Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Tue, 14 Mar 89 05:16:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 14 Mar 89 05:16:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #292 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 292 Today's Topics: robot hands (was 1992 moon base) ISECCo UPDATE #6 Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update) NASA FY-1990 Budget Request ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 11:27:57 EST From: rachiele@NADC.ARPA (J. Rachiele) Subject: robot hands (was 1992 moon base) > Let's take a specific case. I want the robot to open a screwed on access >cover, remove a circuit card from a card case, put it into a test fixture, >run test points on the traces (let's say .03" design rules), and finally >remove and replace a soldered chip and reassemble the unit. Can you point >to any of this being done even in a controlled ground environment? For maintenence of military computers in the field, it is not assumed that the human can do even this much. The fault localazation software on our system is required to print out a list of cards, in order, to replace. And the doors on the cabinet has handles. This would make it a little easier. A more difficult task might be screwing in a connector without bending any of the pins (although you may have trouble finding a human who can do this reliably.:-) > ++PLS Jim rachiele@nadc.arpa ------------------------------ X-Delivery-Notice: SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender. Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 09:14:16 -0900 Reply-To: Sender: From: Robert Jessie Hale III Subject: ISECCo UPDATE #6 As a reminder I will be off the computer for two weeks. March 11-27. Please send all request and comments to FSRRC@ALASKA and ISECCo will reply as soon as possible. Please include Mail address. #24 ACAD3A::FSRRC Thu 09 Mar 1989 23:35 ( 145) March 8, 1989 ISECCo PROJECT UPDATE #6: Crops cycling. Background: Dinner in a small, closed ecology is not a matter of simply choosing what you want to eat just before you begin cooking, or even a day or two before: it must be planned months in advance. The diet must be pre- calculated months in advance of consumption for the food to be eatten must be grown first. I doubt it will have to be QUITE this strict; if you could not stand to have carrots & fish for dinner you could get away with substituting cabbage & worms--but the carrots & fish would have to be eatten the next night, or shortly thereafter for in a closed ecology all food must be cycled (and the occupant is the 'cycler'!). Calculations involve the time required for the desired crop to grow, quantity needed, calories required and nutritional data. Naturally if you want to have carrots for dinner a month from now you better already have them in the ground or you won't be able to harvest them on the desired date. Quantity needed for each crop is determined by a balance between the calorie requirement, the nutrient requirement and what else is to be eatten. Calories are easy to look up, as is nutritional information. These calculations may or may not be performed in actual biosphere operation--since we will be gradually building up the ecosystem we should be able to maintain a balanced diet by careful attention to planting schedules. We may, however, wish to write a computer program to do these calculations so as to maintain more complete records and so we can more easily trace any problems which may occur. Crops take a preductable length of time to grow from seed to harvest. This time, combined with the rate of consumption determines the rate at which the plant should be planted. Since plants do not have to be harvested on a fixed date, but rather over a range of dates, plantings of somewhat larger batches than that for a single meal may be used. However the overall effect will be a continuous planting schedule, rather than the usual method of planting all your 'acerage' at once--and then harvesting all at once. Food storage in the Biosphere is very limited due to the fact that food is, in essence, essential elements locked up as the foodstuff. Those elements are required by the biosphere to continue operation. An example is carbon dioxide (not quite an element, I realize, but it makes the point); a single potatoe will require more carbon dioxide in it's growth than there is in the atmosphere in the biosphere. Should you then put that potatoe in the 'fridge and save it you have, in essence, removed all the carbon dioxide from the air. Naturally there are other things going on to replentish the carbon dioxide, but the amount you have removed will decrease the efficency of the system and should more potatoes be added to your storage bin you will quickly run into trouble. Therefore food storage, beyond a very short period, will be quite limited. Current status: We have begun a gradual build-up of hydroponic food production. Our method aims to be providing enough food to support one person by the time the Biosphere shell is finished. Since this is likely several years away we are progressing slowly; there is no reason to finish the hydroponics systems