Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_2/v16no275.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Fri,  5 Mar 93 05:11:34
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #275
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri,  5 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 275

Today's Topics:
                   Alternative space station design
                           Aurora (rumors)
    Chemical rovers? (was Re: Beamed power transmission on Mars?)
                Delta Clipper (was Re: Fallen Angels)
                     Galileo Earth-Moon Animation
                      Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Spac
                    Hohmann orbit, etc. formulas?
                        Japan's space program
       Jupiter and Venus followons (was Re: Refueling in orbit)
                      NASP (was Re: Canadian SS
                New Explorers Videocf:Science Teachers
Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed (2 msgs)
                Saucer movie (was Re: Fire in the Sky)
            Scientists Foresee Strengthening El Nino Event
                       Solar Panels Falling Off
         unnecceary violence (was: Nobody cares about 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, 4 Mar 1993 14:06:57 GMT
From: "Dr. Norman J. LaFave" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alternative space station design
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Hugh Emberson,
[e-mail] writes:
> Why not solar arrays?  Couldn't you just wrap solar cells around all
> of your modules, or have lots of small rigid wings.  Some cells will
> be in shadow some of the time, but if you have enough of them then it
> won't be a problem.  Over-engineer!

This still doesn't solve your plume contamination problem or your cell
degradation problem.

>
> Another solution would be to have a big array (as big as Freedoms
> arrays or bigger) attached to your station by a short tether (~100m).
> The drag and the gravity gradient would probably produce a couple of
> microgees though.  You would need some way of controlling it, stopping
> it spinning and getting tangled up.  Perhaps the array could be flown
> like a kite, deflect one half of the array slightly so that its drag
> produces a torque in the opposite direction to the rotation you want
> to control.

If you're going to use a tether, why not avoid the increased reboost from
the solar array and generate electricity with the tether itself. I have
been toying with this idea too (damn I'm sorry the TSS mission didn't
work better).

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson

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

Date: 4 Mar 93 07:44:00 GMT
From: Roland Dobbins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aurora (rumors)
Newsgroups: sci.space

DA>
DA>From: [e-mail] (Dean Adams)
DA>Newsgroups: sci.space
DA>Subject: Re: Aurora (rumors)
DA>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
DA>Date: 2 Mar 93 12:33:02 GMT

JSTARS was used quite effectively in the Gulf War . . .
---
 . Orator V1.13  .  [Windows Qwk Reader Unregistered Evaluation Copy]


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

Date: 4 Mar 93 11:58:41 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Chemical rovers? (was Re: Beamed power transmission on Mars?)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

I'd like to extend Bill Higgin's excellent comments on processing
of native Martian materials for fueling automated rovers.  Native
propellant can also be used for lifting samples off Mars with small,
reusable SSTOs.  Building an SSTO for
Mars' 1/3 gravity well is much easier than building an SSTO for Earth.
The easiest material to extract is atmospheric CO2, but we should
also consider extracting water from ice deposits at an early date
to avoid hauling bulky hydrogen from earth.  It is not clear that we
can even ship liquid  hydrogen from earth to Mars without losing most
of it to ullage. Here is a specific scenario showing the power of using
native propellants:

250 robot rover/hoppers: 3 month round trip: go  up to 1,000km,
collect  20kg samples, return: consume 100kg CH4/O2 fuel
50 processing plants: each produce 5,000 kg CH4/O2 per yr,
each mass 50 kg (100/yr MOR)
5 SSTOs: each 20 sorties/yr, 200 kg/sortie, consume 2,000 kg/sortie
3 Earth-Mars upper stages: 1 sortie/3 yrs, return 20,000 kg/sortie
The system can cover up to 50*pi*(1,000)^2 = 1.57e8 km^2
Mars surface area = 1.45e8 km^2

What would this cost?  Much depends on our ability to miniaturize
the processing plants.  I suggest this kind of mission is in the
timeframe of 2000-2010, and the good news is that technology now in the
laboratory radically improving chemical reactor design could
be available for operational use by that time.  I discussed some
of these in detail in my earlier post on on chemical microreactors.
If NASA wants to regain its prestige, and lead the world in developing
Mars,  it can get in on the ground floor by funding this research
today. Microreactor's main application will be increasing efficiency and
greatly reducing the pollution of chemical facilities on earth, so
the field hast vast potential for spinoffs.

