Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v11_5/v11_593.txt

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

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/MaXMvmu00VcJI2qU4J>;
          Sun,  1 Jul 1990 01:49:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun,  1 Jul 1990 01:49:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #593

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 593

Today's Topics:
         Re: Hubble Space Telescope Update - 06/28/90
             Re: BBXRT servicing.
      Truly, Fisk and Lenoir to hold media briefing (Forwarded)
       Re: RE  Hubble Space Telescope Update - 06/28/90
Re: NASA announces next steps in Space Exploration Outreach Program (F
           NASA Prediction Bulletin Format
            Re: The end of Hubble
           Payload Summary for 06/29/90 (Forwarded)

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 30 Jun 90 02:54:26 GMT
From: uoft02.utoledo.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope Update - 06/28/90

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>>  ... You have intrinsic problems
>>testing a flexible mirror in a gravity well when it's supposed to be
>>operational in space.  I.E. it wouldn't have looked right even if we
>>DID test it down here.
>
> Everybody is saying this now.  I have a little trouble believing it.
>
> Of course gravity is there.  IT WAS ALSO THERE WHEN THEY POLISHED IT.
> Despite which, they were able to figure the primary and secondary to
> micron precision (albeit to the wrong shape).  So SOMEBODY knew how to
> compensate or correct for the effects of gravity.
>
> Of course what nobody has pointed out so far is that if Danbury HAD
> run such tests with software containing some sort of systematic error,
> the assembled system might have passed anyway!
>
> Nevertheless they should have tried.  Someone independent should have
> written separate software and tested it assembled.
>

You are missing the point.  First of all there is still not enough
information to firmly conclude one way or the other, who or what is
at fault.  The point that was originally trying to be made is that
you could not test the entire HST optics structure in gravity.
FOr one reason, there will be totally different flexure etc.  Also
I don't think HST could support itself in gravity so it would have
to have been heavily supported making the tests meaningless.  Thus,
so far it appears, that any full tests would not have been accurate
enough to detect it.  We might well have spent 100mil and found
no problem.  Later when all the facts are in IF it turns out that
such a test would have found such an error then people can bash. I
suspect it will turn out not to be the case.

> NASA is saying it would have been too expensive.  Well, how much are
> they going to have to spend NOW?
>

If congress isn't going to give you the money in the first place there
is not much point in asking is there?  There have been a number of cuts
in the program from the beginning.  Perhaps penny wise, pound foolish
but lets keep in mind you dictates the pennies.

Robert dempsey
Ritter Observatory



> --
> Annex Canada now!  We need the room,    \)      Tom Neff
>     and who's going to stop us.         (\      [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Jun 90 17:27:15 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!grebyn![e-mail]  (Pat Bahn)
Subject: Re: BBXRT servicing.

>If the sensors are damaged at room temperature then how were they fabricated
>in the first place? Technicians slopping around in a bucket of liquid argon
>bolting the thing together seems a little unlikley.


I've seen electron gun systems built, and they are fine in atmosphere
until final coatings are applied (phospors in our case, that was done
under nitrogen..  argon is also useful)  they usually do this in a
glovebox.))

I imagine the liquid argon was selected for cooling and minimiziing
interference.

but we carried the electron guns around in plastic, once they hit a
clean state.  most of the work can be done before it goes clean
and cold.

--
=============================================================================
Pat @ grebyn.com  | If the human mind was simple enough to understand,
301-948-8142      | We'd be too simple to understand it. -Emerson Pugh
=============================================================================

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

Date: 29 Jun 90 19:31:14 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Truly, Fisk and Lenoir to hold media briefing (Forwarded)

David W Garrett
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      June 29, 1990
(Phone:  [phone])


N90-47

EDITORS NOTE:  TRULY, FISK AND LENOIR TO HOLD MEDIA BRIEFING


     NASA Administrator Richard H. Truly, Associate Aministrator
for Space Science And Applications Dr. Lennard Fisk and Associate
Administrator for Space Flight Dr. William Lenoir will hold a
media briefing in the NASA Headquaters 6th floor auditorium on
Monday July 2.  The briefing will begin at 10:30 a.m. EDT and
will be carried live on NASA Select television via Satcom F2R,
Transponder 13, at 72 degrees west longitude, frequency 3960.0
MHz.

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

Date: 30 Jun 90 02:47:43 GMT
From: uoft02.utoledo.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: RE  Hubble Space Telescope Update - 06/28/90

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Daniel McGurl) writes:
>>
>>Fine.  But the least you can do is give NASA half a chance.  You seem
>>very ready to condemn them for something that might not be there fault.
>>I don't know anyone interested in space who isn't exceeding ticked about
>>this affiar, but at least wait for the facts to get somewhat straigtened
>>out before running of crying to your congresscritter.
>>
>
> Not to engage in NASA-bashing, but I thought that this was the post-Challenger
> era. Errors of this nature should not (in theory) happen. When you combine
> this with the disturbing nature of the fuel leak in Columbia (?) earlier this
> month, just what has changed?
>

Need I remind you that HST was designed and built prior to 1986?  Why
is the leak disturbing?  Things break.  They detected it and did
not launch an unsafe vehicle.  Things failed before challenger and they
will again.  It is how they are dealt with that matters.

