Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_6/v16no629.txt

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 93 05:16:43
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #629
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 26 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 629

Today's Topics:
Comet Shoemaker-Levy, Possible Collision With Jupiter in 1994 (3 msgs)
                  Detecting planets in other system
                   Impediments to NASA productivity
                   Launch Vehicle Permits (2 msgs)
                   Looking for rocketry software...
                    Magellan Update #2 - 05/25/93
           Magellan Update - 05/25/93 (Aerobraking Started)
                   Moon vs. asteroids, Mars, comets
             Question about B&W markings on US launchers
                         Restructure schedule
                               SSF news
       Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction? (2 msgs)

    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: 25 May 1993 22:26 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet Shoemaker-Levy, Possible Collision With Jupiter in 1994
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

                           COMET SHOEMAKER-LEVY (1993e)

     According to IAU Circular 5800, about 200 positions of Comet
Shoemaker-Levy (1993e) have been reported so far with about 50 of them
coming during the past month.  Most of the observations were of the "center"
of the nuclear train [last I heard the comet split up into at least 21 pieces].
The current computations indicate that the comet made a close flyby
of Jupiter at only 0.0008 AU on July 8, 1992 (this is within Jupiter's
Roche limit), and will make an even closer flyby of Jupiter on July 25, 1994.

     IAU Circular 5801 further discusses the orbital trajectory of the comet,
and indicates that it is possible that half of the pieces of the comet may
collide with Jupiter over a three day peroid in July 1994.  The surviving
pieces may remain as satellites to Jupiter or be thrown closer to the sun on
short-period heliocentric orbits.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 23:06:12 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet Shoemaker-Levy, Possible Collision With Jupiter in 1994
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:

>     IAU Circular 5801 further discusses the orbital trajectory of the comet,
>and indicates that it is possible that half of the pieces of the comet may
>collide with Jupiter over a three day peroid in July 1994.  The surviving
>pieces may remain as satellites to Jupiter or be thrown closer to the sun on
>short-period heliocentric orbits.

When does Galileo enter Jovian orbit again?

Not for a while, right?

*Wah...waaaahhhh..*

Seriously, this is why we need quick-reaction probes.

Also shows why Michael Adams "monitoring stations" are
a good idea.

Finally: where *do* I get those forms for Hubble Telescope
Time?

Is there a place I can write off for them?

>    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
>    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
> ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's
>/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams.
>|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

--

+-----------------------+---------------------------------------+
|Phil Fraering          | "...drag them, kicking and screaming, |
|[e-mail] | into the Century of the Fruitbat."    |
+-----------------------+-Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_---------+

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

Date: 25 May 93 18:02:17
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet Shoemaker-Levy, Possible Collision With Jupiter in 1994
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:


   Finally: where *do* I get those forms for Hubble Telescope
   Time?

   Is there a place I can write off for them?

 "ftp stsci.edu" "get how_to_submit"

 Proposal deadline for cycle 4 was May 14 1993.

 Qualified personnel can get NASA AOs and RAs
from "Ms Mary Ann Gaskins
    Mail Code SPS
    NASA HQ
    Washington DC 20546-0001"

Please don't write off for a form unless you think
you might seriously enter a serious proposal to NASA.

 If there's anything to be seen from HST for P/S-L then
chances are it has been claimed - I think you can also
review accepted proposals and time-lines electronically,
see README file at ftp site above. If not, Directors
Disgressionary time is only chance at this stage,
amateurs qualify for that.

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 22:30:50 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Detecting planets in other system
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Larry Brader - contractor) writes:
>> What type of technology is required to detect planets in other
>> solar systems? I'm thinking earth size, within 30 light years.
>>
>
> For Earthlike planets you'll need something along the lines of a 16m telescope
> of the moon. Jovian planets are rather easier and advanced Adaptive Optics
> systems on 4 or 8 metre class ground based telescopes may manage to detect
> them. For a full assessment you could do worse than refering to the AIP
> conference proceedings 'Astrophysics from the Moon'.
>

Maybe if you want to do it from the ground...