and have no place to put them! This is not to say we are not progressing. We are well on our way towards our initial goal of producing 25% of the food required for one person; the hydroponics boxes are built and in place and some of the watering systems have been built. We have planted 37 plants, 17 of which have germinated (the potatoes, which are the furthest along, are 'crawling' all over everywhere!) Crop plantings shall proceed on a regularly in the desire of producing a constant flow of food from the hydroponics. This crop cycling usually is not practical in an unenclosed environment due to weather considerations. In a controlled environment it is not only possible but desireable for it increases the productivity by allowing plants of a given size to occupy only the space needed for photosynthesis--in a natural environment moving the plants around so they occupy a minimum of space is impractical (to say the least!). Since we are not working with a total system yet ridged cycling of planting dates is not yet needed. We are planting on a 2-3 week cycle right now, though not everything being grown is planted at each planting. As the system works towards completion these planting dates will become more and more frequent and less and less flexibility can be allowed as the consumption of these plants provides more of the person's diet. When the system is complete plant cycling will be fairly fixed, especially in terms of calorie & nutrient production requirements. Thus, while any given crop may be substituted the total production must result in a sufficient number of calories and nutrient for the Biosphere inhabitant. Conclusion: Most plants require 75-100 days to mature in an ideal environment. This requires that each plant to be eatten must be planted that far in advance of the desired date of consumption. Animal food sources must be similarly managed. While not completely inflexible this requirement shall require considerable forethought in order to maintain an adequate diet. Larger systems will provide increasing flexibility, but in a system the size we are constructing crop cycling becomes of prime importance in the regulation of food supply. Improper planning will result in an inadequate diet. This is the reason we are begining to plan crop cycling and management this soon in our efforts; while not needed now it will become critical as the crops move toward providing one person's food. A good cycling schedule should be implimented from the beginning to assure a minimum of 'peaks' and 'valleys' in food production. ON other matters: Our contract to lease the land on which the Biosphere is to be built is moving ahead, and it is expected to be signed well in advance of the May deadline. While we have not done too much on aero-space craft design since the last report on it we are devoting the majority of our next meeting to mapping out a strategy for design of our test model. While this project is not currently active, and will not be for some time to come, we feel a that the complexity of the project requires much advance planning for it to succeed. Therefore we shall continue to have occasional meetings to address the problems which will slow or prevent this project so that when we have the necessary funding to proceed we will have a good idea the direction we will need to proceed in! After considerable though I have come to the conclusion we will need to build the Biosphere shell in such a fashion that we can use it in both a pressurized mode and a de-pressurized (partially, of course!) mode. I would hope we could attain +/- 5 psi, though we may have to settle for slightly less. The reason for this is the conflicting data I have found which is sufficiently confusing to allow me to question what is the best pressure. To add to the confusion some kinds of plants may prefer higher pressures while others may prefer lower. Building the Biosphere shell so that it can do both will nkwhat complicate the airlock but I feel that the added experimental flexibility will be well worth it. While not directly related to ISECCo, my project of re-building my airplane, a Piper Super Cub, I though I would give a little update on it since many of our members have expressed interest in the project. (Rides are a distinct possibility to those who are dedicated members--and can get here!) Over the winter I have progressed from aiming to do a simple recover job of the fabric to doing a complete strip job of the plane. I had been planning on getting it back in the air and then doing the rest of the job in a year or so, but once I got it all apart in the garage I figured I probably should do everything and save myself from having to tear it apart again. (Not to mention I had some unexpected free time this winter!) I am (finally) at the point where things begin going back together again; I have stripped the frame of everything, sandblasted it and it is ready to paint. Then I shall put the new tin I made in, re- fabric it, put the engine back on, paint it, paint the wings, put the wings back on and...look, is it a bird? Naw, just Ray out playing eagle again...