> If Hubble was run on a shoe-string budget, instead of big bucks...well...
> I can't help but think the thing would have A) Gotten off the ground about
> 4 years sooner and B) Given us more than we bargained for.

4 years sooner?  yeah if there hadn't been a shuttle sccident it was scheduled
for 1986.  depending on your point of viwe it was run on a shoe string
budget.  When you include luanch etc 1.5B is not that much.

Robert Dempsey
Ritter Observatory

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

Date: 29 Jun 90 06:45:51 GMT
From: cscs![e-mail]  (Craig E. Smith)
Subject: Re: NASA announces next steps in Space Exploration Outreach Program (F

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (*Greg*) writes:

>>...
>>Was government involved in this?  (Only to stop them).  And when America was
>>thriving, England tried to bust up the colonies.  If you remember history
>>corectly, we became a nation and are still surviving.
>>...
>If I remember history correctly, the missions of exploration that gave
>Europeans knowledge of the Americas were government funded. Do the
>names Columbus and Queen Isobella ring a bell?
> ...
>>[Just think a moment]
>>What if Russia or Japan or Europe gets a Colony on
>>the moon first?  What kind of {sensibilities} will they bring with them?
>>What "idealologies" will they include in their view of life?  What kind of
>>freedoms?  What kind of beliefs?
>> ...

    Speaking of history, if you compare space exploration with the
European colonial expansion, which I think is a fair analogy, there
are some ideas that come to mind. I certainly think one can say that
England was a very successful colonial power, since at its height it
controlled (at least in name) nearly half of the worlds land area, and
most of the oceans, and yet it was a relative latecomer to colonialism.
Spain, Portugal, and the Dutch all had established colonies before
England, and the expansion of English power was at least in part based
on the plundering, and exploitation of these other colonies. Thus, it
is not necessarily the one who is first that is best. It was the
technological advancement, and the ability and will to exploit the
pioneering work of others that gave England the advantage.  That is
one of the advantages that the Japanese have today. They are willing
and able to use the technologies developed by others to improve their
own economic conditions. A number of articles I have read lately point
to the fact that much of the advanced research done by university
laboratories in the U.S., and which is generally available to the
commercial world, is being IGNORED by American corporations, but
much more fully exploited by the Japanese (see article in The Wall
Street Journal, Monday, June 25, 1990, column six on the front page).
Whether space exploration is funded by the government, or privately,
or by a combination of both, it will be those who see the existing
opportunities, and successfully exploit them that will prosper, the
others will be left behind.


--
The truly proud man knows neither superiors | Internet: [e-mail]
nor inferiors.  The first he does not admit | UUCP:     ... uunet!cscs!csmith
of - the last he does not concern himself   |
about.  - William Hazlitt                   |

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

Date: 30 Jun 90 04:34:18 GMT
From: helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird![e-mail]  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format


As a service to the satellite user community, the following description
of the NASA Prediction Bulletin's two-line orbital element set format is
uploaded to sci.space on a monthly basis.  The most current orbital elements
from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial BBS, (513)
427-0674, and are updated several times weekly.  Documentation and tracking
software are also available on this system.  The Celestial BBS may be
accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop
bit, no parity.

==============================================================================

Data for each satellite consists of three lines in the following format:

AAAAAAAAAAA
1 NNNNNU NNNNNAAA NNNNN.NNNNNNNN +.NNNNNNNN +NNNNN-N +NNNNN-N N NNNNN
2 NNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NNNNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NN.NNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Line 1 is a eleven-character name.

Lines 2 and 3 are the standard Two-Line Orbital Element Set Format identical
to that used by NASA and NORAD.  The format description is:

Line 2
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 10-11     International Designator (Last two digits of launch year)
 12-14     International Designator (Launch number of the year)
 15-17     International Designator (Piece of launch)
 19-20     Epoch Year (Last two digits of year)
 21-32     Epoch (Julian Day and fractional portion of the day)
 34-43     First Time Derivative of the Mean Motion
        or Ballistic Coefficient (Depending on ephemeris type)
 45-52     Second Time Derivative of Mean Motion (decimal point assumed;
           blank if N/A)
 54-61     BSTAR drag term if GP4 general perturbation theory was used.
           Otherwise, radiation pressure coefficient.  (Decimal point assumed)
 63-63     Ephemeris type
 65-68     Element number
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)
           (Letters, blanks, periods = 0; minus sign = 1; plus sign = 2)

Line 3
Column     Description
 01-01     Line Number of Element Data
 03-07     Satellite Number
 09-16     Inclination [Degrees]
 18-25     Right Ascension of the Ascending Node [Degrees]
 27-33     Eccentricity (decimal point assumed)
 35-42     Argument of Perigee [Degrees]
 44-51     Mean Anomaly [Degrees]
 53-63     Mean Motion [Revs per day]
 64-68     Revolution number at epoch [Revs]
 69-69     Check Sum (Modulo 10)

All other columns are blank or fixed.

