Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_4/v16no449.txt

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 93 05:00:01
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #449
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 11 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 449

Today's Topics:
             Alaska Pipeline and Space Station! (2 msgs)
                        Biosphere II (2 msgs)
            Budget Astronaut (was: Idle Question) (2 msgs)
         Japanese Spacecraft Will Impact on the Moon (2 msgs)
   Mir 2's planned orbit [was Re: Degrees vs. experience] (2 msgs)
                             NASA "Wraps"
                                 NASP
          New aircraft TU-154M for leasing, set spare parts.
                  Question- Why is SSTO Single Stage
                     SN 1993J and Gravity Waves?
                          space food sticks
                  Venus Lander for Venus Conditions.
             What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?
                 Will the launch be visible from NJ?

    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: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 16:59:52 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alaska Pipeline and Space Station!
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Ralph Buttigieg) writes:
...
>with the principle of handing the Station to commercial concerns, and in
>fact should be able to deliver a better, cheaper alternative. What is
>stopping it happening is the reluclance of the various institutions.

>This is similar to the trouble the DC-X had. The basic concept has been
>around for years. However it took constant prodding over many years and a
>new institution - SDIO to achieve.

>Perhaps this is were Space supporters should turn their efforts to now. The
>slow, arduous task of changing these institutions.

>Example - Instead of NASA ESA & NASDA International Space Station we have an
>organisation modelled on the successful Intelsat, lets call it Space
...

I'm not sure if your idea is correct, but it is a nice idea anyway.

However, the problem with trying to do institutional reform is
that

1) The people in those institutions still have a great amount of
pull with the great uninformed public than you and I; the public simply
keeps supporting them until it gets so disgusted it doesn't want to
try to reform those institutions, but instead simply destroy them.

2) If you suggest anything of the sort, you get attacked by the
bureaucracy lovers who while about how the problems with
Scuttle was that they didn't get 20 billion to start with instead
of the 15 development eventually cost, and about how you're
an illiterate anti-technology communist who doesn't love the
Authority of the Government collective enough and therefore should
be sent to the work camps in Siberia. (Never mind that the
money spent on Shuttle each year is prob > 2* DC-Y development costs,
_AND_ _ that we're now finding out that Scuttle costs even more
than the most dedicated naysayer was saying (they're apparently
charging a lot of operational overhead to SSF)).

--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
[e-mail]|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man

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

Date: 10 Apr 1993 15:15:05 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alaska Pipeline and Space Station!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ralph Buttigieg) writes:
|Example - Instead of NASA ESA & NASDA International Space Station we have an
|organisation modelled on the successful Intelsat, lets call it Space
|Stations International. They raise funds from national shareholders and

Given the current Space monopolies are INTELSAT, INMARSAT ( the international
maritime satellitte organization)   I suggest the Name should follow the pattern
How about the International Space Station Organization or tada,  INTELSPAT.

They'd have to be a monopoly,  but  the national governments would hold the
shares,  and Rene Anselmo could launch broadsides at them in all
media except the Washington Post.

pat

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

Date: 10 Apr 1993 09:37:03 GMT
From: Isaac Kuo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Biosphere II
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1q5v7p$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>I don't think that Biosphere II is bad science, and here's why.
>
>Science is to some extent about developing accurate models of the real world.
>[stuff about how mainstream science deals with small models]
>Bio II said "No, wait, let's take the big picture and see how accurate
>our big picture models are..." and went out and did it.  No, it's not
>studying the little cycles as well as the smaller experiments can;
>it _can't_, it's got too many variables.  That's not the point,
>never was, and really doesn't have to be.  Bio II is pointing out

Studying large scale eco-systems are done today by--studying large eco-systems
in nature!  In the real world, there is nothing like a closed system, and Bio-
sphere II is not a closed system either.  The closest we get is by studying
various sized patches of forest left after logging companies have cut around
them.  (This has been done with old growth forests with the cooperation with
logging companies).  This way, we can study real world eco systems that
actually exist, rather than sticking a bunch of ill-equipped people in a
totally artificial environment.  (By ill-equipped, I mean little things like
band-aids and anti-biotic were forgotten.)
>
>Thinking it's bad science is narrow-minded.  It's not incredibly good

What about thinking "Creation Science" or "Scientology" is bad science?  If
you leave your mind open enough, people will throw garbage into it.  Bio-
sphere II is more of a media event than an experiment.

