Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_9/v16no903.txt

Text File | 1993-08-02 | 32KB | 725 lines

Space Digest                Thu, 22 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 903

Today's Topics:
                      COOKIE CUUTTER PROBES (WA
            DC-X Prophets and associated problems (4 msgs)
                  GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB)
                   Mars Observer Update - 07/20/93
                        SETI: the "38 Signals"
                           SETI information
                           Space Movie/PR..
                         The 51 degree orbit
                      The U.S. and Mir (2 msgs)
                      WASTE MANAGEMENT ABOARD S

    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: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 11:02:57 GMT
From: Steve Linton <[e-mail]>
Subject: COOKIE CUUTTER PROBES (WA
Newsgroups: sci.space

|> So back to my crazy idea - imagine an EISA compatible spacefhcraft bus,
|> so that any existing card could be just plugged in.
|> As pat says, sure, you have to check it for enviro etc, and probably
|> some won't work. But I believe most will.

I think you're wrong. I think roughly NONE will. The space environment,
especially ine LEO (where you clip the Van Allan belts occasionally, let alone in
Jupiter orbit or Mercury orbit, is incredibly hostile to electronics. Also
they're way too heavy. Henrty said, probably correctly that you get cheaper
missions by not pushing the mass limits too hard, but you have to push them a
bit, or you get nothing useful at all.

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

Date: 21 Jul 93 12:13:31 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

I feel compelled to note a historical similarity in recent posting to an
event in the recent past, and hopefully help aviod a repeat. Currently,
those DC-X/1 Prohpets are fortelling of a glorious time when the DC
is flying. Cost per pound will be unbeleivably low. Man-ratings will be
simple and easy. The system will be so remarkable as to completely
revolutionize the world and all we know.. or at least something roughtly
along those lines.

Those that can, think back to the post-apollo days. A great mythical
project was underway to produce the world's first cargo truck to space.
There'd be 80 launchs a year. Hundreds upon hundreds of people would be
able to fly into space. Cost per pound would be very very low. Reliabiity
would be immesurable. Well, we got the shuttle. Now the shuttle IS an
incredible achiveiement, and is an invaluable national resource, but it
is VERY important to point out that it did not meet ALL of it's expectations
according to the Shuttle Prophets. Well, I listen to the DC-X/1 crowd and
can't help worrying. Not because it's nesessarily an impossible task.
Rather, because they are making  VERY extravagent claims. IF the DC fails
to live up to ALL of these claims, it's gonna face the same problems
shuttle has, with those to belittle it's value and acomplishments on th
basis that it didn't live up to these early claims. Many of the arguments
for DC's efficiency and ease of use were touted by the shuttle prophets of
long ago. It'd probably be wise to try and aviod that trap a second time.

(and for the record, I do NOT quite beleive that getting DC "man rated"
will be as easy as some would claim.. the difference between a
man rated system and a non-man rated system in complexity and hurdles
to jump is ALMOST as big as the difference between a bicycle and
a F-16. It is NOT some "trivial" task that you just have to write up
a few pages of paperwork and run a couple tests.)

Mike

--
Michael C. Jensen    [e-mail] [e-mail]
Valparaiso University - Electrical Engineering / NASA - Johnson Space Center
"I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
*** Windows NT -- from the people who brought you edlin.. ***
---The opinions expressed are my own.. not NASA's or VU's..---

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

Date: 21 Jul 93 12:52:09 GMT
From: bearpaw <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:

