Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_1/v16no122.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 34KB

Date: Thu,  4 Feb 93 05:04:22
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #122
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu,  4 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 122

Today's Topics:
          An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...)
         extreme responses to Challenger transcript (2 msgs)
                       Georgia(CIS) Statement..
                  Japanese Space Station 45Billion?
                       Launching using Pegasus
        Mars or Bust by 2000. News/Ads/Dream for the future..
                       Satellite Photo Analysis
                            Shuttle tiles
              Space Camp (was re: Challenger Transcript)
                      Space Grown Semiconductors
                                Well..
                         Words of Wisdom : -)

    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: 2 Feb 1993 21:13:52 -0500
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>Really?  Let me see...two or three times a year, they put two or three guys
>>in a capsule and shoot them up to a station, where they trade off with a
>>couple of guys there and come back down.

>Which is far far more than we can do. BTW, it also means they spend three
>to four days in space for every day we do.

They go up three times a year, we go up eight.  They send up two or three
people, we send up five to eight.  So for every ten people they send up, we
are sending somewhere between forty and seventy.  I wouldn't say they are
doing 'far far' more than we are.

>>I'm not sure what they do there...

>Pretty much the same thing we do; except they can do a lot more. Oh, they
>do have a facility which produces commercial semiconductor materials. NASA
>has no plans for that for the next 20 years or so.

So what are they doing?  I haven't heard of any real results from their work
up there.  I'm sure there are some, but they can't be that earth-shattering.

As for their semiconductor facility, that's great...and I'm saying that
without sarcasm.  But with all the cheap launch capacity and available on-
orbit astronaut time, I'm surprised that's the best they can do.

>>My point is that if Soviet equipment is so cheap and wonderful, how come the
>>Russians haven't gone anywhere with it?

>Largely because they are a poor nation I suspect. Even at their height
>in now{turns out that they didn't have all that much.

Agreed...but if their stuff costs a tenth or a fifth of what ours does, even
their relative poverty should be enough for some pretty impressive feats; yet
we've seen very little.

>But the point isn't what they can do, it is what WE can do with intelligent
>leveraging. Spending 10% on Russian hardware could save us billions. What's
>wrong with that?

Part of the point I am making is that *if* things are as good as you claim,
they should have been able to do a lot more than the have.  The conclusion
that I am drawing is that things *aren't* as good as yor are claiming.  You
have quite the reputation for pulling numbers out of thin air, and the fact
that the Soviets, with all their cheap hardware, were unable to do anything
more than they have points to some problems with your conclusions.

Furthermore, I am not absolutely opposed to spending money on Russian gear;
as I said in a post late last week, using Soyuz for the ACRV is a reasonable
plan.  But when people start proposing ongoing procurement for launch services
from the Russians that would cripple the U.S. industry, or scrapping Freedom
and leasing space on Mir, then I start thinking there's something wrong.

Believe it or not, there's more to space than the almighty dollar.


>>They've been stuck at a low level of activity...

>I look at their launch manifests and then look at ours. I think we are the
>ones stuck at the low level of activity. They can do this since they
>don't pay 10 times what they need to for launches like we do.

Their rate of launch is a direct consequence of their inability to make
spacecraft with a decent lifespan.  They may pay 1/10 what we do to launch
a rocket, but they have to launch 10 times as often as we do.  Dollar for
dollar, we probably get more from our satellites than we do.  We certainly
have more cpaable satellites, if not as many.

>>>Let me get this straight, our system costs ten times as much as theirs
>>>and only gives 20% of the time in space. Yet you think it is more advanced?

>>Yes, because we're the ones developing the upcoming generations of space
>>transport.

>>Capsules were the first generation, and the Shuttle is the second.

>Great! I hope we quit at the second generation. Every new generation
>doubles the cost of access to space. We won't be able to launch NASA's
>third generation system because it will be too expensive.

You're drawing conclusions as to trends in launch costs based on two data
points?  Way to stick your foot in your mouth.

Besides, I didn't specifically mention NASA.  If you notice below, I
consider SSTO the next generation.  Since you keep harping on the low

cost of this technology, I'm surprised at the dig above on costs.

>>We're already working on the third and fourth, with things like SSTO and
>>NASP.

>NASA is spending it's SSTO efforts trying to kill the SDIO effort. As for
>NASP, NASP is dead. (BTW, those backward Russians are doing more scramjet
>testing than we are).

