Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v12_5/v12_569.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 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/UbFX2jO00VcJ0D7k49>;
          Sun, 18 Nov 1990 01:56:48 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 1990 01:56:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #569

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 569

Today's Topics:
             Re: A philosophical question
             Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations
                   Voyager
              Galileo Update - 11/16/90
             Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations
             Re: LLNL Inflatable Stations
        Re: Reliability and Insurance (3 of 3)
       It just goes on... (was Re: Creationists and moon dust)
             HST Press Conference
             Ariane Viking Engine Cooling
             Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations

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: 15 Nov 90 02:07:00 GMT
From: usc!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!buhub![e-mail]
Subject: Re: A philosophical question


[e-mail] (Rusty Wiginton) writes:

>     I'm interested in your thoughts about the importance of space
>     exploration and other NASA activities -- Not so much from a
>     scientific or technological standpoint, but from a personal/
>     philosophical one. Why, for example, do you feel it is important
>     to pursue long-term programs, such as Space Station Freedom or
>     say, a manned mission to Mars? Why should  billions of dollars
>     be spent on projects that cannot promise success? I know this
>     question has been asked before but with current issues leaning
>     toward budget constraints and NASA's reliablilty, I'd like to
>     see a different point of view.

    Why go into space? Because things are open there. New places,
new things to see. Since 1900, the people of Earth have had no far
horizon to go to-there's noplace on Earth that men haven't gone to.
Not so for space. You ask about these long-term missions- these are
the harbingers for explorers and settlers for a new frontier. The
sucess of these missions is more than the doing of the journey-it's
the development of new technologies to help them get there and later to
help us down here. Also the new knowledge gained during the journey;
did you know that we still got information about the Moon from Apollo
13? [Also, I'm an unforgiveable Trekkor. NASA's got the "To Boldly Go"
spirit more than any other spacefaring bunch that I know of...]


Craig\The Moonman\Levin      ===()===   //////
[e-mail]       ``-----//
      You are Here               ```````
\~         V
 |~  .  o  o  .    :;:    ()    -O-    0     . O
 |~
/~
Wouldn't you rather be out there -->

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

Date: Fri, 16 Nov 90 13:24:22 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>>>You would have little chance of retrieving something if it was
>>>dropped or came unhooked.

>>Depends on how valuable it was. I'm sure hand tools would be left but
>>astronauts would be retrieved.

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but the astronauts (and tools) would be
>awfully hard to catch up to to bring back.
>
>[calculations showing astronaut flying away at 50ft/sec deleted]

These numbers look good to me. I guess we will need to tie him to
the ladder :-). I was thinking we could save weight by using an
umbilical to connect the astronaut to the life support system. Perhaps
we can make the umbilical strong enough to support him/her should
they fall off. If not, then we may indeed need to de-spin the station
for this sort of problem. However, this sort of situation should be
rare.

>Assuming each level is approximately 10 feet, that would
>mean that the tip of the station would be travelling:

Actually, it will be a bit more than that since space is needed to
connect the nodes but I think your answer is within 10% of the correct
one.

>I really do like the idea of a spun station, but either:
>      a) despin the station for EVAs or
>      b) give the astronauts MMU's to get back!

I think MMU's would be out of the question. They would weigh too
much at the lower levels. Also, MMU's require too much maintenance.

How about bungey cords like the kind they use to jump off bridges?

>I heard MMU's got axed from Freedom (sounds stupid to me - they've
>more than proved their value). Does LNLL plan on having them?

