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/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Mon, 25 Jun 1990 01:44:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 25 Jun 1990 01:44:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #568 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 568 Today's Topics: Sounds Of Earth recording Re: 10 psi overpressure AMROC Re: 10 psi overpressure Model Rockets to the Moon Re: Handicaped in Space (was: NASA Headline News) NASA Lunar/Mars program funding to be terminated Re: Public Perception Of Space Re: claiming the Moon Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing Re: 10 psi overpressure Re: 10 psi overpressure Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Jun 90 02:02:31 GMT From: uoft02.utoledo.edu!fax0112@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Subject: Sounds Of Earth recording Many of you netters may recall the Sounds Of Earth recording aboard the Voyager spacecraft. It was, to my knowledge, never released publicly. I do have a very poor recording that is about to fail. Does anyone know of a way to get a copy of this (even if temporarily to make a copy). I would be very appreciative. Robert Dempsey Ritter Observatory ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 90 21:45:08 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!David.Anderman@ucsd.edu (David Anderman) Subject: Re: 10 psi overpressure My recollection of the Rogers commission report is that the shuttle complex disintegrated because: an SRB basically "came loose" because of flame shooting out of the side (by an O-ring), which smashed into the ET, which then disintegrated. The Challenger was then exposed to massive pressure as it lost its attitude and literally fell apart. The flame at the bottom of the ET was *not* a factor in the accident, and is seen in many shuttle flights. --- Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Universal Electronics, Inc. (1:103/302.0) -- uucp: David Anderman Internet: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jun 90 21:09:47 GMT From: thorin!grover!beckerd@mcnc.org (David Becker) Subject: AMROC What is AMROC up to these days? Last I heard they were patching up their rocket from the first launch attempt. When will they attempt another launch? -- David Becker Gotta love a machine that hangs on beckerd@cs.unc.edu your every word. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 90 05:08:32 GMT From: usc!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Mark.Perew@ucsd.edu (Mark Perew) Subject: Re: 10 psi overpressure I'm not an expert on this (as evidenced by previous questions and gaffs on my part) but I have been reading the commission report recently and have Volume II in my lap. Appendix L "NASA Accident Analysis Team Report" has some pertinent information about the struts and ET and explosion. Quotes are from page L-6 and L-16. =========================== 3.7 "Flashes" Several "flashes" were noted in the SSME plumes ... [they] are quite common and were visible on other flights. Since they were not peculiar to STS 51-L, they were removed form the events timeline. 3.9 Plume The plume continued to grow in size and at 60.238 seconds was evidently impinging the ET due to the observed plume deflection. 3.10 LH2 Tank Breach The sudden change in the plume at 64.660 seconds was the first indication that th ET [LH2] tank had been breached. 3.11 Right Aft SRB Strut Release At 72.201 seconds, the lower attaching strut between the right SRB and the ET ... released. Loss of this structural attachment, most likely caused by the strut pulling away from the hot gas-weakened hydrogen tank permitted the right SRB to rotate counterclockwise around the aft upper strut and the forward attachment at the intertank. 3.13 Compressive Buckling ET Intertank - "Vapors" Emitting from Intertank At 73.124 seconds, a circumferential white pattern was observed ... on the +Z side of the ET aft dome. A SUDDEN LARGE FORWARD THRUST RESULTED FROM THIS HYDROGEN EXPLOSION [emphasis mine] which concentrated loads on the intertank ... Either this ... or the ... right SRB rotation, ... caused the intertank to fail. This in turn caused the LOX feedline and tank to ... fail at 73.137 seconds. THIS LED DIRECTLY TO TOTAL VEHICLE STRUCTURAL BREAKUP. [emphasis mine] ======================= There are comments elsewhere (which I can't find at this hour) that there were secondary explosions of the RCS system as evidenced by the red tint in the cloud caused by the "cyrogenic burn" of the released LH2 and LOX. There are also comments elsewhere pertaining to aerdynamic loads caused by the failure of the ET. Thus there was an explosion and aerodynamic forces at play that caused the orbiter to break up. I can't find any figures at the moment that show what the overpressure was during the various stages of break up. Hope this helps clear up some confusion. --- Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Universal Electronics, Inc. (1:103/302.0) -- uucp: Mark Perew Internet: Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Jun 1990 12:46:45 EDT From: KLUDGE@AGCB8.LARC.NASA.GOV Subject: Model Rockets to the Moon X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" I will do you one better. For the first three people to contact me with complete verification of a completed moon rocket, I will donate a 500 mW telemetry package (1 PCM channel + ID) of extremely low bandwidth on a VHF frequency. Disclaimer: I work for Lockheed corporation at a NASA site, but any equipment donated is done as a private citizen and not as an employee of either organization. All equipment is privately owned, and not corporate or government property. Sorry I can't steal any space-qualified stuff from work, but this is modified-UHF TV tuner all the way. --scott ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jun 90 14:37:12 GMT From: mips!pacbell.com!pacbell!sactoh0!unify!csusac!csuchico.edu!rreid@apple.com (Ralph Reid) Subject: Re: Handicaped in Space (was: NASA Headline News) In article <25480@usc.edu> robiner@oberon.usc.edu (Steve Robiner) writes: > . . . >Has NASA or anyone else ever thought of using amputees or other naturally >handicaped persons with no legs as astronauts for extended stays in space. > >It seems to me they'd be the ideal choice for the job. While other >astronauts are handicaped in space *with* legs, persons without these appendages >who are normally handicaped on Earth would be free and easily mobile in space. >Furthermore, their overall weight would be somewhat