Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_0/v16no086.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 27KB

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 05:00:10
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #086
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 29 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 086

Today's Topics:
                     "suicides" of SDI scientists
                          Belgian mysteries
                DC-1 eventual construction question...
                           Goldin's future
                 Justification for the Space Program
Lubrication problem (was Re: Galileo Stuck Ribs / Remote Manipulator?)
                         Mir mission to Mars?
                     Orbital Mechanics--Careers?
       Precursors to Fred (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.) (3 msgs)
                    Saving an overweight SSTO....
                     Status of future Mir modules
            Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger (2 msgs)
                    Using off-the-shelf-components

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:42:43 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: "suicides" of SDI scientists
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>
>...there's a significant chance that you read either this story or a reference
>to this story, and now you remember it as an historical event.
>
>Or, maybe, [lowers voice to ominous tone]
>it...wasn't...just...a...story!!! [eerie music plays in background]
>
> :-)

In fact, it *was* an historical event.  About four years ago(?), the media
spent a great deal of time pondering a number of "suspicious" suicides
of defence scientists working in Britain for companies like Marconi
Space and Defence.  It's even possible that "60 Minutes" ran a segment
on the issue.  Nothing was ever proven, though, and the media lost
interest.  As I recall, the suspicious nature of the deaths was raised
by the victim's families who asked the media to investigate on their behalf.

---
Dave Michelson                             University of British Columbia
[e-mail]                                  Antenna Laboratory

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 11:57:15 MET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Belgian mysteries

The Belgian skies south-east of Brussels were densely populated during
the night March 30-31, 1990. There were at least three, and maybe six
bright lights with changing colors, observed by gendarmes from 23 h
(local time) to 1 h. There were two F-16 chasing (hunting ?) true or
false echoes from 0 h to 1 h. I already posted (on last September 29)
the listing of one of the half-dozen lock-on(s?) they got. Dale Amon
said it could be a fire and forget air to ground missile, Phil Fraering
said the missile could be a penetrator, and "Topcoat" said it was
probably just jitter.

But there was something else. At 0 h 28, the Semmerkaze radar detected
an object 2500 ft over the western part of the Brussels agglomeration,
moving towards Liege (roughly speaking, towards east) at 450 knots. At
0 h 29, the Glons radar detected it also. From 0 h 29 to 0 h 33, both
radars followed the craft, which was going in straight line towards
Liege, increasing its speed and its altitude. The Semmerkaze radar
spotted it again 6000 ft over Liege at 0 h 35, speed 650 knots. The
last point was some 12 miles east of Liege, altitude 12000 ft, at
0 h 36.
The Semmerkaze radar is an array type radar. It is used for military
air safety. Semmerkaze is about 30 miles west of Brussels.
Glons CRC is a part of NADGE (NATO Air Defense Ground Environment).
There are about 80 NADGE CRC in Europe (including Turkey). Its
missions are: 1. detect and follow every flight in the Belgian air
space, 2. identify friend or foe, 3. if foe, intercept and/or
destroy according to the alert status. The Glons radar is a
multipurpose impulsion type radar. Glons is about 6 miles north
of Liege. The distance Brussels-Liege is about 60 miles.
There is another radar at Bertem, for civilian traffic. The craft
passed 5 miles south of Bertem at 0 h 30. The Bertem radar did
not see anything.

What was this?
1) Civilian traffic? I don't know anything in aviation, but I
believed that airliners did not go that fast when they were that
low. Also, I thought that each civilian flight was known to
the military.
2) A little private jet? Maybe, if all this story is a hoax (it
should be a really big hoax, with airship(s), jet(s) and probably
ULMs).
3) A military plane? It was not one of the two F-16, which, instead
of moving in straight line, were describing complicated loops (I have
the plot of all the trajectories). In my opinion, it looks more like
a stealth aircraft (F-117 A or TR-3 A), because it was seen only from
certain angles. The Bertem radar, which was the best located, never
saw it. But apparently the Belgian military did not know of this plane,
at least in May 1990, when the Belgian Air Force released its first
report about the incidents:
# 00 h 32: The Glons and Semmerkaze radars have a contact at 110 / 6 NM
# away Beauvechain, which heads for Bierset at 7000 feet and high speed.
# The registered speeds go from 478 to 690 knots. The contact is lost
# above Bierset. The Maastricht radar control center has had no contact
# with this UFO.

Any idea? It is more and more difficult to have direct informations. The
Belgian authorities now forbid any contact with the Belgian military. I
have been more or less involved in an inquiry made by a popularization
(and skeptical) review. The journalist who wrote the article managed
to make an appointment with a general of the Belgian Air Force, but it
was cancelled in the last minute. A well-known member of the CSICOP
told me that he suspects "that they have been SO badly embarrassed
by their blunders that they simply refuse to discuss the subject now."
However, I had a long discussion a few months ago with somebody who
works (professionally) very closely with the Belgian military, and
that was not what he said.

