Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.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, 5 Oct 89 02:19:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 5 Oct 89 02:18:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #109 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 109 Today's Topics: Dates announced for the expansion of USSR's Mir space station Re: YAHSS (Yet Another Henry Spencer Signature) Re: Space Station Strangles NASP Re: X-30, Space Station Strangles NASP Second group of astronaut hopefuls to arrive at JSC (Forwarded) Re: Space Station Strangles NASP Re: What to do with the $30 billion Re: Flame On!!! Re: Concorde, NASP, shuttles ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 89 00:09:57 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Dates announced for the expansion of USSR's Mir space station The expansion of the Soviet's Mir space station will begin on Oct. 16 when the so called D module is launched. It will be 12.4 meters (40.6 ft) long by 4.35 m (14.3 ft) in diameter, about the same size as the core section of Mir itself. This will make the combined station Mir/Kvant/D about 31 meters (103 ft.) long with a total base mass of about 53 Tonnes (each expansion module weighs about 20 tonnes, the same as the Mir core itself). Actual mass will be higher as the Mir/Kvant section has had much experimental material added to them in the 18 Progress tankers that have docked with the station, delivering about 41 Tonnes of supplies/fuel/water/air. The D model will add another 53.2 square meters (570 sq. ft) of solar panels to the station's 76 sq. m (820 sq. ft) and the 22 sq. m (237 sq. ft.) add by Soyuz TM-2 crew in June 1987. Total station power is about 13 KW now and this could add up to 6.9 KW giving a total of about 20 KW (the question of how much shadowing affects these numbers has not been answered). In addition the crew will erect another solar panel, this one on the Kvant module docked to the rear of the station. The D module will contain a shower, a MKF-6GA multispectral camera (film type) and a stabilization platform with black & while, color TV cameras plus several spectrometers. The MKF system is similar to that in both the previous generation Salyut 6/7 stations. The front end of Module D contains the new large airlock with the "Space Chair." The Chair will be employed initially with a 60 meter (197 ft.) tether (which the cosmonauts do not like). The second expansion section, the Module T (Technology) will be launched on Jan. 30 '90 and is slightly shorter (11.9 m - 39 ft.). Both sections will take about 6 days to dock with Mir, rather than the 2 days for the Progress/Soyuz systems. The modules are now said to be transferred to the side ports relatively quickly after docking. Transfer by means of a robot arm on the module which hooks into a socket on the ball, then leavers the section over in about 96 minutes. The current schedule for the activities calls for the following: Sept Change out of Mir computer memory Oct 16 Module D launch/Progress M1 undocked Oct 23 Module D docks on ball port axis Oct 25 Soyuz TM-8 moved to ball axis port Oct 27 Progress M2 tanker launched Nov Shift female docking port in ball Dec 2 EVA's to test space chair Jan 28 Soyuz TM-8 shifted to rear port Jan 30 Module T docks to ball port axis Feb 11 Soyuz TM-9 arrives Feb 19 Soyuz TM-8 leaves At later dates space walks will move the solar panels from Module T and shift them to the Kvant section. The Module O (Observer), to be added in 1990/91 will use the port that Module T will be docked to and Module T will be move to another port. The female docking port (needed by all Soyuz/Progress) must be manually moved to allow for docking in different ports. (AW&ST Sept 11, 25, & Radio Moscow) One interesting sidelight in recent broadcasts was some statements on what cosmonauts get paid. Typical ground pay is 300-400 rubles per month about 50% more than the average pay if I remember correctly (the official rate puts the ruble about $0.75, though on the black market it is much less). For a mission they get a bonus of 2000-15,000 rubles, though the higher number is for a 1 year flight (ie. 5-6 years regular pay for a year on Mir - not bad). Speaking of money, the pictures of the launch show a giant advertisement on the side of the booster for an Italian insurance company. I wonder if they offered to insure the cosmonauts themselves as part of that. Studies of Valdimir Titov and Moussa Manarov (Soyuz TM-4/Mir Dec. '87 for 1 year) have showed them to have recovered well from their long flight, much better than their earlier extended missions, and consistent with Yuri Romanenko's 326 day mission (Soyuz TM-2/Mir Feb. '87). Indeed the key appears to be regular exercise programs. (Radio Moscow, AW&ST Sept 11, 18, 25) It now appears that the launch rate for the Energiya booster has been scaled back to about one mission per year. Part of this is due to the reduction in the expectation for shuttle launches. The 1990 flight will test the parachute recovery system for the strapon first stage. However, they are actively seaking International launch cargo for the booster, which could change that rate. (AW&ST Sept. 11) On Sept. 27 the Russians allowed western newsmen to visit Plesetsk, the northern cosmodrome where mostly military missions are launched. Over 1000 vehicles have been flown from there. The observers were allowed to see two launches, one a meteorological satellite. The commander of the site revealed that there had been two launch accidents there; one in 1980 killed 50 people while in 1975 