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, 27 Jul 1990 02:08:19 -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, 27 Jul 1990 02:07:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #135 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 135 Today's Topics: hummingbird/phoenix status anyone Re: NASA: A Can-Do Agency Becomes A Can't Do Bureaucracy Re: what if??? Re: Polar Orbits Re: Space Shuttle and the Ozone layer Re: information needed on AEROSPIKE engine(repeat) Nuclear War Hubble News - 07/26/90 Re: space news from June 11 AW&ST Re: misc.engineers (was ) Payload Status for 07/26/90 (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: 26 Jul 90 12:25:30 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!gecrdvm1!gipp@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Subject: hummingbird/phoenix status anyone I saw a recent posting from someone looking for technical data on aerospike rockets, and this set me to wondering: what is the status on Hummingbird and Phoenix, potential vertical takeoff and landing rockets from Hummingbird Launch Systems. Any metal been bent? Any comments from anyone whether they think this approach will really work, or whether the cost is going to be as low as claimed ($100 per pound cost to orbit as ultimate goal is the figure I've heard). Also, not to get greedy for info, but could anyone comment on the Phoenix as to whether this is intended to be a satelite launcher, space station personnel transfer vehicle, or what? All I ever get to read is small blurbs in semi-technical magazines. Thanks for any and all info. pete ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 90 05:26:32 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: NASA: A Can-Do Agency Becomes A Can't Do Bureaucracy (This is a sci.space topic.) In article <9718@hacgate.UUCP> yamauchi@aic.hrl.hac.com writes: >Does the U.S. have a launch capacity shortage or an oversupply? Never mind the U.S. -- the WORLD has a launch overcapacity. Read the current SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. Ariane has had a huge impact. Counting all nations we have an estimated capacity of 40 payloads/year to GEO. Comsats, which are the overwhelming majority of non-defense payloads, need 15 payloads/year to GEO to cover replacement and growth in the satellite communications market. This low number is the result of smarter, higher bandwidth birds plus the rise of fiber optics as an alternative to satellites. So there will be intense competition for those 15 birds, which means aggressive pricing and comparison of reliability. If costs to orbit were lowered, it might pay to launch other things besides comsats, so we'd fill the capacity. -- To have a horror of the bourgeois (\( Tom Neff is bourgeois. -- Jules Renard )\) tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 90 01:11:16 GMT From: uoft02.utoledo.edu!fax0112@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Subject: Re: what if??? There is an extremely humorosu discussion of this in "The Best of The Journal Of Irreproducible Results", available at most bookstores. It is under the heading "the evolution of scientific thought". Good book. Robert Dempsey Ritter Observatory ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 90 08:28:07 GMT From: mcsun!unido!rwthinf!dieter@uunet.uu.net (Dieter Kreuer) Subject: Re: Polar Orbits In article <824.26ADB639@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Charles.Radley@ofa123.fidonet.org (Charles Radley) writes: > Basically, the launch azimuth will be to the southwest in the northern > hemisphere, or to the northwest in the southern hemisphere. > Ergo, Kennedy is no goo because northwest trajectory from there goes > over populated areas. > Kourou (Ariane) is good for both polar and equatorial. > Vandenburg is good for polar, but not equatorial. > Cape York is good for both polar and equatorial, the polar launch > from Cape York is to the southwest (which contradicts my staement > that it needs to be northwest I suppose, but that's ok). > Launch into polar orbit requires the compensation of the revolution of Earth from west towards east, so why launch from Kourou or other sites close to the equator? High latitudes like Iceland, Canada, or Alaska, seem much better to me. Okay, the weather conditions are not very favourable there, but I believe that current expandables are not so delicate that they cannot be launched from there. However, any place is better than equatorial or tropical regions, ain't it? Does anyone know, where the Soviets launch to polar orbits? Dieter Kreuer, Lehrstuhl Informatik IV, RWTH Aachen dieter@informatik.rwth-aachen.de = dieter@rwthinf.uucp ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 90 00:08:00 GMT From: sgi!cdp!jhanson@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Space Shuttle and the Ozone layer It is true that solid rocket fuel does destroy ozone. See en.hawaii for more information on the subject. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 90 21:29:33 GMT From: skipper!bowers@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) Subject: Re: information needed on AEROSPIKE engine(repeat) i believe that most of this work is being done on the NASP is is heavily classified. So I wouldn't expect to find much in the open literature. -- Another opinion... Albion H. Bowers bowers@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!bowers ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 90 02:53:21 GMT From: maytag!watdragon!daemon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Thorsten Schiller) Subject: Nuclear War Greetings... I realize that this may not be the most appropriate group to post this request to, but I wasn't really certain which group WOULD be more appropriate... What I am basically in need off, is some knowledgeable individual who could clearify a few misconceptions regarding the short and long term after effects of Nuclear War... I am currenlt victim of several contradicting 'theories' and am wondering if there is anybody out there knowledgeable in the field who would mind 'setting me straight' or at least pointing me to a reliable source of information... Any help would be greatly appreciated... please respond by E-Mail since I am in finals and won't have much time to check these groups on a regular basis... thanks in advance... Thorsten (tschiller@dahlia.waterloo.edu) or (shadow@watcsc.waterloo.edu) ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 90 16:28:53 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Hubble