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 ; Sat, 30 Jun 1990 02:23:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 30 Jun 1990 02:23:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #588 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 588 Today's Topics: Receiving Hubble Photos - directly? Re: Phobos survey in the New Yorker Galileo Update - 06/27/90 Re: Saturn Rockets Re: NASA Headline News for 06/26/90 (Forwarded) Re: More on NASA 91 Appropriation Vote Aim For The Moon Rocket Contest --> email list Slung into Space! Re: More on NASA 91 Appropriation Vote Re: NASA announces next steps in Space Exploration Outreach Program (F 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 16:48:42 GMT From: baum@apple.com (Allen J. Baum) Subject: Receiving Hubble Photos - directly? [] This may be completely pointless now, but... A friend of mine would like to recieve pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope directly from the downlink, much as one can currently do with weather satellite pictures. He needs information on frequencies, formats, and satellite positions. Where can this information be obtained? Does anyone have pointers to this information? -- baum@apple.com (408)974-3385 {decwrl,hplabs}!amdahl!apple!baum ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 90 17:28:55 GMT From: att!tsdiag!davet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Dave Tiller N2KAU) Subject: Re: Phobos survey in the New Yorker In article <14853@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@degas.cs.unc.edu () writes: > > I was waiting for my physical therapist to become free today ... I've got a feeling you'll have a long wait. I've never seen a doctor _lower_ his rates!!! Oh, maybe I misread this. Is she having a divorce? That's it.. -- David E. Tiller davet@tsdiag.ccur.com | Concurrent Computer Corp. FAX: 201-870-5952 Ph: (201) 870-4119 (w) | 2 Crescent Place, M/S 117 UUCP: ucbvax!rutgers!petsd!tsdiag!davet | Oceanport NJ, 07757 ICBM: 40 16' 52" N 73 59' 00" W | N2KAU @ NN2Z ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 90 19:09:35 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Galileo Update - 06/27/90 GALILEO MISSION STATUS June 27, 1990 The Galileo spacecraft is now 92.8 million miles from Earth, with the distance declining at about 300,000 miles per day. The round-trip light time is 16 minutes, 38 seconds. The spacecraft orbital speed is just over 54,000 mph, declining gradually as it moves away from the Sun. At JPL, the Galileo navigation and orbiter engineering teams have begin designing the third trajectory correction maneuver since the Venus flyby last February. This will continue the process of precisely shaping the flight path for the December 1990 gravity-assist flyby of Earth. The finished maneuver parameters will be transmitted to the spacecraft and executed in mid-July. At the spacecraft, the activity level is very quiet, with continued scientific measurements of the interplanetary environment, periodic memory readouts of the data, and occasional calibrations, Sun-point maneuvers and other engineering housekeeping routines. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 90 17:01:56 GMT From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Saturn Rockets In article <2983@syma.sussex.ac.uk> nickw@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Nick Watkins) writes: >> 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? The comment comes from "Stages to Saturn", the NASA History book on the Saturn development. I don't see that starting with the IB would have caused any extra problems. It would have reduced the workload a bit by eliminating a useless booster from the development cycle. Since the RL-10 first flew on Centaur, the Saturn I was in no way crucial to LH2/LOX development. Since no Saturn other than the I used the RL-10, it was in any case irrelevant to the Saturns except as a technology pathfinder for the J-2. And I don't see the relationship to "all up" testing at all. You're going to have to explain more precisely just what role the I played before I'll buy it. -- "Either NFS must be scrapped or NFS | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology must be changed." -John Osterhout | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 90 16:19:19 GMT From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hpl.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 06/26/90 (Forwarded) In article <678@ksr.UUCP> clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) writes: >>orbiter Endeavor currently under construction > >Yoiks! Weren't we all supposed to remember that as the Endeavour with a 'u'? >Can't NASA remember these things? Maybe they just came to their senses and translated the name into American. -- "Some fear that Newtonian physics | David R. Smith, HP Labs governs superpower relations: | dsmith@hplabs.hp.com What goes up must come down." | (415) 857-7898 Time Magazine, interviewing Gorbachev, June 4, 1990 ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 90 21:03:06 GMT From: agate!agate!web@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (William Baxter) Subject: Re: More on NASA 91 Appropriation Vote In article <5428@itivax.iti.org> aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: > the core >SEI funding was to look for and analyze alternatives. The only thing the >90 day study did was to convince the administration that NASA