There is currently a project at Ames working on this using a spaced based
photometer.  The idea is that they will look for millimagnitude variations

over time for 10's of thousands of stars.  They are concentrating
on late-type cool stars and they have already modeled the anticipated
results and it is doable.  They hope to detect jupiter size dark objects
around G-K stars.  If the funding goes well the hope to be up by
the end of the decade.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Dempsey                                  [phone]
STScI/PODPS

I quote others only to better express myself.  - Michel de Montaigne
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 21:40:04 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Impediments to NASA productivity
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In my diatribe about NASA productivity, I wrote:
: >Most of the inefficiencies I have observed at NASA are
: >the result of management decisions...

Jim Hart ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Let me guess: Ken is not a manager. :-)

Actually, I am.  Or I was.  I started my new job yesterday -- as an
engineer again.  (Hurrah!)  That diatribe was kind of a farewell
address to my previous organization.  I doubt that it will do any
good, but my (former) boss asked for my input.

I wrote:
: >When we desire to decrease an office's (or a Program's)
: >budget, we never manage to fund the changes which can increase
: >efficiency; we just cut the budget.

Jim replied:
: But the whole point in increasing efficiency is to decrease
: the ratio of $/(something valuable).  If those changes do
: not *in fact* increase efficiency, you've just *decreased*
: efficiency by funding them.  Naming something an "efficiency
: proposal" doesn't make it so; how do you know until you've
: tried it?

Yes, but my point is that you sometimes have to invest money to
make productivity improvements.  Then (and this is the part where
we at NASA fall down) we have to go back and check to see that
we actually did get the productivity improvement we thought we'd
get.  Do any other organizations have a good track record here?

Me:
: >examine our JSC Employee Suggestion Program, where less than
: >10% of the suggestions are implemented.

Jim:
: IF you had spent c. 10 times as much money, so you
: could implement 100% of these changes, then we would have ended up
: spending less money? Or might the problem lie instead in *which*
: 10% were chosen?

Some of those suggestions are certainly frivolous.  But when I called
the JSC Employee Suggestion Office to get that data (10% of suggestions
are accepted), they hadn't even heard of this effort at describing
impediments to NASA productivity.  Since productivity is their product,
so to speak, it seems reasonable that they be in the loop.  Their
non-involvement is yet another example of the lack of communication
which can happen in a large organization.

: >As W. Edwards Deming says with regard to
: >quality, "if you can't measure it, you can't manage it."

: I'll agree with you here.  Unfortuneately, Deming was talking about
: repetitive manufacturing work, not R&D.   Unless we're talking about
: things like computer performance, most R&D benchmarks in the private
: sector are abstract: for example, how much will it sell at what
: price.  It would be interesting to see NASA set up some internal
: market-like incentives, but that would entail a huge (and beneficial)
: cultural change.

We had a debated about this in sci.engr last year.  What quality
metrics can reasonably be determined for an R&D organization?  It's
not an easy problem.  Fortunately, Goldin has a tiger team working
on just that problem.  (He's a good egg.)

Me:
: > Each productivity metric could be given a value
: >in dollars which gives a measure of its value to the country.

Jim:
: Aah, there's the rub.  How does one measure "value to the
: country?"  By how NASA projects fare in political opinion
: polls?

If we are doing something of value to the country (like developing
new technology to be used in future civilian aerospace applications),
we should be able to estimate that value in dollars.  How else can
we know if we're doing a good job?  But we already know about NASA
estimates....

Me:
: >suggestions will increase efficincy 257%, guaranteed.

Jim:
: You were doing pretty good up until here.  "Guarunteed"?  Does
: this mean you will personally pay for any shortfalls?  You see,
: out here in the private sector "guaruntee" is an actual promise,
: eg that you will get your money back; it is not just rhetoric to
: be thrown around in a policy paper.

You missed the joke, Jim.  257% of what?  How can anybody prove
me wrong?  I fulfill that guarantee easilly.

Me:
: >3.  Payroll

Jim:
: Does any employee think they're paid *too much*?  :-)  One thing
: to keep in mind is that the cost of living at many NASA sites
: (Houston, Ohio, Alabama, etc.) is often 20% lower than in Silicon
: Valley and other high-tech  spots when comparing these salaries.
: Somehow I don't think NASA will magically improve just by giving y'all
: a raise, but nice try anyway. :-)

Agreed, a pay raise wouldn't solve all of NASA's problems, but it would
help attract really talented people.  But I don't want to work with the
kind of people who are ONLY here for the paycheck.