Example:

NOAA 6
1 11416U          86 50.28438588 0.00000140           67960-4 0  5293
2 11416  98.5105  69.3305 0012788  63.2828 296.9658 14.24899292346978

Note that the International Designator fields are usually blank, as issued in
the NASA Prediction Bulletins.

--
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
[e-mail]          Air Force Institute of Technology

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

Date: 29 Jun 90 09:51:34 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Scott A. Beasley)
Subject: Re: The end of Hubble


I have seen some discussion of the *maximum* trauma that the HST can
sustain, ( a 1 cm orbital-velocity object, I think) but how about the
constant barrage of smaller particles, dust, comic..er..*cosmic* rays,
et al.  The LDEF looked like *hell* after its exposure to all of this -
maybe this is a stupid question, but what effect will this have on the
optics in the telescope? (assuming they get around the current obstacle
of the 'right mirror to the wrong specs')



Scott Beasley
Inter-National Research Institute           "If you don't like my personal
Mililani, HI                                 opinions,  you'll just have to
                         stand in line...."

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

Date: 29 Jun 90 17:56:33 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Summary for 06/29/90 (Forwarded)


                       STS-35,40, AND 42 PAYLOAD STATUS REPORT
                          FRIDAY, JUNE 29, 1990 -- 11 A.M.

          Patricia E. Phillips
          NASA Public Affairs/KSC
          407/867-2468

          ASTRO-1/STS-35

               The Broad Band X-Ray Telescope will be replenished with liq-
          uid argon on July 2.  The early servicing is to  accommodate  the
          July 4 holiday,  and includes time to accomplish both the servic-
          ing and pressure checks one day after servicing without incurring
          holiday overtime costs.
               The  previous  servicing  occurred  a  few  hours  ahead  of
          schedule  late  June 24 rather than on June 25.  Routine pressure
          checks indicated that the argon, last replenished on June 10, was
          being depleted faster than anticipated. Therefore,  the replenish
          schedule  was moved ahead slightly to ensure the continuous cool-
          ing of the instrument.
               Since replenishment of the dewars with frozen argon normally
          lasts about 16 days,  the schedule change represented a conserva-
          tive  approach  toward maintaining dewar fill levels.  At no time
          was BBXRT in danger of sustaining any damage.
               Astro-1 temperature, pressure, and contamination checks will
          continue.  The payload is healthy and is showing no signs of dif-
          ficulties during its prolonged stay in the orbiter's payload bay.
               The Astro-1 multiple observatory is scheduled to launched in
          August aboard Columbia.

          SPACELAB LIFE SCIENCES 1 (SLS-1)/STS-40

               NASA and McDonnell-Douglas Space Systems Co. quality experts
          this week performed a set of closeout inspections directed toward
          the Spacelab hardware installation. Such inspections  are part of
          an ongoing series of quality checks performed throughout process-
          ing  to  ensure  that individual portions of payload preparations
          have been performed within specification. No major anomalies were
          reported from the inspection.
               Interface verfication testing in the Cargo Integration  Test
          Equipment  (CITE)  stand is scheduled to be completed today.  The
          testing,  which began June 14,  has been successful.  These tests
          are considered a major milestone in the preparation and verifica-
          tion of a horizontal payload.

               The CITE stand, in the Operations and Checkout Building, was
          designed  and  constructed  to  serve as a stand-in for the Space
          Shuttle.  This allows important data and communications checkouts
          to  be performed without using the orbiter itself,  but still al-
          lowing engineers to verify that the payload interfaces  with  the
          orbiter will operate as required when the payload is installed in
          the payload bay.

          INTERNATIONAL MICROGRAVITY LABORATORY (IML)/STS-42

               Technicians continue work to install experiment racks on the
          floor assembly.  Numerous tasks involving the installation and/or
          fitting of various components are in work.
               Among them are the installation of such items as the  inter-
          com  master station,  overhead handrails,  the aft end cone view-
          port,  and rack stowage containers,  as well as cables and inter-
          face panels.
               Other scheduled work items include the mating of the aft end
          cone and the module segment, targeted for around July 9. A module
          leak check is  also scheduled for early July.
               IML,  formerly scheduled to fly aboard Columbia in December,
          has been moved downstream in the manifest to l991.

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #593
*******************