Again, I didn't mention NASA, you did.

As for NASP, maybe it's dead and maybe it isn't.  People like to predict the
imminent death of a number of programs (how many times has Henry Spencer
declared the ASRM program dead?) that somehow don't quite die.  I agree, it
is unlikely that it will fly in the manner originally proposed, but the
idea as a whole is far from dead.

Finally, someone pointed out on sci.military that Sandia Labs has a very
interesting high-mach program underway...I wouldn't count the U.S. out of
the scramjet race, even if the Russians have strapped a couple of test
articles to rockets.  Their testing may well be a compensation for their
lack of capability in computational fluid dynamics.


>>Listening to you, the Russians should already be all over the...

>All I am saying is that we can intelligently leverage our efforts using
>some of their hardware. Why is that such a problem?

Because the experience of the Soviet space program over the last thirty
years leads me to believe that there's far more to a viable space program
than just cheap hardware.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 01:21:40 GMT
From: Tesuji <[e-mail]>
Subject: extreme responses to Challenger transcript
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk

X-Anon-To:sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk

As I look at the article, I would agree that it
seems more likely than not to be concocted.
(more from linguistic reasons than technical,
although "2000 MPH" seems absurd to me, too.)

But I think the issue here is an emotional one,
not a technical one -- that is, even if the
article were totally fabricated, that does
not mean it necessarily is completely *false*.

That is, could it have portrayed a possible outcome?

If so, then in making decisions about redundancy,
safety, escape strategies, NASA management style,
this kind of "fiction" may make a wholer picture to
balance parameters, financial *and* human cost.

Sort of like televising executions, which most
agree would be gruesome, some believe that it
may lead to a fairer appraisal of constitutional
safeguards.  It is sad that this is emotionally
trying to the families and to the readers of the
newsgroups.  I believe that on the balance, though,
it leads to useful discussion.


It has been amusing to see the extreme responses to the posting of the
Challenger transcript; the burghers with their torches are storming the
castle again.

It is a wonder to me to see these outlandishly outrageous responses to things
such as viral attacks: people suggest castration or execution to the perpetrators.
When Len Rose was caught with a hacked copy of AT&Ts login.c, people suggested
banning him from employment for life or other punishments that aren't
even meted out for murderers in US society.

It is especially ironic to see the cretins from Bell Labs heading up the
peasants ready to torch me for my posting.  Bell Labs -- who help make
widespread electronic communication possible.  It reminds me of the XEROX PARC
corporate solicitation from employees for "security slogans";  I thought
the best entry was the one by a friend of mine "If you want security,
don't get a Xerox machine!".  It didn't win though.

My posting was not libelous, obscene, or otherwise criminal.  Error and bad taste
are protected freedoms in this country.  If you don't like my or any other
postings, hit N.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to [e-mail].
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to [e-mail].

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

Date: 3 Feb 1993 04:28:50 GMT
From: Tarl Neustaedter <[e-mail]>
Subject: extreme responses to Challenger transcript
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tesuji) writes:
>It has been amusing to see the extreme responses to the posting of the
>Challenger transcript; the burghers with their torches are storming the
>castle again.

Had you simply posted that fabricated transcript, you would have been
flamed for posting something inappropriate and frankly libelious (yes,
you accuse NASA of a coverup. That's libelious). And it would have ended.

The extreme reactions come from the fact that you don't have the BALLS
to even post it under your own name, you feel you have to hide behind
an anonymous posting service.

Go away, squirm back under the rock you crawled out of. And kindly don't
bother those of us who find skulking in the shawdows to be offensive.
--
         Tarl Neustaedter    [e-mail]
         Marlboro, Mass.    Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.

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

Date: 3 Feb 93 08:01:21 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Georgia(CIS) Statement..
Newsgroups: sci.space


#227 [e-mail]*   Wed 27 Jan 1993  09:46:58  ( 136/ 6461) T

From:     Dr. George V. Gomelaury
Subject:  Hello (not from Russia but) from Georgia
From:     [e-mail]

                         Dear Mr. Adams,

     Greetings from Georgia.
     Please forgive me for the delay of the answer.

Our company "Georgia Net Ltd." is a privet company.  We  are  among
the  founders  and  brokers  of  the  "Electronic  Exchange   ExNet
Ltd.". "ExNet Ltd." covers the territory  of  the former  USSR  and
Baltic states. It permits to offer  any  kind  of  goods  or  other
things and  sign  contracts  24  hours  a  day  through  electronic
network.

