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, 28 Jul 1990 01:29:54 -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, 28 Jul 1990 01:29:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #138 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 138 Today's Topics: SPACE Digest V12 #133 aliens MIR cosmonauts do 3.5 hour space walk to fix MIR hatch Aftermath of Apollo 13 (vs. Challenger, Hubble) gps satellite info Re: World Space Agency Re: Hubble, Shuttle Omni magazine on Mars Re: space news from June 11 AW&ST Re: robotics Re: Newsgroups Re: Freedom Re: hummingbird/phoenix status anyone 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: Fri, 27 Jul 90 13:11:05 CDT From: Andy Edeburn To: Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #133 >>About the price for a single B2 bomber (this is so mind boggling that I >>had to run to the library to verify it). Wouldn't it be great to tra de >>a bomber for a top notch space probe like Voyager? Maybe someday we' ll >>get our priorities straight. >> > Actually, about the cost of 3 B2's. Wrong. About 1.5 B2's. +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Andy Edeburn BITNET: CC62000@SDSUMUS | | Computing Center InterNET: CC62%SDSUMUS.BITNET | | South Dakota State University Ma BELL: (605) 692-1365 | | Brookings, SD 57007 | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | No.....No....No....Not that button!....Aargh! | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 08:24 EST From: "ADMIRAL AQUILONE, GREAT ALLIANCE" Subject: aliens I saw a recent television show on aliens and they have some material I would like to see. A pamphlet from a sopposed encounter with an alien describing everything from space ships to cures for diseases. Does anyone know is this] book real and if so where can I see it????? from aqui4156@snyplava (bitnet) splava::aqui4156 (decnet) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 10:10 EDT From: APSEY%RCSMPB@gmr.com Subject: MIR cosmonauts do 3.5 hour space walk to fix MIR hatch Date: Fri. 27 July 1990 From: Jim Apsey To: "SPACE+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU" Subject: MIR cosmonauts do 3.5 hour space walk to fix MIR hatch Last night on Radio Moscow (12040 Mhz or 11780 Mhz in Detroit area) it was announced the MIR cosmonauts repaired the faulty hatch and did additional repairs to the exterior insulation blankets that cover the Soyuz TM-9 docked at the MIR space complex. Congratulations once again to the Soviet Cosmonauts Anatoly Solyov and Alexander Balandin, for their bravery and expert work during yesterday's three and one half hours in open space, a task for which they were not specifically trained and which was unplanned during the space mission! Can you even believe NASA is even thinking about, let alone planning to build a space station which will require 3,800 hours per year to maintain? Jim Apsey GM Research Laboratories ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 09:42:00 EDT From: Paul Shawcross Subject: Aftermath of Apollo 13 (vs. Challenger, Hubble) Does anyone out there remember/know whether after Apollo 13 there was any attempt to pin the blame for the problem on some individual or organization? I know that there was a technical investigation that led to some modifications to the command module, delaying the next flight for 3 months, but I'd like to know if there was any outcry at all to find "the smoking gun and the finger on the trigger". Did anyone lose their jobs over Apollo 13? Were there senate hearings? Paul Shawcross pshawcro@nas ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 90 15:26:14 GMT From: unsvax!nevada.edu@uunet.uu.net (DOLLY TURNER) Subject: gps satellite info Would someone out there be kind enough to email me the Keplerian elements (AMSAT or NASA format) for GPS Satellites. Thanks in advance. Dolly internet turner@nevada.edu bitnet turner@nevada.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 90 15:06:19 GMT From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Subject: Re: World Space Agency In article , globus@nas.nasa.gov (Al Globus) writes: > >I would like to note that the Buran space shuttle does not work >very well but it works a whole lot better than the US space station - >which is basically a pile of paper at present. We (I've worked on >space station) have been working on requirements and design since >1984. Every minute of that time the Soviets had an operational >space station in orbit - and most of the time it was manned. Consider, >by contrast, our space station. Reagan called for it to be built by >1994. If things go as planned (don't count on it) we'll get the >first of 20+ space station construction launches in 1995-6. > >My favorite scenario: we jointly develop a shuttle/Mir docking >adaptor and use the Mir for our Space Station. National security >isn't really a major issue here - the military had pretty much >gotten away from Space Station by the time I stopped working on it. >We could save some bucks and have capability in a couple of years. >Sound good? Hey, a brilliant idea. The Soviets *are* working on Mir II, right? So we can our program and live happily ever after (or at least til the winds of change kick in again...) ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 90 18:16:53 GMT From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!crdgw1!gecrdvm1!gipp@ucsd.edu Subject: Re: Hubble, Shuttle In article <1990Jul27.164520.2806@cs.rochester.edu>, ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank) says: > >In article <9007252153.AA12881@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV >(John Roberts) writes: >> >>>From: rochester!ray@PT.CS.CMU.EDU (Ray Frank) >>>Subject: Re: Hubble Trouble >>... > >>>I am against the odds that within the next 30 launches there is a 50-50 >>>chance of another shuttle disaster. >> >>Then you're pretty much against spaceflight. Those are very good odds by >>non-Soviet standards. Note that one orbiter lost per ~50 flights is a trivial >>contribution to total operational costs with the current setup. Give a few >>million dollars to the families of whoever was aboard (if they were killed), >>and build a new orbiter. The Shuttle isn't unsafe, it's expensive. >> John Roberts >> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov > >Think about this. Every time a shuttle disaster occurs, it will prevent >any further space flights for about three years and cost hundreds of millions >to find and correct the problem. And judging from Challenger, maybe a problem >that was known about and covered up until it was too late. And then perhaps >it >will cost a few billion to replace the shuttle. I claim if we have two or >even >possibly one more shuttle disaster, the shuttle fleet will be scrapped and >we will go back to the drawing board and start over. > >ray Perhaps, though tragic, another shuttle accident might not be so bad if it leads to scrapping the shuttle and starting something new. I am in favor of developing a new shuttle, or spaceplane, which will truly afford us reasonable cost manned access to space. I'll even (gulp) accept capsule technology if it'll give us routine flight into LEO. This is something we ought to think about now before something happens to our present shuttle, since it is expensive, it is aging, and there are better ways of doing what it does (and doesn't). Unfortunately shuttle replacements seem to get canned pretty fast once the political motivation is gone. Some might say another shuttle accident leading to shuttle being scrapped would lead to demise of US manned spaceflight, but I don't think so. As long as there's one or more nations going up, the USA ego (and technological intelligence) will ensure a continued effort. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 90 18:28:40 GMT From: bacchus.pa.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!vcsesu.enet.dec.com!cook@decwrl.dec.com (Peter R. Cook) Subject: Omni magazine on Mars The July issue of Omni is dedicated to Mars, exploration, etc... I found it very good reading. FYI /prc ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Peter R. Cook -Don't DEC for my opinions. Digital Equipment Corp. Marlboro, MA. (MR01-3/SL1) 508-467-6936 "1984 has past forget about Big Brother, welcome to the 90's where the government's your mother!" - Scatterbrain Call your rep about HR 4079! ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 90 22:18:47 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!arrester!manning@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Evan Marshall Manning) Subject: Re: space news from June 11 AW&ST awesley@egrunix.UUCP (Tony Wesley) writes: >Weinstein is correct. The cost of the B-2 will be about 800 million >per airplane. If the full production run is made. But a full production run will most likely not be made. I'm betting no production craft will be made, giving us a divide by zero error in calculations of unit cost. Comparable to the cost of a successful Phobos, I guess ;-) -- Evan *************************************************************************** Your eyes are weary from staring at the CRT for so | Evan M. Manning long. You feel sleepy. Notice how restful it is | is to watch the cursor blink. Close your eyes. The |manning@gap.cco.caltech.edu opinions stated above are yours. You cannot | manning@mars.jpl.nasa.gov imagine why you ever felt otherwise. | gleeper@tybalt.caltech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 19:29:40 EDT From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Re: robotics >Date: 17 Jul 90 16:23:19 GMT >From: netnews.upenn.edu!grad1.cis.upenn.edu!santerel@rutgers.edu >Subject: Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration -- support robotics >>> Perhaps now would be a good time to ask the oceanographers how they >>> explore the ocean bottoms. >>They do it at a distance of light-microseconds. Teleoperators