Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_3/v16no358.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 30KB

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 93 05:14:43
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #358
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 24 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 358

Today's Topics:
                  Asteroid Laser 'Drill' Speculation
                       Cape Kennedy info needed
       Clueless Szaboisms (Was Re: plans, and absence thereof)
                            COSMIC Catalog
                                 DC-X
        Flight time comparison: Voyager vs. Gallileo (2 msgs)
              Goals for space  Was:Re: Luddites in space
looking for C++ class for calculation of satellite orbits using NORAD element sets
            Looting in Baikonur & Ukrainian Space Program
                      Magellan Update - 03/22/93
                   Mars Observer Update - 03/23/93
                               Planet X
       Play the Hat Game (was Re: Goldin's comment on Station)
                            Shuttle hatch
                 SR-71 Maiden Science Flight (3 msgs)
                      temperature of Lunar soil
    Water Simulations (Was Re: Response to various attacks on SSF)

    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: 21 Mar 93 15:29:44 GMT
From: Ralph Buttigieg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Asteroid Laser 'Drill' Speculation
Newsgroups: sci.space

Original to: [e-mail]
Hello [e-mail]!

18 Mar 01 10:42, [e-mail] wrote to All:

 hte> Note that any hardware capable of doing a manned lunar mission is also
 hte> capable of doing a short manned visit to a near-Earth asteroid (given
 hte> beefed-up life-support for a mission lasting a couple of months), and
 hte> such a mission is likely to be vastly more informative than any
 hte> reasonable amount of fooling around with long-delay teleoperation etc.
 hte> There was a proposal to do this with the Apollo 18 hardware; alas for
 hte> what might have been... -- All work is one man's work.             |

Do you know what asteriods they were thinking of visiting? I know some minor
planets require minimal delta V to get to. But I thought round trip times
for an actual rendezvous were rather long, longer then a couple of months
anyway.

ta

Ralph

--- GoldED 2.41
 * Origin: VULCAN'S WORLD - Sydney Australia [phone]  3:713/6
(3:713/635)

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

Date: 23 Mar 93 19:04:55 GMT
From: John Reece <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cape Kennedy info needed
Newsgroups: rec.travel,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim Davis) writes:
>
> How do you find out the schedule of launches from the Cape and how do you go
> about seeing them?

Well, the shuttle never leaves on schedule...

Although the tour is worth it, it is nowhere near as good as it could be.

It doesn't go inside the big assembly building or the hangar
where shuttles are reconditioned between flights.  NASA claims it's too
dangerous, though I don't see why they couldn't install enclosed
visitor's galleries a la the US mint.   The tour doesn't even
go into the launch control center.   Instead they take you to
a mockup of a control center and run a hokey simulated countdown.

> Any other ideas of what to do around there, e.g. short cruises, tours,
> must see
> things, etc.?  Any info appreciated.  We are a couple of old farts so
> our interests don't run to rock night clubs, seeing Mickey Mouse, etc.

St. Augustine is a couple hours north of Kennedy.  Oldest settlement
in the US that's still somewhat intact, though the old town is the
usual touristy pedestrian mall.


--
John Reece            "This lifeboat is full"
KD6RXL
Not an Intel spokesman

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

Date: 23 Mar 1993 12:01:27 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clueless Szaboisms (Was Re: plans, and absence thereof)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

Shari,

    trumpet calls and alike aside.  there has to be a sustainable
resource base, tied to a working economy.  If there is one thing I know
it's economics.  In the 1800's there were lots of trumpet calls
to explore the arctic areas.  Scott died, on these trumpet calls.

The British Govt spent in modern terms Billions seeking the northwest passage.
Yet, who lives and works the arctic now?  mostly some miners
and the science stations.

We have never re-couped the cost poured into those, because no attempt
was made to provide a sustainable economy for them.

Unless the space community and NASA in particular pours work into
basic living and cost reduction,  space will become the black arctic.

pat

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

Date: 23 Mar 93 20:07:09 GMT
From: "David M. Palmer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: COSMIC Catalog
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Adam R. Brody ) writes:
>> [e-mail] (Scott Stallcup) writes:
>>
>>>  Could someone please post or mail me ordering information for
>>>  NASA's COSMIC software catalog.    I need a phone number
>>>  and/or address to order a copy.
>> I can't find my catalog, but you might try Scott Clark at 404/542-3265.
>> He's the assistand director.

>You know, if the relevant parts of NASA were not so clueless, the
>COSMIC catalog would long since have been at an FTP site somewhere.

The COSMIC catalog is available via WAIS.  Ask the directory of servers.
(WAIS is a combination of FTP and a distributed database search mechanism.
WAIS clients are available by ftp from ftp.think.com.)