News - 07/26/90 Hubble News July 26, 1990 The seven-member team investigating the Hubble Space Telescope, led by Lew Allen, director of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, took testimony in secret yesterday. The testimony was taken at the plant where the mirror was made, at Hughes-Danbury Optical Systems Inc. (formerly Perkin Elmer), and Allen was quoted as saying the group hoped to find a "smoking gun and a fingerprint on the trigger." Evidence of a possible flaw in the Hubble Space Telescope was known back in 1981 but scientists discounted tests that indicated a problem. A NASA board of inquiry has been sent to track down the cause of a problem with one of the mirrors and that the investigation is looking into whether the 1981 test results pointed out the problem that now prevents the telescope from being focused correctly in space. Officials of Hughes Danbury Optical Systems have declined to make any comment because of the investigation now being conducted by NASA. However, a retired scientist for Perkin Elmer, the predecesor company to Hughes Danbury, who was close to the Hubble project at that time in 1981, spoke of the possible flaw. The scientist said that despite the possible flaw, the results were assumed to be incorrect because they contradicted tests done with an instrument they thought to be more accurate. The scientist also said the test results indicated that officials should have questioned the accuracy of the test equipment at the time the tests were run. He believed at the time that additional testing was not necessary, but said that he and others were working in a hurried atmosphere caused by delays and cost overruns, resulting in pressure to finish the mirror. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 90 18:18:19 GMT From: usc!samsung!umich!vela!egrunix!awesley@ucsd.edu (Tony Wesley) Subject: Re: space news from June 11 AW&ST First henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>> Total Voyager pricetag so far, including launches, is $865M. Another $30M Then maw@cbnewsh.att.com (michael.a.weinstein) writes: >>About the price for a single B2 bomber (this is so mind boggling that I And mvk@pawl.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes: >Actually, about the cost of 3 B2's. Weinstein is correct. The cost of the B-2 will be about 800 million per airplane. If the full production run is made. If the airplane comes in at cost. Since it will probably be over budget and less than full production, the costs will probably go over $2 BILLION per B-2. > >Mike mvk@pawl.rpi.edu -- And little Sir John with his nut brown bowl Tony Wesley/RPT Software And his brandy in the glass voice: (313) 274-2080 And little Sir John with his nut brown bowl awesley@unix.secs.oakland.edu Proved the strongest man at last... Compu$erve: 72770,2053 ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 90 12:59:21 GMT From: eagle!news@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Ronald E. Graham) Subject: Re: misc.engineers (was ) In article <1990Jul25.203102.3245@dept.csci.unt.edu>, leff@dept.csci.unt.edu (Dr. Laurence L. Leff) writes... >In article <1990Jul20.185533.28175@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> lvron@earth.lerc.nasa.gov (Ronald E. Graham) writes >I would like to propose, in response, an engineering group. There are no >engineering groups to deal with general engineering. Once that is done, >we can have subgroups to cover engineering education, engineering ethics, >computers in engineering as well as the various branches of engineering. >These could be formed as part of the engineering hierarchy with some, >such as the proposed engineering education group, starting now. Since the original call for discussion went out, a number of respondents have pointed out to me the necessity of opening up the lines of discussion in other areas besides education. The subjects of ethics and computers have not come up in the discussion yet, but I find them interesting myself. At any rate, I changed the name of the proposed group to misc.engineers based on comments like yours. Here is a copy of the modified charter: (1) To discuss strengths and weaknesses in engineering education. (2) To inform participants of interesting university programs or curriculums. (3) To help participants to prepare for advancement academically and professionally. (4) To help participants to increase public awareness of engineering. (5) To apply problem-solving techniques to the elimination of educational and job-related problems. I would be interested in any further comment you may have. >If the USENET community would like this moderated, I would be interested >in moderating same, probably in September. More power to you, Dr. Leff. I was interested myself, until I saw how many and how varied the comments were. One respondent, Carl Gooch, even expressed a concern that the proposed group could develop into "an uncontrolled firestorm". I hope you love firestorms. >As many in the profession have pointed out, engineering is different from >science. As such, it deserves its own entry in the hierarchy at the same >level with "sci" But perhaps to avoid controversy, we can settle for a >"sci.eng." I agree with you, as far as the long term goes. For now, let's see if we can get going with what we have. RG "The scientific method is holy." - M. Scott Peck ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 90 19:19:49 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Payload Status for 07/26/90 (Forwarded) Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 07-26-90. - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at OPF) Experiment monitoring continues. - STS-37 GRO (at PHSF) - GRO functional testing continues. - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) - The STT will be demated from the module today. - STS-41 Ulysses (at VPF) - Troubleshooting will continue today on the IUS PRLA system. Pending the outcome of this troubleshooting the decision will be made as to whether or not to connect Ulysses to the upper stage today. - STS 42 IML-1 (at O&C) Rack, floor, and module staging is continuing. - Atlas-1 (at O&C) - EPDB and experiment hardware installations are continuing. - STS-46 TSS-1 (at O&C) - Hardpoint installations will continue today. - STS-47 Spacelab-J (at O&C) - Rack staging continues. Also, today the floor will be transferred to temporary storage so that trolley mods can be performed. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #135 *******************