Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_2/v16no202.txt

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 05:00:02
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #202
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 20 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 202

Today's Topics:
              Cassini Saturn Mission Fact Sheet - Errata
                        Field of View for HST.
               NF-104 (was Re: kerosene/peroxide SSTO)
                  Nobody cares about Fred? (3 msgs)
                      PEGASUS QUESTION (3 msgs)
                          Sabatier Reactors.
                             SPACE DAILY
                  SSTO/DC-X in the Media.. (3 msgs)
               Titan or Bust! (Saturn Moon)... (2 msgs)
                             VR, Mars Pix
        Wouldn't an earth to moon shuttle be better than fred?

    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: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 16:04:06 GMT
From: Larry Klaes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cassini Saturn Mission Fact Sheet - Errata
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.misc,alt.sci.planetary

        A correction for the Cassini Fact Sheet regarding the size of
     Saturn's natural satellites:

     >                FACT SHEET: THE CASSINI MISSION
     >                       February 15, 1993

     > Mysterious Moons

     > Saturn has the most extensive system of moons of any planet
     > in the solar system -- ranging in diameter from about 20
     > kilometers (12 miles) to 2,575 kilometers (1,600 miles), larger
     > than the planet Mercury.  Most are icy worlds heavily studded
     > with craters caused by impacts very long ago.

        Titan is the largest of Saturn's 18 known moons and the second
     largest known moon in the solar system, next to Jupiter's Galilean
     satellite Ganymede (5,262 kilometers in diameter), with a diameter
     of 5,150 kilometers.  Both are larger than the terrestrial planet
     Mercury, with a diameter of only 4,878 kilometers.  Earth's moon,
     Luna, is even larger than the largest Saturnian moon size written
     in the Fact Sheet at 3,476 kilometers.

        The next largest moon of Saturn is Rhea at 1,530 kilometers.

        Larry Klaes  [e-mail]
             or - ...!decwrl!verga.enet.dec.com!klaes
                 or - [e-mail]
                     or - [e-mail]

             "All the Universe, or nothing!" - H. G. Wells

        EJASA Editor, Astronomical Society of the Atlantic

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 15:31:47 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Field of View for HST.
Newsgroups: sci.space

Here is a Field of View diagram for the Hubble Space Telescope.  This is
not an exact scale but it is close.  This diagram shows the size and location
of each instruments projection on the focal plane of the telescope.

                                  _________
                             -----         -----
                        -----                   -----
                   -----            FGS2             -----
              -----                                       -----
             \                 ____-------____                 /
               \           ____               ____           /
         |\      \      ___                       ___      /       /|
        |   \      \____                             ____/       /   |
       |      \                             /--\               /      |
      |         \                          |    |            /         |
     |          |                           \--/             |          |
    |          |                                   /--\       |          |
   |          |                                   |    |       |          |
   |         |                                     \--/         |         |
   |        |              .                 /-\        /--\     |        |
  |         |            o                   \-/       |    |    |         |
  |        |                HRS                  HSP    \--/      |        |
 |         |                                                      |         |
 |        |                         ------                         |        |
 |        |                       |   |   |                        |        |
|  FGS3  |                        |--- ---|                         | FGS1   |
 |        |                       |   |   |                        |        |
 |        |                        -------                         |        |
 |         |             O          WFPC                          |         |
  |        |                                       --             |        |
  |         |         FOS  O                      |  |           |         |
   |        |                                      --            |        |
   |         |                               ---                |         |
   |          |                             |   |              |          |
    |          |                             ---   FOC        |          |
     |          |                                            |          |
      |         /                                            \         |
       |      /                                                \      |
        |   /                                                    \   |
         |/                        <~60">                          \|

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 19:04:06 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: NF-104 (was Re: kerosene/peroxide SSTO)
Newsgroups: sci.space

On Thu, 18 Feb 1993 00:22:24 GMT, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) said:

HS> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
>> NF-104 rocket-boosted aircraft flown by NASA and the USAF...
>BG> Isn't that the one Chuck Yeager almost killed himself in? ...
>
>That's the one immortalized in "The Right Stuff".
>Supposedly, that incident (Chuck taking off because he felt like it)
>is the reason that Edwards AFB uses the system of ops numbers and
>CONFORM...

HS> Actually, the subject came up when Mitch Burnside Clapp was talking about
HS> NF-104 peroxide experience at Making Orbit 93, and Mitch said (as best
HS> I recall) that the movie had exaggerated the unauthorized nature of
HS> Yeager's flight.  (I don't know details myself, but given how many other
HS> things the movie exaggerated, I can well believe it...)

