Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_9/v16no990.txt

Text File | 1993-08-13 | 34KB | 776 lines

Space Digest                Fri,  6 Aug 93       Volume 16 : Issue 990

Today's Topics:
                              11 planets
      DC-X Prophets and associated problems (historical errors)
                   Found your own dark-sky nation?
                             Ghost Wheels
                        Hubble repair mission
                 Mars Observer's First Photo (3 msgs)
          NASA's planned project management changes (2 msgs)
                Re-Using Old ICBMs As Space Launchers
                 The Inquisition (The Usenet edition)
                      Titan IV Failure (2 msgs)
                       Titan IV failure. Info?
                     WFPC-2 Installation into HST
                     Why I hate the space shuttl

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 21:28:38 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: 11 planets
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan Jenn) writes:
>Has anyone considered the notion that perhaps
>the asteroid belt that lies between Mars and Jupiter
>might actually be the remains of the so called eleventh
>planet...

The idea that the asteroid belt might be the remains of a planet is an
old one.  It's generally not taken seriously today, for several reasons:

1. Modern theories of formation of the solar system produce an asteroid
belt in that vicinity without requiring a planet as an intermediate stage.
The asteroids are leftovers from planet formation.

2. All the asteroids put together would make an object only about twice
the size of Ceres -- a planet only in the loosest sense of the word.

3. There is no obvious way of making a planet explode.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 93 21:12:49 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems (historical errors)

Someone else probably got it by now, but:

> The spruce goose was a tremendous achievement,  but what proved
more

> useful in WW2.  the C-47.  an ugly little goony bird.
>


The spruce goose was not completed in time for the war. And in fact,
it never really "flew" per se. I think it was taken into ground
effect once. It is a monument to Howard Hughes more than anything
else.

> The hindenburg was beautiful aesthetic engineering  but they never
> quite resolved that explosion problem.   Plus airships are
> very unstable on landing.  they just don't cope with rough air.
>


Air ships were not all that bad. The Hindenberg flew on H2 because
the US was worried about the Nazi's and would not sell them He.
Passengers were killed by oil fires and the fall as they jumped, not
by the H2. Safety with airships was at least as good as with the
aircraft of the day, and they were luxurious. Bad publicity from that
accident plus the onset of WWII and the advances in aviation
technology killed them more than anything. Actually, with new
materials and the rising costs of fuel, they are becoming more
economically interesting with each passing year.

> I don't know.  After a series of Airship accidents,  they were
> basically abandoned.  that's why we have that big hanger at
> AMES/  foobar navy station.
>


I would recommend the Time/Life aviation series volume on airships. I
believe one of them (R series was it? Henry?) was still flying many
years later. There are also some interesting stories about a
competition (UK) between a government and a private enterprise
airship. I think the fellow backing the government one, which was
basically a typical goldplated  government. I think the head of it
was killed when their ship broke up. The privately built one flew
just fine and was far, far cheaper....

--
=======================================================================
Give generously to the        Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist
Betty Ford Home for                    [e-mail]
the Politically Correct     Greybook:  [e-mail]
=======================================================================

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 18:18:46 GMT
From: "Alan J. Filipski" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Found your own dark-sky nation?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
-In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
->    Of course, it probably wouldn't work anyway. A while back somebody
->actually tried to found "a libertarian paradise" on some previously unclaimed
->sea-level atolls between Fiji and Tonga, the "Republic of Minerva". Tonga
->simply waited a few days while the "Minervans" built up a seawall for them,
->then invaded, kicked everyone out, and officially annexed the atolls to Tonga.
-
-Typical; the necessity of national defense has always been the
-Libertarians' blind spot.  By the time you can convince enough private
-citizens to voluntarily pay for it, it's too late, the Tongans have
-already invaded, kicked everyone out, and annexed your country.

Perhaps you're confusing Libertarians with someone else. Maybe I'm
wrong, but the Libertarians I know favor a strong defense paid for by
taxes, not voluntary contributions.  I thought that common defense was
commonly considered essential enough to be coercively funded. Please
explain your assertion that the above incident is "typical".  Maybe the
Minervans were just outnumbered and outgunned, political philosophy
notwithstanding.