J. Pharabod

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:03:28 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-1 eventual construction question...
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Boeing does study the airplane market, and it hurts when an airline
>goes under, but they are not in the operations business.

That is true today.  It was not true when the airline business
first began.  It may or may not be true in the launch business,
when a real launch business develops.



>My question is more on the order of "how do we convince the manufacturers that
>they will be able to sell these things?"  Including the possibility that
>somehow WE as a group step up, and place an order.

One order is not going to convince Boeing to do anything.  They already
know they could get one order.  The problem is, one vehicle could fly
off the *entire* backlog of satellite launch orders, plus soon-to-be
orders such as Iridium, in short order.  What Boeing wants is to see
is proof that there's a large enough market to keep the orders coming
in, and that's not satellites.



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

Date: 26 Jan 1993 11:49:38 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Goldin's future
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

|   In fact,  the big push on now is to design probes that bypass
|   NASA infrastructure.  NO TDRSS, No SHuttle, NO JPL.  direct comms
|   back to the PI's.
|
|Does that mean a lot of Universities can look forward to 70m class
|radiotelescopes on their campuses or are they going to stick very
|large high power antennas on future probes that go beyond Earth orbit.
|(I'll grant you easy 9600 baud cellular links to Earth orbit probes
|via Iridium or other system of your choice!).
|
|Just think, the grad students could watch HBO most of the night
|and then retarget for a high speed download from the Pluto orbiter
|during the comedy hour...
|
|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |


I don't know about all of the probes,  But one constraint on HST
is TDRSS time is tight when the shuttle flys.   I know there are
plans for a Lunar Ultraviolet telescope.  it would be landed
on a small russian lander  and deploy a high gain antenna
that one would only need a 10 M antenna to receive with.
Granted this is a little large, but most decent universitys could
support something like this.   the plan is to have 3 10 M
antennas  equi-distant on the northern hemispere and then to have
the data either disseminated on the NREN or over SELECT as a sub-carrier.
the really cool thing is they want to make the data available to all
educational institutions.  they have a specced hardware package
using apple 2's where school kids could collect data and do
analysis.  i believe the big hope is that some of them may spot
small comets or asteroids before the professional astronomers.

pat

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 01:57:03 GMT
From: Jim O'Brien <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space

Subject: Justification for the Space Program
From: RWTMS2::MUNIZB, [e-mail]
Date: 23 Jan 93 02:59:07 GMT
In article <[e-mail]> RWTMS2::MUNIZB,
[e-mail] writes:
>I know that the discussion regarding the justification for the space
>program died out about 2 weeks ago, but I just bought a book related to
>the subject and I was wondering if anyone on the net has read it.
>
>It's called "Breakout Into Space, Mission for a Generation" by George
>Henry Elias.  The cover blurb reads in part: "(the book) presents a
>broadly, efficiently argued case for moving civilization beyond Earth's
>limits and into the solar system. (Elias) explores the environmental,
>economic,, and political benefits of space settlement.  Inhabiting space
>is no longer science fiction, but human necessity - and destiny . . .
>The establishment of a space civilization is an essential part of the
>effort to preserve the environment, prevent global war, and provide a
>stable economic future".
>
>Any comments about the book, either pro or con?
>
>Disclaimer: Opinions stated are solely my own (unless I change my mind).
>Ben Muniz     [e-mail]    w(818)586-3578
>Space Station Freedom:Rocketdyne/Rockwell:Structural Loads and Dynamics
>   "Man will not fly for fifty years": Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901

Don't know anything about the book, but I'll stay stuck to this beautiful
green and blue planet for a while, thank you.  I think this is a totally
unrealistic and ridiculous justification for the space program.  Pursuit
of basic scientific knowledge should be our focus, at least for the
forseeable future.



###################################################

Jim O'Brien
[e-mail]

Just SLIPpin' along...


<Sorry about the obnoxious disclaimer>
###################################################
========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

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

Date: 27 Jan 93 22:56:06 GMT
From: "Michael C. Nolan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lubrication problem (was Re: Galileo Stuck Ribs / Remote Manipulator?)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>>> Who told you that loss of lubricant was the problem?  ...
>>
>>Loss of lubricant during truck travel is the best guess of Galileo's
>>engineers...
>
>... the same folks who told us that loss of lubricant was probably
>the failure mode also told us that the heating/cooling turn sequence
>would probably work the stuck ribs loose.  It didn't.