>I feel compelled to note a historical similarity in recent posting to an
>event in the recent past, and hopefully help aviod a repeat. Currently,
>those DC-X/1 Prohpets are fortelling of a glorious time when the DC
>is flying. Cost per pound will be unbeleivably low. Man-ratings will be
>simple and easy. The system will be so remarkable as to completely
>revolutionize the world and all we know.. or at least something roughtly
>along those lines.
>
>Those that can, think back to the post-apollo days. A great mythical
>project was underway to produce the world's first cargo truck to space.
>There'd be 80 launchs a year. Hundreds upon hundreds of people would be
>able to fly into space. Cost per pound would be very very low. Reliabiity
>would be immesurable. Well, we got the shuttle. Now the shuttle IS an
>incredible achiveiement, and is an invaluable national resource, but it
>is VERY important to point out that it did not meet ALL of it's expectations
>according to the Shuttle Prophets. Well, I listen to the DC-X/1 crowd and
>can't help worrying. Not because it's nesessarily an impossible task.
>Rather, because they are making  VERY extravagent claims. IF the DC fails
>to live up to ALL of these claims, it's gonna face the same problems
>shuttle has, with those to belittle it's value and acomplishments on th
>basis that it didn't live up to these early claims. Many of the arguments
>for DC's efficiency and ease of use were touted by the shuttle prophets of
>long ago. It'd probably be wise to try and aviod that trap a second time.

My understanding of the history of the Space Shuttle is that the final
design was a compromise between the original engineering and politics..
IMHO, the trap that needs to be avoided is compromising the present
design so that some politico can a little pork barrel in return for
his/her support.

bearpaw

 ======================================================================
 |  [e-mail]              Loyal Defender of the Grey Areas
 |  "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it.
 |   I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against.
 |   I'm a human being first and foremost, and as such I am for whoever
 |   and whatever benefits humanity as a whole."  - Malcolm X
 ======================================================================


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

Date: 21 Jul 1993 13:07:01 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

bearpaw ([e-mail]) wrote:
: My understanding of the history of the Space Shuttle is that the final
: design was a compromise between the original engineering and politics..
: IMHO, the trap that needs to be avoided is compromising the present
: design so that some politico can a little pork barrel in return for
: his/her support.

: bearpaw

Very true point.. which is precicely why I'm pleased DC is being worked on
OUTSIDE government supervision. This is VERY similar to the new system
NASA is stating to work under, and should prove to be a postitive change
for all of us. I firmly beleive the new "way of doing buisness" will
help change the views of lot of people about NASA, and space in general.

Mike
--
Michael C. Jensen    [e-mail] [e-mail]
Valparaiso University - Electrical Engineering / NASA - Johnson Space Center
"I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
*** Windows NT -- from the people who brought you edlin.. ***
---The opinions expressed are my own.. not NASA's or VU's..---

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 14:20:43 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <22jbtb$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:

>I feel compelled to note a historical similarity in recent posting to an
>event in the recent past, and hopefully help aviod a repeat. Currently,
>those DC-X/1 Prohpets are fortelling of a glorious time when the DC
>is flying. [Goes on to say the same claims where made for Shuttle.]

>Well, I listen to the DC-X/1 crowd and
>can't help worrying. Not because it's nesessarily an impossible task.
>Rather, because they are making  VERY extravagent claims.

Which claims are extravagent? Sure, it's moderately risky but it's
not extravagent. If it won't work, we will know after investing less
than the cost of a single Shuttle flight in the concept.

This is the famous "a project has failed therefore all projects must
fail" arguement. In the early 1900's you could have used this arguement
to 'prove' that we would never have airplanes based on Langly's failures.

This IS something to be concerned about but unless you can come up with
specific reasons, it shouldn't be veiwed as anything more than something
to monitor.

>(and for the record, I do NOT quite beleive that getting DC "man rated"
>will be as easy as some would claim.. the difference between a
>man rated system and a non-man rated system in complexity and hurdles
>to jump is ALMOST as big as the difference between a bicycle and
>a F-16.

For spacecraft that is true, for aircraft it isn't near as hard. Nobody
said it was trivial but it won't require unusual amounts of effort. Boeing
builds airplanes in spite of the difficulty associated with certification
and there isn't any reason spacecraft should be different.

Note that to manrate a spacecraft you add tens of millions of $$ in cost per
flight yet all that extra money doesn't improve the safety record one bit.
Un-rated launchers are just as safe as the rated ones.

    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."             |
+----------------------14 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 21 Jul 93 12:03:34 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <22fid4$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>|In <229kmb$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>|
>|
>|>Reasons for a High Inclination Orbit :
>|
>|>1)  Cheap Soviet flights available.
>|
>|That's not a valid reason unless you've already decided to chuck the
>|U.S. capability in this area in the interests of short-term monetary
>|savings.
>|

>It is possible to Take advantage of cheap soviet flights,
>without sacrificing US capabilities.