From the other hand our group presents the  Scientific  Engineering
Center for Computer & Information Technology -  "SciEnCe  CITe  Ltd."
which is the state company. Two years ago the Center installed  the
first Internet  UUCP  E-Mail  node  -  [e-mail]  -  in
Tbilisi, capital of Georgia. Our node serves  Georgian  Parliament,
Georgian Academy of Sciences and  it's  more  than  40  institutes,
Cognac  and  Champaign  Factories,  Pharmacological  Committee   of
Georgia,   Georgian   brunches   of   UNESCO   and   UNIDO,   other
organizations, privet companies etc.

Consisting of high qualified specialists in the fields  of  optics,
laser science, theoretical and experimental  physics, astrophysics,
CCD imaging, computers, analog and digital  electronics,  data  and
image analysis, international computer networking, our  group  know
English, French,  Georgian,  German,  Russian,  Spanish  and  other
European languages, and can take part in any  scientific  research,
engineering and design of  electronics,  software  and  complicated
earth and space born computer controlled devices.

I hope this information will be valid for you. If you have any more
questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
          With kind regards,

Dr. George Gomelaury
Director of the "SciEnCe CITe Ltd.",
Vice Director of the "Georgia Net Ltd.",
Expert of the Investigation Service of the Georgian Parliament,
Member of LIA.

My personal background follows:

I was born in Tbilisi in 1951 as the second son in the family of
Professor Vakhtang Gomelaury, a specialist in the field of heat and
mass transfer, and his wife Tinatin Tushmalishvily, Professor of
the Department of the West European Languages and Literature of the
State University in Tbilisi.

I completed a physical-mathematical school in Tbilisi, received my
B.S. degree and, after diploma work, in 1973 an M.S. from the State
University of Tbilisi in the Department of Physics. In 1974, I
continued post-graduate studies in Moscow in the Lebedev Institute
of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (FIAN) in the laboratory of
Nobel Prize winner Alexander Prokhorov. In 1981, in the Lebedev
Institute, I received a scientific Ph.D. in the field of physics
and mathematics for the work: "Laser Induced Damage in Optical
materials Caused by the Radiation of Lasers of Middle IR Region".

During seven years of work in Prokhorov's laboratory, two IR single
mode Q-switched ERBIUM 3+ lasers (CaF2 - 2.76mkm & YAG - 2.94mkm)
were designed and a Method of Nonlinear Optical Mixing was
implemented for the investigation of these lasers.

In 1981, I returned to Tbilisi and joined Astrophysical Observatory
in Abastumany of the Georgian Academy of Sciences where at present,
as chief of the Laboratory for coherent Optics and Infrared
Astrophysics, I lead research on "Computerized Detector of Infrared
Radiation Based on Nonlinear Optical Mixing" for use in
astronomical and ecological investigations.

During the last year I founded and now head a Center for
Information Technology, where the first Georgian E-mail node was
installed for the needs of the Georgian Academy of Sciences,
universities and high schools.

I have authored more than 17 papers for different publications and
conferences.

I know Georgian, Russian, English, German, Spanish. I am married
and have a daughter, Ia, who is 15 years old. My wife, Nino, is a
specialist of ancient arts and has an M.S. degree and works in the
Institute of the History of the Georgian Arts of the Georgian
Academy of Sciences.

As I am sure you are aware, conditions in the former Soviet
republics are financially difficult. The budget of our group's
laboratory is very poor. We have absolutely no hard currency
available to participate in international conferences or visiting
leading scientific centers of our profile neither to afford
membership in any organization. We want to contribute to improving
Georgia's scientific and economic situation, and need more contact
with the colleagues from outside scientific world to expedite this.
We believe that we have made significant scientific contributions
despite our forced very long isolation and difficult conditions but
we are hampered in our efforts at information interchange with the
world scientific community. We are hopeful that conditions here
will improve, and believe that close contacts with our American
collaborators will help us to increase our contributions to the
world scientific community.

With kind regards and good wishes,
                                       George Gomelaury

Lab. for Coherent Optics & IR Astrophysics
2a, Kazbegi Avenue
Tbilisi-42, Republic of Georgia
Tel.:       [phone],
      home: 007(8832)224-237
E-mail (Internet): [e-mail]
             [e-mail]



Just for information purposes..
==
Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: 3 Feb 93 08:27:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Japanese Space Station 45Billion?
Newsgroups: sci.space

And nice thing about the Japanese is that the company who is building it will
not probably care who they sell use to.. And might be easier to work with thean
the monopolistic American (US) or Russian Space Programs..