Exaggerated, yes, but still true.  I suspect that it was just a last
straw in leading to the CONFORM system.  I can tell you a number of
stories about both real and attempted fighter theft at other bases, so
maybe it's not too bad a system.

>There's some confusion here--NASA didn't fly the NF-104 rocket-boosted
>aircraft...

HS> Wups, my fault.  I knew that, too -- don't know why I mentioned NASA
HS> in the original posting.

Probably because we've flown just about every other F-104 variant.

HS> My understanding is that there were never any serious problems with the
HS> peroxide hardware, and the aircraft systems gave no more trouble than
HS> usual.  However, the F-104 was a notoriously unforgiving aircraft, and
HS> flying a ballistic trajectory using rocket boost wouldn't be exactly an
HS> easy mission even in a better-behaved aircraft.  It worked fairly well
HS> but called for good pilots who never let their guard down even briefly.

Our test pilots have always said that the advantage of using the
F-104s for chase and pilot proficiency meant that they usually had an
easier job flying the test aircraft, since the F-104s were so
demanding.  When the director of our Operations Division retires,
someone is certain to recount the story of his spinning his F-104
while chasing a lifting body flight.  He's the only chase pilot to
ever be at both the launch and the landing of the lifting body.  (He's
a former Navy pilot who flew U-2s with Frank Powers for a while before
coming to FRCCC, so he wasn't exactly an amateur in touchy aircraft,
either.)
--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

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

Date: 18 Feb 93 15:57:36 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>You will recall that it was the tortise that won the race.

>Yeah, but I also recall that it was a fairy tale. Apollo beat
>the Soviets to the Moon as the hare playing catch up.

The Moon...? Oh yes, that's that place we sent a few people to 20
years ago. Meanwhile the tortise is learning far more than we know
about living and working in space. The Hare thinks refueling monopropellent
is too dangerous; the tortise does it all the time. The Hare minimized the
EVA done because its too dangerous; the tortise now does it as a matter
of routine. The Hare has no plans for industrial material production
in space; the tortise has been doing it experimentally for a few years
now. The Tortise has had a working space station for several years; the
Hare has invested billions and years of time on bits of paper.

It may be a fairy tale but it looks to me like it is the Hare
playing catch up.

>There's no denying that. However that's been politically
>impossible here.

Then quit defending the status quo and change the politics.

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------117 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 18 Feb 93 18:49:32 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Where do you get your information Allen that the original truss could not be
>built in orbit?

In 1989 after Congress mandated the redesign it became common knowledge. If
you want a more recent source, a SSF engineer recently posted in sci.space
that the truss wouldn't work. You recall he said he still can remember
the day their chief enginner was told it wouldn't work.

In addition, I and others where leaked some internal NASA documents
showing that not only the truss but other parts as well coldn't be
built.

>You seem to spend a lot of time pushing the "fact" with not
>engineering basis for it.

As I said in the past, some of this comes from engineers who want to
see an effective space station built but are distressed at NASA's
attitude. Since these people are placing their jobs in jepordy by
talking to me, I won't reveal names.

Are you saying I am lying about this?

>I seem to remember a shuttle mission where a 90
>foot section of the truss was built.

I remember a mission a LONG time ago where a small section of truss
was assembled. It wasn't 90 feet long and didn't include all the
connections for power, cooling, data, and whatever.

The bottom line remains that it now looks like a problem area which
NASA should have dealt with a decade ago.

>There seems to be a lot of talk about the Truss with little understanding
>about what I buys.

I know very well what it buys. The question (like for the rest of Fred) is
if what we are buying is 1) worth the cost and 2) being bought for the
lowest price. The answer for Fred seems to be 'no' to both questions.

This doesn't mean we don't need a station, it simply means that fred
isn't it.

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------117 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 18 Feb 93 18:22:21 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kieran A. Carroll) writes:
>
>>and the vehicle flew. Many of the organizations involved in SSF were also
>>involved in Saturn and Apollo; why should their SSF designs be any worse than
>>those of earlier projects?
>
>That is easially proven. The fact that they proposed designs which
>couldn't have been built and it costed them billions to find out it
>wouldn't work shows that their SSF design is worse than previous
>projects.


actually the biggest paradox here is McDac.  AS Prime contractor on DC-X,Y.
THey seem to be doing a hell of a job on building a cheap,sturdy, reliable
LEO transfer vehicle. Oh, I forgot to mention flexible.

AS a major sub to Freedom, they are participating in a technological
boondoggle.  The project is grossly over budget,  fundamental flaws
have not been noticed until late, forcing re-designs and no-one
knows if it will even work.  I consider Mir to have worked in the past
but reports of the massive maintenance needs now make it  marginally
useful at this point.