Thus even further raising the cost of things.  After all, if you also
maintain that U.S. capability, where are the 'savings' coming from?
If you are buying your actual operational capability from overseas,
where is the incentive to maintain and develop your own capability?

>If we swap to a high inclination orbit,  it means  we can
>swap some of the construction flights to the soviets,  while
>flying other shuttle dependent missions, like SIRTF or
>KH-12 repairs,  or LDEF 2-3 (Not that it's programmed).

But this is a different argument.  First you have to get funding for
those missions, otherwise your domestic hardware just sort of goes
away.  Putting the whole bill for supporting that domestic capability
on fewer programs makes those programs more expensive due to the fixed
costs of maintaining your own capability.  Besides which, why wouldn't
all those other things simply go with foreign hardware as well,
killing the American launch industry?

>Besides,  given the high probablity of a SHuttle Loss and
>Fleet shut-down,  would you not want to be able to continue
>Logistics flights from somewhere?

Yes, but the last time I checked Russia didn't have the only
alternative launch sites on the planet.

>If we take Hurricane LeRoY,  and it seriously screws up
>KSC for a couple months,  it would be very useful to have
>an alternate launch site open.

>A high Inclination orbit, does not require  we actually
>buy any russian flight services.  it merely makes it possible.

And adds a minimum of $400 million in extra costs.

>|>2)  Improved Earth Observation Missions.
>|
>|This one actually makes sense, but the proponents of the
>|high-inclination orbit seem to hardly ever mention it or the actual
>|improvement that could reasonably be expected in return from it.
>|

>What can I say.  THis is the one I hear a lot about.  51 degrees,
>just about doubles the earth observations science.

But does it double it in a way we care about?  I don't think we can
just measure the percentage of the Earth's surface we can see at each
inclination and claim 'double the science'.

>>>3)  Improved Logistics Flow missions.
>>
>>Unless this is just another way of stating something like 1, it
>>doesn't seem particularly obvious to me why this would be so.
>>

>It means,  you have an opportunity for  more flights in less time.

>KSC can only process N flights per year.  Vandenburg does not
>launch  to 28 degrees.   Let's  say SSF desperately needs a
>smoke shifter,  a rapid launch from Pletkesk (sp)  or baikonur
>is possible.  It certainly is not from KSC.  I doubt KSC could push
>a critical launch through in less then 30 days.

But do you have a requirement for that kind of logistics flow?  If so,
is it better to make your own capability or spend extra money to
launch to a high-inclination orbit, thereby making things more
difficult for yourself so that launches from elsewhere are feasible?

>If you are going to do some serious materials processing in Orbit,
>you want to get re-supply missions  often.  That means either some
>real big improvements at KSC and risk of single point failure,  or
>the option to do launches out of several space-ports.

Sounds more like an argument for more American capability rather than
an argument for a high-inclination orbit, per se.


>>>4)  Improved space science/engineering base.  (  hihg inclination,
>>>is a far more rigorous environment then low inclination.
>>
>>This sounds like saying "We should do it this way because it is
>>*harder*."  Somehow, that doesn't quite track for me.
>>

>You learn more about working to solve hard problems then easy problems.
>High Inclination  acts as a driver towards STS getting the AL-LI
>ET  and the ASRM,  really not bad ideas in my book.
>High Inclination, means they work  on radiation resistant systems.
>a interesting engineering problem.

Doing something the hard way for no other reason than that it *is* the
hard way is just plain silly, Pat.  I'm also unconvinced about the
utility of pouring money into Shuttle just so that we can do things
the hard way.  You seem to be running your logic backwards here.  If
those things are good ideas, inventing a program so as to deliberately
justify them is unnecessary.  If they are otherwise not sufficiently
good ideas, it seems rather stupid (as well as dishonest) to 'bend'
the program in such a way as to try to create justification for them.