==
Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 05:39:43 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Launching using Pegasus
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Claudio Egalon) writes:
>There are some talk in the Brazilian community that the Brazilian
>satellite, which is scheduled to be launched from a Pegasus rocket,
>does not have any insurance. I am wondering if any one here in the
>NET could coment on that whether it is true or not. It seems kind of
>dumb not insure this satellite since Pegasus was used only twice in
>the past and in the second mission did not work very well.

It might be a very smart choice: Imagine how much an insurance company
might ask, to cover such a high-risk launch. The Brazilians would be
betting their savings in insurance costs against the risks of a failure.
It's a pretty high stakes gamble, but it still might be a smart move.

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder

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

Date: 3 Feb 93 08:15:23 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Mars or Bust by 2000. News/Ads/Dream for the future..
Newsgroups: sci.space

That is the reason why I mentioned the news media.. Without them, any project
no matter hwo great will not get off the ground, atleast in the public mind..
Maybe have Star Trek DS9 have a scale model of SSF (SS Fred) in a promininent
place., I know Star Trek and alot of people watch it.. People don't want hard
science, they want fantasy these days,, maybe in a few years theyll go the
other way..

Possible ways to get the US population involved would be the
Earth to Mars Solar Sail Race or some other race? Maybe talk to Clinton and
try to get a more scientific view for them.. So far science has had a hard
time. People are starting to blame science for the pollution problems and the
ecology..  People go thru cycles, from Fantasy to Science Fiction..
And he trick is to know what point they are and design adds and projects for
it.. Space Station Freedom is a long term dead fish project.. And it needs to
go up or die soon,.. People are getting tired of hearing about its
"failure" to get into orbit.. Give people to much science and they get bored..

Yes maybe give thme a dream to work towards.. Try to get Ted Turner involved
and maybe a Playboy Bunny involved and Star Trek Involved..

Mabe a movie called mission to mars, with what we know about Space Station
Freedom and the Mars mission as part of it.. A big budget sci-fi flick
with some hard science rwrapped in fantasy/sci-fi..


==
Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: Tue,  2 Feb 93 11:40:33 PST
From: Mike - Medwid <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite Photo Analysis
Newsgroups: sci.space

What does the job of "Satellite Photo Analyst" entail on a day to day
basis and what qualifies someone for such work?  Also where is this kind
of work done in the US?   Please email   [e-mail]

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

Date: 3 Feb 93 05:46:18 GMT
From: John Nagle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle tiles
Newsgroups: sci.space

>-> -Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
>-> -Shuttle designers... chose to use refractory silicates in the form of
>-> -tiles.

       After the first shuttle flights, it turned out, as I recall, that
the thermal protection requirements had been somewhat overestimated, and
that titanium-based thermal protection would have worked.  I think Buran
uses titanium, avoiding all those annoying problems with machining and
glueing ceramics.

       There's been some recent Japanese work on the next step after
composite materials, materials whose composition changes through the
material.  Materials have been fabricated that are ceramic on one
surface and metal at the other, with a smooth transition in between.
This allows the creation of materials with good refractory properties
that can be bolted or welded on the backing surface.
If the Japanese shuttle ever flies, it may use these materials.  Meanwhile,
there is interest in using them for razor blades.

                    John Nagle

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

Date: 2 Feb 93 16:53:01 GMT
From: Curtis Roelle <roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu>
Subject: Space Camp (was re: Challenger Transcript)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Vilkata TDK) writes:

>In <roelle.728594137@uars_mag> roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:

>>[e-mail] (Vilkata TDK) writes:

>>Until now I'd been an admirer of the Space Camp, particularly for the
>>marvelous experience it provides youngsters, allowing them to live the
>>life other kids dream of, inside involvement with NASA.  But what have
>>they been teaching these kids?  That for two minutes forty-five
>>seconds the crew of the Challenger "screamed, cursed, and prayed for
>>three hellish minutes?"

>Well, first off, most of the "youngsters" who go there are more mature than
>the average.  (Notice I said "most".)

No argument from me there.  I have been impressed with the space campers
I have had contact with in the past.  However, your earlier post raised
questions regarding the history lessons being taught to our future
space workers, and more than likely, future astronauts.

