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 ; Tue, 24 Jul 1990 02:00:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8aeyDZm00VcJM9lU4z@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 24 Jul 1990 02:00:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #116 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 116 Today's Topics: Magellan Press Conference (Forwarded) Model Rockets become more space junk U.S. and Canadian scientists cooperate in atmospheric study (Forwarded) Re: World Space Agency Soviet shuttle, did it fly more than once? Re: Hubble Trouble 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: 23 Jul 90 18:15:35 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Magellan Press Conference (Forwarded) MAGELLAN PRESS CONFERENCE SCHEDULED "How to cover the Magellan mission" will be the subject of a press briefing, Thursday, July 26 in the NASA Headquarters 6th floor auditorium, 400 Md. Ave., S.W., Wash., D.C. Principals from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) will explain what media can expect during Magellan's arrival at Venus, insertion into the planet's orbit, instrument check-out and subsequent mapping. On Aug. 10, 1990, Magellan reaches Venus after a 15-1/2 month voyage. Last year on May 4, the spacecraft was deployed from Atlantis on STS-30, the first planetary mission launched from a Space Shuttle. Magellan's primary mission is to map 70 to 90 percent of Venus, with 10 times better resolution than any achieved before. A 3-1/2 minute, animated videotape of the mapping process will be available. Conference presenters include: Dr. Joseph Boyce, NASA Hdqtrs., Magellan Program Scientist Anthony J. Spear, JPL, Magellan Project Manager Dr. R. Stephen Saunders, JPL, Magellan Project Scientist Dr. Gordon Pettengill, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Principal Investigator, Radar Experiment This briefing will be carried live on NASA Select television, Satcom F-2R, Transponder 13, C band, at 72 degrees west longitude, frequency 3960.0 MHz. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ From: wang!wangarc!jenkins@uunet.uu.net To: wang!space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: Model Rockets become more space junk Date: Mon Jul 23 17:55:17 1990 Many people have been discussing a contest to put a model rocket on the Moon. I can understand the fascination with sending your toys up into LEO and beyond, BUT, before you even think about attempting it please consider the following excerpt, taken from the July 14, 1990 issue of SCIENCE NEWS (Vol 138, No. 2, Page 29). In an article entitled "Tallying Orbital Trash" (reprinted without permission) Jonathan Eberhart writes: "A veritable trash heap of manufactured materials encircles Earth. Made up of spent satellites, rocket stages and other space hardware, some broken into tiny pieces, the space junkyard now holds at least 7,000 objects with diameters ranging from several meeters to about 10 centimeters, according to Air Force radar-tracking reports. Astronomers complain that "light pollution" from sunlight glinting off the objects' surfaces interferes with celestial observations. Space engineers fret about the fragments' potential for damaging or destroying spacecraft, including the U.S. space station Freedom planned for human occupation in the late 1990s." [Three paragraphs omitted.] "Last year, researchers made radar observations of limited portions of the sky with the Arecibo radiotelescpoe in Puerto Rico and the Goldstone dish antenna in southern California. This sampling indicated some 150,000 Earth- orbiting objects measuring at least 1 cm across Kessler says. [Donald J. Kessler of Johnson Space Center in Houston] And the Goldstone data suggest that an additional 1 million 2-mm-sized objects now orbit the planet, he says, although that instrument could not detect objects smaller than about 2 millimeters. According to Kessler, this hints at the presence of five times that many 1-mm bits." [Many paragraphs omitted.] At orbital velocities even the smallest fragment can cause potentially fatal damage to equipment and/or crew members. Do we really want to contribute to this growing problem over a silly contest. We have already managed to screw up the oceans, groundwater, surface and atmosphere and we are well on our way to doing the same to the space immediately around our planet. For [deity of choice]'s sake (as well as NASA's and our own) let's not add any more than neccessary to orbital space and forget about sending toys up into space. If there is an intelligent community out there do you really think that they would want to invite slobs like us to join them in their travels through the rest of the universe. They would look at us like Charlie Brown looks at Pigpen. Besides, you'd feel prety stupid if someone's toy wiped out a communications satellite, or worse, a "secret" government one. [No, I'm not some zealot environmentalist, just a concerned techie briefly mounting his soap box to inject a quick bit of reality into the fantasy.] P.S. I only subscribe to the space magazine now so please CC me on any flames. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- David E. Jenkins - Wang Laboratories Inc. Freestyle Communications/FAX Platforms WANG: (508) 967-7284 DAVE.JENKINS@office.wang.com Home: (508) 632-4164 - or - Fax: (508) 967-2212 wangarc!jenkins@wang.com Opinions expressed are my very own (unless someone wants to pay me for them). ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 90 22:23:41 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: U.S. and Canadian scientists cooperate in atmospheric study (Forwarded) Brian Dunbar Headquarters, Washington, D.C. July 23, 1990 (Phone: 202/453-1547) Jean Drummond Clough Craig E. Murden Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va. (Phone: 804/864-6122) Keith Koehler Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Va. (Phone: 804/824-1579) Gordon Black Atmospheric Environment Service, Ontario, Canada (Phone: 416/739-4760) RELEASE: 90-102 U.S. AND CANADIAN SCIENTISTS COOPERATE IN ATMOSPHERIC STUDY Scientists from NASA and U.S. universities have joined Canadian researchers in an expedition to study pollution at high northern latitudes and emissions of methane, an important greenhouse gas, from tundra, forests and marshes. Titled the Atmospheric Boundary Layer Experiment-3B (ABLE), the study will let scientists look at changes in chemical composition that occur when pristine Arctic air masses, which influence air quality and climate over North America, Eurasia and the northern oceans, mix with polluted continental air masses. Observations of Arctic atmospheric chemistry will be linked to studies by the Canadian Institute for Research in Atmospheric Chemistry (CIRAC) of the soil of lowland marshes near Hudson Bay. The soils under observation are a source of methane, which plays a critical role in atmospheric chemistry and possible global warming. Like carbon dioxide and the other "greenhouse" gases, methane traps heat near the surface of the Earth that otherwise would radiate into space, warming the atmosphere. Over several decades, higher temperatures could prompt other phenomena, such as the melting of light-reflecting sea-ice, that could lead to even more warming. The CIRAC Northern Wetlands Project will study the sensitivity of methane emissions to changes in surface temperatures to predict how these emissions may change in a warmer climate. The main NASA sampling platform is the agency's Lockheed Electra aircraft, stationed at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Va. The Electra, a converted turboprop airliner, is scheduled to make 14 flights in the Hudson Bay lowland area and in Quebec. A Canadian DeHaviland Twin Otter aircraft will fly 50 research missions during the same period. Ground sampling activity will involve towers and surface chambers at a McGill University facility in Schefferville, Quebec. Research activity began July 5 and will conclude Aug. 20, 1990. The air and ground measurements will be complemented by surface-vegetation data from the Landsat and French SPOT satellites. The ABLE project is managed by Langley's Atmospheric Sciences Division for NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications. The program was established in the early 1980s to study the chemistry of the Earth's atmosphere and its interaction with the land and the oceans. Other principal investigators are from NASA's Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif., and Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, Miss., and from numerous U.S. and Canadian institutions. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 90 00:02:40 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!unicorn!n8035388@ucsd.edu (Worth Henry A) Subject: Re: World Space Agency In article <1990Jul20.002133.24839@cbnewsh.att.com> lmg@cbnewsh.att.com (lawrence.m.geary) writes: > >Instead of a UN style organization, maybe what is needed is a "limited >partnership" arrangement. ... I definitely did not suggest any thing like the UN, members ("partners") would participate and benefit according to the level of their contributions (NO preordained dominance for any member! if a member wishes to dominate, they would have to BUY that dominance every year, year after year, with their contributions). Such an agency must be structured for success, be independant, and to have very clearly defined goals and priorities. Structuring for success mean structuring it like a business with rewards for success and "disincentives" for failure. To help ensure all ideas are considered and not simply discarded as "not invented here", internal competition must be created. For example, ALL employees, contractors, research associates, ... and maybe even "outsiders", could be encouraged, and given the oppurtunity, to form "design-build" teams to present solutions to stated requirements and to carry them on through a series of reviews and eliminations until one (or none, or perhaps several in critical cases) remained to carry the project on to completion. Member's of these teams would receive bonuses for each step their team successfully completes. Give the entrepreneurial spirit a chance, and even the stars won't be a limit! The agency should be allowed to patent/copyright and license its innovations and, to the extent it is consistant with and supports the agency's goals, enter into business arrangements (we don't need an agency selling high-tech fast food and only giving lip service to space R&D). However, while the agency should be restricted from competing with existing space services (no need to reinvent the wheel, yet again), it should be encouraged to form consortiums to pioneer new space services, to exploit the agency's innovations, or to make significant improvements to existing space services. Any revenues would be plowed back into the agency to fund further R&D, perhaps one day allowing the agency to become self-sufficient. >The organization would be run by its management, *not* by the contributing >nations, The contributors will at least demand a "Board of Directors" to represent their interests, but, the "Board" should be independently budgeted and given limited powers (to avoid "Board" staffers trying to build their own empires, at the expense of the agency). The "Board" should be limited to setting the overall goals and budget priorities, hiring and firing senior executives (by super-majority, of course), and given the responsibility to audit the agency and to form review boards