Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v13_1/v13_118.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 16KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/MbfuUSC00WBw0DzE5u>;
          Wed,  6 Feb 91 01:54:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  6 Feb 91 01:54:18 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #118

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 118

Today's Topics:
               Re: Firm Fred Decisions
         Re: Freedom: still an international project?
        GEOMAGNETIC STORM WARNING UPDATE (02 FEBRUARY)
              Re: Fire in Space

Administrivia:

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

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 1 Feb 91 15:40:00 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!samsung!caen!blue.engin.umich.edu![e-mail]  (Ken Sheppardson)
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Subject: Re: Firm Fred Decisions
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>
   [e-mail] writes:

>[e-mail] (Ken  Sheppardson) writes...
>
>>[e-mail] (Ron Graham) writes:
>
>>>Here is what's happening with Fred, as we have just heard it:
>>>
>>>[list of restructuring actions]
>>>
>
>>   Apparently your source misunderstood what s/he saw/heard. Although
>>   some of the items on the list are _almost_ 'firm fred decision', e.g.
>>   FTS has been reduced to 'technology development' status (see the most
>>   recent Space News for more up to date info on FTS) the rest of your
>>   list is for the most part 'bogus'...no offense.
>
>No offense taken.  Also no proof given.  I recognize, Mr. Sheppardson, that
>you are working in the SSF area at Langley, so you may be in the path of some
>good information.  What I have posted, however, is exactly what we have been
>told at Lewis.  I must ask you for sources.

   Understandable. The SSF Office here at Langley provides engineering
   support to Level I. There are several branches to the office, including
   the Advanced Programs Office (responsible for station evolution and
   support of SEI) and the Systems Engineering & Analysis branch, which
   provides an an independent analysis capability to Level I (independent
   of the Level II contractors and work package folks). I'm a part of the
   Advanced Programs Office. In particular I'm responsible for coordinating
   structural analysis tasks for the office, among other things. Although
   we're divided into more than one branch organizationaly, we often work
   on SSF office-wide tasks.

   During the past few months we've been asked to take part in a
   number of tasks in support of the restructuring effort. In order to be
   able to carry out these tasks, we've had to have up-to-date (up-to-the-
   minute in some cases) information. Most of this information comes from
   pseudo-weekly telecons involving Level I/II and Work Package management
   and associated supporting documentation.

   What this all means is that my sources are in fact Moorehead, Lenoir
   and other Level I/II/WP management.

   I do not, however, post everything I hear. Others have in the past.
   Many of those people no longer have access to such information.

   I realize everyone on the net wants up-to-the-minute information on
   everything that everyone is doing, but it's just not possible to
   provide that sort of information.  What I try to do is take what I'm
   priviledged to hear through official channels and compare it to what
   I see in the press, hear in conversation outside the office, and read
   on the net. Then I try to sort it all out and prevent the spread of
   disinformation whenever I can.

   I'm not an official spokesperson and I probably come very close to
   stepping over the line of discretion sometimes, but I try my best
   to put out only what I know to be in the public domain or what I
   consider to be 'dinner conversation' type information.

>In the meantime, let me update just a couple things from the above list:
>
>o  WP-02 (Johnson Space Center) is fighting to retain some of what we have
>   been told has been taken away, particularly a section (I do not know how
>   much) of truss;

   I believe WP-02 has always been responsible for the entire deployable
   truss, with the exception of the few bays outside the alpha joints which
   which may have been part of WP-04.

   With the adoption of Pre-Integrated Truss, the lines of responsibility
   may be blurred even more than they are now. It would be logical to assume
   that WP-02 would retain responsibility for the structural design of the
   PIT sections themselves and that they would be working very closely with
   the other work packages on system integration.

>o  while Mr. Sheppardson has correctly indicated that the FTS is in technology
>   development status, for practical purposes that means it is not in the
>   current baseline.  Goddard Space Flight Center has been instructed, for
>   the time being, not to work on it.  Let me add that the Solar Dynamic
>   power modules proposed for growth configurations of SSF are also in the
>   technology development status, and at Lewis that means no money is to be
>   spent working on them any more this fiscal year.

   Agreed.

>Even if the field centers themselves don't know everything that's happening
>right now, never never never accept the word of a secondary source (e.g.
>Space News) over what HQ is telling you about programmatical decisions
>until all the information is in.

   Agreed. What I've done in the past and what I'll continue to do is to
   quote secondary sources only when I know from a primary source that
   the information is indeed correct.

>Unhappily, with Fred the information is not all in yet.

   Again I agree. Given the fact that we agree that all the information
   isn't in yet, isn't a little premature and misleading to put forth
   your list as a list of 'Firm Fred Decisions' ?

   Earlier you stated that your list is what 'we had been told here at
   Lewis'. Could you elaborate ?  If this list is part of some package
   or presentation, would it be possible for me to get a copy from you ?

   Our fax number is in my .sig

   I'll continue to try to keep folks on the net as up to date as I can
   without speculating and spreading rumors, and I'll quote sources
   whenever possible. I'll also continue to refrain from posting information
   unless I have independent confirmation from a reputable source.

   Just like Weekly World News. :)





--
===============================================================================
 Ken Sheppardson                                  Email: [e-mail]
 Space Station Freedom Advanced Programs Office   Phone: [phone]
 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA         FAX:   [phone]
===============================================================================

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 1 Feb 91 15:57:54 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!caen!blue.engin.umich.edu![e-mail]  (Ken Sheppardson)
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Subject: Re: Freedom: still an international project?
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kurt Bruhnke) writes:
>With Freedom scaled down, will there still be room for Columbus (European Lab)
>and JEM (Japanese Experiment Module)?  Will Freedom still be an international
>project?  I've gotten the impression that If Freedom is not going to have a
>habitation module, but depend on the shuttle instead, there will probably not
>be the other lab modules as well.  I'm curious and haven't heard any comments
>on the international labs.
>

 Just a little background information/opinion...