--------------
alan filipski
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 16:49:37 GMT
From: Spiros Triantafyllopoulos <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ghost Wheels
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (S.H.) writes:
>>===
>>Ghost Wheel - [e-mail]
>
>
>
>What is your backgroud? Ghost. Are you part of Ghost_Green?
>Who do you speak for ?
>
>What do you do besides writing posters ?

Robert? Are you back? (MCELWRE)

Robert?

Spiros

--
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    [e-mail]
Software Technology, Delco Electronics       [phone]
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 12:27:59 MST
From: "Richard Schroeppel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble repair mission

The writeup for the Hubble repair mission says they will retrieve
the telescope on the third day of the mission, and begin the
repair spacewalks on the day following capture.

Why does it take two days to do the rendezvous?
Why wait a day after the rendezvous to start the repairs?

Rich Schroeppel  [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Aug 1993 18:10 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer's First Photo
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Donald L. Savage
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     August 5, 1993
(Phone:  [phone])


NOTE TO EDITORS:  N93-43

FIRST PHOTOGRAPH OF MARS FROM MARS OBSERVER AVAILABLE

     NASA's Mars Observer spacecraft returned its first image of
Mars taken last week when the spacecraft was 3.6 million miles
(5.8 million kilometers) from the red planet.

     The photograph was taken using the Mars Observer Camera's
(MOC) high resolution narrow-angle telescope as a technical
check-out of the camera, the data management system and other
systems on board the spacecraft and on Earth, including NASA's
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and the MOC
operations facility at Malin Space Science Systems, Inc., San
Diego.

     Mars Observer will orbit Mars on Aug. 24 and global mapping
operations will begin Dec. 16.

     The B & W photograph is available by calling NASA's
Broadcast and Imaging Branch at 202/358-1900.  Photo number is
93-H-398.

- end -
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | When given a choice between
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | two exciting things, choose
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | the one you haven't tried.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 20:30:40 GMT
From: Richard D Pierce <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer's First Photo
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>
>FIRST PHOTOGRAPH OF MARS FROM MARS OBSERVER AVAILABLE
>
>     The B & W photograph is available by calling NASA's
>Broadcast and Imaging Branch at 202/358-1900.  Photo number is
>93-H-398.

And, of course, it's available by FTP, right?

--
|                Dick Pierce                |
|    Loudspeaker and Software Consulting    |
| 17 Sartelle Street   Pepperell, MA  01463 |
|       [phone] (Voice and FAX)      |

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 21:45:57 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer's First Photo
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard D Pierce) writes:
>>     The B & W photograph is available by calling NASA's
>>Broadcast and Imaging Branch ...
>
>And, of course, it's available by FTP, right?

That's either sarcasm or naivete; no way to tell which. :-)

It won't be available for FTP until somebody gets a copy and scans it in.
NASA's PR people are still in the dark ages when it comes to electronic
availability of such things.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 5 Aug 1993 17:34:34 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA's planned project management changes
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <23ple3$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>|Basically, it's a smooth reclassification.
>Is there anything wrong with this?

If you have to be that creative to get around the "system," there's something
wrong with the system.  It'll work so long as nobody screams about it too
loudly.

>|   Second, unlike your commercial customers, DoD (whatever agency) has the
>|unilateral right to revise its contracts [...]
>It's called a termination for convenience.

No, read it again.  They have the right to REVISE at will. Termination is dealt
with in the separate clause below.

>|   Third, DoD obtains extensive audit and work surveillance rights under its
>|contracts. [Much less so with other agencies, but still, the guv'ment may
>|come in at any time to look at the books; this is NOT the case with a
>|commercial entity]
>
>Lot's of contracts include this.
>Any CPFF  or T&M contract includes the right to audit cost basis
>materials  and  hourly timesheets.

Including stationing their own employees on site to monitor all goings on?