Me:
: >    We should propose a list of Agency goals to Congress and the
: >    President, and request their help in ensuring that these goals
: >    match what our ultimate customers, the American people, want out of
: >    NASA.

Jim:
: But this is no longer funny.  Sir, customers
: are people who can *choose for themselves* what they want to buy.
: I do not get to choose how much taxes I have to pay,
: or how much of it should go towards your "investements".  Since
: NASA has no real customers, it does not lose revenue when it f*cks up,
: or gain revenue when it succeeds, as can be clearly shown by looking
: at NASA's budget during Apollo and directly after Challenger.  Please
: keep the Orwellian theft of the language of private enterprise confined
: to the jokers in the White House, for God's sake.

Since we're talking about productivity, I was using the TQM term for
"customer" -- whether they pay for the product or not.  Since you are
outraged, I can assume that you are not a happy customer.  That's
understandable.  But it doesn't mean that you are not a customer.
Every one of us reaps the benefits of NASA technology, whether we
appreciate it (or pay for it) or not.

The key concept in TQM's "customers" and "products" is accountability.
The producers must understand both the products and the consumers.
Otherwise, the producers cannot become accountable for the results.

Me:
: >    We need the whole-hearted
: >    cooperation of Congress, and more discipline than Congress has ever
: >    been willing to demonstrate.

Jim:
: Don't forget about the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, they can help out
: too.

Since my inputs were supposedly to be presented to Al Gore (after being
filtered by NASA management, of course), I thought I'd ask for the
cooperation of Congress.  We won't get it, of course, but at least we
should ask.

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

     "Better.  Faster.  Cheaper." -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator

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

Date: 25 May 1993 23:06:24 GMT
From: Matthew R Feulner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Launch Vehicle Permits
Newsgroups: sci.space

We're working here on a student project, called project Olympus, to launch a
hybrid rocket to put a very small payload into orbit.  Up to now, it's
mainly been a project to design a hybrid motor, but now we're actually
looking at regulatory type stuff.  We need to know what permission we need
to (1) launch this vehicle (probably from some NASA sight), (2) transmit
data from orbit to ground, (3) get an orbit slot?  Questions like "What happens
when it reenters, if we launch into a real low orbit" need to be answered.
Other issues?

This probably won't occur for years and years, but we may launch an upper
stage as a sounding rocket tester within a couple of years.

We're also having problems coming up with a way to destruct it (in the event
of a failure) since it's not explosive.

Any answers or thoughts or leads?

Thanks,
Matthew Feulner
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 23:46:26 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Launch Vehicle Permits
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew R Feulner) writes:
>... at regulatory type stuff.  We need to know what permission we need
>to (1) launch this vehicle (probably from some NASA sight), (2) transmit
>data from orbit to ground, (3) get an orbit slot?

For launch, you need a permit from the Office of Commercial Space
Transportation, which is part of the Dept. of Transport.  I'm told
they can be reached at [phone], although I haven't tried myself.
That covers essentially everything except radio transmitters.

For the transmitters, you need licences from the FCC.

There is no notion of "orbit slots" except in Clarke orbit, and just as
well, because the less said about the bureaucracy involved for *that*,
the better.

>Questions like "What happens
>when it reenters, if we launch into a real low orbit" need to be answered.

I think you basically have to make OCST happy about this -- shouldn't be
hard since nobody else does much about the matter -- and that's it.  The
US government, not you personally, is responsible for any damage.

>This probably won't occur for years and years, but we may launch an upper
>stage as a sounding rocket tester within a couple of years.

Anything that is capable of going above 100km needs an OCST permit.  Below
that, I think they bow out and it's mostly the FAA that has to be kept happy.
(The OCST minima are stated in more complex terms, but 100km is what they
boil down to, I'm told.)

>We're also having problems coming up with a way to destruct it (in the event
>of a failure) since it's not explosive.