(unfortunately to accomplish these tasks shall be rather time- comsuming--I am into the project around 800 manhours already, and by the time I'm done it may top 1100!) Any of you who haven't yet joined and are interested do get in touch with us. Our minimum membership is only $5 for an entire decade. Anyone who wants to join can just send Robert, FNRJH@ALASKA, or myself a note on here (PLEASE include a regular mail address: we have had a number of responses which we have been unable to answer over BITNET!) and we'll send you a letter with the information we'll need. Alternatively you can write ISECCo, P.O. Box 60885, Fairbanks, AK 99706. --Ray :: President, ISECCo [end] Robert J. Hale III ISECCo Director ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 89 00:43:15 GMT From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update) In article <1529@ubu.warwick.UUCP> arg@opal.UUCP (Ruaraidh Gillies) writes: >In article <1989Mar4.225139.20609@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>The latest major Soviet space problem -- the Soyuz reentry foulup -- put >>their program back maybe two or three weeks. >Have to admit defeat here - never heard of it. This is the one where the Soyuz returning from Mir couldn't fire its retrorockets. They were temporarily stranded; low on oxygen, and could neither get back to Mir or reenter. The good 'ol sensation-mongering USA TV networks were full of lots of hand-wringing about how the cosmonauts were going to run out of air shortly. Except for one interview with James Oberg, where he said the cosmonauts were in no danger, and would reenter on the next orbit. He was right. I think it was some kind of computer problem; they just overrode it and fired the retros manually. I think the most interesting Soviet failure was the one with the Indian 'guest cosmonaut', in which the booster blew up on the pad. The escape tower worked perfectly, and cosmonauts survived, though slightly mashed due to the high g-forces of escape tower rockets. (Good heavens, that newsgroups line!! I'm paring that down to reason. rec.music.misc!??!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!) -- "It was more dangerous to drive Mike Van Pelt away from Three Mile Island than Video 7 to stay there." -- Dr. Bruce Ames. ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp ------------------------------ Date: 10 Mar 89 22:22:01 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) Subject: NASA FY-1990 Budget Request Here is the NASA budget request for fiscal year 1990 (beginning October 1, 1989). This is President Reagan's budget request, submitted before he left office in January, but as far as I know, the Bush administration has not made any changes. In fact, Richard Darman, Bush's director of OMB, has testified to Congress strongly in favor of the NASA budget in general and the Space Station program in particular. Of course, it remains to be seen what Congress will actually appropriate, both in total amount and in the various programs. (And I'm willing to take a fairly large bet that they won't act on it at all by October 1.) The budget and the comments below are from CANOPUS, as condensed by me. See copyright information at end. --SW NASA SEEKS NEW STARTS FOR TWO PLANETARY MISSIONS - can890110.txt - 1/9/89 "New starts" are sought for the Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby and Cassini Saturn/Titan missions in the fiscal 1989 budget proposed today for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The $13.3 billion budget plan is almost $2.4 billion higher than the current $10.9 billion budget NASA has for fiscal 1989. The largest increase is a $1.1 billion jump for the Space Station program. Small gains are made in physics and astronomy and other science budgets, and the NASA payroll is to increase by 700 permanent positions. The CRAF and Cassini missions are proposed as a dual new start to save money (compared to two separate programs) by using a common Mariner Mark II bus design and spares. Funds for several programs--Hubble Space Telescope, Gamma Ray Observatory, Galileo, and Magellan--drop as these projects approach flight in 1989. Others--Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility, Global Geospace Science--rise sharply compared to FY89 funds. In releasing the budget proposal, NASA Administrator James Fletcher noted that the FY90 budget "is almost exactly the amount forecast a year ago when we presented the FY l989 budget to Congress." He later commented that, "The budget provides $2 billion to move ahead with development of the Space Station. We are moving toward a first element launch in early l995 with a capability for man-tended research activity by the end of that year and a permanently manned capability by the end of l996. NASA FY 1990 BUDGET SUMMARY (Millions of Dollars) NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION FY1989 FY 1990 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 4266.6 5751.6 SPACE FLIGHT, CONTROL & DATA COMM. 4464.2 5139.6 CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES 275.1 341.8 RESEARCH & PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 1891.6 2032.2 INSPECTOR GENERAL (8.6) 8.8 TOTAL BUDGET AUTHORITY 10897.5 13274.0 =========================== ======= ======= {Format of the following section is slightly confusing; totals in each category are given first, followed by the items making up that total. Pay attention to the indentation. I've added the word "total" to what I think are appropriate lines, but I may well have erred. Only the first two categories above were included.