>>>5)  Apparently ACRV return is simplified( This is what i was told,
>>>    I can't see an intuitive reason why this is).
>>

>Henry explained this one for me.  thank you oh, lord of space lore.


>>>Make vs Buy is  properly cognizant of the benefits of
>>>Technology developement.   Nevertheless,  Every company does
>>>Make this  decision in it's business operations.
>>
>>Yes, and generally badly, since companies often fail to look at
>>anything too far beyond the next balance sheet.
>>

>Just because make vs buy is badly done, by most companies
>doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the process,  it's
>a problem with the people.

No, it's a problem with 'horizon'.  We see a lot of that from folks
advocating the use of Russian hardware, too.

>>>IBM  Buys  Micro-processors.  DEC buys 4M DRAMS.
>>
>>Yes, and we can both see how healthy *those* two are, can't we?
>>

>WOuld they be healthier  if they were  pouring money into
>large IC Fabrication plants every year?  DEC can't afford more then
>one large design project at a time,  do you think they could do more
>after pouring money into a DRAM plant?

DRAM is easy.  That's why foreign countries that want an SC business
start there.

>And IBM used to do everything in-house,  and it left them technologically
>adrift come the 80's.  They had drifted so far from the main-stream
>they had no products to sell to the other electronics firms.

No, what left them 'adrift' was cutbacks in research.

>The only way they could develope a PC, was to buy entirely from
>outside sources.

No, that's the only way they *wanted* to develop a PC, since it wasn't
seen as a real big market at the time.  Your version strikes me as
slightly revisionist history.

--
"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: 21 Jul 1993 15:32 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 07/20/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from the Mars Observer Project

                        MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT
                               July 20, 1993
                               MOI -35 Days

The spacecraft is stable in Array Normal Spin, with communication via the High
Gain Antenna; uplink at 125 bps, downlink at the 2 kbps Engineering data rate.
One Way Light Time is 17 minutes and 25 seconds.  The Payload Data System,
Gamma Ray Spectrometer, and Magnetometer/Electron Reflectometer are powered on.
Indications are that all spacecraft subsystems and the instrument payload are
performing well.  Flight Sequence C12A is active .

Uplink of Flight Software Version 8.1 is underway.  Activities began at 8:33 AM
this morning, with planned task completion by 11:18 AM on Friday, 7/23.  On-
board Attitude Control Subsystem software tasks are being modified in a series
of uplinks over the next 3 days.  This will be the last planned fix prior to
commencement of Mars approach and capture activities.  The first of these is
Mars Observer Camera imaging of Mars starting with a photo pass beginning
Monday, July 26, at 9:18 AM and completing the following morning at 12:48 AM.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Common sense is not very
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | common.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 11:13:40 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: SETI: the "38 Signals"
Newsgroups: sci.space

Here is an interesting idea about the "38 SETI signals", that they are an alien
cultures example of broadcast radio/TV, and since they are not repeated, they
are not a "contact message" but just normal alien TV/Radio.. What makes us
think that other cultures in space would be into talking to us? contact and
such.. They migth just have as many problems and such as we do??

Or as head strong congress as we do??

But atleast we have the "38 messages" to keep peoples minds on the subject..

===
Ghost Wheel - [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 14:52:48 GMT
From: Russ Renaud <[e-mail]>
Subject: SETI information
Newsgroups: sci.space

In a previous article, [e-mail] (Remi Cabanac) says:

>>Where on the Internet could one get some information
>>re: the SETI project?  I'm looking for some basic info,
>>as well as perhaps some technical details, such as what is
>>the smallest discernible signal that the SETI radio telescope
>>are capable of detecting?  How are they processing the
>>myriad of signals they must be receiving.
>>
>>--
>
>I've just heard a lecture from Franck Drake and Billingham on the SETI project,
>at ISU in UAH few minutes ago.  Basically, the SETI receivers are built to
>detect the equivalent of earth emission from 5000 light years, which
>corresponds roughly to 10-23 W/m2/Hz (I'm not sure of the units).
>But it depends on the radio-telescope used (these data are for Arecibo).
>The emission are processed by an MSCA able to manage 6 million channels at once.
>Each emission is filtered with rigorous criteria such as periodicity, intensity
>regularity, etc...
>Until now, 38 signals are interesting and cannot be explained by radio
>terrestrial interference (yet).  But none are periodic.
>
>Remi Cabanac.