>science either; it's got some holes in it, and a whole lot of variables
>that they really should have kept better track of.  However, it's providing

Like what variables ARE they keeping track of?

>_the_ comparative model for complex close ecosystems analysis.

Who considers Biosphere to be _the_ comparative model?  Any scientists?

>Nobody's done it before, so people tried to put them together from
>the smaller cycle models and found that it doesn't just work that way.
>Eventually, when we know everything, we'll be able to do that.
>But until we do, stepping back and getting a good overall look
>at the situation is not bad science.

Agreed.  But Biosphere is not a look even a remotely good overall look.
Its purpose was to determine the feasability of people living in an enclosed
environment, not to study a closed environment.  It has totally failed to
do this, as at least one participant had to leave because of a cut, and
they've reportedly orderred out for pizza.  Of course, none of this information
will likely ever be released, since the backers of Biosphere are not
scientists.
--
*Isaac Kuo ([e-mail])                   *       _______
*"How lucky you English are to find the toilet so amusing.* _____(___o___)_____
* For us, it is a mundane and functional item.  For you,  *(==(_____________)==)
* the basis of an entire culture!" Manfred von Richtofen  * \==\/         \/==/

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

Date: 10 Apr 1993 15:37:02 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Biosphere II
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1q64fv$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Isaac Kuo) writes:
>What about thinking "Creation Science" or "Scientology" is bad science?  If
>you leave your mind open enough, people will throw garbage into it.  Bio-
>sphere II is more of a media event than an experiment.

How far away from a Media Event is HRMS/SETI?

>
>>_the_ comparative model for complex close ecosystems analysis.
>
>Who considers Biosphere to be _the_ comparative model?  Any scientists?

Here we go again, the high priests of Science  taking  issue with the
heretics.  Have you ever heard of Empirical Data Collection?

>
>>Nobody's done it before, so people tried to put them together from
>>the smaller cycle models and found that it doesn't just work that way.
>>Eventually, when we know everything, we'll be able to do that.
>>But until we do, stepping back and getting a good overall look
>>at the situation is not bad science.
>
>Agreed.  But Biosphere is not a look even a remotely good overall look.
>Its purpose was to determine the feasability of people living in an enclosed
>environment, not to study a closed environment.  It has totally failed to
>do this, as at least one participant had to leave because of a cut, and
>they've reportedly orderred out for pizza.  Of course, none of this information
>will likely ever be released, since the backers of Biosphere are not
>scientists.


Back to the drawing boards is a famous line from engineering, especially
aerospace.

Bad logistics planning is a mark of immaturity in the project.

Ordering out for pizza to keep the crew from going ballistic is a vital
psychological functionate.

Putting in some extra O2  or adding a CO2 scrubber indicates they know
less about closed cycle biology then they had hoped.

Does any of these criticisms prevent  the next run from being more
effective.  What if they after they extract the bio-nauts,
add another  greenhouse,  just full of algae,  increase the stocks
of medical gear  and put in some  better rewards for the crew.
Like  some extra spice stores.

Would it make you happier.   It's not perfect,  but the more
I study science projects,  the more I see  "REAL SCIENTISTS"
fudging data,  or applying anamolous smoothing  curves.

"REAL SCIENCE"  is not as pure and pristine  as you would make out.
So considering this is  a privately funded venture,  I would
hardly classify it with  Lysenkoism  or CREATION SCIENCE.

Much as it may make some people feel  happy to cast mud at
something they aren't doing,  it is serving as a game plan for at
least one project.  And the fact they aren't releasing data is not
relevant, until they attempt to publish.