By that timeframe, we may be able to reduce the energy consumption
of the "Mars Direct" chemical processing steps by an order of
magnitude, and the propellant-making equipment mass by a factor of
five, so that  its mass output ratio per year is is >100:1 instead
of 20:1.   With sufficient miniaturization we might put the processing
plant on the rover itself, greatly reducing the up-front costs and further
increasing the capabilities of the mission.  The technology will further
improve to support astronauts and full-fledged space colonies inexpensively
in  later timeframes, but NASA and the space activist community must
change its strategy now if we are to take full advantage of the
opportunity within our lifetimes.

The following are my own cost WAGs for the c. 2010 timeframe:
15 Brilliant-Eyes/relay orbiters @$20 million = $0.3 billion
50 automated processing plants @ $40 million = $2.0 billion
250 rover/hoppers  @$10 million = $2.5 billion
5 Mars SSTOs @$200 million = $1.0 billion
3  reusable, hi-Isp upper stages  @$333 million = $1.0 billion

This is the first Mars mission concept, astronaut or automated,
that proposes to return tons -- 20 tons per year -- of samples
from anywhere on Mar's surface over a period of a decade or more.

The full-blown project might cost only $6.8 billion, compared to
$5 billion for a larger but small-area rover with only kilograms
of samples, or a small-area astronaut mission for $400 billion.

The cost/kg of sample is $34,000 in the native system, compared
to $50,000,000 in the old automated scenario and $400,000,000 in
astronaut scenario.

Furthermore, these processing capabilities lay the groundwork
for future astronaut missions that can rely primarily on native

Martian materials instead of having to haul most of their
supplies from Earth.  In any affordable astronaut mission,
not only propellant but rover fuel, food and water will be
provided  by an extensive network of automated microreactors and
greenhouses on Mars rather than being wastefully hauled all the
way from Earth.  Then the astronauts can, like Columbus, have a
thriving biosphere and ready sources of resupply waiting at the
other end, even if in this case the planet was first found lifeless
and without  industry.


--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 15:57:36 GMT
From: Keith Mancus <[e-mail]>
Subject: Delta Clipper (was Re: Fallen Angels)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Daniel Pawtowski) writes:
>>In the SF book 'Fallen Angels' by Larry Niven & others, a launch
>>vehicle named PHOENIX was described.  In the afterward, it was claimed
>>that such a launch vehicle (SSTO/VTOL) could be build for $50M-200M.
>>Anyone have information on the design of this critter?

> It is now part of SDI and is known as the McDonald Douglas Delta Clipper,
> or DC-X.

  Pardon me for nitpicking corrections, but that's "McDonnell Douglas".
This particular misspelling has always given me hives...we don't do
hamburgers. :-)

> I haven't actually heard anything about the project since last fall.  At
> that time, they were halfway through construction of the DC-Y test vehicle, a
> 1/3 scale test vehicle using engines from an existing rocket.  The DC-Y
> is not manned and does not have orbital capability.

> Constrction of the first DC-X was set for early 1994, first launch in 1997.

  Actually, DC-X is the unmanned suborbital version and DC-Y is the
manned orbital prototype.  The first commercial version would be called DC-1.

> The fuel used by the real DC-X is a little more complicated than the
> Phoenix.  That ship used straight hydrogen and oxygen.  The real one will
> use "slush hydrogen" fuel for greater energy density.

  Actually, Gary Hudson's original Phoenix proposal used slush hydrogen too.