I seem to recall one of the Galileo Updates saying that the reason to
believe it was lubricant loss was that that might be fixable.  There
were several reasonable possibilities, but the rest were terminal.  So they
might as well assume it was the thing that might be fixed.  No harm in
thermal cycling in either case, but if it was lubricant loss and was
fixed, hooray!  If not, it's just lot more coffee down the drain.  And
the possibility that people think they promised to fix it and failed.
I just hope they are as willing to try again next time.

Note that I have no information except for a half-remembered news release,
so if that's nonsense, it's entirely my fault.

Mike Nolan nolan@{lpl.arizona.edu,arizona.bitnet,looney.span}
Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ 85721 USA
Phone [phone]; Fax [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:43:12 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Mir mission to Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Rob Douglas) asks:

> So what is it that keeps Mir astronauts alive in Earth orbit?
> Are you saying that some of the Earth's atmosphere protects them
> to an extent that those in interplanetary travel would notice the
> difference?

The Earth has an extensive magnetic field that deflects charged particles.
Since cosmic rays are charged particles then Mir is protected from them.
Not to say there is no cosmic ray flux at Mir, just a lot less than
it would experience in interplanetary flight.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 00:53:09 GMT
From: Srinivas Bettadpur <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orbital Mechanics--Careers?
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.research.careers,sci.space,soc.college.grad

In article <[e-mail]> Michael F. Kamprath <[e-mail]> writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> My name is Nasser
>Abbasi, [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>
>>(mark jones) writes...
>>>
>>>  etc....   What are the opportunities
>>>in orbital mechanics and will they still be there in 5 or 6 years.
>>
>>since defense and aerospace are not doing too well, one would think
>>OM area might not be too hot. is there actually an MS in OM? or is
>>OM studied under control engineering? or mechanical engineering?
>
>It is not "official," i guess, but I would say I was getting my
>degree in orbital mechanics.

   Since not many places offer even a half-way decent program in
orbital mechanics, I was expecting this thread to die a natural
death. I was kind of surprised to see the number of responses.
A quick summary on the queen of sciences (OM) :
    * Almost all Aero departments will offer at least one undergraduate
class in the basics of celestial mechanics (CM).
    * I know of UT-Austin, MIT, Stanford, UC-Boulder, VPISU, U. Mich-Ann
Arbor, U. Ill.-UC, Purdue, Auburn U. as offering any significant
graduate programs in CM in the US.
    * UT-A is far and away the best (I am biased), with 8 faculty
members in this area, and at least 4 undergrad classes and more than
15 graduate classes.  No other university comes even close in terms of
sheer numbers.  The largest number in any other place is 3 (I think).
    * Typical places for employment might include JPL, NASA-(gsfc and
jsc), Lockheed, Rockwell, Martin Marietta, Aerospace Corp., Hughes STX
and a bunch of other Aerospace companies.
                                                Srinivas
--
Srinivas Bettadpur        Internet : [e-mail]
P.O. Box 8520, Austin, Tx. 78713-8520, U.S.A.  Tel. [phone]
BITNET : byab314@uthermes

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

Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:20:27 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Precursors to Fred (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>No, Dennis it trying to convince me that space stations cannot be built
>>without doing lots of Spacelab flights.

>So how do you suggest NASA tests hardware and flight procedures before Freedom
>goes up?

I would suggest that NASA fly a whole lot more flights where EVA and
construction methods are experimented with. They should also spend
money providing better integration testing of the station. Better
mining Russian Mir experience and more LDEF like flights wouldn't
hurt either.

That way you have a lot more confidence that the station can actually
be build. When it is in orbit then you have lots and lots of time to
make the experiemnts work at far less cost.

A space station which doesn't work isn't a good experimental platform.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------139 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:26:12 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Precursors to Fred (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:

>So how do you suggest NASA tests hardware and flight procedures before Freedom
>goes up?

Well, if I was in a position to offer suggestions to NASA
(if NASA was willing to listen), I'd suggest that they *stop*
testing hardware and flight procedures for space station
Freedom.  Forget about building the ultimate whizzy-gadget
loaded station.  Just take what we already have and know
(which is quite a lot) and *build* the damn thing already.

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

Date: 27 Jan 93 19:12:18 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Precursors to Fred (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>>Therefore it's important to develop a
>>program of experiments and useful techniques, make mistakes, etc. Then
>>when experiments are flown aboard Fred, they won't be starting from
>>scratch and they will have a greater chance of success.
>
> I assert that if the station fails because Spacelab spent the $$ which
> should have gone to proper integration testing then they will have a
> lesser degree of success.

This is an irrelevant bait-and-switch argument.  You can't prove that
the Spacelab budget steals from Freedom's integration-testing budget.
"I assert that if the station fails because the U.S. government
subsidies to rootabaga farmers spent the $$ which should have gone to
proper integration testing then they will have a lesser degree of
success."