The COSMIC programs themselves are not FTPable, but are available
at what the government, used to dealing with defense contractors,
considers a nominal fee, and which Microsoft would consider pleasantly
exhorbitant.  (Hundreds to thousands of dollars).

--
        David M. Palmer        [e-mail]
                    [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Mar 93 15:38:04 GMT
From: Ralph Buttigieg <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

Original to: [e-mail]
Hello [e-mail]!

17 Mar 01 18:42, [e-mail] wrote to All:

 ao> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer), via Kralizec 3:713/602

 ao> I'll re-post a couple of papers I have. The first was written by me and
 ao> is the draft NSS position paper on SSTO. The second was written by
Henry
 ao> Spencer for the Freshmen Orientation project.

I have your article on my bulletin board. Any chance of posting or making
available any GIFs of the rocket?

ta

Ralph

--- GoldED 2.41
 * Origin: VULCAN'S WORLD - Sydney Australia [phone]  3:713/6
(3:713/635)

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

Date: 23 Mar 93 21:21:29 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Flight time comparison: Voyager vs. Gallileo
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>Galileo was going to use the heaviest booster combination the US
>>had -- Shuttle plus Centaur.
>
>There was one thing the planetary probes before the Shuttle era had that
>Galileo didn't have - an alternate backup launch vehicle.  In the 1960's
>and 1970's, NASA always had a backup in reserve when they were developing
>their latest rocket.  For example,
>in the early 1960's, when the Atlas-Centaur rocket developement did not
>come along as expected, the less powerful but established Atlas-Agena was
>used to launch the early Mariners to Venus and Mars...

Bad example, actually, because the early Mariner designs were much too
heavy for Atlas-Agena launch.  Mariners 1 and 2 were the result of a
frantic 11-month effort to design a newer and smaller Mariner almost
from scratch, to get something light enough for an Atlas-Agena ready
in time for the 1962 Venus launch window, after it became apparent in
summer 1961 that Centaur would not be ready.  (If you think those two
Mariners look a lot more like the Rangers than like the other Mariners,
you're right -- the new design was based on the Ranger bus, since
there was no hope of meeting the weight limits with the original
Mariner hardware, and no time to start entirely from scratch.)

Mariners 3/4/5 were likewise custom-designed for Atlas-Agena, although
there things weren't so frantic, because work on those missions hadn't
started in earnest when the Centaur problems showed up.

>Similarly, when the
>Titan-Centaur in the late 1960's ran into delays, the Atlas-Centaur were
>used instead to launch Mariner 9 to Mars, Mariner 10 to Mercury and Pioneer
>10 to Jupiter...

I'd appreciate references on this.  What I've got says that Mariner 9 was
planned as an Atlas-Centaur mission from the start (once the mission
concept settled down with the removal of the landing capsule, a change
that happened before the mission was approved or funded).  Nicks's book
makes no mention of launch-vehicle changes for any of these missions.
The first mention of Titan-Centaur I can find is the 1968 debate over
whether Viking should be an austere Titan mission or a more ambitious
Titan-Centaur mission.
--
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 23 Mar 1993 19:48 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Flight time comparison: Voyager vs. Gallileo
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes...
>Galileo was going to use the heaviest booster combination the US
>had -- Shuttle plus Centaur.

There was one thing the planetary probes before the Shuttle era had that
Galileo didn't have - an alternate backup launch vehicle.  In the 1960's
and 1970's, NASA always had a backup in reserve when they were developing
their latest rocket.  For example,
in the early 1960's, when the Atlas-Centaur rocket developement did not
come along as expected, the less powerful but established Atlas-Agena was
used to launch the early Mariners to Venus and Mars.  Similarly, when the
Titan-Centaur in the late 1960's ran into delays, the Atlas-Centaur were
used instead to launch Mariner 9 to Mars, Mariner 10 to Mercury and Pioneer
10 to Jupiter.  In these cases the intended launch vehicle was not used and
the backup launch vehicle was used instead.  Though late in developing, the
Titan-Centaur did eventually launch both the Voyagers and Vikings.  Then the
Titan-Cenatur program was discontinued when the Space Shuttle came along, and
it was mandated all future planetary launches were to be from the Shuttle.
When the Shuttle fell behind schedule, there was no backup.  All of the
planetary launches scheduled for the 1980's were delayed several years and
ended up being pushed back to the late 1980's/early 1990's.  An 11 year
drought of new launches ensued from 1978 to 1989 because of this lack
of foresight in having an established launch vehicle available as a backup.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Don't ever take a fence
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | down until you know the
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | reason it was put up.