--
 Keith Mancus    <[e-mail]>                            |
                 N5WVR                                                  |
 "Money is never *mere*.  It separates the feasible                     |
    from the infeasible."                                               |

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 21:14:38 GMT
From: Hunter Scales <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Earth-Moon Animation
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

[e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:

>                       ==============================
>                        GALILEO EARTH-MOON ANIMATION
>                             February 27, 1993
>                       ==============================

>     The Galileo Earth-Moon Conjunction animation is now available at the Ames
>Space Archives.  This animation is courtesy of Paul Geissler and Larry Kendall

>This is a time-lapse sequence taken by the Galileo spacecraft on
>December 16, 1992, eight days after its flyby of the Earth/Moon system
>en route to Jupiter. The 46 frames span 15 hours of motion by the Earth,
>Moon and spacecraft.  These images were acquired with the 0.968 micron
>filter so that both vegetated and unvegetated land masses appear bright
>in contrast to the oceans.  South is at top. Visible are the Pacific basin,
>Australia, Southeast Asia, India, and finally Arabia and the horn of Africa.
>A remarkable feature of this time-lapse sequence is the specular reflection
>or sun glint from the sea surface. Depending on the roughness of the water
>the extent of specular reflection varies rapidly, expanding over rough
>waters and contracting to a point over still oceanic pools such as near
>the west coast of Australia.

    This is one of the most amazing and moving things I have seen
    in a long time!  Could you possibly provide us with more information
    on the sequence that than given above?  For instance, what was
    the distance from the spacecraft to the earth when the sequence
    starts, what was the velocity/acceleration of the spacecraft
    during the sequence.  A diagram of the earth-moon configuraton
    would also be helpful.  I cant tell if the moon is between the
    earth and the spacecraft or on the other side.  Thanks so
    much for sharing this with us.


--
Hunter Scales                                      Motorola Semiconductor Inc.
[e-mail]                      Austin, Texas
"The opinions expressed in this posting do not necessarily reflect
those of the management"

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 14:36:58 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Spac
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roland Dobbins)  writes:
>M >
>M >                                        Robert E. McElwaine
>M >                                        B.S., Physics and Astronomy
>M >
>M >

>That's nuts . . .

Yes, it is.  So why did you include the whole thing again?

And I still wonder if Mr. McElwaine might not be subject to action for
the dishonesty of his signature, which appears to claim that he *has*
degrees in physics and astronomy.

--
"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: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 14:20:21 GMT
From: joel peter anderson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hohmann orbit, etc. formulas?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

I am looking for basic formulas for the following.

    Orbital (circular) velocities.
    Orbital (elliptical) velocities.

    I want this to do some simple calculations for
    Hohmann transfer orbits, for example, an ellipse that touches
    Earth and Mars.  Being able to calculate the  velocities along
    any point of the ellipse would be nice, but not necessary.  [and yes,
    I know about the books mentioned in the space/astro FAQ;  I just
    don't have them/don't want that much info.  I used to, 20+ years ago,
    have a great book called 'the Mathematics of Space Exploration' that
    had all kinds of basic formula like this.... <sigh>]

Email appreciated - no need to bog this group down.

    Thank you,
            Joel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The goal of Computer Science is to build something that will last at
        least until we've finished building it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
  [e-mail]        |GEnie: J.ANDERSON71
  Joel Peter Anderson            |PNET: [e-mail]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 4 Mar 93 14:52:46 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Japan's space program
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Folks, If you don't know, don't speculate.  Henry will explain eventually :-)

Why not, as long as it is *plainly marked* as speculation rather than
claims of knowledge?

--
"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: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 17:13:38 GMT
From: Eric H Seale <[e-mail]>
Subject: Jupiter and Venus followons (was Re: Refueling in orbit)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:

>The various Mariner, Pioneer and Voyager missions
>used distinctly different hardware.  Magellan was made from spare parts off
>Voyager and Galileo.  The Cassini and CRAF missions were designed to use the
>Mariner Mk II but CRAF has been canceled and there aren't likely to be any
>other missions in that class for a while, so Mariner Mk II will probably never
>see the light of day in a form resembling the original concept.