I suspect they require too much maintenance.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer| I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation |
|   [e-mail]  | programs, spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it      |
|                | works or not?  - Dick Jones, VP OCP Security Concepts    |

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

Date:     Fri, 16 Nov 90 11:35 EST
From: <[e-mail]> (Anything is Possible, if you put your mi...)
Subject:  Voyager

Thanks to everyone who send me info on the Voyagers, it will come in
handy.
  -chris

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

Date: 16 Nov 90 16:50:18 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 11/16/90


                           GALILEO STATUS REPORT
                             November 16, 1990

     The Galileo spacecraft is now 11.6 million miles from Earth and
approaching us at a closing speed of more than 22,000 miles per hour.  The
spacecraft's heliocentric speed is 60,140 mph.  The analysis of the
trajectory correction maneuver, performed last Tuesday, shows all aspects
of the maneuver were very close to predictions.  Another maneuver is planned
for Friday, November 28. Closest approach to Earth on this first Earth
Gravity Assist flyby will be at 12:35 pm PST, Saturday, Dec. 8.  At that time,
Galileo will fly 590 miles above the northwest Atlantic.  Spacecraft health
and mission performance continue to be excellent.

     Next week from November 19-21, Galileo will play back the Venus data
recorded during the flyby last February.  A press conference to discuss
these and other aspects of the mission is set for Thursday, November 29,
at 9:00 am PST.  It will be on NASA Select TV.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | [e-mail]
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |

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

Date: 16 Nov 90 17:07:51 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu![e-mail]  (Craig L Cole)
Subject: Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes...
>In article <[e-mail]>:
>>You would have little chance of retrieving something if it was
>>dropped or came unhooked.
>
>Depends on how valuable it was. I'm sure hand tools would be left but
>astronauts would be retrieved.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the astronauts (and tools) would be
awfully hard to catch up to to bring back.

In some information you posted earlier, the LNLL station is:

     * 12 levels from the center node
     * Would spin 4 RPMs

Assuming each level is approximately 10 feet, that would
mean that the tip of the station would be travelling:

      2*pi*(12*10) = 754 ft/rev
      at 4 rpms    = 3016 ft/min
                   = 50 ft/sec (!)

If an astronauts gets thrown from the station, he's going to
leave with a velocity of 50 ft/sec! He's going to be awfully
far away before anyone can do anything.

I really do like the idea of a spun station, but either:

      a) despin the station for EVAs or
      b) give the astronauts MMU's to get back!

I heard MMU's got axed from Freedom (sounds stupid to me - they've
more than proved their value). Does LNLL plan on having them?

Craig
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 16 Nov 90 12:30:48 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LLNL Inflatable Stations
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]>:
>However, the
>rotational design is puzzling: we can keep people functional at 0-G

For a limited time yes we can. Can we keep people functional for long
periods at Lunar G? At Mars G? Without a space based laboratory we
can't answer those questions. As an added bonus we can reduce life
cycle costs.

>and rotating the station makes expansion far more
>difficult than just docking on another module.

I can think of two ways to add modules off the top of my head. You could
add ports perpendicular (and in the plane of rotation) and connect
modules there. You can launch another complete station and dock it to
one of the existing ports and they rotate in tandem. You can also just
launch another and not connect them at all.

>Also, the plans for
>LLNL's station (I liked the "Brilliant Condoms" name :-)) do not
>directly include the equipment mass to do the work - just the structure.

True. For the rest we add 0G modules to the Earth Station and free
flying modules for material processing. These are after all the
important parts and they CAN be added in an incrimental manner.

>   But let's do SOMETHING!!

Write and visit your Congresscritter! This won't happen if you don't.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer| I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation |
|   [e-mail]  | programs, spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it      |
|                | works or not?  - Dick Jones, VP OCP Security Concepts    |

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

Date: 16 Nov 90 16:33:09 GMT
From: van-bc!ubc-cs!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Reliability and Insurance (3 of 3)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:
>I know Rockwell was considering a Commercial Shuttle a while back.
>Do you know why they abandoned the idea? With these changes it sounds
>like a very viable option...

The big problem that has hit all attempts at commercializing the shuttle
is NASA, which does not want to lose control of the program.  It's not
that such attempts get rejected outright, mind you; what happens is that
they get "studied" and "considered", with zero progress, until their sponsor
gets tired of pouring money down a bottomless rathole and gives up.

NASA owns the only shuttle launch facility and the associated support
equipment, and some of the production facilities as well (e.g. Michoud),
so active cooperation from them is a necessity.