when problems arise. However, the detailed budgeting and implementation absolutely MUST be left to the executives, the last thing needed, is a half-dozen countries each trying to micro-manage the agency! A well conceived "Board" can be invaluable in seeing that the agency stays on course and is well insulated from national politics. > who could drop out and take back their capital if they didn't >like the way things were going. (They could at least take back their >money. They probably couldn't take back their people if they didn't want >to leave. And the technology is irrevocable, practically speaking.) It would be a little difficult for a member to remove capital -- "I'll take a camera from that satellite, ten workstations, that space suit, and that..." -- contributions would have to be viewed as non-refundable. If a member is not comfortable with the agency's progress, and its returns -- in the form of space science and technical/commercial spin-offs -- then they are free to cut their losses, but don't expect any refunds. Hanging on to personnel, and contractors, from an ex-member would anger the remaining members (project participation is one of the main perks for members). If a member quits, then those personnel and contractors "sponsored" by that member's share get the "pink slip" (projects may be delayed, but the agency survives!). However, management must also have a limited discretion to hire critical personnel and services without member "sponsorship". Both of these factors would tend to deter members from making hasty departures. >... Has anything really new and innovative been done in space technology >since the 1960's? Certainly there has been no progress in propulsion since >that time; it's been chemical rockets all the way. There have been some, but the "not invented here", "that doesn't fit with the current plan", "if NASA hasn't done it..." or (pick your favorite) syndromes tend to suppress them before they get a decent hearing. As far as non-chemical approachs go, most present problems for atmospheric use (and the lack of inexpensive LEO access is the biggest impediment to space R&D -- we need practical "shuttles", once we have that the starships that follow will be a relative "piece of cake"). However, recent postings have described a couple of groups working on techniques that use ground based lasers to "push" a payload into orbit. There may yet be significant, unexploited potential in chemical rockets. One example, that nearly made it, was Alan Bond's HOTOL -- HOriz. TakeOff & Landing : an un-manned, single-stage-to-orbit, winged, reusable launch vehicle -- which offered nearly half the payload of the shuttle at a claimed cost, if memory serves, of ~$500/lb to LEO, compared to the current ~$6000/lb for NASA's shuttle (in the mid-80's, when HOTOL was being considered, NASA was still trying to claim a cost, for the shuttle, in the $2-3k/lb range). Even if their estimates were off by a binary order of magnitude, or two, HOTOL still would have been cheaper than the shuttle and competitive with other systems. Also promised, was fast turnaround (48hrs?), thus, higher availability than any other system (how long does it take to stack a conventional ELV?). With a handful of HOTOL's, it is conceivable that a sustained daily launch rate would have been possible (10 tons per launch!). Alan Bond's innovation was a dual-mode engine that breathed air when in the atmosphere (ram-jet style, using a rocket sled to get it up to speed) and LOX during the later part of the launch, thus, drastically reducing the mass of oxidizer carried (this was before NASP, and unlike NASP, HOTOL appeared to elegantly follow the KISS principle). Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace put a lot of effort into verifying and refining the design, but ultimately, the British gov. refused to underwrite development, ESA was not interested in competition for the Ariane/Hermes, and, as far as I have heard, attempts at forming private consortiums have all failed. The British gov. also classified the engine (RB535?), blocking any substantially foreign consortiums (i.e. Japanese). The HOTOL vehicle concept did look a bit like a futuristic V-1, perhaps that had some subliminal effect on the British government, as well as past experiences like the Comet? Now, if someone were to take the HOTOL, add in the lower-cost manufacturing techniques developed by the ALS project and ... ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 90 03:25:25 GMT From: philmtl!philabs!briar!rfc@uunet.uu.net (Robert Casey) Subject: Soviet shuttle, did it fly more than once? In article <90072023452086@masnet.uucp> maury.markowitz@f906.n250.z1.fidonet.org (maury markowitz) writes: > I feel quite confident that had the Sovs been able to build a shuttle, >they'd be in the same position as us. It's only now that they have one, >but now they can't figure out what to use it for!! Did the USSR ever fly their shuttle "Burin" (sp) more than once? Maybe, if they're not going to use it, we should buy it and add it to our fleet? :-) Naw, guess all the details being different would make servicing it difficult. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 90 17:29:59 GMT From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!mvk@ucsd.edu (Michael V. Kent) Subject: Re: Hubble Trouble Accept the Space Shuttle for what it is: an 8-fold safety improvement over Apollo. The reason we only lost one Apollo crew (almost two) is that we didn't launch all that many missions. The Shuttle can carry twice the crew twice as often for 1/8th the risk. How many Apollo crews would we have lost if we launched 35 missions in 9 years? Statistically, 3.5. Mike mvk@pawl.rpi.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #116 *******************