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 ; Fri, 29 Jun 1990 02:46:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 29 Jun 1990 02:45:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #582 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 582 Today's Topics: Re: VOTE: Lynch Mob for a HST Personal! Hubble GIFs Payload Status for 06/27/90 (Forwarded) Re: Public Perception Of Space Re: Saturn Rockets Re: Hubble GIFs moon to rocket lower staging problems Re: The Scout, Pershing II's and ICBM's NASA Prediction Bulletin Format (for STEPHEN?) Re: Hubble Space Telescope Update - 06/27/90 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: 28 Jun 90 20:31:20 GMT From: uoft02.utoledo.edu!fax0112@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Subject: Re: VOTE: Lynch Mob for a HST Personal! In article <1990Jun28.143418.2185@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes: > >>Before you get carried away here, note that not all of the HST >>systems could be tested until it was in a microgravity >>enviroment. > > Testing the optics together on the ground could have been done, > but........ > > It would be really impossible to test them definitively, as a unit, as a > null test, the best way. There is the problem of deformation due to > gravity. They could have - and should have - at least tried testing the > system as a whole by taking the two sets of optics (they did have two sets, > didn't they?) No I do not beleive they did due to expenses. I know they only had one primary and one secondary mirror. >and pointing them at one another. But this still would > not account for the deformation due to gravity. There they could have tried > testing the optics while immersed in a liquid with a specific gravity > matching the mirror. Its not that simple. You can't just immerse the mirrors. The coatings used frequently react very badly to other elements. Not only would you probably get useless results you very well could end up harming the mirror. This is why backset theorizing is so bad. Lets get all the facts before we say 'they could have, should have'. >But this would not be a null test. > > Considering that they were touting these as the "most perfect mirrors > ever made" I had assumed that they had tested them every which way. > I think they did. So you even say they could not test definitively so whay are you complaining over the way they tested? Where you there, do you know what they should have done but didn't? > They certainly had the time to test them. > > Doug MCDonald (what took you so long?) Robert Dempsey Ritter Observatory ------------------------------ Subject: Hubble GIFs From: GLWARNER%SAMFORD.BITNET@vma.cc.cmu.edu (THE GAR) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 90 08:32:03 GMT I have received two files that claim to be the First and Second pictures from the Hubble. I don't have a Listserv and I am not at an FTPable site, so here's what I would like to do: If you have a Listserv, or FTP site that would like to post these images, send me a note (GLWARNESAMFORD), and I will send you the files. If you just want a copy for yourself, hold on and hopefully these will be FTPable or LISTSERV GETable very soon. The resolution on these GIFs is 720 X 480, but they are still pictures from a VERY FAR PLACE, so don't expect perfect images. The first file compares the image to the identical image from a ground based telescope. The second is just Hubble. /====================================================================\ ! Later ! ! THE GAR <----- "Gar" rhymes with Share, and has nothing ! ! (GLWARNER@SAMFORD) at all to do with long nosed fish! ! \_____________________________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 90 16:49:21 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Payload Status for 06/27/90 (Forwarded) Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 06-27-90. - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at OPF) - Experiment monitoring continues. - STS-37 GRO (at PHSF) - Functional testing continues. - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) - CITE testing will be active today. - STS-41 Ulysses (at Hanger AO) - Ulysses functional testing continues. At the VPF, PCP/CIU testing will be performed today. - STS-42 IML-1 (at O&C) - Rack, floor, and module staging is continuing. - Atlas-1 (at O&C) - RAU mating plates and code plugs will be installed today. Orthogrid installation is continuing. - STS-46 TSS-1 (at O&C) - Closeout inspections continue. - STS-47 Spacelab-J (at O&C) - Rack 11 and 7 staging continues on second shift. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 90 16:53:42 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!jenkins@ucsd.edu (Steve Jenkins) Subject: Re: Public Perception Of Space In article js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. Slenk) writes: >* Overall, the situation is, as I see it, this: > The government shouldn't do anything other than protect rights. > The concept of a free market should do everything else. > >[....] > >Thus, the problem! Hope this makes my position somewhat clearer >(in that I think people have the wrong ideas regarding the purpose of a >government). The government of the United States was ostensibly founded upon the principle that the people explicitly invest their government with the powers enumerated in the Constitution, which serves as the instrument of their consent. It's no accident that the Constitution begins with the phrase "We, the people". The government should do what the people wish it to do, subject to the constraints of the Constitution. How exactly do you conclude that this is a "wrong idea"? -- Steve Jenkins N6UNI jenkins@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory (818) 354-0162 ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 90 08:32:52 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma!nickw@uunet.uu.net (Nick Watkins) Subject: Re: Saturn Rockets From article <1990Jun18.010908.23222@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer): > A. (Henry Spencer) The Saturn I was the original Saturn first stage with > a small liquid-hydrogen upper stage. Apart from some test > flights, it launched the Pegasus micrometeorite-measurement > satellites. There were plans to use it for early Apollo flights. > Basically, the IB took over its major missions. In hindsight, > the I was a dead end that probably shouldn't have been pursued. It was designed when there were no operational US LH2/LOX boosters, well before the RL10 engines first flew, on a Centaur, and when multiple flight tests were the norm. "All up" testing had to be sold against the misgivings of many at MSFC. Do you really think they could have started with the Saturn IB, and does anyone else share your opinion? Nick (opinions coloured by "Apollo" by Murray & Cox, which makes it clear how tricky the Saturn V developement was, and how surprised people were when Apollo 4 worked first time). -- Dr. Nick Watkins, Space & Plasma Physics Group, School of Mathematical & Physical Sciences, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton, E.Sussex, BN1 9QH, ENGLAND JANET: nickw@syma.sussex.ac.uk BITNET: nickw%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 90 22:02:03 GMT From: mcsun!hp4nl!swi.psy.uva.nl!groenewo@uunet.uu.net (Ferry van het Groenewoud) Subject: Re: Hubble GIFs GLWARNER@SAMFORD.BITNET (THE GAR) writes: >I have received two files that claim to be the First and Second pictures >from the Hubble. I don't have a Listserv and I am not at an FTPable >site, so here's what I would like to do: If you have a Listserv, or Wouldn't it be better to have sci.space.pictures and mail the pictures over the net (since there obviously are many people that would like to have the pictures). Ferry. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 90 19:28:27 GMT From: att!watmath!maytag!watdragon!watfun!grwalter@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Fred Walter) Subject: moon to rocket lower staging problems With all this discussion on model/amateur rockets to the moon (but no actual figures being posted, such as the weights of the rocket engines) one wonders whether or not it'd actually work. Some comments : 1) If you are doing staging, the materials holding the stages together will add weight that must be taken into consideration. 2) How will you ensure that the stages separate properly ? Without damaging the upper stages ? While properly igniting the stage above it ? 3) Where will the lower stages end up falling ? On houses/people ? Or will you be launching from over water ? Will the discarded stages have a parachut on them to slow them down on their return, to try and ensure they don't kill anything ? How will this be handled ? 4) If you try and put multiple rocket motors together side-by-side in a stage, how do you compensate for the fact that their thrusts won't be exactly the same ? How do you ensure they all ignite at the same time ? Failure to handle either of these will result in an off course rocket. Since you'll need multiple stages in order to get to the moon, these issues will have to be dealt with. Can they be dealt with in a cost effective manner ? fred ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 90 16:44:19 GMT From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Subject: Re: The Scout, Pershing II's and ICBM's In article <3628@calvin.cs.mcgill.ca>, msdos@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Mark SOKOLOWSKI) writes: >At the same time a major disarmement effort can make ICBM's >affordable for free. They wouldn't be "free." You would have to buy them as surplus(?). One or two of the Titan(s) retired in the early '80s might have been refuburished to launch a payload, but I'm not real sure about this. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 90 17:54:48 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!frank@ucsd.edu (Frank Abernathy) Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format (for STEPHEN?) Folks, bear with me... I tried to send a reply to Stephen, I believe was his name, it bounced so I'm posting hoping he'll see this.. ==========================cut================================= From: tkelso@BLACKBIRD.AFIT.AF.MIL (TS Kelso) Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins ============================================================================== Data for each satellite consists of three lines in the following format: AAAAAAAAAAA 1 NNNNNU NNNNNAAA NNNNN.NNNNNNNN +.NNNNNNNN +NNNNN-N +NNNNN-N N NNNNN 2 NNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NNNNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NN.NNNNNNNNNNNNNN Line 1 is a eleven-character name. Lines 2 and 3 are the standard Two-Line Orbital Element Set Format identical to that used by NASA and NORAD. The format description is: Line 2 Column Description 01-01 Line Number of Element Data 03-07 Satellite Number 10-11 International Designator (Last two digits of launch year) 12-14 International Designator (Launch number of the year) 15-17 International Designator (Piece of launch) 19-20 Epoch Year (Last two digits of year) 21-32 Epoch (Julian Day and fractional portion of the day) 34-43 First Time Derivative of the Mean Motion or Ballistic Coefficient (Depending on ephemeris type) 45-52 Second Time Derivative of Mean Motion (decimal point assumed; blank if N/A) 54-61 BSTAR drag term if GP4 general perturbation theory was used. Otherwise, radiation pressure coefficient. (Decimal point assumed) 63-63 Ephemeris type 65-68 Element number 69-69 Check Sum (Modulo 10) (Letters, blanks, periods = 0; minus sign = 1) Line 3 Column Description 01-01 Line Number of Element Data 03-07 Satellite Number 09-16 Inclination [Degrees] 18-25 Right Ascension of the Ascending Node [Degrees] 27-33 Eccentricity (decimal point assumed) 35-42 Argument of Perigee [Degrees] 44-51 Mean Anomaly [Degrees] 53-63 Mean Motion [Revs per day] 64-68 Revolution number at epoch [Revs] 69-69 Check Sum (Modulo 10) All other columns are blank or fixed. Note that the International Designator fields are usually blank, as issued in the NASA Prediction Bulletins. ====================================cut================================= Hope this helps the original requestor... frank (Credit for the service of posting the NASA preditions goes, of course, to Dr. Kelso...) -- Frank Abernathy, University of Texas at Austin, frank@ut-emx.utexas.edu Work: (512)-471-3216 Home: (512)-244-0625 (ans. mach always on...) ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 90 19:18:26 GMT From: skipper!bowers@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope Update - 06/27/90 In article From: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) >The optical system is a variation of a Cassegrain >design, called Ritchey-Chretien, which uses a folded design to enable >a long focal length of 189 feet to be packaged into a small telescope >length of 21 feet. Both mirrors are hyperboloidal in shape, meaning they >have a slightly deeper curvature than a parabolic mirror. This shape was >to correct all coma and spherical aberations everywhere in the field of >view. Now, I'm certainly no optical expert, but isn't a Ritchey-Chretien's secondary an elliptical mirror? I do know it provides a flat field, no coma, no spherical aberration, no chromatic aberration (being a reflector telescope). It does have off axis astigmatism though. I was just curious. Another opinion... -- Albion H. Bowers bowers@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!bowers ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #582 *******************