 1) The current (ISPDR baseline) station wouldn't provide sufficent power
    at MTC to allow ESA or JEM to conduct much (if any) meaningful science,
    nor can shuttle based operations provide enough manpower to support
    much more than a Spacelab-sized collection of experiments.

 2) In a four man PMC configuration there really aren't enough folks on
    board to keep up with experiments in a US Lab + ESA + JEM, at least not
    at the level of activity planned for the ISPDR AC station.

 3) The internationals are indeed still part of the program.

--
===============================================================================
 Ken Sheppardson                                  Email: [e-mail]
 Space Station Freedom Advanced Programs Office   Phone: [phone]
 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA         FAX:   [phone]
===============================================================================

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:    Fri, 1 Feb 91 22:40:50 MST
From: [e-mail] (Cary Oler)
Subject: GEOMAGNETIC STORM WARNING UPDATE (02 FEBRUARY)
To: [e-mail]
X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"[e-mail]"

                *********************************************
                ***    GEOMAGNETIC STORM WARNING UPDATE   ***
                *********************************************


                               02 February, 1991

                             Informational Update
                            Solar Activity Forecast

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


ATTENTION:

     An interplanetary shock was observed at 18:42 UT on 01 February in
response to the major X-class proton flare of 31 January.  This was followed
by minor geomagnetic storm periods until about 23:00 UT on 01 February.
Activity has since declined to active levels.

     Magnetic activity is expected to intensify back to minor storm levels
this UT day (02 February).  Magnetic A-index values are still expected to
reach 45 over the middle latitudes.  There are expected to be periods of
major geomagnetic storming over middle latitudes.

     A low latitude auroral activity warning remains in effect for 02
February, although the potential for observable low-latitude activity has
decreased due to the storm detensification which has been observed over the
past several hours.  Also, lunar interference is expected to significantly
hamper attempts to view auroral activity over low and middle latitudes.

     A magnetic storm has not yet been officially declared.  Activity has not
yet attained storm levels for a sufficient duration or intensity to be
classified as a true magnetic storm.  However, a minor to major geomagnetic
storm is still expected.  Hence, the geomagnetic storm warning continues to
remain in effect.  A geomagnetic storm alert may be issued today if storm
intensification occurs.

     The potential electrical anomaly warning associated with geomagnetically
induced currents remains in effect for 02 February, although the probability
for magnetic excursions capable of producing influential induced currents has
diminished notably.  An alert for this phenomena will not likely be issued.

     Geomagnetic storming is expected to maintain levels of minor storming
through 03 February.  A gradual return to normal conditions is expected
on 03 and 04 February.

     HF radio propagation has experienced degraded radio conditions over the
past 12 hours (since the arrival of the shock), however the uncharacteristically

low levels of activity which have been observed indicate that radio
propagation may not be affected as adversely as originally predicted.  Some
significant degradation is still expected when (and if) reintensification
of the storm occurs.  But for the most part, radio propagation should remain
generally poor with periods of very poor conditions over all latitudes.  High
latitudes will remain mostly very poor.

     The potential for auroral backscatter communications on VHF bands has
diminished somewhat, although there is still a good chance for some
backscatter communications during the more intense periods of magnetic and
auroral activity.

     The risk for major solar flaring remains high.  Region 6471 (now near
S12W11) is the most capable region for producing high terrestrial impacts.
However, this region has been unusually quiet, despite several areas of
observed magnetic shear as well as several areas with magnetic delta
configurations.  This region remains highly complex and contains high
magnetic gradients.  But it has not produced any noteworthy flaring for
several days now.  High terrestrial impacts are possible from this region
should major flaring occur within the next three days.  Thereafter, the
potential potency of terrestrial impacts will decrease.

     The satellite proton event ended at 15:40 UT on 01 February.  The PCA
event also ended on 01 February.  There is a moderate to high risk for
another proton flare from the regions currently visible.  The regions nearing
the western limb (6462, 6466 and 6469) remain capable of producing another
proton event, but the greatest risk at present is Region 6471, which is due
to begin spawning major flares anytime now.  The recent development of
magnetic shear in this region lends further support to the prediction for
major flaring from this region.  Watch for possible flare and/or magnetic
storm alerts.


**  End of Warning **

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 1 Feb 91 03:47:28 GMT
From: brahms.udel.edu![e-mail]  ([e-mail] (Systems Research Supervisor))
Organization: Brain Dead Innovations, Inc. (BDI)
Subject: Re: Fire in Space
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Strand) writes:
=>> Dan Gookin
=>
=>> If figure if you lit a match, it probably would lack the familiar conical
=>> shape the flame has here on earth. In fact, I think it would look like a
=>> point of light or perhaps a spherical flame.
=>
=>  Why? What effect does gravity have on the burning particles, relative to
=>  the forces they feel from the other heated particles around them? I would
=>  think that since gravity plays such a small role in what a flame looks
=>  like, it would look the same on the Shuttle (say) as here on earth.

   You ever see a normal match flame with the flames shooting down?
I don't know the exact physics of the matter, but the surrounding air
is heated and rises, pulling the flame into the familiar shape. Since
there is no gravity (well, almost none) in space, the heated air can't
"rise".

                                        Gary Duzan
                                        Time  Lord
                                    Third Regeneration



--
                            [e-mail]
   _o_                      ----------------------                        _o_
 [|o o|]   Two CPU's are better than one; N CPU's would be real nice.   [|o o|]
  |_o_|           Disclaimer: I AM Brain Dead Innovations, Inc.          |_o_|

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #118
*******************