Hardly.  Even the TQM prayer groups don't go to the monitoring extremes
which the government does... and that was before TQM became hip :)

>|   Fourth, DoD uses its procurement program as a vehicle for attaining
>|numerous national, social, and economic goals.
>So do every other business in the world.   All contracts carry an
>implied social and economic policy in them.

I realize this is your typical socialistic garbage, but you're wrong.

>Look at detroits boycott of japanese products for years

Detroit?  Ah, yes the two-faced types who yell "Buy American" with one
mouth and end up cutting deals with japanese companies on the other hand
for joint production... ho hoho.  All to improve the bottom line.

There's nothing "social" in that.  It's money and greed.  Why else are most
companies building products overseas?  Not for the good of the United States,
but cuz it's CHEAPER.

>   ATT, IBM,  and the
>fortune 500  usually have policies to help small and disadvantaged
>business too.

Only because it suits their public image and because they are required by
law to have a certain percentage of small/disadvantaged businesses on-board
in various government contract work, due to the SBA act.

It's not because they want to be nice guys.

>|   Fifth, under certain types of contracts, there are limitations on the
>|amount of profit you can earn and on the amounts and types of costs you may
>|recover.
>Same thing on T&M, and CPFF contracts in the priovate sector.

Sure, but if DoD decides to revise the contract, you're screwed regardless.

>|   Finally, DoD [and any other agency] has an absolute to terminate all or any
>|part of your contract at any time....
>Lot's of contracts carry a termination for convenience clause,  actually
>all contracts by law are terminable,

Certainly.  But the government has lots more lawyers on staff and they make the
rules, not a neutral party.  Care to rethink that?


>>Now, did you want a further exploration on why the government is not quite
>>the capitialist business entity which you'd like to think?
>Do you want to rethink your position first?

Hardly.  DoD is lots bigger than any single company on earth.  And their
enforcement branch has guns as well as lawyers :)

Now, you're the raging socialist, Pat.  Government does not maximize profits.
Nor does it go out and excessively borrow :)

>The GBU-28, i believe is a fairly old bomb.  it's a 50 year old
>500 lb bomb,  with a vintage vietnam  control kit.

No, actually, it's not. It's made out of old 8" gun tubes and designed
to blow up underground bunkers. Made from scratch. Good stuff.

>>Another example I can cite off the top of my head is the formation of various
>>special operations groups in the '80s.  No competitive bid, no thick paper
>>trails, lots of cash.  Couple of people in jail, tho' for misuse of funds
>>(some charges of questionable nature, but I don't play a laywer on TV).
>
>Most of these charges weren't over procurement,  but Travel monies
>and operational funds.  a slightly different fish.

Some were over procurement, some procurements were done outside of the normal
papertrail channels.  Don't want to have any records which can be FOIA'd or
strings back to the Pentagon.

>>That's a fallacy.  DC was programmed to be high-risk regardless of procurement.
>
>I kind of doubt DC is high risk.  it's an experimental developement
>program.  given that they are only purchasing one vehicle and
>no other products are critically pathed upon it,  it's not high risk.

What happens if the one vehicle dies?  They don't have a lot of spares sitting
around.  I'd call that significant risk, hm?

>>You'll willing to praise NASA for successfully procuring a piece of "old"
>>hardware, rather than bitching at them for not being INNOVATIVE and DARING.
>
>Oddly enough, i know why NASA did this, and it is understnadable.
>
>The new variant OV's were not compatible on asystems level
>with the old OV's  which meant twice as much training,  and
>more operational twists.

Well Pat, you seem suddenly Risk Adverse for someone so adament to launching
SSF in a higher inclination because it'll be "tougher."

>>Waive which ones?  You seem to imply a blanket trashing of over a thousand
>>pages of regulation.
>
>Most of those regs don't apply to the average procurement,
>they apply  as cited or as applicable to the contract type.

C'mon Pat, I got 20 pages of FARs for a small solicitation. Gimme a break.  I'd
hate to think what they look like for larger amounts of money.