FYI on Magellan hardware "heritage":
The bird was built from spare parts from even more spacecraft than just
Voyager and Galileo.  Also Mariner (a Medium Gain Antenna), Viking, Skylab (!).

If I'm not mistaken, CRAF & Cassini "were" the Mariner Mark II (i.e.,
the MM2 design was driven by their requirements).  So, at this point,
MM2 pretty much consists of Cassini (a single-mission multi-mission
bus).  As you said, not much resembling the original concept (I've seen
some of the Cassini blue-prints -- it would be tough to adapt this beast to
most other missions).

As for Discovery, the baseline I've heard is that any Discovery mission
(minus launch costs) WILL come in at under $150 million (or else the
mission gets the axe).  Last I heard, there is one Venus Discovery
mission in the works; don't hold your breath on one to Jupiter (deep
space pretty much mandates RTG's for power, and they aren't cheep!).

Eric Seale

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 13:28:04 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASP (was Re: Canadian SS
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Mary Shafer) writes:
>
> NASP, which is a single-stage-to-orbit airbreathing horizonal-takeoff
> vehicle, is not a transport aircraft.  It's probably dead.  Physics
> has apparently finally reared its ugly head and driven a stake through
> the heart of the program.  About time....
>
And I had such high hopes.  The theoretical Isp's of air breathing
engines are so nice.

Mary, can you post a little more detail on which physics tripped the NASP?
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
[phone], FAX: [phone], [e-mail]

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

Date: 3 Mar 93 14:21:31 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: New Explorers Videocf:Science Teachers
Newsgroups: sci.bio.technology,sci.bio,sci.space

TO:  School Media Specialists, Science Teachers
FR:  PBS Elementary/Secondary Service
RE:  The New Explorers Videoconference for Educators
DT:  March 3,1993            Refer to DACS MSG #27139


THE NEW EXPLORERS VIDEOCONFERENCE FOR EDUCATORS TO AIR ON PBS

WTTW/Chicago and the PBS Elementary/Secondary Service are pleased to
announce a free national videoconference for science teachers built
around the educational resources of THE NEW EXPLORERS series.  The
live videoconference is being presented in association with the U.S.
Department of Energy, and series underwriters, Amoco Corporation,
Waste Management Inc., and Duracell International, Inc., and is
scheduled for March 25, 1993, from 4:00-5:00 PM Eastern Time preceded
by 30-minutes of test time.

THE NEW EXPLORERS, while a part of the National Program Service, is
also a major teaching resource for science teachers.  The goal of the
videoconference is to heighten awareness among educators of THE NEW
EXPLORERS primetime series and its comprehensive educational
materials, and to help educators use these tools to achieve the goal
of making America's students number one in math and science.  The
videoconference date was selected to afford stations maximum
promotional value for the kickoff of Season Three of THE NEW EXPLORERS
series, which begins March 28.

Please contact the Education Services Director at your local PBS
station to find out if it will be available in your area. To find out
the name and phone number of your Education Services Director, simply
E-mail [e-mail] or call [phone].

TITLE        :  THE UNENDING PROCESS OF DISCOVERY:
           THE NEW EXPLORERS VIDEOCONFERENCE

DATE        :  Thursday, March 25, 1993

TIME        :  Timezone    Test Time    Event Time
           Eastern    3:30-4:00 PM    4:00- 5:00 PM
           Central    2:30-3:00 PM    3:00-4:00 PM
           Pacific    12:30-1:00 PM    1:00-2:00 PM


DESCRIPTION    :  This national videoconference will focus on the
                   educational outreach components of the primetime
                   PBS series, THE NEW EXPLORERS.  The goal is to
                   heighten awareness of the series and its
                   educational resources among educators, and to show
                   how they might use it in their own schools and
                   communities to improve science education and
                   strengthen students' interest in science as a
                   career.