The Work is privately funded,  the DATA belongs to SBV.  I don't see
either george or Fred,  scoriating IBM research division for
not releasing data.  AT&T routinely keeps things as proprietary
trade secrets.  If they can make the thing go,  then it's an
engineering project.  Right now, it's underperforming.  And
i'd say it's performing a whole lot better then certain nameless
NASA projects.

pat

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

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 15:46:15 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Budget Astronaut (was: Idle Question)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>The ultimate version of this eliminates the heatshield.  Really, it can
>be done, at least on paper -- you use a specially-designed parachute to
>increase the surface area for deceleration, and wear a heat-resistant
>space suit (some of the NASA suit designs have actually been very good
>thermal insulation, good up to remarkably high temperatures).

They are good to very high temperatures, but not pressures: Above
1mbar they rapidly stop insulating, and by 10mbar they are almost
worthless.

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder

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

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 18:59:06 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Budget Astronaut (was: Idle Question)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>>... (some of the NASA suit designs have actually been very good
>>thermal insulation, good up to remarkably high temperatures).
>
>They are good to very high temperatures, but not pressures: Above
>1mbar they rapidly stop insulating, and by 10mbar they are almost
>worthless.

If memory serves -- and admittedly this was a while ago, and my reference
for it is lost somewhere in the mess on my desk -- the Gemini suit was
good for quite high temperatures at one atmosphere, for protection in
certain classes of launch failures.
--
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 10 Apr 1993 17:40 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Japanese Spacecraft Will Impact on the Moon
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from Yoshiro Yamada, Yokohama Science Center

Information via Dr. J. Watanabe, NAO:

Hiten will impact at 55.3 E, 34.0 S near Crater Furnerius (60E, 36S)
at 18h03m38s on April 10 UTC, when the terminator is 40.7E.

-End of forwarded message-

Here is some background information on Hiten:

    Hiten was launched into Earth orbit on January 24, 1990.  The spacecraft
was then known as MUSES-A, but was renamed to Hiten once in orbit.  The 430 lb
probe looped out from Earth and made its first lunary flyby on March 19, where
it dropped off its 26 lb midget satellite, Hagoromo.  Japan at this point
became the third nation to orbit a satellite around the Moon, joining the
Unites States and USSR.  Hiten has continued to make lunar flybys over the
past three years.

     The smaller spacecraft, Hagoromo, will remain in orbit around the Moon.
An apparently broken transistor radio caused the Japanese space scientists to
lose track of it.  Hagoromo's rocket motor fired on schedule on March 19, but
the spacecraft's tracking transmitter failed immediately.  The rocket firing
of Hagoromo was optically confirmed using the Schmidt camera (105-cm, F3.1) at
the Kiso Observatory in Japan.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | and causes more aggravation
                                                  | instead.

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

Date: 10 Apr 1993 15:07:47 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Japanese Spacecraft Will Impact on the Moon
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
|     The smaller spacecraft, Hagoromo, will remain in orbit around the Moon.
|An apparently broken transistor radio caused the Japanese space scientists to
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|lose track of it.  Hagoromo's rocket motor fired on schedule on March 19, but


They should have used a Sony:-)

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

Date: 10 Apr 1993 15:18:28 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mir 2's planned orbit [was Re: Degrees vs. experience]
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris Jones) writes:
|>It's not clear exactly why the orbital inclination for Mir 2 has been changed
|>from the current Mir's 51.62 degrees to 65 degrees.  One guess ...
|> is that the Russian's are being cautious about depending on a launch
|>site outside of their country (Baikonour is in Kazakhstan)...
|
|Aviation Leak says that this is exactly the reason:  they'll be launching
|from Plesetsk.  This means setting up Proton launch facilities at Plesetsk,
|but they seem to think it's worth it.
|--


I thought Baikonur was the model of CIS co-operation.  THe one place where
they were actually getting along and running a co-operative venture.