--SW} DETAILED BREAKDOWN FY 1989 FY 1990 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 4266.6 5751.6 (TOTAL) =========================== ======= ======= Space Station 900.0 2050.2 Space Transportation Capability Development 681.0 639.0 (total) Spacelab 88.6 98.9 Upper Stages 138.8 88.6 Engineering & Technical Base 155.4 189.8 Payload Operations & Support Equipment 64.7 81.1 Advanced Programs 52.7 48.7 Tethered Satellite System 26.4 19.9 Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle 73.0 107.0 Advanced Launch System 81.4 5.0 Space Science & Applications 1830.2 1995.3 (total) Physics and Astronomy (total) 734.1 894.5 Hubble Space Telescope Development 95.9 67.0 Gamma Ray Observatory Development 41.9 26.7 Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics Facility 16.0 44.0 Global Geospace Science 64.4 112.3 Payload & Instrument Development 81.7 71.4 Shuttle/Spacelab Payload Mission Management & Integration 69.7 86.1 Space Station Integrated Planning & Attached Payloads 8.0 23.0 Explorer Development 82.1 93.2 Mission Operation & Data Analysis 143.2 204.8 Research & Analysis 85.8 112.5 Suborbital Program 45.4 53.5 Life Sciences (total) 78.1 124.2 Human Space Flight & Systems Engineering 27.6 42.8 Space Biological Sciences 10.1 27.6 Research & Analysis 40.4 53.8 Planetary Exploration (total) 416.6 396.9 Galileo Development 73.4 17.4 Ulysses Development 10.3 4.5 Magellan Development 43.1 Mars Observer 102.2 100.5 Comet Rendezvous Asteroid Flyby/Cassini 0.0 30.0 Mission Operations & Data Analysis 110.7 155.4 Research & Analysis 76.9 79.1 Space Applications 601.4 579.7 Earth Sciences (total) 413.7 434.3 Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite 94.2 73.9 Ocean Topography Experiment 83.0 72.8 Scatterometer 10.6 13.8 Earth Science Payload Instrument Dev. 46.4 66.5 Airborne Science & Applications 23.0 19.7 Geodynamics 32.9 38.0 Missions Operations & Data Analysis 17.6 24.8 Research & Analysis 106.0 124.8 Materials Processing 75.6 92.7 Space Communications 92.2 18.6 Information Systems 19.9 34.1 Commercial Programs 44.7 61.0 (total) Technology Utilization 16.5 22.7 Commercial Use of Space 28.2 38.3 Aeronautical Research & Technology 404.2 462.8 (total) Research & Technology Base (total) 315.6 335.7 Systems Technology Programs 88.6 127.1 (Materials & Structures Systems Tech.) (19.2) (30.3) (Rotorcraft Systems Technology) ( 4.8) ( 4.9) (High-Performance Aircraft Systems Technology) (11.0) (34.9) (Advanced Propulsion Systems Technology) (13.9) (14.5) (Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation) (39.7) (42.5) Space Research and Technology 295.9 338.1 (total) Research & Technology Base 134.1 130.1 Civil Space Technology Initiative (total) 121.8 144.5 (Propulsion) (36.1) (37.4) (Vehicle) (13.3) (36.0) (Information Technology) (15.9) (15.6) (Large Structures & Control) (19.5) (18.9) (Power) (11.1) (10.7) (Automation & Robotics) (25.9) (25.9) Pathfinder Program (total) 40.0 47.3 (Surface Exploration) ( 8.5) ( 9.3) (In-Space Operations) (15.0) (15.6) (Humans in Space) ( 6.0) ( 6.3) (Space Transfer) ( 5.5) ( 6.1) (Mission Studies) ( 5.0) (10.0) In-Space Flight Experiments 0.0 16.2 Transatmospheric Research & Technology 69.4 127.0 Safety, Reliability & Quality Assurance 22.4 23.3 University Space Science & Technology Academic Program (22.3) 35.0 Tracking & Data Advanced Systems 18.8 19.9 SPACE FLIGHT, CONTROL & DATA COMM. 4464.2 5139.6 (TOTAL) ================================== ======= ======= Shuttle Production & Capability Development 1128.2 1305.3 (total) Orbiter Operationalal Capability 281.8 237.0 Propulsion Systems 582.2 727.3 Launch & Mission Support 264.2 341.0 Space Shuttle Operations 2305.2 2562.7 (total) Flight Operations 685.7 772.6 Flight Hardware 1112.7 1236.5 Launch & Landing Operations 506.8 553.6 Expendable Launch Vehicles 85.5 169.5 Space & Ground Networks, Communications & Data Systems 945.3 1102.1 (total) Space Network 483.9 582.3 Ground Network 228.1 269.6 Communications & Data Systems 233.3 250.2 =========================== ======= ======= Copyright information: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Send correspondence about its contents to the executive editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu; e-mail to canopus@cfa.uucp will probably be forwarded). Send correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA, 1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019. Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS widely, either electronically or as printout copies. If you do, however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many others receive copies. CANOPUS is partially supported by the National Space Science Data Center. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #292 *******************