The purpose of a destruct system is not to shred the rocket, it is to
positively and reliably terminate all thrust.  (The former is frequently
a consequence of the latter, but it's not itself a requirement.)  Nothing
short of a nuclear weapon will break a rocket up so thoroughly that the
pieces can't hurt anyone standing underneath the trajectory.  The destruct
system is just there to make sure the rocket cannot run wild and hit
something that is nowhere near the intended trajectory.  Anyway, for
this, you need to talk to the range authorities of whatever launch site
you are considering using.  Assuming you've got the usual sort of hybrid,
solid fuel and liquid oxidizer, I would guess that blowing open the oxidizer
tank would terminate thrust reliably enough.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 93 11:34:17 -0700
From: Jim White <tosh!white>
Subject: Looking for rocketry software...
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Michelson) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (mark pitcher 9208 U) writes:
>>    A few years ago, I put together a simple program to help me
>>determine what characteristics to expect from amateur rockets...

>>    I have since found even more detailed information on rocket flight
>>characteristics, and am putting together an even more elaborate program.

>>    I am looking for other such computer programs that I can use as a
>>guide, or to compare my results with.  If you know of such a program, please
>>email me and tell me where I can find it.  Thanks.

>I hope that you're planning to make *your* software available to others :-)
>Sounds interesting.

>--
>Dave Michelson  --  [e-mail]  --  University of British Columbia

I would also be interested in your software.


--
Jim White

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

Date: 25 May 1993 23:00 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Update #2 - 05/25/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager

                       MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                            May 25, 1993

1.  The Magellan spacecraft started its Transition Experiment this
morning at 10:31 AM PDT with an Orbit Trim Maneuver (OTM) which lowered
its periapsis (closest approach to Venus) to 149.4 km.

2.  Telemetry indicated that the 11.3 minute burn of the thrusters was
normal, but the spacecraft engineers had to wait another two hours for
the results of the first passage through the upper atmosphere.

3.  Following the first atmospheric drag pass, all subsystems were
reported to be nominal.  Temperatures are in the expected range and
the attitude control system reports the expected number of gyro
pulses.

4.  The target altitude was selected so that the spacecraft would
experience about 20% of the maximum allowable dynamic pressure, so the
temperatures and torques on the spacecraft at this stage are minimal.

5.  During the next four days a series of walk-in trim maneuvers will
further lower the periapsis until the spacecraft is in the desired
corridor.

6.  This evening, following analysis by the Navigation Team of the
first two orbits of aerobraking, the exact magnitude for the next OTM
will be decided.  That corridor-adjustment OTM is scheduled for
5:46 AM PDT tomorrow.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: 25 May 1993 21:43 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Update - 05/25/93 (Aerobraking Started)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE [phone]

                     MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                          May 25, 1993

     The Magellan spacecraft was lowered into the top of the
Venus atmosphere today for an "aerobraking" maneuver, the first
of its kind in planetary exploration, to begin the process of
circularizing its highly elliptical orbit.

     The operation began at 10:31 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time with
a thruster burn lasting until 10:41 a.m. to slightly slow the
spacecraft.  The high-gain antenna was turned toward Earth at
10:54 a.m. and the spacecraft first struck the outer atmosphere
at 12:00 noon.  The atmospheric contact on the first orbit lasted
until 12:36 p.m.

     The operation, to continue over about 80 days, will slowly
bring the spacecraft from its current orbit ranging between 170
kilometers (105 miles) and 8,500 kilometers (5,300 miles) from
Venus, to a new, more circularized orbit of 200 by 600 kilometers
(125 by 375 miles).  The change will alter the time taken by each
orbit from 3 hours, 15 minutes to about 90 minutes.

     If the maneuver is successful, the new orbit will permit
high-resolution gravity studies at Venus's poles as well as at
its equatorial latitudes.

     The second "drag pass," when the spacecraft will again dip
into the atmosphere to continue the circularizing process, was
scheduled for 3:14 p.m. to 3:50 p.m. PDT today.

                              #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 00:34:22 GMT
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon vs. asteroids, Mars, comets
Newsgroups: sci.space

Perhaps an illustration would help: if there were an
asteroid of solid platinum in LEO right now, it would
not pay (by a factor of 2 or so) to bring any of it back
using the shuttle.
(Assumptions: max shuttle landing payload weight = 20,000 lbs.
Pt at $700 per oz. Shuttle flight costs >= US$350,000,000.)

