Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v11_1/v11_193.txt

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

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/Ma4OgX:00VcJ442E5J>;
          Thu, 29 Mar 90 01:28:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 01:28:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #193

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 193

Today's Topics:
            Re: Challenger Report question
          Re: Will we lose another orbiter?
          Re: Will we lose another orbiter?
             Re: Shuttle Escapes
       Re: Did SEASAT See More Than It Was Supposed To?
   Re: "Brilliant Pebbles" vs. "Smart Rocks" (was Re: Railgun ...)
           Payload Status for 03/26/90 (Forwarded)
           Aurora = Strange Flash of Light?
         NASA Headline News for 03/26/90 (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 90 16:34:53 GMT
From: clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Challenger Report question

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
>I am disappointed but not too surprised to hear that the Feynman
>appendix has been removed from the report...

No, it's in the report, it's just not in the first volume -- which is all
that most people get or read -- since the first volume contains none of the
appendixes.
--
Apollo @ 8yrs: one small step.|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Space station @ 8yrs:        .| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 28 Mar 90 16:07:28 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Will we lose another orbiter?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lou Adornato) writes:

> Good.  At least you didn't think it was divine retribution, as I heard
> one person claim.  One of the root causes of the Challenger accident,
> was public pressure to launch on schedule.  This was caused by the
> public's inability to understand just how complex and demanding
> launching an experimental aircraft can be.  Once people stop taking
> technology for granted, they start learning.  Maybe in the long run
> Challenger will have made us stronger by making us see the danger in
> having 90% of our population (and 100% of our policy makers)
> technologically illiterate.

What a load of crap.

The public isn't responsible for the institutionalized self deception
that characterized pre-Challenger NASA.  The public didn't say NASA
would launch 60 (then 24) shuttle flights per year.  The public didn't
force NASA to not admit those estimates were baloney.  The public
didn't hold a gun to NASA's collective head and say "my god, NASA,
when do you want to launch, next April?"

It was NASA's responsibility to inform the public about the safe
flight rate of the system, not recklessly exceed it in a futile
attempt to preserve the myth of the shuttle's economic viability.  It
was NASA's responsibility to be honest about the potential
capabilities of the shuttle when it was being sold.  But, as Keyworth
noted, NASA is the only government adgency that outright lies.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 28 Mar 90 20:06:19 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: Will we lose another orbiter?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lou Adornato) writes:

>> Good.  At least you didn't think it was divine retribution, as I heard
>> one person claim.  One of the root causes of the Challenger accident,
>> was public pressure to launch on schedule.  This was caused by the

...deleted...

>What a load of crap.

>The public isn't responsible for the institutionalized self deception
>that characterized pre-Challenger NASA.  The public didn't say NASA
>would launch 60 (then 24) shuttle flights per year.  The public didn't
>force NASA to not admit those estimates were baloney.  The public
>didn't hold a gun to NASA's collective head and say "my god, NASA,
>when do you want to launch, next April?"

>It was NASA's responsibility to inform the public about the safe
>flight rate of the system, not recklessly exceed it in a futile
>attempt to preserve the myth of the shuttle's economic viability.  It
>was NASA's responsibility to be honest about the potential
>capabilities of the shuttle when it was being sold.  But, as Keyworth
>noted, NASA is the only government adgency that outright lies.

It's too bad you feel that way.  From my point of view (a grunt at the
bottom of the food chain) there are alot of pressures to get the work
done on time below cost.  This never happens (or rarely anyway) so
that it is always a matter of deciding how much engineering is good
enough to get the job done.  Sometimes it isn't enough and we need to
go fix it after the fact.  Usually the higher the risk of loss of life
or system the more intensely things get looked at, but ther are time
when things fall through the cracks (noone is perfect and neither is
any system).  There are always risks.

As an example, the F/A-18 High Alpha (angle of attack) Research
Vehicle is over budget by about 4 million U.S. dollars compared to the
original projections.  The total program cost was advertised at 11
million originally.  We are behind schedule by about 18 months.  Who
is to blame?  McAir?  NASA?  I would say neither, there were a lot of
things that made this job very difficult that neither group expected.
There are still some technical difficulties that need to be overcome
before we make first flight.  It will take more time and money to work
those problems out.  Another thing that needs to be mentioned here is
that everyone want todays state of the art _now_.  That isn't possible
in the government due to the way the budget is structured, todays'
proposals will get into fiscal 1992 as fiscal 1991 is already in
congress.  That will get the feasibility studies done, then there are
the requests for proposals that we have to pay each contractor for,
then the detailed engineering studies, design reviews and then the
contractor gets to cut the hardware.  hen implementation and software
reviews and...  From the beginning to the end will take 4 or 5 years
for a small program and 8 or 10 for a major one.  Then there is the
fact that NASA gets 14 billion dollars and 800 million goes to
aeronautics, the rest goes to space.  I'm not complaining about the
space share but if we want to be the premiere force in world
aeronautics it isn't enough.  Remember this is out of a trillion
dollar budget.

