Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v13_2/v13_252.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 18KB

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/cbqm84m00WBw81FU4H>;
          Mon, 11 Mar 91 01:21:56 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 91 01:21:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #252

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 252

Today's Topics:
             measurement systems
                 test
              Re: Space Profits
        Re: Wednesday NOVA on PBS: Russian Right Stuff
             Pioneer 11 Update - 03/01/91
              Magellan Update - 03/06/91
              Magellan Update - 03/07/91
              Galileo Update - 03/07/91
                 Reliability
            Re: Naval Observatory
         Re: Lockheed Bid on Commercial Launcher...?

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]

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

Date: 8 Mar 91 16:23:55 GMT
From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: measurement systems

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>Allen, we can't even agree on a _measuring system_ on this planet.

Sure we can; we have.  There are just a few backward nations that refuse
to adopt it.
--
"But this *is* the simplified version   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
for the general public."     -S. Harris |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 7 Mar 91 05:58:26 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!astemgw!kuis!rins![e-mail]  (will)
Subject: test

testing

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

Date: 8 Mar 91 12:17:51 GMT
From: wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu![e-mail]  (Kurt I. Weisser)
Subject: Re: Space Profits

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:
>
>*OR* we do what we did with railroads, interstate highways, ports, airlines,
>and other infrastructure. The government builds the infrastructure and then
>leases it to users over a long period of time.
>
     Railways in much of the US were constructed and owned by private
companies, financed by one-time land grants.  Except for a brief
period during World War I, and except for Amtrak, railways are still
wholly private, and have government involvement only as a regulator.
     Interstate highways began as a military road concept, and has
expanded to its current configuration through Congressional pork-
barelling.  The Federal government subsidizes construction and maint-
enance costs, but states themselves own the roads.
     Most US ports are owned by private companies (individual terminals
and wharves) and/or local port authority districts.  Federal involvement
is primarily limited to Coast Guard and Corps of Engineers tasks.
     US airlines are private companies.  The air traffic control infra-
structure is provided by the Federal government, and individual airports
(with the exception of three (?) in/near DC) are owned by local port
authorities, other local government entities, or private companies.
     With the exception of air traffic control and Corps of Engineer
and BuRec waterways, the Federal government directly provides nothing
except subsidies.  It built none of these (again, except ATC and water-
ways), and leases none of them.  The use of highway and air trust funds
is not a lease, since the Federal government is never directly repaid
for its initial investment.

                                     - Kurt Ian Weisser
    The Ohio State University            Undergrad
          Columbus, Ohio        [e-mail]

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

Date: 8 Mar 91 14:47:56 GMT
From: agate!stanford.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu![e-mail]  (Bhaswar Sen)
Subject: Re: Wednesday NOVA on PBS: Russian Right Stuff

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Adam R. Brody) writes:
>[e-mail] (Kish Shen) writes:
>
>>>Russian Right Stuff
>
>>>A three-part look at the Soviet space program opens with a profile of
>>its chief
>>>designer Sergei Korolev
>
>>I think this is the "Horizon" (a BBC TV science program) shown here in the UK
>>a few months back. If I remember correctly, the commentator was one of the
>>regular person used by Horizon, and was British. Does anybody know how this was
>
>The program was definitely Nova put out by WGBH Boston (PBS).

The programme was originally produced by a television company in U.K.and only
recently shown here over PBS as a NOVA series.

Bhaswar Sen
University of Houston
Department of Physics
Houston, Texas
[e-mail]

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

Date: 8 Mar 91 21:06:58 GMT
From: rex!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Pioneer 11 Update - 03/01/91


                         PIONEER 11 STATUS REPORT
                             March 1, 1991

     The IPP (Imaging Photopolarimeter) instrument will be turned on on
the Pioneer 11 spacecraft on March 1 to allow it to warm up in preparation
for another scan of Canopus on March 2.  While the IPP is warming up, the
HVM instrument will be off.  At the request of the TRD (Trapped Radiation
Detector) experimenter, the telemetry format will be changed from "A" to "B".
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab | Is it mind over matter,
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | or matter over mind?
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | Never mind.
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | It doesn't matter.