less, reducing launch >payloads, and they wouldn't require any specialized exercise equiment >which also adds cost, development time, more launch weight, space on the ship, >and time out of the work schedule. > >Also, I'm sure there are plenty of air force and navy veterns who >are already flight trained and maybe even some as test pilots, a NASA >favorite. > . . . I believe that in the late 50's or early 60's NASA did consider blind astronauts, because these astronauts would not require lights. Some persons with some types of disabilities would have some advantages in 0 G, although exercise of some sort would still be required. In some of the early long term Soviet missions, cosmonauts did not stick to the exercise program, and had trouble re-adapting to working in earth's natural gravity. Even the food these cosmonauts ate seemed to feel heavy in their stomaches, and walking was (of course) very difficult for some time after re-entry. I read about these and other experiences in a book which was written by one of the APPOLO 7 astronauts, but that was several years ago, and I do not remember the title. I have not heard what experiences SKYLAB astronauts may have had. -- Ralph. ARS: N6BNO Compuserve: 72250,3521 email: rreid@cscihp.csuchico.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 90 05:55:04 GMT From: netcom!teda!ditka!mcdchg!laidbak!obdient!vpnet!akcs.gregc@apple.com (*Greg*) Subject: NASA Lunar/Mars program funding to be terminated Mr. Wilson: I would like to know what is the outcome of NASA's Lunar/Mars program. It's a bit to late on my end to give support now. But, maybe if more people would still write to these sorces for the Space Program as a whole? - Greg ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 90 19:23:48 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!David.Anderman@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (David Anderman) Subject: Re: Public Perception Of Space I agree with you almost 100% - the government should get out of most areas of space development. The question is: who isDOz/et out of most - Ql{going to put the bell on the cat? Secondly, how can we reconcile your ideas on this with the NSS position of full funding for NASA all the time? --- Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Universal Electronics, Inc. (1:103/302.0) -- uucp: David Anderman Internet: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jun 90 21:28:35 GMT From: agate!sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu!gckaplan@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George C. Kaplan) Subject: Re: claiming the Moon In article <1990Jun21.042948.701@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <9006201709.AA09629@alw.nih.gov> AZM@CU.NIH.GOV writes: >>A very long time ago in the 1950s, somebody advertised in the science >>fiction magazines of the day, that people could buy 1 inch square sec- >>tions of the moon for $1.00... >I've heard of this. Those claims had zero legal status even at the time, >and the Outer Space Treaty of the early 60s rendered them completely null >and void, I believe. Lunar real estate prices had dropped considerably by the early 1970's. There was a character in Berkeley, CA who dressed up in a silver lame cape and sold certificates for land on the moon at $1.00 per *acre*. They were clearly novelty items. The guy was just capitalizing on the popularity of the Apollo missions taking place at the time; he made no claims that his certificates had any legal standing. I think I may even have bought a couple as gifts. George C. Kaplan Internet: gckaplan@ssl.berkeley.edu Center for EUV Astrophysics gckaplan%ssl@jade.berkeley.edu University of California UUCP: ...!ucbvax!sunspot.ssl!gckaplan Berkeley, CA 94720 (415) 643-8610 ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 90 22:03:41 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!David.Anderman@ucsd.edu (David Anderman) Subject: Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing Hmmmm....NSS is protesting that the Chinese launch payloads too cheaply. Since the key factor in space development is the (present) high cost of getting into low Earth orbit, it isn't too surprising that NSS headquarters is worried that the Chinese are charging too little to get to LEO. --- Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Universal Electronics, Inc. (1:103/302.0) -- uucp: David Anderman Internet: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 90 22:06:11 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!David.Anderman@ucsd.edu (David Anderman) Subject: Re: 10 psi overpressure I seem to recall that the Challenger (and the whole shuttle complex) did *not* explode; there was no "explosion" at all. Let's hope someone with more expertise than myself about the accident can explain this. --- Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Universal Electronics, Inc. (1:103/302.0) -- uucp: David Anderman Internet: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 90 22:35:50 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Mark.Perew@ucsd.edu (Mark Perew) Subject: Re: 10 psi overpressure Yes, I saw (and have seen) Henry Spencer's comments on this. It was not my intent to imply that they accident was caused by an explosion. The accident (hardly an appropriate term, btw) was a complex series of events that started when both the primary and secondary O-rings in the right hand SRB failed to pressurize and seal. This had downstram effects of allowing flame to propagate along the joint, burning a hole in the SRB case. This flame was deflected onto the ET at about the point where the aft SRB strut was attached. When the LH2 tank of the ET gave way the SRB pivoted striking and puncturing the LOX tank. It is also very possible that the SRB struct the right wing of the orbiter. Upstream of the O-ring failure were the problems with "joint rotation", over pressurization during leak checks (up to 200 psi), ice in the joint, and low joint temperatures causing the O-ring to not properly respond to the joint rotation. Over and above all of this was the attitude of NASA management that accepted more and more O-ring damage as "allowable" and eventually as "acceptable" when the O-rings were never designed to sustain *ANY* damage. BTW, we can continute this discussion locally and save net bandpass if you like. --- Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Universal Electronics, Inc. (1:103/302.0) -- uucp: Mark Perew Internet: Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #568 *******************