As I said before losses must be expected, and I am sorry that you feel
that way about NASA.  I am proud of the work I perform for the
taxpayers as are most of us here and if we have dissappointed you we
are all sorry.

--
Albion H. Bowers  [e-mail]  ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!bowers
         NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
                  Aerodynamics: The ONLY way to fly!

                     Live to ski, ski to live...

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

X400-Trace: US*ATTMAIL*WIDE; arrival Wed, 28 Mar 90 21:25:16 -0500 action
          Relayed
Date:     Wed, 28 Mar 90 21:25:16 -0500
P1-Message-Id: US*ATTMAIL*WIDE; 5A031C150F1A010F-MTABWIDENER
Ua-Content-Id: 5A031C150F1A010F
From: [e-mail]
Subject:  Re: Shuttle Escapes

  While I was browsing through the library the other day, I came across a
series of books about the construction of the space shuttle.  I can't recall
the titles of these books, but they were printed in the mid seventies.
One of the topics covered, albeit very briefly, was a method of reentry for
a single astronaut.  It looked like a kind of cradle in which the astronaut
sat.  The cradle consisted of a heat shield and parachute.  I imagine that
this type of reentry would be exciting to say the least!
  Are there any plans to equip Space Station Freedom with any kind of
rescue system?  (Perhaps I should ask if there are any plans to build Space
Station Freedom :-))

Andy Greenshields [[e-mail]]

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

Date: 29 Mar 90 01:54:14 GMT
From: cs![e-mail]  (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Subject: Re: Did SEASAT See More Than It Was Supposed To?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gord Deinstadt) writes:
[initial discussion deleted]

>BTW, what seasat saw that seasat wasn't supposed to see by the seashore :-)
>was contours of the ocean floor.  It turns out that the ocean's surface is
>deflected enough by currents flowing over shallow areas that you can chart
>some pieces of the ocean's floor this way.  This made the US Navy *very*
>uptight.  They consider ocean-floor charts of any accuracy to be vital
>secrets; so much so that they have prevented civilian American scientists
>using civilian-developed SURTASS arrays from charting the sea bed.  They're
>waiting until the Russians publish.
>
>(SURTASS = ???? - anyhow, it's a sonar system using an array of receivers
>to do actual imaging rather than just *ping poop* *ping poop* sort of stuff.)
>--
>Gord Deinstadt  [e-mail]

Referencing The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems, by
Norman Friedman, SURTASS, the UQQ-2 Surveillance Towed-Array System, uses
specially designed towing ships, designated T-AGOS, and is a very long passive
array sonar.  As far as I know, SURTASS has always been a military system, and
the T-AGOS ships, while operated by civilian merchant marine crews are owned
by the US Navy.

My understanding of the physics of passive sonar (also known as underwater
acoustics) tells me that it would be pretty hard to do passive imaging of the
sea bed, especially by a system designed for open ocean submarine detection.

In any event, this is starting to stray in the direction of sci.military (if
it ever comes back).

Jeff Schweiger

--
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger      CompuServe:  74236,1645    Standard Disclaimer
ARPAnet (Defense Data Network):                [e-mail]
*******************************************************************************

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

Date: 29 Mar 90 03:39:17 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!ge-dab!puma!andrew.ATL.GE.COM![e-mail]  (John F Nixon)
Subject: Re: "Brilliant Pebbles" vs. "Smart Rocks" (was Re: Railgun ...)

[e-mail] (Mike Pelletier) writes:
>Whence this silly nomenclature "Brilliant Pebbles"?

Those irrepressible fun loving people at LLNL, I believe...

>Whatever happened to the succinct, professional sounding "Smart Rocks"?

Different program, if I am not mistaken.