I would assume this would be 10^-23 Watts/metres squared/Hertz, which
is a ratio of signal density to bandwidth.

I would assume that one of the limiting factors in detecting these
extremely weak signals would be the internal thermal noise of the
microwave amplifiers.

In conventional RF amplifiers, thermal noise is expressed as.
Pn = KTB, where:
Pn = Noise power in Watts
K  = Boltzmann's constant 1.38(10^-23)
T  = Noise temperature in degrees Kelvin
B  = receiver bandwidth in Hertz.

With GaAsFET RF amplifiers, noise temperatures of less than 50 Kelvin
can be easily achieved even by us Amateur Radio operators.  I would
think that the SETI microwave equipment would be capable of far lower noise
temperatures figures, bring Pn very close to Boltzmann's constant.  I
have no idea if Pn=KTB would be a valid equation if K is a value
very close to 0 degrees kelvin.

Can anyone shed some light on this?


--

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

Date: 21 Jul 93 12:27:07 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Movie/PR..
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Martin Brown) writes:

>Currently, people have very little opportunity to even see ANY space info,
>even when your very interested.

No, there is a lot of opportunity. The problem is that the public doesn't
want to see it. The media gives us what we want and what we are interested
in. The idea of space is of great interest but the way NASA does it won't
keep public attention for very long. People want a space program which they
can see themselves involved in and NASA gives us hugely expensive efforts
for a small elite group. Sure it can grab headlines for a few days but
since it doesn't involve them, people soon loose interest in favor of
things which do involve them. It's entertainment and nothing more.

>My cable company doesn't show NASA Select, and isn't interested in doing so,
>saying there is no available capacity for new channels, while they waste one
>channel on _cable radio_! sheesh.

Note that the cable company doesn't consider it 'wasting' a chanel.

>I called JPL one day to see if they offered an auditorium for public viewing
>of NASA Select... nada.

Auditoriums are expensive and nobody would show up. Can you blame them? We
need to get a space program where people DO feel involved and then your
cable company will not only show NASA Select but will produce it's own
space programming.

   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."             |
+----------------------14 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 21 Jul 93 12:55:21 GMT
From: Dave Stephenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: The 51 degree orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Bruce Dunn) writes:


>        Of course there is an alternate solution :-).  Just set a North
>American Spaceport in Newfoundland or Labrador (clear eastward ranges from
>about 47 degrees to 60 degrees) and use Russian hardware.  Given the current
>devastated state of the economy in Newfoundland (the cod fishery has failed),
>the province will no doubt welcome a launch site with open arms.  Of course,
>the weather can be miserable, but this would be no impediment to Russian
>hardware and experience.

I thought that it was called Goose Bay!
--
Dave Stephenson
Geological Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada              *Om Mani Padme Hum 1-2-3*
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Jul 93 08:20:31 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: The U.S. and Mir
Newsgroups: sci.space

     Okay, this has been bugging me for a while, now, so I will use the
traditional method of getting questions answered and post this to the net. :-)

     I've seen a number of plans in the past for various methods of saving
money on Freedom that use Mir in various capabilities, starting with using
it as a 'construction shack' and going as far as docking our hardware to
it.  My question is this: has anyone actually talked to the Russians about
these ideas?  Seems like everyone's favorite magic wand recently is to invoke
the Russians as a cost-saving option, but so far I've seen nothing from
their side on this.

