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 ; Thu, 8 Jun 89 05:16:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 8 Jun 89 05:16:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #477 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 477 Today's Topics: Gemini and Rogallo wing Re: Hang gliders and "bailing out" Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect.. Re: Amazon Forest Destruction Re: CRESCENT SIGHTING - Sun 4 June 1989, Orbital details etc. (Long) Re: CRESCENT SIGHTING - Sun 4 June 1989, Orbital details etc. (Long) Al Diaz selected as Deputy Associate Administrator for Science (Forwarded) Re: Space Station computer system Re: Space Station computer system Magellan Re: OSC Hercules Launch Information Russians bomb U.S. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Jun 89 23:55:18 GMT From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Gemini and Rogallo wing In article <1158@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> mrb1@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (maurice.r.baker) writes: >Was there also some synergy here between the concept of "pin-point" landings >on terra firma, and the strong connection between Gemini and USAF ("Blue Ge- >mini"/MOL/etc.) ? ... Well, "synergy" in its exact sense -- two independent-looking things reinforcing each other -- maybe a bit. If what you mean is "cause-and-effect relationship", I *think* the answer is no. It was just two independent aspects of the same spacecraft. In any case, note that the Rogallo Gemini would not have had a long gliding range, so it wouldn't have gotten a military crew out of hostile territory in the event of a major guidance foulup. The main importance of precision landing was getting rid of the recovery fleet. -- You *can* understand sendmail, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 89 16:14:50 GMT From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Hang gliders and "bailing out" In article <16879@sequent.UUCP> jjb@sequent.UUCP (Jeff Berkowitz) writes: >I'd like to advance the idea of Rogallo or parawing vehicles for crew >escape from low earth orbit... >Could an escape vehicle consisting of a small solid fuel rocket (for >deceleration burn) and collapsible wing be used in this situation? There have been a number of proposals for crew escape from low orbit. One almost inevitably ends up needing a heatshield of some sort, though, after which a conventional parachute is usually preferred. (The "almost" is because I recall seeing one scheme using a rather unusual parachute to do most of the declerating at very high altitude, high enough to keep the heat loads down to what a conventional spacesuit could handle.) There really doesn't seem to be a lot of advantage in using a wing for this purpose. The obvious ways of building a collapsible wing won't stand up to reentry heat. -- You *can* understand sendmail, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 89 13:06:36 GMT From: dogie.macc.wisc.edu!indri!aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@speedy.wisc.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect.. In article <106@anasaz.UUCP> scott@anasaz.UUCP (Scott Gibson) writes: }In article <1989May31.044452.19619@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: }> }>into the details and established that Earth would not have a runaway }>greenhouse effect even with far more CO2 than it has now. There are }>a number of complications, like the effect of clouds on climate (they }>tend to cool the surface, on the whole). The "habitable zone" around } }I have seen this comment several times, and don't really understand it. }The surface of Venus is *completely* obscured by clouds. While it makes }sense (or seems to) that clouds, by shading the surface, cool it - this }has not done much for the surface of Venus. Clearly, the presence of }clouds does not necessarily stop a runaway greenhouse effect. Quite the reverse, if they happen to have "windows" in the right bands... Like Venus... ........................................................................ The above was test data, and not the responsibility of any organization. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 89 15:52:59 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Amazon Forest Destruction In article <386@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >In article <1331@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes: >>Article in the local news last night: >>ozone was being destroyed by electrons coming from the magnetosphere >>this causing 14% of the ozone loss since 1975... ^^^^ note number >I suspected from the beginning that the so-called 'ozone hole' was just >part of a natural cycle that we would have been seeing all along if we >had had satellites for decades. Or rather, 14% of which we would have been seeing. The other 86% remains unaccounted for, with fluorocarbons a prime suspect. IMHO 86% of an environmental crime is still an environmental crime. A certain percentage of Amazon trees die every year anyway. This does not make the present day slash and burn disaster part of a "natural cycle." > It makes no sense whatsoever that a >fluorocarbon-induced hole would first appear over the south pole. Only a meterologist or planetary dynamics expert is entitled to make a statement like this. There have been articles in SCIENCE talking about this very subject, and to some researchers at least it DOES make sense. Perhaps a more accurate formulation would be "It makes no sense whatsoever *to the layman* that a fluorocarbon-induced hole, etc etc" -- this would be a true statement, for what it's worth. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff "Truisms aren't everything." Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 89 00:04:49 GMT From: visdc!jiii@uunet.uu.net (John E Van Deusen III) Subject: Re: CRESCENT SIGHTING - Sun 4 June 1989, Orbital details etc. (Long) THE MUSLIM STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION (MSA) of COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, 102 Earl Hall, Columbia University, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10027 is currently posting 13000 bytes of material every month to sci.space concerning the observability of the new moon in exotic places. In article mnd@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mohib N Durrani) writes: > > DAKAR-Senegal 10 20 18 18 19 18 23 45 MOST PROBABLE Although it would be necessary to compensate for elevation and diffraction, it should be possible to calculate the day upon which to begin the lunar calendar to any *reasonable* precision. Surely two people living in the same house would not start the month a day apart because one happened to be up in the minaret 10 minutes after sun set? If the new moon is theoretically visible but can not be seen because of the occurrence of a sand storm or some other factor, how is the first day of the lunar month determined? Is this a big problem? > ... > The survey results are to enhance the present ATMOSPHERIC MODEL > and fine tune some parameters regarding SCATTERING/VISION. I should hope so. If these are obsessive-compulsive religious machinations, perhaps Cat Stevens could help me out with my phone bill. -- John E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID 83707, (208) 343-1865 uunet!visdc!jiii ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 89 16:30:50 GMT From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: CRESCENT SIGHTING - Sun 4 June 1989, Orbital details etc. (Long) In article <553@visdc.UUCP> jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) writes: >Although it would be necessary to compensate for elevation and >diffraction, it should be possible to calculate the day upon which to >begin the lunar calendar to any *reasonable* precision... Like the man said, what's wanted is fine-tuning of models of the atmosphere and vision. The problem is, as I understand it, that the religious rules are based on when the new moon can be *seen*, by real observers (weather permitting), not on when it is theoretically there. This brings vagaries of the atmosphere and of human vision into the picture, producing a mess. It would be courteous for the size of the announcement to be cut down, if possible. -- You *can* understand sendmail, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 89 15:36:06 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Al Diaz selected as Deputy Associate Administrator for Science (Forwarded) Charles Redmond Headquarters, Washington, D.C. June 6, 1989 RELEASE: 89-87 AL DIAZ SELECTED AS DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR SCIENCE Alphonso V. Diaz today was named NASA's deputy associate administrator for space science and applications, effective July 2. In making the announcement, Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications Dr. Lennard A. Fisk, said: "Al's extensive NASA management experience and technical involvement with planetary exploration make him a logical choice to serve as deputy. Al will be able to provide the Office of Space Science and Applications with internal expertise and a proven management ability." Diaz leaves the position of division vice president for space and aeronautics services, General Electric Government Services, Cherry Hill, N.J. In this capacity, he was responsible for management of NASA-related services provided by GE at various NASA installations. He joined GE in July 1988. Diaz agreed to return to NASA following discussions with NASA Acting Administrator Richard H. Truly and Dr. Fisk, who underscored to Diaz the agency's heavy space science schedule and the contributions Al could make because of his NASA and GE experience. While previously at NASA, Diaz set up the organization within the Space Science Office for coordinating with NASA's Office of Space Station. He also had worked in NASA's Solar System Exploration Division. Diaz began his NASA career at the Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va., in 1964 as a cooperative education student. Later at Langley, he worked on the technical development of the Viking organic analysis experiment. Diaz received a bachelor of science degree from St. Joseph's University in 1966; a master's degree in physics from Old Dominion University in 1970; and a master's degree in management from Massachusetts Institute of Technology as a NASA-sponsored Sloan Fellow in 1986. He was awarded the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1977 for his work on the Viking experiment. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 89 20:43:50 GMT From: rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) Subject: Re: Space Station computer system > highlights: they're talking about thirty to forty IBM PS/2 model 80's > pointing devices, with 4 megabytes of RAM and running X-Windows, > networked with Fiber Distributed Data Interface and perhaps IEEE 802 That's pretty much outdated NOW, I don't see how they can hope to have enough computing power, unless they are going to use the model 80's as terminals... Also the model 80 is a BAD choice even for what is available NOW, even the modle 70 is a lot faster then the 80... And Why have 30-40 of them? Are there going to be THAT many people that need them? I didn't think that the station was supposed to have a crew of 40... EEEK This sounds really frightening MS-DOS in space, now I KNOW that the space program is in trouble... // Rick Golembiewski rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu \\ \\ #include stddisclaimer.h // \\ "I never respected a man who could spell" // \\ -M. Twain // ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jun 89 00:09:23 GMT From: xanth!paterra@g.ms.uky.edu (Frank C. Paterra) Subject: Re: Space Station computer system In article , rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes: > > > highlights: they're talking about thirty to forty IBM PS/2 model 80's > > pointing devices, with 4 megabytes of RAM and running X-Windows, > > networked with Fiber Distributed Data Interface and perhaps IEEE 802 > > That's pretty much outdated NOW, I don't see how they can hope to have > enough computing power, unless they are going to use the model 80's as > terminals... Also the model 80 is a BAD choice even for what is > available NOW, even the modle 70 is a lot faster then the 80... And > Why have 30-40 of them? Are there going to be THAT many people that > need them? I didn't think that the station was supposed to have a > crew of 40... EEEK This sounds really frightening MS-DOS in space, > now I KNOW that the space program is in trouble... > > The poop as I know it - The computer workstations on the space station, known as Multipurpose Application Consoles or MPACs are based intel 80386 processors running at 25 mhz. The basic MPAC will consist of a Standard Data Processor (SDP) which contains the data buss and a Network Interface Unit (NIU). The NIU allows the workstation to use the fiber-optic based space station LAN. Each SDP will contain at least one Embedded Data Processor (EDP) (the 80386 computer). The EDPs come one meg and four meg models. In addition the SDP can contain some number of I/O driver cards to handle the user I/O. The I/O devices will include video (in and out), keyboards, trac-balls, audio (in and out), and what ever else is needed to support a particular mission. The Operating system that will be used is a derivative of Unix, and there will be rack mounted workstations as well as portable ones. The portable workstations have to be plugged in to the Data Management System (DMS) via one of the many ports available in both the lab and the habitation modules before they can be used. IBM is developing the workstations and the current mockup models are PS/2 model 80s, cleverly hidden behind rack mockups. The real workstations, however, will not be model 80s. Currently there are no plans to use the 80486 or any other processor. I'm currently working on a commonality study and have researched the available information so I pretty sure this is correct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Paterra The above is my own opinion and nobody paterra@cs.odu.edu agrees with or condones what I said. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jun 89 10:08:02 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: Magellan X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu" From an in-house Magellan bulletin: "The only problem that occurred during the launch phase was the failure of the Magellan solar panels to lock in place prior to the IUS burns. Again this potential problem had been anticipated and was easily corrected by rotating the solar panels to an orientation that caused lockup during the IUS burns. Shortly thereafter the solar panels were rotated to acquire the Sun and are providing power to the spacecraft at approximately the expected levels." In other words, if something sticks, give it a kick. Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 89 16:58:14 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!wasatch!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: OSC Hercules Launch Information From article <890602-105011-2653@Xerox>, by RPollard.ElSegundo@XEROX.COM: ) Does anyone on the net have any info about where OSC is in their ) development of Hercules ? Specifically I was looking for the date that ) they expect to do the first launch. Would you believe OSC/Hercules and their development of Pegasus? Hercules Aerospace has successfully test fired 2 of the 3 stages. From what I hear you're looking at a first launch in July or August. If I hear more I'll post it. Bob P. -- - Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself. - UUCP Address: decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet - - Reality is stranger than most can imagine. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 89 18:40:33 GMT From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net (Wayne D. T. Johnson) Subject: Russians bomb U.S. Another headline from the local news: (sorry but they didn't give much detail and what little they did give I have forgotten) Upper stage from Proton booster crashs in U.S. near Canadian border. Any one have any details? -- Wayne Johnson (Voice) 612-638-7665 NCR Comten, Inc. (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or Roseville MN 55113 johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #477 *******************