> What have they been teaching us?  The
>truth.  It's not like they gave a seminar on it or anything.  But some of us
>were talking (It happens.) with some of the staff, and they told us because
>we were interested.  They never said it the way you quoted a different previous
>article ("screamed, cursed...hellish minutes"); they told us that although
>some of the crew might have been knocked out (for lack of a better phrase) at
>first, probably all of them were conscious for most of the fall.

Didn't you agree that the part about the crew's ordeal during the
three-minute descent, as described by Tesuji, was "the truth".  Here
is a replay of your article; I have deleted two of Tesuji's paragraphs
and highlighted (***) part of the reply:

---------- begin article  -------------

[e-mail] (Vilkata TDK) writes:

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

>>29 Jan 93 22:58, Tesuji wrote to All:

>> T>   A secret NASA tape reveals that the crew of the shuttle Challenger
>> T> not only survived the explosion that ripped the vessel apart; they
>> T> screamed, cried, cursed and prayed for three hellish minutes before
>> T> they slammed into the Atlantic and perished on January 28, 1986.

[ .... further alleged details by Tesuji -- deleted ...]

>>Well, that and the rest of that post was certainly the most tasteless thing I've seen here in ages...

>Why do you think it's tasteless?  It happens to be the truth.  I went to Space
                                                    *** *****
>Camp for two years, and lots of those people have information the general
>public usually doesn't.  In fact, the first year, my group's counselor was the
>daughter of astronaut Robert L. Stewart, Jenny (very nice).  I don't remember
>if it was she or someone else, but someone told us that the last thing they
>heard _before the explosion_ was something to the effect of "Uh oh."

>The truth is, they were all conscious (sp?) and aware of what was happening.
>Which makes it that much more terrible, but that's Life, and a lot of us like
>to know the whole truth.

---- end of repost ----------------------------------------

Oh, now I see.  After calling Tesuji's description "the truth", you
then give truth a second, more passive, definition: "truth is they
were all conscious and aware of what was happening."

>>I really doubt that Space Camp would teach such silly things, and my
>>feeling is that the above posting is [delberately?] misleading, but then
>>again, I've never been to Space Camp have I, so maybe I'm wrong.

>So basically you doubt that I'm telling the truth.

No, no, no... I believe you are telling us what you yourself were told.
I am merely trying to find out what the faculty of Space Camp are telling
campers.  In your post, you appeared to back Tesuji's claims, which have
been discredited in more than one posting on sci.space.  In particular,
the velicity and time anomalies.  You said, "it happens to be the truth."

>Oh, well, it's a free
>world, and I don't really want to start a flame war with people with closed
>minds.  Although sci.space really isn't the place for closed-minded people...
>However, I can assure you that my posting was not misleading, especially
>deliberately.

Maybe not intentionally, but it was misleading.  Two definitions of "the
truth".

>I'm almost offended...

Sorry that you took it personally.  My questions were directed at the
Space Camp program, of which you are a product.  Certainly campers
have a right to know the perils as well as the pleasures of what may
lay ahead for them should they persue careers in the space program.
But when you respond to a posting lke Tesuji's, saying "it happens to
be the truth" because insiders at Space Camp told you so, I became
concerned because it either means there hasn't been a full disclosure
by NASA, or Camp officials are spreading rumor.

While a full disclosure may be nobody's business, lack thereof in our
present society implies the "C" word (coverup).  The Challenger
astronauts were public figures.  That mission in particular had as one
of its goals, education, including a public school teacher.  Their
lives were in the public's eye and, like the potential danger they
faced, the public eye is part of the job they accepted.  The lives of
these people were used to educate.  Why should the education procedure
stop with their death, since death is part of life?  So if the faculty
at Space Camp, or anyone else out there, really knows something, and
are preparared to substantiate it, then come out with it so that we
may all learn what death really means.

Otherwise, stop spreading rumors and standing up in defense of people
like Tesuji, whose motive appears to be to shock and hurt, instead of
to teach and heal.

Curt Roelle

Opinions expressed do not represent the Customer, or its customers.

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

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 02:56:46 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Grown Semiconductors
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.materials

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

[Refering to the Russian space program, especially aboard Mir]
> Pretty much the same thing we do; except they can do a lot more. Oh, they
> do have a facility which produces commercial semiconductor materials. NASA
> has no plans for that for the next 20 years or so.