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

Date: 23 Mar 93 17:39:48 GMT
From: Herman Rubin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Goals for space  Was:Re: Luddites in space
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:

            ......................

>Luddites, 1993: bands of astronaut and their groupies who go around
>calling automated spacecraft "toasters", "black box brownies",
>etc., who insist that the vast bulk of NASA funds should be devoted
>to their projects while Halley flyby, CRAF, etc. are cancelled and
>other planetary projects are grossly misdesigned to fit on astronaut
>carrying launchers, or are delayed.  Luddites rail against the alleged
>"failures of AI" while Japan's car makers kick our butts by installing
>robots, insist that what people "really" want is to see their beloved
>astronauts in space, and don't car how useful it is or whether they
>can afford it.  Ignoring economics at every turn, they insist on massive
>government subsidies for their bizarrely expensive, obsolete technologies
>to redress their greivances.

>Hopefully with Truly ad nauseum out of there, the worst of the
>Luddite destruction of NASA is over.

The case for robots is, as usual, highly exaggerated by Szabo.
Robots can be used for operations requiring little intelligence;
AI is highly overrated, and the so-called "intelligent" programs
just carry out a massive number of pre-programmed operations so
as to get results by brute force.

The position MIGHT be justified if all that is wanted is astronomical
or planetological information.  I do not believe in NASA either, but
my goal is to have people living and prospering in space.  No amount
of robotics is going to get us much closer to this.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 23:05:49 GMT
From: Eric & <[e-mail]>
Subject: looking for C++ class for calculation of satellite orbits using NORAD element sets
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hi,

Excuse me for the long subject line ... Does anyone know of a C++
class to calculate satellite positions from the NORAD element sets
posted regularly on this newsgroup? I need it for a GLONASS/GPS
constellation simulator. I got some fortran and pascal source from
the blackbird ftp site, but they aren't really suitable for my
purpose (read require much rewriting)... Responses through email
would be greatly appreciated.

Eric
--

--
Eric Aardoom
Delft University of Technology           Phone: [phone]
Faculty of Electrical Engineering        Fax:   [phone]
Mekelweg 4, P.O.Box 5031, 2600 GA Delft  Email: [e-mail]
The Netherlands

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 15:54:43 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looting in Baikonur & Ukrainian Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>Does anyone have more details, either about the looting at Baikonur,
>the seriousness of the "crippling" of the "launch pad", or about the
>extent of the Ukrainian space program?

The Ukrainian program can't be too extensive: The only launch complex
they have access to is Kapustin Yar. While it is quite equitorial
for a ex-Soviet site, it is currently only capable of launching
sounding rockets and very small orbital launchers like the SL-8
(1.25 tonnes to Low Earth Orbit.)

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder

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

Date: 23 Mar 1993 14:41:51 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Update - 03/22/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

 How long will Magellan funbding last, now that the conversion
has been made to the LMGT?  And once the graavity data is collected
after the aero-braking excercise,  is their any hope of
collecting further radar data,  or does it look like the
transmitters are pretty much shot.

pat

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

Date: 23 Mar 1993 19:12 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 03/23/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from the Mars Observer Project

                         MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT
                               March 23, 1993
                                11:00 AM PST

Spacecraft subsystems and the instrument payload are performing well in
Array Normal Spin and outer cruise configuration, with uplink and
downlink via the High Gain Antenna; uplink at 125 bps, downlink at the 2 K
Engineering data rate. The DSN (Deep Space Network) is providing continuous
coverage to Mars Observer in support of Gravity Wave Experiment activities.

The formal Preliminary Maneuver Assessment Meeting took place at 4:00 PM on
Monday, March 22.  The Navigation and Spacecraft Teams presented
their analyses of the results of TCM-3 (Trajectory Correction Maneuver #3)
at that session.  With evaluation of data accumulated over 4 days since the
maneuver and that seen over the previous 69 days, Navigation presented
information which showed the post-TCM trajectory to have been within 1 Sigma
of the planned aim point.  Attitude, Articulation and Control Subsystem
engineers verified that the maneuver produced the planned velocity change
and that expected 22 Newton thruster firings occurred without anomaly.

Navigation plans to perform further analysis over the next several weeks
before presenting its recommendations to Project and Mission Management
on the necessity of a fourth TCM.  The Mission Sequence Plan provides for
a fourth TCM on August 4, if it is determined to be necessary, 20 days
prior to the MOI (Mars Orbit Insertion) maneuver.

The window for uplink of the "Launch + 180 Days Star Catalog and
Ephemeris" and the USE command opens at 5:00 PM this evening and closes
at 5:00 AM on Thursday.