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

Date: 25 May 1993 23:07:41 GMT
From: Brian Schar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question about B&W markings on US launchers
Newsgroups: sci.space

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Parsons) writes:
> >Why do several US launchers (especially early ones like Redstone, Titan
> >and Saturn) have strong black and white stripe markings?


In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Dennis Newkirk) wrote:
>
> The last N-1 launched had its third stage painted white on roughly
> one half of its side while the rest of the booster was gray or
> probably a dark metal finish. The shroud was white. Some of the other N-1's
> seem to have been all white, but this is only a very preliminary finding.
> The Proton has a black stripe horizontally above the 1st stage engines, and
> the inner tank is silver or gray while the outer tanks are white
> making them stand out well. The Soyuz type usually has very few large
> markings (recent advertisments excepted), but the dark green paint
> contasts well with the frost that forms over the LOX tanks and can
> easily be seen for some time after launch. The Zenit has large vertical
> stripes on the payload shroud and a checker board pattern at the base
> of the 2nd stage. The Tsyklon also has checker board and stripes, and the
> Kosmos has several horizontal stripes and a checker board pattern.
> Some fuzzy pictures of the SS-6 ICBM tests show probably a checkerboard
> pattern around the nose. Also many US V-2 tests had bold markings and I
> think German V-2 test flights also had bold markings sometimes.
>
> As far as I know most of these markings are just to aid visual tracking.
> You probably can compare these markings to those used on flight test
> aircraft of F-14's, 15's, and 18's, some of which had bold color patterns.

I believe the black and white stripes were used as a passive thermal
control scheme, as opposed to all black (absorb a lot of visible light) or
all white (reflect a lot of visible light).  Stripes would give you a
balance between the two no matter what the angle of the sun.
________________________________________________________
Brian Schar           | All facts in this post are in the public domain.
All
[e-mail]  | opinions are my own.

Don't blame me - I voted Libertarian!

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

Date: 25 May 1993 22:35:25 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Restructure schedule
Newsgroups: sci.space

May 27: Final Space Station Redesign Team report due to printer

May 27:House VA-HUD-IA (including NASA) Subcommittee mark-up
(Appropriation)

June 6: Multi-lateral Program Coordination Committee meeting

June 7: Final report to Redesign Advisory Committee (Blue Ribbon Panel)

June 8: House Authorization hearing on SS redesign

June 9: House Space Subcommittee mark-up (Authorization)

June 10: Senate VA-HUD-IA Subcommittee hearing on Space Station
(Appropriation)

June 10: Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Space Station (Authorization)

June 10: Final Redesign Advisory Committee report to White House

June 11: International Partners Meeting #2 on Space Station

June 13:  President Clinton's decision on Redesign

June 14: House VA-HUD-IA Subcommittee hearing on SSF Redesign

June 22:  House Appropriations full Committee mark-up of VA-HUD-IA bill

June 25: House floor action on VA-HUD-IA Appropriation Bill (debate and
vote)

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

Date: 25 May 1993 22:34:14 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF news
Newsgroups: sci.space

The first Preliminary Software Architecture Review is underway at MDA
Houston, TX, with over 300 government and contractor representatives from
across the Space Station program.  IBM, Houston, along with MDA are playing
an integral role in the six-week review.  The review to date demonstrates
clear understanding of technical issues, software build process and
software architecture, establishing a firm foundation for continued
development of Space Station data management system software.

A U.S. Navy-sponsored Best Manufacturing Practices survey team recently
designated MDA's Space Station design and manufacturing process as a "Best
Practice" within industry.  During their visit, the team learned about
MDA's concurrent engineering, three-dimensional, computer-aided design, and
the most recent applications of computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM).

Because MDA used computer-aided technology throughout the concurrent
engineering process, drawings on a Space Station flight experiment had the
lowest change traffic of any project to date, and 99.4% first-time
manufacturing quality.  Extensive use of CAD/CAM  technology reduces costs,
shortens schedules, and results in first-time quality products.


Canadian partners and MDA engineers recently tested a mockup of the remote
manipulator system and the mobile transporter in NASA's weightless
environment training facility, Houston.