McDac  has a great past.  THey built the DC-3, DC-8,9,10 (ACK,spit)
the Mercury and Gemini Vehicles.  I believe one of the saturn stages(Henry?)
and now the DC-X.
THe difference between SSF and DC-X is that the NASA management is not involved.

SDIO wants DC-X to fly, and they have given McDac pretty much free reign.
There are one or two people at SDIO running the program and most of
the McDac people bending metal or drawing plans.

In fact the contractors have not been happy witht he behavior of
NASA on SSF.  COme on the damn thing doesn't even use metric.

pat

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 12:22:05 -0500
From: Lawrence Curcio <[e-mail]>
Subject: PEGASUS QUESTION
Newsgroups: sci.space

Not to beat this to death, but regarding the marginal velocity supplied
by the B52:

First, it was my impression that this was more than a couple of hundred
kph. Also, the altitude-for-velocity function is remarkably convex, once
one gets out of dense atmosphere. That is, there are increasing altitude
returns to marginal velocity, as velocity increases. Therefore, 600-1000
kph more or less could make a difference in capability, IMHO.

Regards From Earth,
-Larry C.


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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 15:29:38 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: PEGASUS QUESTION
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>Perhaps more significant for airlaunch than the rather small velocity
>gain is the lower atmospheric pressure.

There are also opperational advantages of air launching. In theory,
Pegasus could launch from any B-52 capable airfield (after you fly
in the technicians and some equipment...). That means equatorial launches
are fairly easy.

                                                        Frank Crary
                                                        CU Boulder

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

Date: 18 Feb 93 18:24:48 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: PEGASUS QUESTION
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>There are also opperational advantages of air launching. In theory,
>Pegasus could launch from any B-52 capable airfield (after you fly
>in the technicians and some equipment...). That means equatorial launches
>are fairly easy.

In fact, OSC quotes performance specs for a launch off Kourou.  At the
moment, you can't launch Pegasus just anywhere, because you need a
missile range to supply tracking and range safety.  OSC has proposed
an on-board range-safety system, substituting a second independent
guidance system aboard the Pegasus for the range tracking, that might
eventually eliminate this constraint.

I do get a definite impression that one reason OSC opted for air launch
was to avoid the bureaucracy involved in building launch facilities at
a place like the Cape or Vandenberg.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 18 Feb 93 08:28:07 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sabatier Reactors.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
|>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
|
|>|In fact, you could
|>|*probably* fuel an empty Centaur from residual propellants in the shuttle's
|>|own external tank, and dispense with the fuel dump.  [...]
|
|>If people are going to defend the shuttle as this marvelous
|>workshop,  then i suggest we see it do some real workshop
|>type activities.  Refueling satellites is a very reasonable
|>mission,  and it seems beyond the shuttles capacity.
|
|Read what he wrote.  It's not that the Shuttle is incapable of doing it, it's
|that NASA doesn't want to try it.  Two different things entirely.
|
|(Do note, however, that "modest unknowns" is Spencer-speak for "we're
|clueless"; it's not just a matter of hooking up a pump and pumping away.
|We should learn to do it, though...we have to sooner or later.)
|--
|Matthew DeLuca

I agree. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be tried,
but NASA is constitutionally unable to do such basic experiments.

All those people who glorify NASA should push to see Shuttle
used for such basic technology research studies.


pat

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

Date: 18 Feb 93 05:13:15 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPACE DAILY
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON) writes:
> I am aware of a publication entitled Space Daily which is published daily (as
> the name says) and I was wondering if this thing is available in the NET.

No.  It costs money (like hundreds of dollars per year).  I think the
publishers can arrange for it to be delivered by fax.

I don't have contact information for them, but you might look for them
in aerospace publication ads or trade shows.

--
     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: 18 Feb 93 16:58:58 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO/DC-X in the Media..
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>... so far I have not seen anything on the NEWS about SSTO, DC-X or DC-Y
>or DC-1. Did I miss something or was I looking for the wrong thing??
>
>Or is DC-X a super secret thing that no body knows about??

It's not secret in a formal sense, but the project is emphasizing technical
results rather than preparation of press releases.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 18 Feb 1993 17:18:08 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO/DC-X in the Media..
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
wrote:
>
> Question, so far I have not seen anything on the NEWS about SSTO, DC-X or DC-Y
> or DC-1. Did I miss something or was I looking for the wrong thing??
>
> Or is DC-X a super secret thing that no body knows about??
>
DC-X stands for Delta Clipper-X...SSTO---Single Stage To Orbit.....
It's an SDI funded reusable launch system under development here at MDA in
Huntington Beach....I know other companies are working it too, but I don't
recall who since I work on SSF...(well I do for the moment anyway!)...
I got some PR artwork and a photo of the current version.... It is a one
third scale working model which Pete Conrad himself will pilot remotely
some time later this year....
Supposedly it goes to orbit then comes back down to land vertically...... a
REAL shuttle killer!!!