     Besides, would we really want to dock Freedom to Mir?  Considering the
declining state of health of the station, particularly the core module, it
doesn't seem like it would be a wise idea.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology        "Never fight a land war in Asia."
Office of Information Technology
[e-mail]                                   - MacArthur

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

Date: 21 Jul 1993 11:07 EST
From: "David B. Mckissock" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The U.S. and Mir
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes...
>
>     Okay, this has been bugging me for a while, now, so I will use the
>traditional method of getting questions answered and post this to the net. :-)
>
>     I've seen a number of plans in the past for various methods of saving
>money on Freedom that use Mir in various capabilities, starting with using
>it as a 'construction shack' and going as far as docking our hardware to
>it.  My question is this: has anyone actually talked to the Russians about
>these ideas?  Seems like everyone's favorite magic wand recently is to invoke
>the Russians as a cost-saving option, but so far I've seen nothing from
>their side on this.
>
>     Besides, would we really want to dock Freedom to Mir?  Considering the
>declining state of health of the station, particularly the core module, it
>doesn't seem like it would be a wise idea.

I have never heard of anyone suggesting combining hardware from the
US Space Station program with Mir. Using the Soyuz-TM as a crew
escape vehicle on the US Station, yes. Consideration of using
the Russian docking mechanism, yes. As you correctly note, adding
US Station hardware to the existing Mir doesn't make much sense,
as, at an age of 7 years, Mir is a very is very old.

On the subject of discussions with the Russians, yeah, NASA has
had lots of communications with them. Remember, the Russians
sent a team over to Crystal City to serve as consultants
to the Redesign Team (I had the opportunity to talk with
the Russian power expert on Mir, comparing notes about
the Freedom and Mir power systems). Space Station Level I
had a task with NPO Energia, for the Russians to study
the use of Mir systems on SSF (i.e. use of the environmental
control hardware), a Russian man-tended free-flyer, and use
of Russian launch vehicles. As part of this task, Level I
has held regular telecons with NPO Energia.

Recently, representatives from the Russian Space Agency
were in DC to meet with NASA and Boeing officials to
further discuss the usage of Russian environmental control
system hardware on the US Station. Next week, NASA personel
will be traveling to Russia for another round of meetings
on this subject.

Finally, Goldin & Koptev (I think it was Koptev, head of the
Russian Space Agency?) recently met and agreed to work
cooperatively on manned space flight activities ("recently"
meaning last weekend). As part of this agreement, the
Russians will again send a delegation to Crystal City
to work with the Transition Team on investigating possible
Russian participation in the Station program.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
           David McKissock        NASA Lewis Research Center
                                           Cleveland, Ohio 44135
    [e-mail]
    /pn=david.mckissock/admd=telemail/prmd=lerc/c=us/@x400.msfc.nasa.gov
                   Disclaimer: My Opinions are My Own, not NASA's.....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

Date: 21 Jul 93 01:22:08 GMT
From: Liana White <[e-mail]>
Subject: WASTE MANAGEMENT ABOARD S
Newsgroups: sci.space

K >Here's my 2c. Fell free to tell me that it's totally useless, etc etc
K >
K >How about a centrifuge based toilet compartment?

Sounds good, but what about 0-G sickness.  It's tough enough for some of
those astronauts to go from 1 to 0 G's and back again once per trip.  I'd
hate to see how they'd feel about having to do it several times per day,
even if it was only low gravity.

K >This would enable the use of fairly basic chemical toilets, until the
K >basic issue of real zero-g toilets has been solved.
K >
K >This wouldn't be a viable shuttle solution for obvious reasons, but
K >is there any reason it can't be used for larger installations?

You got it.  Why spend money on a partial and temporary solution.
K >
K >I fully accept that there are storage/disposal problems still to be
K >solved, but
K >it would at least help deal with the problems of having to excrete
K >into a
K >plastic bag, etc and deal directly with the stuff afterwards. What
K >does the
K >shuttle smell like after a week in orbit? What did skylab smell like?
K >
K >Possibilities. Tankage on the centrifuge. self sealing connections.
K >When the
K >tanks are full, remove and transfer to a stationary treatment point.
K >(A space
K >going septic tank?)
K >
K >We aren't going to be collecting stool and urine samples forever.
K >Eventually
K >we're just going to be facing problems of waste disposal. How about
K >teflon
K >lining the tanks to make them easier to clean?
K >
K >--
K >Alan Brown [e-mail]
K >
K >
K >---
K > * Origin: S2S Gateway  Vancouver, BC (1:153/764)
K >

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 903
------------------------------