Of course,  Given teh ever increasing odds of a nuclear war between
Russia and their CIS neighbors,  it may make sense to  have redundancy
even if they keep a high sortie rate out of Baikonur.

pat

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

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 19:23:52 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mir 2's planned orbit [was Re: Degrees vs. experience]
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1q47hv$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris Jones) writes:
>|believe) is that the Russian's are being cautious about depending on a launch
>|site outside of their country (Baikonour is in Kazakhstan).  If they want to
>|use Plesetsk, which is in Russia, they have to increase the station's
>|inclination to efficiently use the payload capacity of the Proton launcher.
>|Since Proton launches have never been made from Plesetsk, there is work that
>|has to be done there to support Protons.
>|--
>|Chris Jones    [e-mail]
>
>In Space News, they that is the director of Russias's civil Space agency
>specifically denied that it was due to political tension with Kasakhistan.
>That's a lot of money to provide proton support  at Pletesk.
>
>THe stated reason is that Mir2  will have a primary earth observation mission
>and thus will be more efficient ina  high inclination orbit.
>
>I think one big problem is they don't have progress handling
>facilities at pletesk.

I believe this is purely a political decision to move away from
using Kazakhstan facilities. Russia has had problems with using
them in the past with Kazakhstan claiming ownership and then
demanding money to support 'their' facilities, etc.. If there were some
reason to place a station in >51.6 degree orbit they could more
easily do so from Kazakhstan then by building new launch pads
and assembly buildings at Plestesk.

There should be little problem with Progress or Soyuz preparation
facilities at Plestesk since they undoubtedly have similar needs
to the spy satellites launched there which are based on similar hardware.
I wonder if the Russians will be so bold as to remove the 2 spare Proton
pads from Kazakhstan and reinstall them at Plestesk. That would still leave
2 Proton pads for Kazakstan but I'm sure it could create another
political problem...

Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

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

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 14:55:02 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA "Wraps"
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>BTW, universities do the same thing. They however, have a wrap of
>>10% to 15% (again, this is over and above any overhead charge).

>Wrong Allen. The max overhead charge is ALL of the charge. There is no
>seperately budgeted overhead in any shape size form or fashion.

A professor at the University of Virginia told me their wrap was about
15%. The subcontracts I have let out and worked on for other universities
are about the same. My employer (a non-profit research institute) does
the same. This is generally reffered to as the fee.

>How do
>I know? I write proposals and have won contracts and I know to the dime
>what the charges are. At UAH for example the overhead is 36.6%.

Sounds like they are adding it to their overhead rate. Go ask your
costing people how much fee they add to a project.

>If you have some numbers Allen then show them else quit barking.

I did Dennis; read the article. To repeat: an internal estimate done by
the Reston costing department says Freedom can be built for about $1.8B
a year and operated for $1B per year *IF* all the money where spent on
Freedom. Since we spend about half a billion $$ more per year it looks
like roughly 25% of the money is wasted. Now if you think I'm making
this up, you can confirm it in the anonymous editorial published a few
weeks ago in Space News.

This Dennis, is why NASA has so many problems: you can't accept that
anything is wrong unless you can blame it on Congress. Oh, sure, you'll
say NASA has problems but do you believe it? Remember the WP 02
overrun? You insisted it was all congresses fault when NASA management
knew about the overrun for almost a year yet refused to act. Do you
still blame Congress for the overrun?

>By your own numbers Allen, at a cost of 500 million per flight the
>service cost of flying shuttle to SSF is 2 billion for four flights, so how
>did you get your one billion number?

I have no idea what your trying to say here Dennis.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------67 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 18:49:28 GMT
From: Ricardo Belmar <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASP
Newsgroups: sci.space

Pat at Express Access Online Communications USA writes:

>It's been cancelled for spending a whole lot of money,  taking
>10 years, and never building any hardware.  Oh and Mary said,
>that they found out hte concept will never work anyway.
>not enough energy in the cycle.

Cancelled?! When did this happen? I spoke to the NASP director
about 2 or 3 weeks ago and there didn't seem to be a problem
with any pending cancellation.

Ricardo Belmar
[e-mail]
University of Virginia

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

Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 06:33:55 GMT
From: "Edward A. Shixaliev" <[e-mail]>
Subject: New aircraft TU-154M for leasing, set spare parts.
Newsgroups: misc.forsale,misc.invest,misc.jobs.contract,rec.aviation,sci.space

Category: Offers to leasing
Headline: New Aircraft TU-154M

New Aircraft TU 154M with a standart set of spare parts for Teasing
Factory Number 92A935^ State Registration Wing Marking RA85753,
produced in November, 1992, situated in Blagovechensk. Specification:
seats (passengers) - 166;take-off and landing distanse-2500 m; Range
fuel reserve:payload(18tons)- 3400 km, payload (12tons) - 5200 km.
Equipment: long-rage navigation system A-723 "KVITOK", operating in
systems of "OMEGA" and "LORAN-C".