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

Date: 8 Mar 91 22:43:48 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Update - 03/06/91


                         MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                            March 6, 1991

     The Magellan spacecraft has been performing nominally since the brief
anomaly on Monday evening.  Five of the seven STARCALS during the past 24 hours
were successful, two partially successful due to rejects of the star Alpha Tau.

     Yesterday, the command sequence M1065 was sent to the spacecraft and it
began execution this morning on orbit #1641.  This sequence includes memory
readouts of both the A and B side of the Attitude and Articulation Control
Systems (AACS-A & B).

     The spacecraft continues in a period of periapsis occultations where the
low part of the orbit passes through the shadow of Venus.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab | Is it mind over matter,
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | or matter over mind?
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | Never mind.
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | It doesn't matter.

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

Date: 9 Mar 91 00:57:52 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Update - 03/07/91


                           MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                               March 7, 1991

     The Magellan spacecraft is performing nominally.  All STARCALS (star
calibrations) and DESATS (desaturations) during the past 24 hours were
successful.

     Spacecraft controllers have been monitoring the temperatures of the
reaction wheels which seemed to be climbing slightly.  The temperature has
now stabilized at 53.5 degrees C.

     The DMS-A (Data Management Subsystem-A) Test #3, which consisted of
playback of specific bit patterns from the various tape tracks, produced
puzzling results on Track #1 at 268 kbps.  Engineers are now considering
repeating the Track #1 playback to try to replicate the results.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab | Is it mind over matter,
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | or matter over mind?
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | Never mind.
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | It doesn't matter.

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

Date: 9 Mar 91 00:56:08 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 03/07/91


                          GALILEO STATUS REPORT
                             March 7, 1991

     As of noon (PST) Thursday, March 7, 1991, the Galileo spacecraft is
34,675,090 miles from the Earth and traveling at a heliocentric speed of
72,550 miles per hour; distance to the Sun is 102,404,120 miles (1.1 AU).
Round trip light time is 6 minutes, 12 seconds.

     A NO-OP command was successfully sent on March 4 to reset the Command
Loss Timer to 240 hours, its planned value for this mission phase.

     A 10-degree SITURN was successfully completed on March 1.  The turn
resulted in the spacecraft leading the sun by about 5.5 degrees; spacecraft
performance throughout the activity was normal.

     The EPD (Energetic Particle Detector) instrument was powered on March 1
to perform its periodically required stepper motor maintenance.  The activity
was accomplished successfully and the EPD was powered off after a planned
memory readout.

     Cruise Science Memory Readouts (MROs) were performed on the MAG
(Magnetometer) and DDS (Dust Detector) on March 6; EUV (Extreme Ultraviolet
Spectrometer) memory readouts were also performed on March 1 and March 6.

     Another USO (Ultra Stable Oscillator) calibration test was completed on
March 5 to provide trend information characterizing this downlink frequency
source.

     A telecommunications equipment test was successfully completed on March 6.
This test is periodically performed to characterize the performance of the
receiver and command detector uplink hardware elements.

     The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements exhibited some activity.  The AC
measurement fluctuated 3 DN and now reads 45.4 volts.  The DC measurement
fluctuated nearly 160 DN.  The large measurement fluctuations began about
3.5 days after returning to dual-spin operation on February 25.  Sometime
between the end of track on February 28 and start of track on March 1, the DC
measurement increased 75 DN from about 8.8 volts to 17.9 volts and remained
near 18 volts through the end of track on March 3.  At the start of track on
March 4, the measurement was found to have dropped about 75 DN and was reading
near 9 volts.  These fluctuations occurred while the spacecraft was quiescent,
i.e., no electrical load switching or sequencing activity.  All other
power-related telemetry and subsystem telemetry are normal.

     Representatives from the DSN (Deep Space Network) and Project met last
week to discuss display capabilities planned for the DSN Network Operations
Center (NOCC) upgrade.  The Project is concerned that existing capabilities for
DSN displays in the Galileo Mission Support Area (MSA) may not be available
after the upgrade without modifications to Project hardware and software.  The
Project has been assuming that the DSN upgrades would be transparent to Project
operations support and, in particular, that current interfaces and support
commitments would be maintained.  Further meetings and discussions are planned
to identify and resolve issues.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab | Is it mind over matter,
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | or matter over mind?
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | Never mind.
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | It doesn't matter.