>>structure solicitations in a streamlined manner but you can't snap your
>>fingers and get ride of things like certifications for a drug free
>>workplace.
>Are you actually familiar with the Drug Free workplace certification?
>IT only states that you must have a drug policy?  nothing more.
>One local washington company  with about 200 employees,  had to write
>a policy, do you know what their policy was?
>If you bring drugs to the office, you must share them.

So what do you think would happen if the government goes back and looks at that
particular policy?  Do you think that Uncle Sam will think that's cute and
continue to hand them money?




     January 1993 - John Scully embraces Bill Clinton.
     July 1993    - Apple Computer lays off 2500 workers, posts $188
            million dollar loss.

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 21:23:00 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA's planned project management changes
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <23r1io$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
> I wouldn't even bother on insurance,  merely require
>that the launch service provider gaurantee that the payload be delivered
>to X,Y,Z  (+/- 1%)  and if not  to pay the government for the lost cargo.

This doesn't eliminate insurance, it just changes who's buying it.  The
launch-service provider will most assuredly want to be insured against
failures, especially if he's required to reimburse the government for
the payload cost.

Apart from possible beneficial effects on the quality of the services
provided, there is not a lot of point to doing this.  You will always
pay more if you want someone else to accept risks for you.  It's silly
to buy insurance for risks you can handle yourself, and if you have the
financial resources of a government, there isn't much you can't handle
yourself.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 21:42:28 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re-Using Old ICBMs As Space Launchers
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> "SED::MRGATE::\"A1::AIR_PHILLIPS\""@sed.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>But he is not correct that they still have some remaining Atlas ICBMs -
>they would have run out in 1988 or 1989 I think. They had the last of them
>in VAMP when I was there.

Powell & Richards's paper ("The Atlas E/F Launch Vehicle -- An Unsung
Workhorse") in the May 1991 JBIS, covering history up to April 1990,
says there were still 7 left in storage at Vandenberg then, of which 3
had been allocated to NASA/NOAA weather-satellite launches set for
June 1990, May 1991, and Sept 1992.  (I don't know how many of those
went off on schedule; the payload slated for the first, NOAA-D, actually
went up in May 1991.)  I'd guess they went through VAMP and *then* into
storage pending missions.  The paper says that the USAF had earmarked
two more for military weather-satellite launches, and planned to sell
the remaining ones once those launches shifted to refurbished Titans.

>And the availability of old ICBMs to refurb and launch is GOOD for the
>Titan business ...

Good for the Titan business, maybe... but that's a little academic when
MM has put Commercial Titan completely on the back burner.  Titan is
still a dedicated US government launcher for all practical purposes.
And what's good for the Titan business isn't necessarily good for the
US launch industry.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 5 Aug 93 17:44:04 GMT
From: Bob Kirkpatrick <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Inquisition (The Usenet edition)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Ward Paul) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (S.H.) writes:
> >
> >What is your backgroud?
> >Who do you speak for ?
> >
> >What do you do besides writing posters ?
>
> Gee, no one told me the inquisition had started again.

There is no reason to supply information like that requested --much like
there's no reason to attempt to direct followups to /dev/null. If you
aren't looking to engage in discussion, then don't post.

But usenet is simply a collection of people, each with their own opinion.
Who they speak for, what their background is, and what else they do isn't
at all germane to any topic. It can certainly add to one's credibility I
suppose, but even Einstein had his detractors. One's background or who
they represent doesn't mean a lot. Why? Anyone can be wrong, and anyone
can be right.
:-)


--
Bob Kirkpatrick -- Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
American government: The best leadership money can buy.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 21:09:26 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Titan IV Failure
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>> A correspondent tells me the T4, was carrying a triple satellitte
>>payload,  the three birds were supposed to work in tandem.
>
>>What are the odds this was supposed to be some sort of
>>Interferometry package?  Optical?  radio?
>
>Not necessarily: Orbital interferometry can be very tricky and I
>doubt it is worth it for military intelligence...

