mordor!lll-tis!ames!scubed!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: ames!lll-tis!mordor!angband![e-mail]
Subject: Re: The International Space Habitat Program

Kieran A. Carroll writes:
>[e-mail] (Jim Bowery) writes:
>>Kieran A. Carroll writes:
>>>In my judgement, the >main< reason for exploring space is because we intend
>>>that people live and work there, someday soon.
>>Right, and since "WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY," we should stop piddling
>>around with science and just "DO IT."
>Despite the sarcastic intention of the remainder of JB's posting,
>this is one statement that I can agree with.

OK, Kieran, since "WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY" for people to live, work and
play in space NOW (with objectives other than gathering scientific
knowlege) how about if you go around and convince all those private
investors who must be just chomping at the bit to make big bucks in space
that they should plow their hard earned capital into your moon/mars
development plan -- instead of yammering at us about it on the net?

Or did you think that money is no object as long as The Government engages
in enough Long Range Planning?

Been watching whats been going on with all those other Planned Economies
lately?

Been watching what's been going on with US debt lately?

Has the Canadian government become so angry at the US that they have decided
to assist the most destructive forces within US society by funding "think
tanks" in Canadian universities to come up with sophistry in support of
those forces?
---
Typical RESEARCH grant ($ = 1million):
$
Typical DEVELOPMENT contract:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

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

Date: 5 Dec 89 22:00:51 GMT
From: eplrx7![e-mail]  (Dave Janes @ SCD)
Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars

Just a thought about the reliablity of unmanned probes in a hostile
environment.  Bob Ballard has been trying to do this sort of thing with
deep submergence vehicles with less than startling results.  True he's
found both the Titanic and the Bismark with the ANGUS and Argo/Jason
systems, but in every case significant human maintenance and intervention
were required to keep the probes running.  On the other hand, the devices
are capable of gathering much more data than a comparable number of dives
in Alvin.  I think the earlier proposal of getting a manned presence close
enough to Mars to at least cut down on the teleoperator delay makes a good
deal of sense.  Even our latest and greatest technology needs a helping
hand every one and a while.

Disclaimer: My employer would prefer that I not even know the net existed,
so these obviously can be only my opinions!





--
The UUCP Mailer

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

Date: 5 Dec 89 23:41:03 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Earnshaw) writes:
>>It [Apollo] caught the attention of nearly every human on the planet.
>>When was the last time JPL did that?
>
>August of this year when Voyager II encountered Neptune?

No.  Compare numbers.  John wasn't exaggerating; you are.  Things like
the crime rate and the traffic-accident rate dropped spectacularly
(although briefly) on July 20 1969.  I didn't notice anything like that
happening this summer.
--
1233 EST, Dec 7, 1972:         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
last ship sails for the Moon.  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Dec 89 20:52:05 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status Summary for 12/05/89 (Forwarded)


                                PAYLOAD STATUS REPORT
                         Prepared at 1:00 p.m. Dec. 5, l989


          STS-32 -- SYNCOM IV-05, LDEF Retrieval

               The primary payload for the STS-32 mission,  a  SYNCOM  IV-5
          military communications statellite, was successfully installed in
          Columbia's payload bay Friday night,  Dec. 1.  Integrated testing
          between the orbiter, payload, and firing room has been completed.
          The primary objectives of this test,  which is a major  milestone
          in  pre-launch  processing,    were  to verify the electrical and
          functional interfaces,  both primary and redundant,  between  the
          orbiter  and the payload,  as well as verifying hardware/software
          compatability between the vehicle and payload.

               Payload bay closure is planned to occur by  as  early  as  8
          p.m.  tonight.  Later  this week,  the SYNCOM ground support test
          equipment will be removed from the pad. The satellite's batteries
          will be recharged at the pad while awaiting launch.

               SYNCOM is the first payload to go to the  newly  refurbished
          Pad A,  which was last used in January, l986. During KSC process-
          ing, SYNCOM teams have successfully completed the following mile-
          stones:
               --arrival at Vertical Processing Facility (VPF) - ll/13/89
               --Hughes Flight Readiness Test (VPF) - ll/l4/89
               --CITE Interface Verification Test - ll/15/89
               --installation in transfer canister - ll/18/89
               --arrival at Launch Pad A - ll/21/89
               --transfer to Payload Changeout Room (PCR) - ll/21/89
               --Space Shuttle Columbia rolls out to pad - ll/28/89
               --Hughes Flight Readiness Test - ll/28/89
               --SYNCOM installed in orbiter - 12/l/89

               SYNCOM IV-5 is the last of a series of satellites built  and
          owned  by  Hughes  Communications Co.  that will be leased to the
          U.S. Navy for communications.  Once on orbit,  the satellite will
          be known as LEASAT 5.


               The  smaller  science  payloads flying in the orbiter's mid-
          deck areas will be installed as follows.  An abbreviated descrip-
          tion of each payload follows the installation requirements.


               --Characterization of Neurospora Circadian Rhythms (CNCR) at
                    L-14 hours (studies 24-hour circadian cycles,  followup
                    to a similiar experiment on STS-9).

               --Protein Crystal Growth (PCG)at L-24 hours (protein crystal
                    growth,  2 experiments,  following those on STS-26  and
                    STS-29).

               --Fluids  Experiment  Apparatus (FEA),   hardware no earlier
                    than  L-5 days, samples no earlier than 24 hours before
                    launch (melt and recrystallize materials).

               --IMAX no earlier than L-5 days (photography).

               --American Flight  Echocardiograph  (AFE),  routine  stowage
                    (electrocardiogram studies).

               --Mesoscale  Lightning  Experiment  (MLE),  routine  stowage
                    (lightning studies).

               --Latitude-Longitude    Locator    (L3)    at    L-4    days
                    (latitude/longitude location studies).

               After  the  satellite  is  deployed,  the  STS-32  crew will
          retrieve the Long Duration Exposure Facility  (LDEF),  which  now
          has  been  exposed to the environment of space for more than five
          years.  LDEF will be returned to KSC for down-processing and  de-
          integration  before  the more than 50 experiments are turned over
          to investigators and scientific committees.

               Last week,  ground support  equipment  for  the  LDEF  down-
          processing was received at the SAEF-2 facility.

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #312
*******************