cannot be >trusted to do this alone. Yes, and the Space Station has been studied to death, too. It is still a project out of control. I have seen nothing to indicate that the SEI studies will be any different. The conclusions of all the studies will probably resemble the 90 day report far too closely. Traxler and company have nipped this problem in the bud. -- William Baxter ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 90 04:29:16 GMT From: sam.cs.cmu.edu!vac@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Subject: Aim For The Moon Rocket Contest --> email list The idea of using small rockets to launch a very small payload into space has generated enough interest that we have started a mailing list just for this topic. The list is "space-project@cs.cmu.edu". The purpose of this list is to get together people who are interested in turning this idea into reality. All of the issues will be discussed (designs, engines, safety, cost, transmitters, materials, balloons, funding, legal issues, insurance, ...). There are enough people on rec.models.rockets that are only interested in the kind of rockets that fit the legal definition of "model" that we really should move the discussion from there to this new list. If you are interested in this discussion please send your name and email address to: space-project-request@cs.cmu.edu This name is used because Marc Ringuette already had the list sitting around unused. I will just be maintaining the list while Marc is out of town. Thanks Marc!!!! -- Vince ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 90 05:11:02 GMT From: fernwood!portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@apple.com (H Keith Henson) Subject: Slung into Space! I hate to post a half-baked idea, but raising money for an email privacy lawsuit has wiped out my time to bake it. (Though I did get a patent application filed.) If you drop a 200-ton aircraft from 16 km (say 50,000 feet) to 6 km (about 20,000 feet) the potential energy available is enough to raise a one-ton payload to 2,000 km or to accelerate it to about 6.5 km/sec, neglecting losses, of course. The reason I choose 6.5 km/sec is that it permits landing at the low end of a tether in a two-hour orbit without a rocket stage. It may turn out that it is better to use rockets for about half the boost; a boost of 3 km/sec can be done with a very modest mass ratio. Using a cable and a sling maneuver to transfer energy from plane to payload leads to an endpoint where the payload is going 6.5 km/sec in a nearly circular path. (At that point, you cut the cable at the payload end with an explosive bolt). Assuming firewalled engines develop 1/2 g, the available force (weight plus engines) to keep the payload in a circular path is about 300 tons. A little high-school physics tells us that a massless cable needs to be almost 15 km long to balance the forces, and of course, the payload is undergoing about 300 gees of acceleration. While this is a little rough for people :-), a lot of payloads, and all bulk materials would take it fine. (The ham sandwiches might be a little mashed . . . ) Real tapered cables for this application seem to be marginally within the state of the art; available materials give a section area at the payload end of perhaps 6 square cm and an effective (accelerated) mass perhaps twice that of the payload (implying three times as much aircraft or one third of a ton payload). The cable frontal area of about 300 square meters for a simple cylinder is too high, but presumably it can be streamlined in section. A 20-to-one reduction in effective area would bring the frontal area down to 15 square meters. The highest velocity occurs when the cable is almost vertical. This considerably reduces drag effects (the payload and fastest section of the cable should be about 20 km high at release.) The sling process starts by reeling a payload out from the aircraft (not necessarily to the end of the cable) and entering a series of banking turns to get the payload pendulumed out from the aircraft path. Drop tanks on the payload might be needed to increase the inertial/drag ratio in the early part of this maneuver. This would be followed by an involute spiral turn with the bank turning into a roll before most of the altitude loss. The majority of the energy would be fed into the payload as the plane followed an increasingly steep upside-down dive. Forward acceleration on the payload would average 20-30 gees over 30 seconds, while the plane lost 10 km of altitude. This is a bit toward the edge of what you want to do with a big subsonic aircraft, but well within what could be done with a specialized supersonic one. The payload path would be bent through approximately 3/4 of a circle in the horizontal plane and a quarter circle in the vertical. This is as far as I have time to take it at the moment. Obviously it need to be modeled. Does anyone know of a program which can model a sling? Anyone have pointers to airfoil section data over the range of velocities involved? How about roll, etc. performance data on C5's and 747's? Anybody have an opinion about hard points on these aircraft as to where you anchor the rope? Know anybody interested in funding some studies or bootlegging them and co-authoring a paper? Line forms over there for pilots who want to volunteer. H. Keith Henson (hkhenson@cup.portal.com) ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 90 12:38:18 GMT From: usc!samsung!umich!umeecs!itivax!vax3.iti.org!aws@ucsd.