I'll see about scanning the pictures in for upload to sumex.....

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

Date: 18 Feb 93 18:38:47 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO/DC-X in the Media..
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Question, so far I have not seen anything on the NEWS about SSTO, DC-X or DC-Y
>or DC-1. Did I miss something or was I looking for the wrong thing??

Many of us are working hard to get publicity. Recently yours truly was
interviewed for a piece in a London newspaper for example.

The real problem has been SDIO which is very reluctant to publicise the
effort. This makes it hard to to much of what should be done.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------117 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 14:41:48 GMT
From: Ed McCreary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Titan or Bust! (Saturn Moon)...
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>>>> On 18 Feb 1993 14:25:56 GMT, [e-mail] (James Michael Sambrook) said:
>Is there a planned mission to Titan in the near future??

JMS>I would tend to doubt it.  It WOULD be nice to find out what's going on out
JMS> there, but I don't think anything's planned for a LONG time.

Look at the recent posting on Cassini.  It's a mission to Saturn similar
in scope to Galileo with a Titan atmosphere probe.  Best of all, I believe
they plan to return images from Titan!
--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
[e-mail]                           _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)

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

Date: 18 Feb 1993 16:13 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Titan or Bust! (Saturn Moon)...
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>Is there a planned mission to Titan in the near future??

The Cassini mission will be launched in 1997 and arrive at Saturn in 2004.
A probe will be dropped off at Titan and parachute down to the surface
of the moon.  The probe carries instruments to measure the atmosphere as
well as a camera.  The Cassini orbiter will make about 30 close flybys of Titan
while in orbit around Saturn.  The spacecraft carries a radar mapper to
see through the dense atmosphere of Titan on each flyby.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | If you don't stand for
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | something, you'll fall
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | for anything.

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

Date: 18 Feb 93 14:45:04 GMT
From: Ed McCreary <[e-mail]>
Subject: VR, Mars Pix
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>>>> On 18 Feb 93 11:43:47 GMT, [e-mail] ("F.Baube x554") said:
> Ed McCreary <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Pictures of Mars wanted
> 35A72 and 70A13 can be found at:
>     cs.ubc.ca under pub/local/image/mars
>     phoenix.oulu.fi under pub/ufo_and_space_pics

flb> Is this the reference for the "Face" ?

Yep, they are the only two images taken of the area.  They are
1204/x1056 pixels in size.
--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
[e-mail]                           _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 18:50:58 GMT
From: Robert Ivan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wouldn't an earth to moon shuttle be better than fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert Ivan) writes:
|>   I've been thinking about this space station buissness lately and although
|> i am a fan, i wonder if its a waste of time.  Sure eventually a Space station
|> would be nice but is it needed now ?
|>
|>   It seems to me that having a earth to moon shuttle would be a far more
|> suitable use of resources. Something that could take a few people and cargo
|> out to the moon and back to earth orbit.  Okay, I know that somebody will
|> argue that a space station is needed in between. But maybee later.  At
|> this point a earth shutle to moon shuttle rendevous would work just as well.
|> I think that this kind of project is more likely to fire the imagination
|> and support of americans ( i'm a canadian so dont bug me ).  This kind of
|> project would be a more visible form of exploration.
|>
|>
|>   Somebody's going to argue that this requires tons of support equipment.
|> Well forget about a moon base at this point. Just build the dam truck.  If at
|> a later point a moon base is required it will come.  And then if there is the
|> traffic then maybe an earth space station.
|>
|>   A vehicule to do this would probably be large. It could be launched by
|> energia. And the fuel too.  Forget building it in peices and assembling in
|> space.  The space shullte bay is just to rinky-dink .
|>
|>   Although I understand that any vehicule of this sort would be highly expnsive,
|> the engineering knowledge to build it must be there already.  Its really
|> just a big lunar lander with reusable engines.  Its not like you have
|> glide throuh an atmospere.   How hard can it be?
|>
|>
|>   It seems to me that this space station thing is a waste.  I think
|> that some REAL exploration would find much more support.
|>
|> rob
|>
|>
|> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|>  My little thougths alone
|>
|>
|>
|>
|>

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 202
------------------------------