The Project Monthly Management Review will take place tomorrow
morning.  It will be a video conference with NASA Headquarters Mars
Observer Program Management participating.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Don't ever take a fence
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | down until you know the
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | reason it was put up.

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

Date: 23 Mar 93 20:33:19 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Planet X
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>-Unfortunately, if you use earlier data, problems do crop up.  There is
>-enough historical data of reasonable quality to raise a good possibility
>-of a perturbing force in the past.  But then why has it gone away?
>
>Could the earlier observations be made consistent with a massive object
>that passed near the solar system on a hyperbolic trajectory and then left?

Could be.  Most of the Planet X enthusiasts have been adopting highly
inclined and/or eccentric elliptical orbits to take X well out of the
solar system before the start of modern observations.
--
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 23 Mar 93 20:33:31 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Play the Hat Game (was Re: Goldin's comment on Station)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
|
|Goldin's speech suggests a whole new parlor game: Trying to imagine what
|these hats look like.
|
|HAT                       WHAT'S ON IT
|==========                ============
|Langley hat               Propeller
|Reston hat                More hats (layers of management)
|JPL hat                   Normal hat, but there's no human under it
|Tyuratam hat              Sorry, we sold it to Japanese for hard currency
|SSTO hat                  10 x cheaper and you can wear it over and over again
|
|Come on, join the fun!

Baikonur Hat            Missing a panel.
Headquarters Hat        Looks Good, but doesn't keep you dry
                or warm.

GSFC Hat.            Hat, with Operators Head Set attached.
Lewis Hat            Hat with 20 Khz Buzzing sound :-)
Woomera Hat            Australian Bush Hat.
Dryden Hat            Dusty Old Flight Helmet concealing
                state of art, impact reduction system.

GD hat                Expensive hat, unless you want a competitors
                hat, in which case the price is 20% less.

KSC Hat.            Okay, it's not as good as the
                Old hat, but we did wear it once
                on the moon.


pat

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 16:02:35 GMT
From: Keith Mancus <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle hatch
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
|> A few months ago, somebody posted that the Shuttle hatch can't support
|> its own weight in one gravity. Not so - after the aborted launch, the
|> technicians who opened the hatch just swung it open, with no support
|> cable.

  The original poster probably confused the hatch with the cargo bay doors.

--
| Keith Mancus    <[e-mail]>                           |
|                 N5WVR                                                 |
| "Black powder and alcohol, when your states and cities fall,          |
|  when your back's against the wall...." -Leslie Fish                  |

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

Date: 23 Mar 93 18:35:34 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: SR-71 Maiden Science Flight
Newsgroups: sci.space

On Mon, 22 Mar 93 01:04:39 GMT, [e-mail] (Bob Combs) said:

Bob> The press release that I read presented the SR-71 flights as a
Bob> cost effecient means for collecting data.  In 1984 when I worked
Bob> on the SR-71 at Beale Air Force Base, an SR-71 flight cost
Bob> $1,000,000 -- each.

Dryden only gets about 100 million a year total--and we fly a lot of
airplanes, not just the SR-71s.  I know we're vastly cheaper than the
Air Force.

I suspect that the F-18 HARV program is more expensive than the SR-71
program.  It has a lot of research engineering support and uses a lot
more of the Facility's resources.

Bob> This was due to the high support costs.  You had to have 2-6
Bob> KC-135Q model tankers in the air 2 hours before take-off, because
Bob> the SR takes off with only 1/3 fuel, due to structural
Bob> limitations.  That cost of the tankers is enormous.

We use one tanker, an AFFTC's KC-135.  It spends most of its days
being the morning and afternoon tanker; it's not a dedicated airplane.
They bring the JP-7 in by truck the day before the flight and fill up
the tanker shortly before launch.  We do pay AFFTC for this service
but we already own the fuel.

Bob> The other major overhead that comes to mind was the 48 hour
Bob> preflight, with about 50 technicians involved.  BTW, this 48 hour
Bob> preflight was what killed the airframes role as an interceptor.

The whole crew is about 10 people.  Remember that we don't have to
do anything with any surveillance/recce systems--we don't have them.
Also, our ground crew is highly trained and is, in many cases, more
versatile than Air Force personnel.  This is partly out of necessity
and partly because they've been doing this job for decades, in many
cases.   Also, we only have three aircraft and only have one flying
at a time.

Bob> What has NASA done to reduce these costs, if any?