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

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 91 20:39:37 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Reliability


>From: [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
>Subject: Re: German conference highlights doubts about ESA's manned space plans

>>Or, if you prefer not to pay the $1,000,000++/hour cost of an EVA, you
>>could make sure it works before you launch it.

>The Solar Max, Palapa/Westar, Syncom, Hubble, Intelsat, etc. people all
>thought they had.  Not to mention Apollo 13 and Gemini 8.  There is this
>peculiar myth within NASA that all possible problems can be anticipated,
>and you really can be certain that the thing will work before you launch it.
>The universe keeps trying to tell NASA that this is wrong, and NASA keeps
>not listening.

That last statement sounds a little too broad. Just about everything they
launch is chock full of backup systems, and the unmanned devices have both
on-board recovery systems and provision for ground-based reconfiguration.
I'd appreciate it if you could clarify your point.

If you're thinking of simpler multiple probes, I think that has both good
and bad points, and has to be evaluated on the merits of each case. Having
two Voyager probes proved very handy, even though neither failed. (And both
did have considerable redundancy.) The Soviet Phobos probes were simpler
and had less protection, and both died. If NASA had decided to build Magellan
with the same hardware choices, but without the redundancy, and to use the
money saved to build several probes (launched at the same time as the current
Magellan), I think there's a pretty good chance that they'd *all* be dead
by now.
    John Roberts
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 7 Mar 91 13:37:47 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: Naval Observatory


>From: [e-mail] (Carmine Nicoletta)
>Subject: Floppy Almanac
>Date: 6 Mar 91 04:01:20 GMT
>Organization: The Design Committee

>Does anyone know the phone to the US Naval Observatory?  The one I had
>1 202 653 1079, does not seem to work.  I'm trying to get information on
>1991 floppy almanac.  Does anyone have a copy the can email?

>Thanks.

>From the C&P Telephone White Pages, District of Columbia, government section:

Naval Observatory Mass Av At 34th St NW-
  Master Clock Time Announcement.......900 410 8463
  Guard Desk - General Information.........653-1507
  Tour Info - Recorded Message.............653-1543

Presumably the 1-202 area code would apply to the latter two numbers.
    John Roberts
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Mar 91 21:08:09 GMT
From: agate!stanford.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Lockheed Bid on Commercial Launcher...?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fraering Philip) writes:
>WL>... whether Lockheed's use of such motors is
>WL>essentially government subsidization ...
>WL>... OSC, for one, is very strongly against this...)
>
>I suppose the B-52 flight was just something OSC got at a swap meet?

It was "customer furnished equipment" :-).  Since OSC+H doesn't own a launch
aircraft of their own at present, the customer either has to supply one or
put up some extra cash so OSC+H can rent one.  DARPA being the customer, it
chose to supply one, via NASA.  For a commercial customer, OSC+H would rent
time on NASA's B-52.

>And wasn't the DAPRA purchace of a flight before the booster was even
>fully designed somewhat of the nature of government support? ...

No more than United's purchase of a bunch of 777s before Boeing had fully
designed it was a subsidy from United to Boeing.  It's known as being a
"launch customer".  (Pun unintentional!)  When dealing with a radically
new product it takes considerable courage -- and DARPA's role in getting
Pegasus started should not be minimized -- but DARPA paid for a Pegasus
launch, not for Pegasus development.  The essential difference between a
subsidy and a purchase is what happens if the new gadget never flies.
If you get paid anyway, it's a subsidy.  OSC+H wouldn't have been paid,
any more than Boeing will get paid if it cancels the 777.

>...this situation looks like the pot calling the kettle black.

Perhaps true to some extent, but not for the reasons you've suggested.
The Hercules half of OSC+H didn't have to start from scratch on building
Pegasus's motors, because they'd invested in a lot of solid-motor production
gear based on government contracts.

This still isn't quite the same as getting government-surplus motors at
a fire-sale price to build your launcher with.
--
"But this *is* the simplified version   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
for the general public."     -S. Harris |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #252
*******************