Ah, but you missed the possibility of non-optical interferometry, and
that's almost certainly what this bird was.  The USN has been launching
radio-interferometry satellite clusters since the mid-70s.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 21:17:31 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Titan IV Failure
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <23q6u3$[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>What is the power source for the payload? SNAP or similar units or
>solar arrays? I can't believe the press hasn't reported on the
>possibilty that fissionable materials could have been sent
>into the pacific...

Nobody in the US uses anything but solar arrays (or batteries) unless
they must.  The paperwork is just too formidable to use isotope generators
unnecessarily.

Incidentally, I don't think the Pu238 normally used for deep-space power
systems is fissionable in any useful sense of the word.  Its sole hazard
is its radioactivity.  Isotope generators are not nuclear reactors.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 21:14:17 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Titan IV failure. Info?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <23q5ot$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>...I suppose you could say that the SRM's have "thrust
>termination" if you wish need a euphemism for the self destruct system.

Actually, that's a fairly common euphemism for the destruct system, and
it's arguably more correct, since the primary purpose of the destruct
system is simply to ensure termination of all thrust.  (Nothing short
of a nuclear weapon would reduce a substantial rocket to pieces small
enough to be harmless.)

>... I don't think that there is anything downrange of VAFB
>besides water.  Is it common practice to destroy a rocket that doesn't
>threaten civilians?

A rocket running wild under power -- like an SRB cut loose from its core
stage -- can threaten civilians.  Vandenberg isn't remote enough to avoid
that possibility.  That's why such rockets *have* destruct systems.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 5 Aug 1993 18:05 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: WFPC-2 Installation into HST
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle

>From the "JPL Universe"
July 16, 1993

Putting WF/PC-2 in place may require the hands of a surgeon
By Diane Ainsworth

     What will it take to slide a 280-kilogram (620-pound),
wedge-shaped camera into the side of NASA's orbiting Hubble Space
Telescope without so much as bumping an edge of the instrument?