are >>quite practical at short range. Further, a broken gadget can be >>hauled up and fixed on short notice, quite unlike a robot space probe. >In addition, this communication speed is only true when the >teleoperator tows a huge communications cable. Free swimming >teleoperators currently use sonar and subsonar frequencies to >communicate. These contribute to the communications delay. (Free >swimmers are fairly recent due to the advent of better on board power >technologies.) >Walter A. Santarelli University of Pennsylvania, Computer and Info. Science >e-mail:santerel@grad1.cis.upenn.edu Can they transmit video? What's the bandwidth? John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 90 15:20:48 GMT From: umigw!rsmas!miller@handies.ucar.edu Subject: Re: Newsgroups In article <1990Jul26.211534.20762@Neon.Stanford.EDU>, andy@Theory.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes: > In article <1990Jul25.203102.3245@dept.csci.unt.edu> leff@ntvax.UUCP (Dr. Laurence L. Leff) writes: >>In article <1990Jul20.185533.28175@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> lvron@earth.lerc.nasa.gov (Ronald E. Graham) writes >>regarding a engineering education group. >> >>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 > > Newsgroups are created to corral discussions, not to provoke them. In > other words, newsgroups are created in response to traffic, not to > provide a place for new traffic to go. I disagree. Of course, many existing newsgroups came into existance by growing out of pre-existing newsgroups but it is quite unreasonable to think that this is the one and only way that new newsgroups can arise. Example: a few months ago, some physical oceanographers and meteorologists came to the realization that there was no place appropriate for discussions of geophysical fluid dynamics. A "word of mouth" survey was conducted to see if there was general interest in having a newsgroup dedicated to that topic. As a result, it was discovered that, yes there was in fact great interest but that many oceanographers and meteorologists had never heard of usenet news. To make a long story short, a charter was developed, a discussion and subsequent vote was held. The new group (sci.geo.fluids) passed with flying colors and is now off to a good start. Many of the present readers/posters are new to usenet as a result of the creation of this group. And the word is spreading... there is now talk of creating a sci.geo.solids or some such for discussion of solid earth dynamics, again including many folks who are not presently usenetters. Summary: The net can grow in many ways; not just by cloning itself. [...] > > -andy > -- > UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!neon.stanford.edu!andy > ARPA: andy@neon.stanford.edu > BELLNET: (415) 723-3088 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry L. Miller INTERNET: miller@rsmas.miami.edu Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami Remember: "It's later now than it's ever been; however, vg'f zber yvxr vg vf abj guna vg unf rire orra orsber." ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 90 12:35:43 GMT From: world!ksr!clj%ksr.com@BLOOM-BEACON.MIT.EDU (Chris Jones) Subject: Re: Freedom I'm carrying on this conversation via mail since it now has about nothing to do with space. -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 90 15:03:48 GMT From: shelby!portia.stanford.edu!etoyoc@decwrl.dec.com (aaron thode) Subject: Re: hummingbird/phoenix status anyone In article <90207.082530GIPP@GECRDVM1.BITNET> GIPP@gecrdvm1.crd.ge.com writes: >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? > pete As far as I know, only the Hummingbird designers have actually built anything, and that was a single combustion chamber. They tried to fire it once, but it became clogged with diethyl zinc(which they intended to use as an igniter for their methyl hydroxyammonium nitrate fuel). TO "read more about it", I (not the Library of COngress) recommend these papers: Hummingbird: You need to write to this address to get a proposal entitled "Hummingbird-a reusable VTOL sounding rocket,by Douglas Jones": Hummingbird Launch Systems,Inc. PO BOx 17179,Colorado Springs CO 80935 Phoenix: PHOENIX: A COMMERCIAL, REUSABLE SINGLE-STAGE VEHICLE EASCON recodrd:IEEE Electronics and Aerospace Systems Convention 18th 1985, p.251,263(7 ref.) REVIEW OF PALS SSX:PHOENIX VTOL CONCEPT,by Jay Penn and C.L.Leonard. This report was an evaluation writtern by the Aerospace Corporation for the Air Force. If you whine and beg enough, you may be able to get a copy from them. There is also a man named Maxwell Hunter, who has also designed a SSTO rocket. Report is "SSX-A TRUE SPACESHIP" acsension number A90-23199. NOW, if you find any more information or updates on these designs, will you reply to me? Especially on aerospike engines. Yours truly, Aaron Thode ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #138 *******************