>BTW, thanks for this post. It was very enlightening.

Yes, Wales definitely knows what he's talking about.
--
"I don't *want* to be normal!"         | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
"Not to worry."                        |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 16 Nov 90 15:58:26 GMT
From: eagle![e-mail]  (Ronald E. Graham)
Subject: It just goes on... (was Re: Creationists and moon dust)

In article <[e-mail]>,
     [e-mail] ("Lee S. Ridgway") writes...

[More opinion with no technical information whatsoever...]

>Not really. Space exploration depends on science and engineering, and
>that means honest education in such fields, unburdened by religious myth.

See what I mean?

talk.origins, here we come!

RG

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

Date: 16 Nov 90 16:48:56 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: HST Press Conference


                     HST Press Conference

     Next Tuesday, November 20, Hubble Space Telescope scientists will hold a
briefing on the Saturn Great White Spot (aka Wilber Spot).  New photographs
taken by HST will also be shown.  The time for the briefing is yet to be
determined.  It will be shown on NASA Select TV.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | [e-mail]
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |

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

Date: 14 Nov 90 22:19:37 GMT
From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink![e-mail]  (Bruce Dunn)
Subject: Ariane Viking Engine Cooling

> [e-mail] writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael MRAZ)
> writes:
> >
> >I'd sure like to know what water is doing in a propulsion system.
> >I don't know anything about the Ariane, but I've never heard
> >of water used for anything other than cooling the pad or quenching
> >astronaut/cosmonaut thirsts. ;->  Can anyone enlighten me, please?
>
> Cooling, if I understand those engines right.
> (not the whole engine, just parts.  and when those parts got hot,
> the computer lowered the thrust trying to keep it from blowing up...
> and the result was catastrophic.)
>


     If the water is indeed used for cooling, the big question is why.  All
liquid fueled engines that I have ever heard of are cooled with the enormous
flows of propellants going through them.  Water is a good coolant, but it is a
non-propulsive fluid and a dead weight to any design.
--
Bruce Dunn   Vancouver, Canada    [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 16 Nov 90 09:37:04 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]>:
>> Some repairs outside may in fact be easier with the station
>> spinning. With artificial G, you can drop a ladder down the length of the
>> station and have the astronaut climb down and strap himself on. There would
>> be no need to worry about things floating away.

>No, things would 'fall' away, and then be flicked off by the station (tools?)
>You would have to either hook them on to something, or keep good hold of
>things.

Yes things could fall away. However, they wouldn't float away. People spend
their entire lives learning to work with tools under gravity so it is safe
to say the astronaut in question has the skills needed to prevent that
from being a big problem.

>You would have little chance of retrieving something if it was
>dropped or came unhooked.

Depends on how valuable it was. I'm sure hand tools would be left but
astronauts would be retrieved.

>Doing an EVA on the outside of the spinning
>platform would be like doing repairs on the outside of a building

Exactly. Of course, our astronaut is also wearing a rather bulky suit.

>(you wouldn't want to fall)

No you wouldn't but unlike a building, falling off the Earth Station
wouldn't be fatal.

>As well there's the undoubtedly giddying effect of
>'knowing' that you are spinning.

I'm sure a novice would feel that way. After a short while, it wouldn't
be a problem. Of course, people subject to motion sickness may not be
able to do this work.

>I would hope the need for EVA's would be much, much less than FREEDOM's.

The LLNL Earth Station is designed to operate with NO EVA.

>Also, what docking arrangements are planned? Would it be cost-effective to
>include ability to dock with shuttle,hermes,Soyuz etc.?

It will be designed to dock with the Shuttle. The lack of an international
standard for docking ports will make Soyuz hard. I suspect Hermes will
be doable since it also docks with Freedom.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer| I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation |
|   [e-mail]  | programs, spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it      |
|                | works or not?  - Dick Jones, VP OCP Security Concepts    |

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #569
*******************