I've had a conversation with a Polish semiconductor scientist who got
to work with some of the Mir grown crystals.  His opinion (in 1989) was
that they were "pretty bad."

Has anybody out there actually worked with Mir grown materials recently?
Does the microgravity environment really impart any desirable properties?
Can astronauts (or cosmonauts) grow crystals that are useful for serious
devices, given that they are generalists by training and lack the special
knowledge of industrial crystallographers?

My intuition is that the "commercial semiconductor materials" grown in
space won't be good for much for quite a while.  I'd be overjoyed if
I'm wrong on this one.

Please note that I've included sci.materials for followups.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute

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

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 05:17:24 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Well..
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.misc,rec.arts.startrek.tech

nicolas produit ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Lets get it straight and make the experiment like that:
: Someone (A) leave the earth at speed c (warp 1 relative to earth)
: and go to a planet 60 light year away from earth.
: When he is there he explode an atomic bomb.

If you can set up the experiment, I'd like to go.  But let's leave
the A-bomb (and any bad grammar which might sneak in) at home.
BTW, which planet did you say we're going to?  The isn't much of
interest at 60 ly out.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "NASA turns dreams into realities and makes science fiction
      into fact" -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator

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

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 02:05:18 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Words of Wisdom : -)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ata Etemadi) writes:
>In the article of <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>(Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>> Or you might contact AMSAT-NA who have flown 22 satellite payloads on
>> Arianne without benefit of serialized parts or production lines.
>[some lines deleted]
>> Special canisters on Shuttle. Or you might want to talk live to an Astronaut
>> or Cosmonaut who is using a commercial off the shelf handheld radio from
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Motorola or Yaesu on the Shuttle and MIR. Or just listen to Dennis.
>
>I'll just pick up the phone and call this Astronaut or Cosmonaut. Do you
>have his or her number handy :-) Next time read the posting before jumping
>to conclusions. Reading Aviation Weekly or Space News doesn't make you an
>expert. I'll spell it out for you:

Try reading yourself. I've talked to Cosmonauts aboard Mir, they use
*off the shelf* amateur radios, no fancy serialized parts or production
lines, just ordinary radios anyone can buy. They *were* passed through
system testing before launch of course.

>| I am looking to compile a list of off-the-shelf components which I    |
>| can use when building an instrument. Components and/or systems which  |
>| are already space qualified. Get it ?                                 |

What I'm telling you is that ESA and NASA and the ex-Soviet space program
fly customer *payloads* constructed from *off the shelf* parts fairly
routinely. You can use the ultra-expensive parts if you wish, but it's
*not required*. Some testing *is* required in any event. The *assembled*
collection of parts must undergo a shake test, an outgassing test, and,
if necessary, an EMC test. These tests are to protect *other* payloads
from misbehavior by your system. Use of "space qualified" parts only
serves to increase the reliability of *your* payload. The launching
agency really doesn't care whether your payload works once it's in
orbit, they get paid anyway. Only your funding agency gets tense if
your payload fails to operate correctly.


>> Safety critical systems on the *launchers* are held to strict standards,
>> but payloads are not held to these standards. Thermal/vacuum and vibration
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> table testing, shake and bake, is required of payloads to assure that the
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> payload offers no risk to the launcher or other payloads, but this is a
>> fairly inexpensive procedure available from any number of testing labs.
>> EMC testing is required for payload systems that will be *active* before
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> separation from the launcher, but screen rooms are commonly available
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> and inexpensive to rent.
>[advert for AMSAT deleted]
>
>Just use a microwave for the shake and bake right :-) The procedure is NOT
>"fairly inexpensive", if it was then everyone would have space qualified
>their systems. Unless yours is the only instrument then you would have
>to pass EMC tests. EMC = ElectroMagnetic Compatibility. Get it ? If you
>have a wave experiment onboard you don't want to just be listening to your
>neighbour's noise. When you have a budget of 10K for the instrument the
>10K required for testing is OTT.

What did I just say above? Using serialized parts does *not* relieve you of
EMC testing or vibration testing or thermal/vacuum testing of *the assembled
collection of parts*. That's a systems integration matter and can only be
brought into compliance by *system* testing of the completed package. It
is fairly simple and cheap as such things go, but you have to do it regardless
of the source of your parts for any system that will be powered up during
active flight. I'll agree that if your budget is only 10k and your payload
costs 10k without testing that you are screwed, but *that's life*.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 122
------------------------------