MDA recently accepted multiplexer-demultiplexer application software test
equipment from Honeywell in Glendale, AZ.  The equipment will be used by
all Space Station work packages (MDA, Boeing, Rocketdyne) to test
application software each will produce.  This low-cost solution for testing
MDM flight software is built from commercial hardware and software which
can be tailored and upgraded as the needs of the program change.

A 16-minute, narrated computer-animation video produced by MDA engineers
depicts assembly techniques that will be used to construct Space Station
Freedom.  The computer-generated images were created from actual
engineering drawings.  The video shows station hardware components being
transported into space inside the Space Shuttle cargo bay, and accurately
represents how the station will be assembled--step by step-- in orbit.

Across the country --
  IBM, Houston's  first delivery of the Space Station master object data
base manager became operational earlier this month.  Avionics information
and software are managed and stored in this system.  Data tables are built
by the DMS system software using the MODBM, and contain large amounts of
information, such as the station's weight, guidance, navigation, sensor,
experiment, and payload data--vital to the operation of the Space Station.
 EG&G Wright Components, Phelps, NY, successfully completed 1 million
cycles on a thruster valve section, with no leakage.  This is two times the
specified requirement.
 Astro, Carpenteria, CA, flight drawing release remains on schedule with
473 of 527 mobile transporter flight drawings released to date.
 Sundstrand Corp., Rockford, IL,  has completed checkout of the active
thermal control system pump module test stand and will begin testing on May
24.  The module provides pumping, liquid-vapor separation, and control for
the two-phase thermal control system.  The test stand will be used to test
the pump module over its entire operating range including thermal loads up
to 55 KW and radiator return ammonia temperatures down to -100 deg F.
 At the White Sands, New Mexico Test Facility, full-scale, flight-like
propellant tanks have been installed in the development test unit and will
undergo tests with other flight-like propulsion system components in June.
This is the 5th series of tests on the propulsion system.

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

Date: 25 May 1993 21:47:56 GMT
From: Claudio Oliveira Egalon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books

I do not know what is true or fiction in Tom Wolfe's
book (which I enjoyed a lot to read) BUT I can point
out that I notice one difference in his book when I
checked another source. That is the one regarding
what happened between Guss Grisson and his wife,
Betty Grissom, after Grisson returned from his first
sub-orbital flight. According to Tom Wolfe, Betty
Grisson got real mad about the way they were treated
after Guss returned from his flight (apparently
because of the blown hatch) and, still according to
Tom Wolfe, she even threatened to cut her own
wrist if Guss did not take her to the Holiday Inn
where the real comemoration of Grisson's flight
was taking place. Also, Tom Wolfe mentioned
that Guss Grisson was surprised by the way  his
wife  was behaving,  he just couldn't recognize
her! OK, when I read the book Star Fall by Betty
Grisson, the astronaut's  widow, the account
was slightly different;

1) she admited she really got mad about the way
they were treated (which confirms one of the
things that Tom Wolfe wrote) BUT

2) she did not mentioned about threatening
Guss to cut her own wrist and

3) according to Star Fall Guss Grisson just
understood the way his wife was feeling and
went along with her request without feeling
surprised.

Any comments???

[e-mail]

Claudio Oliveira Egalon

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 23:28:35 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Larry Klaes) writes:
>    ... wondering if there are some who could tell me what in Tom
>    Wolfe's novel on the MERCURY astronauts, THE RIGHT STUFF, is
>    accurate and what has been embellished upon for whatever reason.

I don't think anyone is going to do a page-by-page dissection. :-)  In
general, the book may be useful background on what people thought, but
it is not reliable history.

For example, Wolfe makes much of Grissom being blamed for the loss of
his Mercury capsule, saying that his "the hatch just blew" explanation
was never taken seriously.  While that *was* everyone's first reaction,
Sam Beddingfield -- a NASA engineer on the investigating team -- insisted
on pursuing the matter further, and the eventual conclusion was that
there was not one but *two* ways in which that really could have happened.
Even if you don't happen to know that, you might wonder how the disgraced
Grissom came to be picked as commander of the first manned Gemini *and*
the first manned Apollo.

The movie is even worse than the book.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 629
------------------------------