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 ; Sun, 1 Jul 1990 01:49:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 1 Jul 1990 01:49:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #593 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 593 Today's Topics: Re: Hubble Space Telescope Update - 06/28/90 Re: BBXRT servicing. Truly, Fisk and Lenoir to hold media briefing (Forwarded) Re: RE Hubble Space Telescope Update - 06/28/90 Re: NASA announces next steps in Space Exploration Outreach Program (F NASA Prediction Bulletin Format Re: The end of Hubble Payload Summary for 06/29/90 (Forwarded) 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: 30 Jun 90 02:54:26 GMT From: uoft02.utoledo.edu!fax0112@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope Update - 06/28/90 In article <15622@bfmny0.BFM.COM>, tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: > In article <37355@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> gwh@earthquake.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) writes: >> ... You have intrinsic problems >>testing a flexible mirror in a gravity well when it's supposed to be >>operational in space. I.E. it wouldn't have looked right even if we >>DID test it down here. > > Everybody is saying this now. I have a little trouble believing it. > > Of course gravity is there. IT WAS ALSO THERE WHEN THEY POLISHED IT. > Despite which, they were able to figure the primary and secondary to > micron precision (albeit to the wrong shape). So SOMEBODY knew how to > compensate or correct for the effects of gravity. > > Of course what nobody has pointed out so far is that if Danbury HAD > run such tests with software containing some sort of systematic error, > the assembled system might have passed anyway! > > Nevertheless they should have tried. Someone independent should have > written separate software and tested it assembled. > You are missing the point. First of all there is still not enough information to firmly conclude one way or the other, who or what is at fault. The point that was originally trying to be made is that you could not test the entire HST optics structure in gravity. FOr one reason, there will be totally different flexure etc. Also I don't think HST could support itself in gravity so it would have to have been heavily supported making the tests meaningless. Thus, so far it appears, that any full tests would not have been accurate enough to detect it. We might well have spent 100mil and found no problem. Later when all the facts are in IF it turns out that such a test would have found such an error then people can bash. I suspect it will turn out not to be the case. > NASA is saying it would have been too expensive. Well, how much are > they going to have to spend NOW? > If congress isn't going to give you the money in the first place there is not much point in asking is there? There have been a number of cuts in the program from the beginning. Perhaps penny wise, pound foolish but lets keep in mind you dictates the pennies. Robert dempsey Ritter Observatory > -- > Annex Canada now! We need the room, \) Tom Neff > and who's going to stop us. (\ tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 90 17:27:15 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!grebyn!pat@decwrl.dec.com (Pat Bahn) Subject: Re: BBXRT servicing. >If the sensors are damaged at room temperature then how were they fabricated >in the first place? Technicians slopping around in a bucket of liquid argon >bolting the thing together seems a little unlikley. I've seen electron gun systems built, and they are fine in atmosphere until final coatings are applied (phospors in our case, that was done under nitrogen.. argon is also useful) they usually do this in a glovebox.)) I imagine the liquid argon was selected for cooling and minimiziing interference. but we carried the electron guns around in plastic, once they hit a clean state. most of the work can be done before it goes clean and cold. -- ============================================================================= Pat @ grebyn.com | If the human mind was simple enough to understand, 301-948-8142 | We'd be too simple to understand it. -Emerson Pugh ============================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 90 19:31:14 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Truly, Fisk and Lenoir to hold media briefing (Forwarded) David W Garrett Headquarters, Washington, D.C. June 29, 1990 (Phone: 202/453-8400) N90-47 EDITORS NOTE: TRULY, FISK AND LENOIR TO HOLD MEDIA BRIEFING NASA Administrator Richard H. Truly, Associate Aministrator for Space Science And Applications Dr. Lennard Fisk and Associate Administrator for Space Flight Dr. William Lenoir will hold a media briefing in the NASA Headquaters 6th floor auditorium on Monday July 2. The briefing will begin at 10:30 a.m. EDT and will be carried live on NASA Select television via Satcom F2R, Transponder 13, at 72 degrees west longitude, frequency 3960.0 MHz. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jun 90 02:47:43 GMT From: uoft02.utoledo.edu!fax0112@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Subject: Re: RE Hubble Space Telescope Update - 06/28/90 In article <00938EED.5338EF60@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU>, sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: > In article <10932@hydra.gatech.EDU>, dsm@prism.gatech.EDU (Daniel McGurl) writes: >> >>Fine. But the least you can do is give NASA half a chance. You seem >>very ready to condemn them for something that might not be there fault. >>I don't know anyone interested in space who isn't exceeding ticked about >>this affiar, but at least wait for the facts to get somewhat straigtened >>out before running of crying to your congresscritter. >> > > Not to engage in NASA-bashing, but I thought that this was the post-Challenger > era. Errors of this nature should not (in theory) happen. When you combine > this with the disturbing nature of the fuel leak in Columbia (?) earlier this > month, just what has changed? > Need I remind you that HST was designed and built prior to 1986? Why is the leak disturbing? Things break. They detected it and did not launch an unsafe vehicle. Things failed before challenger and they will again. It is how they are dealt with that matters. > If Hubble was run on a shoe-string budget, instead of big bucks...well... > I can't help but think the thing would have A) Gotten off the ground about > 4 years sooner and B) Given us more than we bargained for. 4 years sooner? yeah if there hadn't been a shuttle sccident it was scheduled for 1986. depending on your point of viwe it was run on a shoe string budget. When you include luanch etc 1.5B is not that much. Robert Dempsey Ritter Observatory ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 90 06:45:51 GMT From: cscs!csmith@uunet.uu.net (Craig E. Smith) Subject: Re: NASA announces next steps in Space Exploration Outreach Program (F In <815@ke4zv.UUCP> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >In article <2687a7d7-4cb.3sci.space-1@vpnet.chi.il.us> akcs.gregc@vpnet.chi.il.us (*Greg*) writes: >>... >>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. >>... >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? > ... >>[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? >> ... Speaking of history, if you compare space exploration with the European colonial expansion, which I think is a fair analogy, there are some ideas that come to mind. I certainly think one can say that England was a very successful colonial power, since at its height it controlled (at least in name) nearly half of the worlds land area, and most of the oceans, and yet it was a relative latecomer to colonialism. Spain, Portugal, and the Dutch all had established colonies before England, and the expansion of English power was at least in part based on the plundering, and exploitation of these other colonies. Thus, it is not necessarily the one who is first that is best. It was the technological advancement, and the ability and will to exploit the pioneering work of others that gave England the advantage. That is one of the advantages that the Japanese have today. They are willing and able to use the technologies developed by others to improve their own economic conditions. A number of articles I have read lately point to the fact that much of the advanced research done by university laboratories in the U.S., and which is generally available to the commercial world, is being IGNORED by American corporations, but much more fully exploited by the Japanese (see article in The Wall Street Journal, Monday, June 25, 1990, column six on the front page). Whether space exploration is funded by the government, or privately, or by a combination of both, it will be those who see the existing opportunities, and successfully exploit them that will prosper, the others will be left behind. -- The truly proud man knows neither superiors | Internet: csmith@cscs.UUCP nor inferiors. The first he does not admit | UUCP: ... uunet!cscs!csmith of - the last he does not concern himself | about. - William Hazlitt | ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jun 90 04:34:18 GMT From: helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@ucsd.edu (TS Kelso) Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format As a service to the satellite user community, the following description of the NASA Prediction Bulletin's two-line orbital element set format is uploaded to sci.space on a monthly basis. The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times weekly. Documentation and tracking software are also available on this system. The Celestial BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. ============================================================================== 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; plus sign = 2) 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. Example: NOAA 6 1 11416U 86 50.28438588 0.00000140 67960-4 0 5293 2 11416 98.5105 69.3305 0012788 63.2828 296.9658 14.24899292346978 Note that the International Designator fields are usually blank, as issued in the NASA Prediction Bulletins. -- Dr TS Kelso Assistant Professor of Space Operations tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil Air Force Institute of Technology ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 90 09:51:34 GMT From: beez@humu.nosc.mil (Scott A. Beasley) Subject: Re: The end of Hubble I have seen some discussion of the *maximum* trauma that the HST can sustain, ( a 1 cm orbital-velocity object, I think) but how about the constant barrage of smaller particles, dust, comic..er..*cosmic* rays, et al. The LDEF looked like *hell* after its exposure to all of this - maybe this is a stupid question, but what effect will this have on the optics in the telescope? (assuming they get around the current obstacle of the 'right mirror to the wrong specs') Scott Beasley Inter-National Research Institute "If you don't like my personal Mililani, HI opinions, you'll just have to stand in line...." ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 90 17:56:33 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Payload Summary for 06/29/90 (Forwarded) STS-35,40, AND 42 PAYLOAD STATUS REPORT FRIDAY, JUNE 29, 1990 -- 11 A.M. Patricia E. Phillips NASA Public Affairs/KSC 407/867-2468 ASTRO-1/STS-35 The Broad Band X-Ray Telescope will be replenished with liq- uid argon on July 2. The early servicing is to accommodate the July 4 holiday, and includes time to accomplish both the servic- ing and pressure checks one day after servicing without incurring holiday overtime costs. The previous servicing occurred a few hours ahead of schedule late June 24 rather than on June 25. Routine pressure checks indicated that the argon, last replenished on June 10, was being depleted faster than anticipated. Therefore, the replenish schedule was moved ahead slightly to ensure the continuous cool- ing of the instrument. Since replenishment of the dewars with frozen argon normally lasts about 16 days, the schedule change represented a conserva- tive approach toward maintaining dewar fill levels. At no time was BBXRT in danger of sustaining any damage. Astro-1 temperature, pressure, and contamination checks will continue. The payload is healthy and is showing no signs of dif- ficulties during its prolonged stay in the orbiter's payload bay. The Astro-1 multiple observatory is scheduled to launched in August aboard Columbia. SPACELAB LIFE SCIENCES 1 (SLS-1)/STS-40 NASA and McDonnell-Douglas Space Systems Co. quality experts this week performed a set of closeout inspections directed toward the Spacelab hardware installation. Such inspections are part of an ongoing series of quality checks performed throughout process- ing to ensure that individual portions of payload preparations have been performed within specification. No major anomalies were reported from the inspection. Interface verfication testing in the Cargo Integration Test Equipment (CITE) stand is scheduled to be completed today. The testing, which began June 14, has been successful. These tests are considered a major milestone in the preparation and verifica- tion of a horizontal payload. The CITE stand, in the Operations and Checkout Building, was designed and constructed to serve as a stand-in for the Space Shuttle. This allows important data and communications checkouts to be performed without using the orbiter itself, but still al- lowing engineers to verify that the payload interfaces with the orbiter will operate as required when the payload is installed in the payload bay. INTERNATIONAL MICROGRAVITY LABORATORY (IML)/STS-42 Technicians continue work to install experiment racks on the floor assembly. Numerous tasks involving the installation and/or fitting of various components are in work. Among them are the installation of such items as the inter- com master station, overhead handrails, the aft end cone view- port, and rack stowage containers, as well as cables and inter- face panels. Other scheduled work items include the mating of the aft end cone and the module segment, targeted for around July 9. A module leak check is also scheduled for early July. IML, formerly scheduled to fly aboard Columbia in December, has been moved downstream in the manifest to l991. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #593 *******************