     NASA thinks it may take the hands of a surgeon.
     So Story Musgrave, a surgeon by training and payload
commander on STS-61 -- the first Hubble telescope servicing
mission -- has been practicing, along with four other crew
members, in a 12-meter-deep (40-foot-deep) water tank at Marshall
Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. The tank simulates the
weightlessness of space.
     "Working in the water tank, and in the Weightless
Environment Training Facility at Johnson Space Center, we are
learning things like reach and visibility," Musgrave told members
of the press at a recent Hubble Space Telescope News Writers
Workshop in Baltimore.  "We are learning the right kinds of
positions we will use in the work sites on orbit, how to work in
spacesuits and how to restrain objects in zero G."
     Musgrave and his colleagues were halfway through a
three-week water training session at Marshall Space Flight Center
when he took time out to give the press an astronaut's
perspective on the upcoming December 1993 Hubble Space Telescope
servicing mission via remote satellite link from Huntsville.
     The 57-year-old veteran of four space flights, who had
recently suffered frostbite on several fingertips during a
training session, didn't flinch when the inevitable question --
would the crew be able to fix everything -- came up.
     "It's a bunch of hard work, but I think we're going to get
the whole thing done," he declared enthusiastically. "People
should remember that during the lunar program, we were working on
the moon eight hours a day, three days in a row," he said.
"During this mission, we will be working (out in space) six hours
every other day."
     The Space Shuttle Endeavour is scheduled to rendezvous with
and capture the Hubble Space Telescope during STS-61, tentatively
set for launch at 4:30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on Dec. 2.
Astronauts will retrieve the 13.1-meter-long (43-foot-long)
orbiting telescope on the third day of the mission.
     Once the telescope has been captured by the shuttle's
15-meter (50-foot) mechanical arm, it will be secured upright in
the cargo bay for servicing. One-hundred-and-seventy-one tools,
ranging from simple tote bags to sophisticated, battery-operated
power tools, have been prepared to assist the astronauts in the
repair mission.
     Working in pairs on alternating days, four of the seven crew
members -- Musgrave and mission specialists Jeffery Hoffman,
Thomas Akers and Kathryn Thornton -- will be spacewalking a
record five days of the mission and, perhaps, as many as seven
days. Each spacewalk will last from five to eight hours,
depending on how long the oxygen supplies last.
     Three priorities on STS-61 have been identified as crucial
to the success of the mission: replacing the telescope's two
12-meter (39-foot) solar panels; replacing the
Wide-Field/Planetary Camera; and installing the Corrective Optics
Space Telescope Axial Replacement, known as COSTAR.
     Musgrave said the crew has been working with a full-scale
training version of the camera to learn how to delicately remove
the cover of the pickoff mirror, which points out from the tip of
the camera, before the instrument is guided like a giant drawer
into the side of the telescope.
     "You are about this far away from the mirror," he said,
extending his arm about 30 centimeters (12 inches) in front of
his face, "and you've got the optics of an incredibly important
instrument, probably one of the most important instruments ever
flown. It has to be protected, it cannot be touched at all, and
you have to give it the most tender loving care of all until it
is inserted into the telescope."
     The astronauts have learned from water training that the
Wide-Field/Planetary Camera will have to be handed off to one
astronaut, who will be holding onto the side of the telescope
from his or her partner, who will be standing on the shuttle's
robot arm.
     "We discovered that the person on the arm will not have the
visibility to slide the camera into the side of the telescope,"
Musgrave said.  "Keep in mind that we are wearing big helmets and
visors that limit our sight, how much we can turn our heads and
where we can put our eyeballs."
     Two extra days have been built into the 11-day mission to
give the astronauts a day off and to allow for contingencies --
anything that might go awry or require research from the ground.
     "If we find that we're running behind in some task or
running ahead of schedule, we will be able to move on to other
tasks," Musgrave said. "We are being trained to accommodate
surprises, changes in the flight plan, things that may interrupt
or delay our activities."
     The crew will begin its daily spacewalks on the day
following telescope capture, Dec. 5, said Milt Heflin, flight
director for the first servicing mission.
     The first extravehicular activity (EVA) will involve
replacing three backup gyros that are used to point and track the
telescope and preparing the solar arrays for deployment, Heflin
said.
     The second EVA will be devoted to replacing the solar
arrays, followed on the next EVA day by replacement of the
Wide-Field/Planetary Camera. The fourth EVA will be used to
remove the 220-kilogram (487-pound), telephone booth-sized High
Speed Photometer and replace it with the 272-kilogram (600-pound)
COSTAR. All of the science instruments will be returned to Earth
to determine how well they weathered the space environment.
     NASA is considering a follow-up mission nine to 12 months
after STS-61 if all of the repairs are not completed. Although
Musgrave said he'd "jump at it" to be one of the returning
astronauts, he also voiced his confidence that the STS-61 crew
would be able to accomplish its mission regardless of the
surprises or setbacks.
     "In my 26 years with NASA, I have never seen such a
detailed, energetic approach to trying to identify all of the
surprises, to look ahead to all of the possibilities, all of the
contingencies that might happen during the mission," he said.
     "But this is not your local garage ... this is spaceflight,
this is one of the most ambitious things we have ever attempted.
It's a drama, and it's going to have to be played out."
                                  ###
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | When given a choice between
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | two exciting things, choose
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | the one you haven't tried.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 93 22:05:06 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Why I hate the space shuttl

> In fact, I have heard from some NASA people that the Intel 80486
family will
> probably never be spaceflight certified: it is just
> too complex to be relied upon.
>


This is one of the problem's I have with NASA. Yesterday's Technology
Today!

I also don't really believe that anyone in their right mind at NASA
would say such a thing. It's very much in the category of "Heavier
than air flight will never be practical".

Spcae will see 486's, Pentium's, Sextiums, Octiums, Noniums...
possibly on the private stations if no where else. If it comes to
that, I'm sure we could agree, for a suitable fee of course, to do a
bit of computing for the poor cousins in the gummint station. :-)

 --
=======================================================================
Give generously to the        Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist
Betty Ford Home for                    [e-mail]
the Politically Correct     Greybook:  [e-mail]
=======================================================================

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 990
------------------------------