   Tel: [phone]    Fax [phone]
   City: Moscow           Country: Russia
   E-mail -> Relcom    [e-mail]
--


                  DIRECTOR  Shaxaliev Edward Agabalaevich
             Fax (095)  973-36-41  Tel:  [phone]
             E-mail  Relcom   [e-mail]



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

Date: 10 Apr 1993 15:25:47 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question- Why is SSTO Single Stage
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:
|[e-mail] (Pat) writes:
|>Granted it increases complexity and all that sort of thing,
|>but would it work?
|
|It could be made to work (with certain modifications to the boosters and/or
|the main engine operations).  In fact, it has been talked about, though I don't
|know just how high up or how seriously. However, the whole point of an SSTO is
|that it doesn't use such things.  If you add boosters it isn't an SSTO, and
|many of the features (low cost, launch from simple sites) dissapear.
|--


Oh sure.  It's not  perfect,  but it'd be nice to scar the DC-X,
or DC-XA  to fit them  as an option.   ALl C-130's  carry JATO
scars,  but  i bet  less then 1% of the fleet actually use them.

My point was to draw out some hypothetical  extenions to the
DC-X  or DC-XA  that may make some positive use  for operational
missions out of a prototype test vehicle.

Just a little food for thought.

pat

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

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 13:07:01 GMT
From: Cameron Randale Bass <[e-mail]>
Subject: SN 1993J and Gravity Waves?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>In article <BELS1722B1C2A2@MPA15C>, MPA15C![e-mail] writes...
>>I notice that SN 1993J was detected after the current Gravity Wave
>>experiment with Galileo/Mars Observer/Ulysses.
>>
>
>I noticed this too.  I think SN 1993J would be an excellent candidate for
>generating gravity waves.  It is rather fortunate that the supernova occurred
>during the gravity wave experiment.  Keep in mind, however, that the
>analysis of the data from gravity wave experiment and correlating the
>data between the three spacecraft will take months.

     I was under the impression that a typical supernova is expected
     to radiate in a frequency range (say 10^3-10^4 hz) that
     is well outside the sensitivity of the gravity wave
     experiment (c.f. Thorne, p. 375 in '300 Years of Gravitation',
     Hawking and Israel, eds.).  I thought we were basically looking for
     a massive coalescence to black hole in the observable universe
     or all the unknown phenomena we didn't yet think of.

                             dale bass

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

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 21:12:03 GMT
From: Dwight Tuinstra <[e-mail]>
Subject: space food sticks
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] () writes:
>John Elson ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: Has anyone ever heard of a food product called "Space Food Sticks?"
>
>I remember those awful things.  They were dry and crumbly, and I
>recall asking my third-grade teacher, Miss G'Francisco, how they
>kept the crumbs from floating around in zero-G.  She had no clue.
>I have not seen anything like them in today's space program.
>
>Some Apollo technology is best forgotten.
>
>-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
>      [e-mail]  [phone]

If I remember right, the first (maybe second) ingredient in the list was
sugar.  I was quite disappointed when I noticed.  Judging by the taste,
the other main ingredient must have been chalk.  At least Tang had some
tang (although it too is/was mainly sugar).

+========================================================================+
|  dwight tuinstra             best:  [e-mail]  |
|                         tolerable:  [e-mail]   |
|                                                                        |
|        "Homo sapiens: planetary cancer??  ...  News at six"            |
+========================================================================+

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

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 21:15:32 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Venus Lander for Venus Conditions.
Newsgroups: sci.space

Wierd idea already stated, kind off..
Why not use the atmosphere of Venus against itself in the design of a Venus
lander.. Design the outer skin of the lander to react with the atmophere of
vensu to make the outer skin of the lander stronger and resistant to Venus's
atmosphere. Is it an idea or ?? Off course you will have to design the sensors
in such a way that they can still measure/sense what they are designed to do..