Actually, I am proposing "Savant Sand" as an SDI weapon.  When detecting an
attack, put several tons of suborbital sand, suitably positioned, in front
of the stuff coming your way.  Sure, it puts some plutonium in the upper
athmosphere, but .....  :-) ;-) 8-)

--

----
[e-mail]                    ...steinmetz!atl.decnet!jnxion

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

Date: 28 Mar 90 09:20:24 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 03/26/90 (Forwarded)


  Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 03-26-90.


  - STS-31R HST (at VPF) -

  HST was transferred to the PGHM Saturday.  Today HST will be
  undergoing electrical and mechanical mates to the PCR.


  - STS-32R SYNCOM/LDEF (at SAEF-2) -

  LDEF deintegration continues.


  - STS-35 ASTRO-1 (at OPF) -

  Payload to orbiter electrical and freon connections were
  completed Saturday.  Orbiter/ASTRO interface verification test is
  scheduled for today.


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

  Rack and floor installation into the module, and rack fire
  suppression bottle installation was performed Saturday.  Rack
  panel installation is scheduled for today.


  - STS-42 IML-1 (at O&C) -

  Rack bumper modifications and pyrell foam removal/reinstallation
  was worked Saturday.  Rack-11 attach clip is planned for today.


  - STS-45 Atlas-1 (at O&C) -

  Pallet joint kit installation on frame 4 was active Saturday.  No
  work is scheduled for today.


  - HST M&R (at O&C)

  No work planned for today.


  - STS-55 SL-D2 (at O&C)

  No work planned for today.

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

Date:     Wed, 28 Mar 90 8:22:20 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Aurora = Strange Flash of Light?

The news speculation and net responses that stated the reported flash of
light was an aurora have confused me, because I don't know enough about
aurorae (auroras? ... whatever...). I recall seeing it once as a child
on a vacation to the North, and that, and the pictures I've seen, all
were the traditional "curtains" of light, or ill-defined blobs of glow
in pastel colors.

I've never seen any reference to an aurora producing something equivalent
to a "whole-sky flashbulb effect" which is what at least part of this local
light flash was.  The color I saw was a cold blue-white, like a flashbulb,
and it seemed to be coming from the whole sky, including the South, not
from the North as I would expect an aurora to appear in this hemisphere at
this latitude.  If this was an aurora, is it an extremely rare form?  Or
are aurorae so variable that they can be responsible for pratically any
color, form, or duration of atmospheric light display?

I'd like to learn more about auroras. Anyone have a favorite reference
they would cite?

Regards, Will
[e-mail] OR [e-mail]

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

Date: 28 Mar 90 09:14:19 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Headline News for 03/26/90 (Forwarded)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, March 26, 1990                        Audio: 202/755-1788
-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is NASA Headline News for Monday, March 26....


The Hubble Space Telescope was rolled out to Launch Pad 39B over
the weekend.  It was placed into the Payload Changeout Room and
will be transferred to the orbiter Discovery's payload bay on
Tuesday.  An interface test is scheduled for Thursday.


A seal in a fuel line, associated with Discovery's number two
main engine, was replaced by pad workers last Friday.  The
Rotating Service Structure is scheduled to be returned to its
position around the orbiter today.


Also at the Cape, work continues on the Gamma Ray Observatory
being prepared for launch later this year.  Weight and center of
gravity measurements are currently being made.  In addition,
testing with the Payload Operations Center at Goddard Space
Flight Center has begun.



No decision has been made by NASA to rescue the stranded Intelsat
6 satellite.  But, the options, if exercised, would be to either
reboost it to a usable altitude or retrieve the satellite and
bring it back to Earth.   NASA, Intelsat and Hughes Aircraft
representatives will meet again in the near future.



NASA research pilots at the Ames/Dryden Flight Research Facility
at Edwards, Calif., have successfully tested a flight control
system that detects in-flight failures and automatically
reconfigures aircraft control surfaces allowing continued flight
or safe landings.  The new system has been demonstrated on NASA's
F-15 Highly Integrated Digital Electronic Control research
aircraft.



A Delta 2 rocket lofted another in a series of Global Positioning
System satellites into geostationary orbit, Sunday night.  The
rocket lifted off at 9:45 P.M., Eastern time, lighting up the
Florida coastline.  The satellite is the seventh of 21 to be put
into orbit for a world-wide navigation system for U.S. and allied
land, sea and air forces.  The global network is to be completed
by 1992.

                     ****************







-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA
Select TV.  All times are Eastern.


Thursday, March 29...............

          11:30 A.M.      NASA Update will be transmitted.


All events and times are subject to change without notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------
These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12:00
noon, Eastern time.
---------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #193
*******************