Radically reduced the staffing.  Remember that the Air Force had
thousands of support people--entire wings.  We've got two test pilots,
who fly a lot of other aircraft; two FTEs, who have other jobs that
take most of their time; about a 10-man ground crew; a couple of life
support techs, also supporting other aircraft; one project manager
who has a documentation clerk for help.  I don't believe that we have
added more than a couple of personnel for the SR-71s.  We can't have;
we have a complement ceiling that hasn't been increased in years.

We also don't have to support an entire Air Force Base, with its
attendent overhead--we just added three aircraft to our inventory and
found them places in existing hangars.

Remember that Dryden is unexcelled in maintaining, supporting, and
flying one-off aircraft in research roles; we've been doing it since
the late 40's and we're very good at it.
--
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: 23 Mar 93 18:40:14 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: SR-71 Maiden Science Flight
Newsgroups: sci.space

On Mon, 22 Mar 93 19:04:14 GMT, [e-mail] (Bob Combs) said:

>cess.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>
>>Has anyone considered which is more fun to ride along on while
>>running science gear?  I'd rather hop in the back seat of the 71
>>and run the science gear, as opposed to dangling in a balloon.
>
>Pat, it seems incredibly unlikely that the participating scientists would ride
>in either one. They are superfluous and very difficult to accommodate on either
>vehicle.
>

Bob> So are Congressmen, and other high level beauracrats.  When I was
Bob> stationed at Beale Air Force Base working on the SR-71 as an
Bob> electrician, There was a list of congressmen and other
Bob> beauracrats that took a ride in the SR-71.  AT $1,000,000 a
Bob> shot!!! The list had about 30 people on it.

Then was then, now is now.  Control your resentment.  We've even put
off the Administrator of NASA.

Bob> Besides, the Rear Seat Occupant (RSO) has the responsibility for
Bob> operating the instruments.  I'm sure the scientists are riding.
Bob> It wont be an empty seat!  They'll need a lot of training, but if
Bob> NASA is like the air force, they will have their scientists up
Bob> there!.

The scientists are NOT flying--I've looked at the scheduling board.
Only Bob and Marta, the two FTEs, have been in the backseat for these
flights.

Remember that there's only one instrument and its operation is pretty
simple.  The instrument is remotely operated from the cockpit--FTEs
can be taught the switchology quite readily.  This isn't like the
airborne observatories that they fly at Ames-Moffett, where the
researchers actually dink around with the telescopes.
--
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: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 17:55:14 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: SR-71 Maiden Science Flight
Newsgroups: sci.space

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


>[e-mail] (Bob Combs) writes:
> >I'm sure the scientists are riding.  It wont be an empty seat!

>Certainly NOT an empty seat, but the scientists involved
>are Flight Test Engineers, not astronomers.

> >They'll need a lot of training, but if NASA is like the air
> >force, they will have their scientists up there!.

>NASA has trained two FTEs for flying those back seats.

It is probably a lot cheaper to train the FTE to run whatever that
day's experimental package is than trying to do flight physicals and
training for every person with an experimental package who wants it
flown.

--
"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: Tue, 23 Mar 93 15:30:08 GMT
From: Russ Brown <[e-mail]>
Subject: temperature of Lunar soil
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
>
>    In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>    >Remember Henry's assertion that the temperature is a constant 255 K
>    >underground?  That nice steady thermal environment is mighty
>    >attractive.
>
>    Note that that's at a depth of 1m.  Our measurements go down only 2-3m
>    (and go down that far at only one site -- it took until Apollo 16 to
>    sort out the problems of drilling holes in the regolith, and then John
>    Young had to trip over the damn cable, so our only deep data is from
>    Apollo 17...), but it looks like the temperature rises at something
>    like 1.3K/m.  You might not have to bury the thing all that deeply
>    to get above 0C.
>
>That's 1300K/km, right?  Selenothermal power!
>
Think of the surface temperature (varying from about 102K to 384K during
the lunar day) as a very small tail on a rather large dog.  The large
variations in the position of the "tip of the tail" (the lunar surface)
will cause very small variations at the body (approx. 1.5-2 metres below
the surface).

Since the measurements were only made in the top few metres of the
regolith, and those, of necessity, were all made during transients, the
1.3K/m extrapolation is probably of little value.

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

Date: 23 Mar 93 20:38:42 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Water Simulations (Was Re: Response to various attacks on SSF)
Newsgroups: sci.space

I saw some old Air FOrce/ NASA footage on the old skin suits.
The fabric looked real hokey,  and the NASA PM for suit technology
claimed it could only achieve 1.5 psi, and they needed 5,
so it was a triple suit.

Now with new spandex,  could a single layer produce between
3-5 lbs counterpressure?

Of COurse, NASA won't investigate this, because it's not made
in 47 congressional districts.

pat

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 358
------------------------------