Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v13_4/v13_439.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 9KB

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/Ec4bZ3600WBw4dg04H>;
          Mon, 22 Apr 91 01:48:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 91 01:48:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #439

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 439

Today's Topics:
   NASA seeks more Commercial Space Development Centers (Forwarded)
              Re: Why the space station?
    Galileo antenna deployment studied by NASA (Forwarded)
              Re: Why the space station?

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: 22 Apr 91 01:44:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA seeks more Commercial Space Development Centers (Forwarded)

Barbara E. Selby
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                    April 19, 1991
(Phone:  [phone])


RELEASE:  91-58

NASA SEEKS MORE COMMERCIAL SPACE DEVELOPMENT CENTERS

      NASA today issued a request for proposals to establish up to
two additional Centers for the Commercial Development of Space
(CCDS).  This fourth solicitation in the agency's CCDS program
will seek centers to specialize in the commercialization of
advanced satellite communications technologies and other space-
based telecommunications technologies.

      The deadline for receiving proposals is June 21, 1991.
Proposals submitted to NASA will be evaluated by a independent
group of peer reviewers representing industry, academia and
government.  Based on these evaluations, the selection is expected
in early August, with establishment of the new center(s)
anticipated for September 1991.

      A key element in NASA's initiative to support the expanded
commercial use of space, CCDSs are innovative research
institutions funded through a cooperative partnership of industry,
univerisities and government.  NASA's Office of Commercial
Programs manages the grant program and provides annual funding up
to $1 million to each of the centers for an initial 5 years which
may be extended.  The CCDSs also receive support from corporate
and university affiliates.

      NASA's current nationwide network of 16 CCDSs specialize in
seven research disciplines:  materials processing (5), life
sciences (3), remote sensing (2), automation and robotics (2),
space propulsion (1), space structures and materials (1) and space
power (2).

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

Date: 22 Apr 91 03:47:22 GMT
From: iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!news.cs.indiana.edu!ariel.unm.edu!triton.unm.edu![e-mail]  (John Prentice)
Subject: Re: Why the space station?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>
>A well-designed space station could be useful for life sciences
>research and as a assembly platform/staging area for interplanetary
>missions.  On the other hand, it's debatable whether this description
>applies to Freedom...

Is this something that life scientists (whatever that means, biologists,
doctors, etc...) are really calling for or is this something that NASA
has dreamt up as yet another one of their applications of space?  They
have been pretty creative in the past about the applications of space
to technology and the sciences, but few of the applications would
seem to have panned out.  So I am curious about this claim.  It may well
be a very valid claim, I am just curious who is making it.  Who would
coordinate the experiments?  Is this something NIH has bought into?

John
--
John K. Prentice    [e-mail] (Internet)
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Computational Physics Group, Amparo Corporation, Albuquerque, NM, USA

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

Date: 22 Apr 91 01:47:52 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Galileo antenna deployment studied by NASA (Forwarded)

Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                               April 19, 1991
(Phone:  [phone])

Frank O'Donnell
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
(Phone:  [phone])


RELEASE:  91-59

GALILEO ANTENNA DEPLOYMENT STUDIED BY NASA

    Intensive analysis of the problem that prevented deployment of the
Galileo spacecraft's high-gain antenna is continuing at NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, Calif.  A "tiger team" of
specialists from a variety of engineering disciplines -- including
industry representatives -- has been assembled to study the problem and
how to correct it.

    Galileo Project officials say they expect to carry out
considerably more analysis and ground tests before determining a date
to make another deployment effort.  The deployment difficulty poses no
immediate problems for the spacecraft, which otherwise is functioning
properly.

    The problem arose Thursday, April 11, 1991, when commands to
unfurl the umbrella-like antenna were issued by Galileo's computers.
The deployment action -- very similar to opening a conventional
umbrella -- was expected to be concluded in less than 3 minutes.

    Data from Galileo, however, indicate that the antenna unfurled
partially but did not completely unfold.  One side of the antenna
appears to be deployed more fully than the other side, suggesting that
some restriction may be affecting a portion of the antenna's movement.

     Data that the JPL team has been studying include readings from the
spacecraft's sun sensor and from its spin detectors, which offer
engineers information on the current state of the antenna.  In
addition, data from Galileo's power system provide details on how the
deployment attempt proceeded and possible clues on the nature of the
restriction.  Engineers say that continued analysis of the data -- and
tests of identical antenna equipment on the ground -- are important to
avoid any action that could damage onboard equipment.

    The 16-foot-diameter, high-gain antenna -- a modified version
of the design used in NASA's Earth-orbiting Tracking & Data Relay
Satellites -- has a surface made of gold-plated molybdenum wire woven
into a mesh.  The mesh is stretched across 18 graphite-epoxy ribs and
connected with quartz cords.

    The antenna has been stowed behind a sun shield since Galileo's
launch in October 1989 to avoid heat damage while the spacecraft flew
closer to the sun than the orbit of Earth.

    The antenna deployment mechanism is driven by a set of
redundant motors which turn a worm gear.  This gear pushes a nut
connected to levers which spread the antenna's ribs, much as an
umbrella is opened.

    Unfurling of the antenna will enable Galileo to send scientific
data to Earth at much higher rates over greater distances than
it can with the two low-gain antennas it has used since launch.

    Project officials say Galileo will still conduct its planned
flyby of the asteroid Gaspra on October 29 even if the antenna is
partially deployed.  In that event, pictures and other data would be
stored on the spacecraft's onboard tape recorder and relayed to the
ground when Galileo approaches for its flyby of Earth in December
1992.

    JPL manages the Galileo Project for NASA's Office of Space
    Science and Applications.

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

Date: 22 Apr 91 01:37:52 GMT
From: rochester!sol![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: Why the space station?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert W Murphree) writes:

>As far as national competiveness
>goes, its really hard to think of something, short of digging ditches and
>filling them up, that when compared with materials science or manufacturing
>technology that is as usless as the  space station.

Actually, it's pretty easy to think of government expenditures which
are more useless than the space station -- $500 toilet seats,
$1000/month welfare hotels, tobacco subsidies -- and that suck up more
money -- HUD, DOD, HHS, etc.

A well-designed space station could be useful for life sciences
research and as a assembly platform/staging area for interplanetary
missions.  On the other hand, it's debatable whether this description
applies to Freedom...
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Department of Computer Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #439
*******************