nine men died. (BBC World News Sept. 27) Two interesting unmanned flights were launched from Plesetsk this month. On Sept. 6 a Resource F earth observation satellite was launched and recovered about Sept. 22. It carried a the West German Cosima-2 materials processing package doing commercial experiments for European and Japanese companies. On Sept. 15 the much delayed Biosatellite was launched, the seventh in this series since 1975 of this international cooperative program. Launch delays meant several of the initial specimens had to be replaced before takeoff. It is scheduled for recovery on Sept. 29. (AW&ST Sept. 11, 25, Radio Moscow Sept. 15, 22) This month will see the beginning of Mir's expansion. It will also be the greatest test of its design. Can the station hold up to expansion sections hung onto the ball section at right angle to the station core? If it can this will probably influence the design of Soviet stations for the next few decades. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 89 02:41:28 GMT From: ogccse!blake!milton!maven!games@ucsd.edu (Games Wizard) Subject: Re: YAHSS (Yet Another Henry Spencer Signature) In article <8909271713.AA00536@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: > jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > > Hmm... has anyone tried pitching the commercial space program to Donald Trump? > I was just in Manhattan and visited Trump Tower. It's obvious the guy isn't > afraid to spend money... ah, I can see it now... the *real* "Trump Shuttle"... > > Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov) I really like this idea. I REALLY like this idea. This man and Ted Turner, and possibly Merv Griffin, and several others of this calibre ( but mostly Trump ) have a lot of what it might take to do a job of this nature. There are several things that spring to mind. WHY would Donald trump be interested in space? can he make money off of a space station, or by building his own shuttle ( the limo to TRUMP station ) Would he be ALLOWED to do such a thing if he were inclined? are there not proprietary parts of the shuttle that he would not be allowed access to? Would the government stop him from building a launch facility? Remember that he wants a 1 mile high facility in N.Y. and they wont let him build that!!! (yet) If anybody has any ideas that might interest these men, and specifically thier money in joining the space cause, I would love to hear them. I would love even more to present an program to one of them, and let capitalistic greed have a whack at space for a while. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trendy footer by: John Stevens-Schlick Internet?: JOHN@tranya.cpac.washington.edu 7720 35'th Ave S.W. Seattle, Wa. 98126 (206) 935 - 4384 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My boss dosen't know what I do. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 89 16:42:55 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Station Strangles NASP Do remember, when making optimistic claims about the superiority of NASP over the shuttle, that: 1. NASP in general and the X-30 in particular are moderately-high-risk experimental programs, not something that one can depend on. The X-30's payload to orbit, if it gets there, will be two pilots and a toothbrush apiece. Operational systems based on this technology *are* a 21st-century notion. 2. Most of the costs for current launch systems are on the ground; the cost of the fuel and expended hardware itself is relatively minor. NASP technology does not inherently give major cost reductions. 3. All the claims about routine airline-like operations being made for NASP technology were also made for shuttle technology. This having been said, I strongly support the X-30; the proposed slips in schedule are dumb ideas. The biggest problem with this program is that there's only one such project. There are several other ideas for cutting launch costs by radical departures from existing systems that deserve serious exploratory-level funding, and aren't getting it. At this level of untried-but-promising technology, putting all your eggs in one basket is stupid. -- "Where is D.D. Harriman now, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology when we really *need* him?" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 89 20:36:38 GMT From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) Subject: Re: X-30, Space Station Strangles NASP Yeah, I think Henry and I agree on this one. We need more X-30 type programs. And its not clear what kinds of directions are needed. We sort of got side tracked from the X-15/X-20 lines of doing things. Some years back I was looking at X-15 flight paths. These weren't trivial tests, they had to fly all the way to Utah to launch and get to EAFB. Imagine what troubles would have been. The X-30 will require immensly area to test in. Saw a proposed test course for it in a meeting. You have to keep to US airspace. I do not think its just a matter of having ground facilities, or different vehicles. There's a lot of research required for sustained hypersonic flight. We don't have nearly enough knowledge as we would like, and then only on the low end. So many questions so little time. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene Live free or die. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 89 16:38:21 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Second group of astronaut hopefuls to arrive at JSC (Forwarded) Sarah Keegan Headquarters, Washington, D.C. September 29, 1989 Jeffrey Carr Johnson Space Center, Houston RELEASE: 89-153 SECOND GROUP OF ASTRONAUT HOPEFULS TO ARRIVE AT JSC The second of an expected five groups of astronaut applicants will arrive at the Johnson Space Center, Houston, for orientation, medical evaluations and interviews on Monday, October 2. Each group consists of about 20 individuals who have a chance to be one of 15 to 20 selected as astronaut candidates in January. The group consists of USAF Capt. Mark E. Almquist, Lancaster, Calif; Kenneth Cockrell, NASA Johnson Space Center; USAF Maj. Eileen M. Collins, Edwards AFB, Calif; Javier de Luis, Ph.D., Cambridge, Mass.; Dean B. Eppler, Ph.D., Las Vegas; USAF Maj. Lance C. Grace, Holloman AFB, NM; USAF Capt. William G. Gregory, Edwards AFB, Calif.; John M. Grunsfeld, Ph.D., Pasadena, Calif.; Butler P. Hine III, Ph.D., Cupertino, Calif.; Benjamin D. Levine, M.D., Dallas; Thomas P. Moore, M.D., Ph.D., Minneapolis, Minn.; David A. Noever, Ph.D., Huntsville, Ala.; USAF Capt. Mark L. Polansky, Niceville, Fla.; USAF Capt. Mark W. Stephenson, Newburgh, NY; William C. Stone, Ph.D., Derwood, Md.; USN LCdr. Sharon K. Wallace, Bonita, Calif.; USMC Maj. Terrence W. Wilcutt Patuxent River, Md.; USAF Maj. Robert J. Wood, Niceville, Fla.; Albert Yen, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.; and USMC Capt. Peter E. Yount, Lexington Park, Md. Applicants receiving interviews were chosen from nearly 2500 total applications received prior to the June 30 deadline. Those received after the deadline are eligible for consideration for the next selection in 1992. The number of candidates selected every 2 years will vary based on flight rate, program requirements and attrition. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 89 17:47:51 GMT From: thorin!alanine!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Space Station Strangles NASP In article <4983@omepd.UUCP> larry@omews10.intel.com (Larry Smith) writes: >Also... the NASP/X-30 >technology development effort to date, has been funded at the 50% level >by the 5 U.S. aerospace firms that are taking part, and a vehicle is not >even being built! Gee, maybe they should just take over development completely if they think it's such a great idea. I doubt the DC-3 got 50% subsidies from the Feds. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ "Why do you suppose we only feel compelled to chase the ones who run away?" "Immaturity." _Dangerous Liasons_ ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 89 19:30:59 GMT From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: What to do with the $30 billion In article <2153@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccsupos@prism.gatech.EDU (SCHREIBER, O. A.) writes: >What is the story about the meteorites findings in Antartica? ... Well, meteorites fall on Antarctica as they do anywhere else. Unsurprisingly, most of the ones that fall there end up imbedded in ice. Ice flows, slowly. Most of it eventually ends up melting into the ocean, which is not very useful. However, there are a few areas in Antarctica which are "sinks" for ice, where flowing ice runs up against rock, is pushed upward, and gets steadily eroded by wind. Anything tough imbedded in that ice ends up sitting on the surface. The result is that meteorites collect on the surface there. Not only that, but Antarctica's near-total lack of liquid water and life means that they are in very nearly their original condition. This provides a very convenient way to collect large numbers of well-preserved meteorites. -- "Where is D.D. Harriman now, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology when we really *need* him?" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 89 16:16:25 GMT From: visdc!jiii@uunet.uu.net (John E Van Deusen III) Subject: Re: Flame On!!! In article <28SEP89.11863199.0057.MUSIC@SDSUMUS> CC62@SDSUMUS.BITNET (Andy Edeburn) writes: > > ... the Soviets, ... right now, they're kicking our a__ in the newly > reborn space-race. > > Andy Edeburn {CC62@SDSUMUS} > InterNet: CC62%SDSUMUS.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU Right now, the Soviets are standing in line for bread, meat, and other basic necessities. If the contract for a Mars mission was to cost 30 billion dollars, how much would you realistically expect the Soviets to kick in? The Soviets can't go to Mars. For what reason should we give them a free ride? It's too bad really. Just the losses attributable to fraud in the FHA could have paid for half our share. -- John E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID 83707, (208) 343-1865 uunet!visdc!jiii ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 89 12:50:30 GMT From: uceng!dmocsny@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (daniel mocsny) Subject: Re: Concorde, NASP, shuttles In article <2177@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccsupos@prism.gatech.EDU (SCHREIBER, O. A.) writes: [ it doesn't do a ] > businessman any good to save a few hours of flight from > LA to Tokyo if he spends two hours in urban traffic at either > end anyway just to go in and out of the airport. For the business(wo)man to have to travel at all is archaic and ridiculous, when (s)he is transacting only information. The time has come for us to abandon our obsolete 1950's-vintage thinking. Only incremental gains are possible from throwing more energy at the business travel problem. For the cost of developing an aero/space plane, we could instead build communication devices that would bring us closer to the ulimate goal of saturating the human sensory bandwidth. Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #109 *******************