           Originating from the WTTW studios in Chicago, the
                   videoconference will draw on the experience of THE
                   NEW EXPLORERS educational model that was developed
                   in Chicago and has been effectively used by over
                   400 schools and by more than 60,000 students there.
                   The Chicago model was created by the U.S.
                   Department of Energy through the resources and
                   coordination of the Argonne National laboratory,
                   located outside Chicago. The videoconference will
                   also showcase the experience of Central School in
                   Somerville, N.J. -- the first school in the country
                   to scrap its science teaching methods and adopt
                   THE NEW EXPLORERS as the basis for its science
                   curriculum.

           Anchored by series host Bill Kurtis, the
                   videoconference will show educators how THE NEW
                   EXPLORERS educational initiative can be replicated
                   in communities across the country.  THE NEW
                   EXPLORERS educational components steer students
                   away from rote-memorization and a strict reliance
                   on textbooks toward a greater hands-on
                   participation through classroom activities, field
                   trips and on-site discovery.

AUDIENCE    :  While the target audience is middle, junior and
                   senior high school science teachers, WTTW and PBS
                   hope that stations will use this opportunity to
                   invite administrators, community and business
                   leaders, and media representatives to this event.
                   Downlink hosts may wish to organize a local
                   discussion among participants following the
                   videoconference.  Communities with science museums
                   or centers, science laboratories, Department of
                   Energy facilities, and other science-related
                   institutions, may wish to consider cosponsoring the
                   videoconference with these groups.  Downlink sites
                   may also broadcast the videoconference on a live or
                   tape-delay basis.

RIGHTS        :  Unlimited broadcast by public television stations;
                   unlimited off-air record rights; non-commercial
                   cable rights. VHS tapes of the videoconference may
                   be distributed by the host site as long as no
                   profit is derived from such distribution. Schools
                   and colleges with C-band downlink capabilities may
                   downlink the videoconference free of charge.

TO REGISTER    :  If you intend to downlink THE NEW EXPLORERS
                   VIDEOCONFERENCE, you must call or fax Tom Flavell
                   or Francis Thompson at [phone] (ph) or (703)
                   739-8495 (fax) to register.
END

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

Date: 4 Mar 1993 08:59 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes...
>In article <1mv3ie$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>>
>>    [Serious == among other things "the solar panels will FALL OFF"]
>>
>>    This is not a minor problem.  It's an institutional disaster.
>
>Oh this one is minor, compared to the Good One I heard.  Before they
>Killed the 20Khz power bus,  the main power supply design they had approved and
>were designed to use had a single fault failure mode that was explosive in nature.   THis is inside the Pressure vessel.  The reaction of Management to
>this problem was "so what,  no astronauts will be endangered, this thing
>will never fly anyway"
>
>pat


Welcome to the National Enquieror of Space. Geez pat you criticize me for
coming up with realistic objections to your obtuse posts that refuse to
consider reality, and then you make stupid statments like this. The
20Khz system never ever got past the concept demonstration phase. It was killed
for many good reasons, most of them concerning RFI/EMI problems. Doubt this
you do? Well  I was in the room the day the thing was started up and I am
a personal witness to this. ANY Space Electrical power system has a single
fault failure mode. It is called the battery. Many batteries have exploded in
space, the most recent of which was on the last shuttle mission, where the
primary battery on the IUS blew up. BUT even with this explosive event, the
secondary systems took the TDRSS to its proper orbit.

It is statements like the one above that helps to catagorize you in the mode
of crying wolf when none are around and calls into question your whole stand.

What would happen if no one like me who has been in the business and seen things
as a personal witness and who has the contacts that I do to rebut this uninformed
reporting? I leave this up to the reader.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 4 Mar 93 16:20:55 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>ANY Space Electrical power system has a single
>fault failure mode. It is called the battery.