If you want to have a discussion about integration testing, fine, but
that's not the subject here and I can't see how it connects to a
program of getting your experiments, and experimenters, ready to use
Fred's laboratories.

Bill Higgins                           | "I shop at the Bob and Ray
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | Giant Overstocked Surplus
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | Warehouse in one convenient
Internet:       [e-mail]  | location and save money besides
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | being open every evening until 9."

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

Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:48:15 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saving an overweight SSTO....
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:

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

>>How about this.  ping pong around.   HawaII to Ecuador. Ecuador to Spain.
>>Spain to Tanzania.  Tanzania to India,  India to Australia,  Australia
>>to Hawaii.

>>You bounce around and just keep meeting cargos.


>The problem is, that assumes an equal number of cargoes in all
>locations, which wouldn't be the case.  You'd have a lot of
>cargoes waiting for you in Hawaii, fewer in India and Australia,
>practically none in Ecuador and Tanzania.

>Ideas like this make sense when you're talking about expendable
>artillery shells, and the emphasis is on maximum performance,
>but when you're talking about airplanes -- or spaceships --
>operational considerations must take precedence.

True, but what's to stop them from simply stuffing some cargos in
AIRPLANES and taking them to a pickup point?  After all, flying a C-5
to Ecuador would have to be cheaper than flying a spaceship back from
Ecuador to pick up a load.  Just specify where the pickup point is,
and maybe give a price break for the ones that are 'out of the way'
since being able to pick up cargos there is going to save you
operational costs?


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:54:19 GMT
From: Rich Kolker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Status of future Mir modules
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Does anyone know the status of the Priroda and Spekter modules that have been
>slated as the next modules for attachment to Mir?  Last I heard they were
>scheduled for launch in late 1992 or early 1993.  I imagine that with the
>current economic crisis in Russia money allocated for Mir is tight.  Perhaps
>they have been delayed due to the budget.
>   Also, I thought an Israeli cosmonaut was supposed to be launched to Mir
>aboard Soyuz TM-16.  However, Soyuz TM-16, launched a few days ago, only
>contained two Russians.  Has the Israeli flight been cancelled or delayed?
>                                                           Nathan Bridges
>                                                           Menlo Park, CA

I friend who talks to the cosmonauts by ham radio says they say the
French have agreed to purchase a "Mir" module for attachment to
the complex.  I don't know if this is a spare Mir core or
the Priroda or Spektr.  This conversation
took place late last week, so we haven't been able to get any
more info yet.

++rich
-------------------------------------------------------------------
   rich kolker       [e-mail]
                         < Do Not Write In This Space>
--------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:00:55 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

Just a reminder- 7 years ago today- 11:38am EST....

So, where were you when the Challenger disaster took place?

It was during my sophomore of high school, and I was in English class
when they told us.

No tribute of any sort was allowed, nor could we openly talk about it
without some sort of negative reaction from administrators.

I remember it well, I even got in 'trouble' for this.

Pro-space exploration views were not welcome.

At least now things have improved.

Simon

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:34:57 GMT
From: Sean Michael Gallagher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

[e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:


>Just a reminder- 7 years ago today- 11:38am EST....
>So, where were you when the Challenger disaster took place?
>It was during my sophomore of high school, and I was in English class
>when they told us.
>No tribute of any sort was allowed, nor could we openly talk about it
>without some sort of negative reaction from administrators.
>I remember it well, I even got in 'trouble' for this.
>Pro-space exploration views were not welcome.
>At least now things have improved.
>Simon

Where were you?  I was in grade school, and it was raining so we were inside
for our lunchtime recess.  The teachers let us watch the launch live (My
teacher was a teacher-in-space candidate.)  We spent the whole afternoon
trying to figure out what happened, and the flag was lowered to half-staff
that day and for the following week.  I can't believe they wouldn't let you
discuss one of the most tragic events in recent history.
Sean

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:11:39 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Using off-the-shelf-components
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ata Etemadi) writes:

> Are there any companies out there whose off-the-shelf products are
>space-qualified ?

That depends on what you mean by space-qualified.  The Russians
consider canned borsht from the local supermartski to be space-
qualified.  NASA doesn't.

Space-qualifed today means

1) lightweight (because transportation is so expensive),
2) reliable (because there's no one to fix it it breaks down), and
3) able to operate in conditions of extreme heat, cold, vaccuum, etc.

Given a reliable, low-cost space transportation system, 1 and 2
become much less important.  And if you have a rotating space
station, with artificial gravity and earth-normal or near-normal
atmosphere, 3 ceases to be important as well, and you can buy
just about everything off the shelf.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 086
------------------------------