Basically have a lander that looks like a rock, with spikes for sensor
hardpoints...

To wierd or ??

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


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

Date: 9 Apr 93 23:04:11 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]+ [e-mail] (Chris Jones) writes:
+In article <dxb105.734155421@aries+, dxb105@aries (David Bofinger) writes:
[e-mail] (James Thomas Green) writes:
++
++> [The Soviet Union] could have beaten us if either:
++> * Their rocket hadn't blown up on the pad thus setting them back,
++
++Didn't they lose their top rocket scientist in a car crash or
++something?
+
+Or something.  Sergei Korolyev (always referred to as the "Chief Designer" when
+he was alive -- i.e. his name wasn't public until after his death) died just
+before the Soyuz program started flying.  His death was due to natural causes,

Zhores Medvedev says that Korolev, 60, died on the operating table January
14, 1966, after a botched operation for hemorrhoids. Pravda said
he died of "cardiac insufficiency" after a cancer operation.

--
Bruce Watson ([e-mail]) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131

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

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 19:52:18 GMT
From: David Wicks <drseus!dave>
Subject: Will the launch be visible from NJ?
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Egan) writes:
>
>2. after the main engine cutoff....i was VERY surprised to see the
>very bright white beacons it flashed at about 2-3 second rate.
>look like on on the back and one front. (or was I hullicinating ??)
>
>anybody know about these ?????
>
>3. as the shuttle got further down range( east and north), I was looking up
>its "rear' and watched the orange glow....if the main engine fuel burn ended at
>8:40'ish...(the flash and no more bright large flame)...and the
>solid rockets blew away earlier..what is the fuel for the engines at this
>point ?


    I waited a couple days to respond to this hoping that someone
who knew more of the details would answer.  Since that hasn't
happened, I'll pass along what I know, and somebody else can fill
in the blanks later.  I can answer your first question quickly
enough, but the second might take a while.  Bear with me.

    Other than the main engines, the shuttle has two other types of
propulsion, the Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS, pronounced "ohms"),
and the Reaction Control System (RCS).  Both these systems use the
same hypergolic propellants:  monomethyl-hydrazine (MMH) and nitrogen
tetroxide (N2O4).  "Hypergolic" means the two fuels combust spontan-
eously when brought into contact; no ignition source is needed.

    Two OMS pods flank the Orbiter tail and contain the fuel
tanks for the OMS engines and rear RCS thrusters.  The OMS nozzles
project from the rear of the OMS pods, and are about one-third the
size of the main engine nozzles.

    The OMS system is used primarily to circularize the Orbiter's
initial orbit, and for the de-orbit burn (both burns are on the
order of several minutes).  It is also used to make adjustments in
the Shuttle's orbit (with burns that last a few seconds).  Rendez-
vous with a satellite may require several OMS burns, some missions
require only the two main firings.

    The RCS is made up of 38 primary (or coarse) and 6 vernier
thrusters located on the OMS pods and in the Orbiter's nose.  They
are used in automatic and manual modes to control the Orbiter's
orientation and also allow for manual translation.  (The auto-
matic pilot that controls the orientation is amazing and would
take too long to cover here.  Suffice it to say the Orbiter can
lock onto any orientation within tight deadbands.)

    The Orbiter's orientation is typically controlled by the auto-
matic system, but can be run manually by the commander or pilot.
The translations are all manual, with one exception:  Just after
the external tank is released, the onboard computers commmand the
downfiring RCS jets in the nose and tail to fire to move the Orbiter
away from the external tank.

    I believe these are the "white beacons" you described.  It's a
good bet because: 1)  the ET is dropped just after MECO,  2) in
photos I've seen, the RCS firings have a white exhaust,  3) the OMS
circularizing burn takes place (I'm guessing) about 20-30 minutes
after MECO, so that wasn't what you saw.

    Bob, I hope this is what you were looking for.  As I said,
anyone who can augment or correct anything here, please do so.


DHW

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 449
------------------------------