Dennis, batteries are not in and of themselves able to cause single fault
failures. It depends on the system they are connected to.

>Many batteries have exploded in
>space, the most recent of which was on the last shuttle mission, where the
>primary battery on the IUS blew up. BUT even with this explosive event, the
>secondary systems took the TDRSS to its proper orbit.

Perfect example. Since the battery exploded and yet the mission was a
suscess it follows that the battery wasn't a single point failure.

A single point failure is one which will cause a system to fail if it
happens. A lot of effort goes into eliminating them in the engineering
of aerospace systems so there tend to be very few.

Before calling people stupid Dennis you should reflect on the biblical
quote about the mote in your neighbors eye.

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------103 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 4 Mar 93 03:33:09 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saucer movie (was Re: Fire in the Sky)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael Corbin) writes:
> On  March 12th, your perception of reality will be  substantially
> changed.

Usenet has warped it irreparably already.

> On  March  12th,  Paramount Pictures  and  Joe  Wizan/Todd  Black
> Productions  will present "Fire in the Sky," a true  story  based
> on the Travis Walton experience, whose abduction by a UFO is  one
> of the best-documented cases in history.
[...]
> Screenwriter Tracy Torme' [...]

Formerly story editor on *Star Trek Lite*, a TV series well known for
its scientific accuracy.

> A must see for everyone!

For all good Saucer People, anyway.  As my daddy used to say,
"Remind me to miss it."

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

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

Date: 4 Mar 93 16:00:17 GMT
From: Richard Ottolini <[e-mail]>
Subject: Scientists Foresee Strengthening El Nino Event
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.geo.meteorology

I am a little skeptical about associating El Nino with the TOPEX
altitude "anomaly".  Since this type of data has only been collected
a few months, with expection of short-lived earlier satellites,
it will take some time to establish what is "normal" for ocean
altimetry.  It will be a useful tool when we have collected data
longer.

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

Date: 4 Mar 1993 10:24 EST
From: "David B. Mckissock" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Solar Panels Falling Off
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1mv3ie$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes...
>    I was told by MacDac employees months ago that there were serious
>problems with WP2.  They indicated that their management and NASA
>management refused to accept them because they couldn't afford to
>fix them at the time.
>
>    [Serious == among other things "the solar panels will FALL OFF"]
You heard wrong.
1. MDAC is not building the solar panels, that is a WP-4 job
2. Yes, the Loads & Dynamics Working Group has calculated
   loads for certain Orbiter approach scenarios where the
   plume load on the array exceeds the array mast
   capability (so the array would break off). The scenario
   is if the Orbiter has do perform a breakout maneuver,
   because they get outside the approach corridor, then
   the calculated loads are too high. The program is
   looking at many options to solve the problem, from
   doing an Orbiter backout instead of a breakout, or
   retracting the solar array (which, with the Galelio
   antenna deployment problems & the problems with the
   deployment of the tether satellite, is low on the
   options list). Also, some folks question the
   validity of the calculated loads - the computer code
   used to calculate the plume loads is unverified.
   Finally, NASA could always install an auto-pilot
   on the Shuttle, to automate the docking procedure,
   and this whole issue would become moot.
   One last point - the calculated Orbiter plume loads
   only exceed the array mast capability on the early
   flights, where the Orbiter is berthing in relatively
   close proximity to the array. After more truss is
   added to SSF on later flights, the array's are further
   from the plumes, and the calculated load is within
   the mast capability.

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 02:27:53 GMT
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: unnecceary violence (was: Nobody cares about Fred?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Rather than trying to cover yourself, why don't you address how much direct
>unemployment would result from your fantasies?

Exactly where in NASA's charter is the part about serving as a
welfare agency for engineers and MIS managers? I must've lost
that page.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 275
------------------------------