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: More on NASA 91 Appropriation Vote web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes: >>>We can all write to Bob Traxler and thank him for not allowing NASA to >>>begin another large, ill-defined project >>Before posting statements like this perhaps you should read what the >>spending was requested for. >I did. That's why I said it. Read the 90 day report again, Allen. It is clear you did not read either the markup or the original request. You seem to think that the SEI money requested was to work on one of the architectures specified by the NASA 90 day study. Nothing could be more incorrect. It is true that NASA (in typical style) has bundled a lot of stuff (like ALS) into SEI that have nothing to do with it, but the core SEI funding was to look for and analyze alternatives. The only thing the 90 day study did was to convince the administration that NASA cannot be trusted to do this alone. You also seem to think the SEI money was startup money. This dispite the fact that the administration said several times that this is study money and not startup money. The only exception to this was a $5M (out of 380M total SEI request) startup request for Lunar Polar Orbiter (which was zeroed out). >>studies are to be evaluated by people outside NASA including groups like SSI >>and individuals like Dr. Andy Cutler (famous NASA cheerleader :-) ). >Andy agrees with me. Then why did he ask people to participate in the NASA ourtreach program in his NSS campaign literature? Why is he wasting his time working on the outreach program when he thinks the whole thing is a waste? Why did he tell me in a phone conversation (roughly): "At least they are doing it [SEI] right this time and taking a few years to study it and not just jump in".? >Traxler did the right thing. You don't even know what he did. Allen ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Allen W. Sherzer | Death to all extremists! | | aws@iti.org | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 90 04:05:34 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!emory!emcard!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Gary Coffman) Subject: Re: NASA announces next steps in Space Exploration Outreach Program (F In article <2687a7d7-4cb.3sci.space-1@vpnet.chi.il.us> akcs.gregc@vpnet.chi.il.us (*Greg*) writes: >Getting idea's from proper scientwits is the best way to obtain lowcost >conception. Corporations, Schools, Groups of Professionals all want to >achieve space as a reality. And if *we* get involved, (we = Corporations, >Private Business, Scientists, (the little guy), *we* will provide answers >where as other countries are dealing in a certain group. Plus, think of >Private Funding! After all, wasnt the trip that the Mayflower took to reach >America a *Private* escape? > >Was government involved in this? (Only to stop them). And when America was >thriving, England tried to bust up the colonies. If you remember history >corectly, we became a nation and are still surviving. ALL because of 3 >ships which contributed to the making of America. If you just leave out >Business and the little guy, you will stifle exploration. Hinder fundings >for research and allow other governments which are trying to get to the >moon.. to beat us in inovation. > If I remember history correctly, the missions of exploration that gave Europeans knowledge of the Americas were government funded. Do the names Columbus and Queen Isobella ring a bell? Before the age of exploration, Europeans thought that one would fall off the edge of the earth if one sailed too far westward. We are still early in the age of exploration as far as space is concerned. The cost of space travel is many orders of magnitude greater than the cost of three modest sailing ships. No rational corporation would make an investment of this magnitude without some assurance of profit. Only after the government funded Lewis and Clark expedition mapped the interior of this continent did private settlers risk their lives and fortunes to populate the interior. The only tools they needed to survive the interior were two strong legs and an axe. To settle space an entire ecosystem must be carried along and maintained perfectly. Without solid assurance that a reasonable opportunity for profit exists in space, there is essentially no chance that the sums of money needed to mount a real effort in space will be raised by private sources. >[Just think a moment] >What if Russia or Japan or Europe gets a Colony on >the moon first? What kind of {sensibilities} will they bring with them? >What "idealologies" will they include in their view of life? What kind of >freedoms? What kind of beliefs? > >The choice is clear. It cuts into our being. We must make an effort for >the Cosmos that captured the hearts of mankind from our beginning. To >insure that our future will never forget our ventures. And make our mark in >history for the future. > >Never leave out the common man. And the freedom and ideals that are the >heart of America. Paid for in blood. > The government has the resources to wave the flag and may have the will to do so. Don't expect private funded efforts to be based on flag waving. Expect instead that private efforts will be mounted only when profit is assured. Gary ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #588 *******************