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, 19 Oct 1990 02:10:40 -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, 19 Oct 1990 02:09:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #465 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 465 Today's Topics: Hubble Space Telescope (revisited) Pioneer 10 & 11 Update - 10/16/90 Re: best of all worlds Galileo Update #2 - 10/17/90 Re: Hubble Re: Hubble Re: Voyager question Hubble Re: Launch cost per pound Re: Man-rated SRBs (was Re: Junk the shuttle?) Ulysses Update - 10/16/90 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: 18 Oct 90 01:25:28 GMT From: usc!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu!v064lnev@apple.com (Zerxes Bhagalia) Subject: Hubble Space Telescope (revisited) At one time, I can remember having only the greatest of faith for the government of our nation. But as I grew older, this faith has wained, and now, I have emerged more intelligent, perhaps wiser, and very much skeptical of our government - what they tell us, and what they do, and most importantly, why. Not long ago, our nation's National Aeronatics & Space Administration, launched a very interesting piece of equipment into an orbit about the planet upon which we live. It was often said that the equipment would revolutionize the way we look at ourselves, our world, and the cosmos. "It would allow us to see to the very edge of the universe," our great scientists told us. "It might even unfold the mysteries of life!" one other scientist grasped. It had cost us, the tax-paying people of the nation, the grand total sum of one billion dollars. It was the Hubble Space Telescope. Once it was in place, in orbit about Earth, scientists and technicians of NASA came to the unfortunate discovery that despite all of the work and rigorous testing involved in creation of this very expensive piece of equipment, something was wrong with the telescope. It simply would not focus correctly, as there was a flaw in one of the lenses. Then a report was made that moreover, the lense could not be repaired or even replaced. "How unfortunate," we were told, "one billion dollars, down the tube." I think not. Although my ideas are at best extreme on this point, all I ask of you, is to merely listen to my words. Consider this: * It can be argued and supported that for many years our government has witheld information from the people, concerning extra-terrestrial life. * As NASA is subordinate to the government, would not the government and its officials extend their veil of secrecy over findings from NASA, if those findings could reveal information concerning extra-terrestrial life? * And if NASA had developed a project, in which the equipment involved could, without a doubt, expose such findings, would it not be in the goverment's interest and power to conceal any compromising information on the subject? * If such were the case, would not the developments of the Hubble Space Telescope been precisely the same? You see... We've already paid for it. It's up there right now, viewing the Universe. The government is collecting more information on extra-terrestrial life than ever before, but we are not told of this, since the telescope supposedly, does not work. They have even given us reasons as to why it can't be fixed. So, just to keep us happy, the government releases a few fuzzy pictures to the public every once in awhile. A perfect scam, wouldn't you say? Indeed, a scam to rival even the Iran-Contra Scandal. Now I'm not saying this is true, or that I have evidence to prove that it is... I am just making you aware of the possibilties - and to make you think. /==============================================================================\ | Provocative Ideas & Theories: The Hubble Space Telescope (revisited) | | Replies & Thoughts to : V064LNEV@UBVMS.bitnet (Zerxes Bhagalia) | | "In times like these, it helps to recall that there have always been times | | like these" - Paul Harvey | \==============================================================================/ ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 90 16:25:06 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!caen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Ron Baalke) Subject: Pioneer 10 & 11 Update - 10/16/90 Pioneer 10 & 11 Update October 16, 1990 Ames Research Center Pioneer operations engineers report separate anomalies to the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft . Pioneer 10 telemetry appears to indicate a slight decline in thruster gas pressure. The thrusters are used to perform alignment maneuvers to maintain the Pioneer's high gain antenna pointing toward Earth. They are not used for spacecraft stabilization. There appears to be no impact resulting from the low thruster gas pressure. Pioneer 10 should have enough pressure for several more years' worth of operations. The anomaly on Pioneer 11 is that its radio signal has become variable. This situation is being further investigated, but could be a failure in a driver amplifier feeding the transmitter traveling wave tube. It is not believed to be in the transmitter tube itself. Ames Pioneer engineers and Headquarters Solar System Exploration Division officials are investigating this situation. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 90 11:49:35 GMT From: rochester!dietz@louie.udel.edu (Paul Dietz) Subject: Re: best of all worlds In article <1990Oct15.110556.2278@vaxa.strath.ac.uk> cadp13@vaxa.strath.ac.uk (Theora Jones, In Person!) writes: > I would think that the moon has very few advantages over the earth >scientifically... One somewhat surprising advantage is in neutrino astronomy. On earth, there is a significant background in neutrino detectors from neutrinos produced in cosmic ray interactions, primarily from the production and decay of muons. On the moon, the muon precursors, pions, are also produced by cosmic rays, but most of them get absorbed in the rock rather than decay. The pions produced on earth are in the upper atmosphere, so they have a good chance to decay to muons before colliding again. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 17 Oct 90 23:28:45 GMT From: julius.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@apple.com (Ron Baalke) Subject: Galileo Update #2 - 10/17/90 GALILEO MISSION STATUS October 17, 1990 One year after its successful launch by STS-34 Atlantis and an IUS rocket, the Galileo spacecraft is "only" 27.9 million miles from Earth, although it has traveled more than 569 million miles around the Sun and past Venus in the last year to reach this point. Its present speed in solar orbit is 54,112 mph; round-trip communication time is five minutes. The spacecraft executed its sixth trajectory-correction maneuver last Tuesday (October 9), achieving a velocity change of 0.51 meter per second (about 1.1 mph) and moving the December 8 Earth closest-approach point to about 2,000 miles above the surface. Another maneuver in November will adjust the altitude to the final desired value of about 600 miles; one more maneuver is planned, if needed, to remove any small residual error. Spacecraft health and performance during and since last week's maneuver are excellent. The decreasing distance from Earth has permitted the telemetry rate to be stepped up this week from 40 to 1200 bits per second, for the first time since last February. The current operating sequence, which has been controlling routine spacecraft activities since June, is nearing completion. The next sequence, covering spacecraft activities through December 7, will be sent up to Galileo today. It includes the next two scheduled maneuvers, Venus data playback, preparation for and the start of Earth science data acquisition, and checkout of the atmospheric probe. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 90 18:34:34 GMT From: rex!rouge!dlbres10@g.ms.uky.edu (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: Hubble In article <4202@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: Henry Spencer writes: (Henry Spencer) writes, about the Hubble Space Telescope: hs>gotten some very encouraging results from the combination of the existing hs>optics and image enhancement; the cameras are not as useless as some hs>people thought. And Jay Maynard replies: jm>...or were led to think by biased, NASA-bashing news coverage. In fact, the jm>last word I heard was that the HST would meet - but not exceed - its design jm>specs with the existing optics. jm>Of course, the media NASA-bashers didn't want _this_ to get out; it would jm>get in the way of their crusade. The fact that the HST's real capabilities jm>haven't gotten the coverage that the early troubles did is an eloquent jm>comment on just how the media manipulates the public. Not quite. The plain fact of the matter is that they can recover brighter, high contrast objects with both image deconvolution and doubling the exposure time on the object. (Which comes to keeping the same capabilities and cutting the available observing time in half on some objects, and losing the imaging capabilities on the failtfaint extended objects). In short, it will be a succesful instrument, but for what the public was sold on as its primary purpose, seeing faint objects at the end of the universe, it will probably be overtaken by the approximately $ 150 million Keck 10-meter telescope. And finally, a personal note: the people bashing NASA here are not doing so out of personal pleasure or profit; legislatively it is a lot easier just to get your congressman to fund your special interest than to cut someone else's. We don't dance in the streets when we see NASA's latest failure to do whatever, we want it to succeed. And the fact that NASA has some very successful programs and some very unsuccessful programs, but that the programs which are a failure, such as the shuttle, seem to be used mainly as grounds to keep NASA from spending money on anything (except the shuttle, which is such a piece of pork if NASA deceided to cancel it it probrably couldn't). That the shuttle does keep back the rest of the program is easily seen: if the shuttle had worked as advertised, Hubble would have been launched in '85 at the latest, and the optical problems fixed by '87. And we would have saved enough money to build multiple replacements if it got blown up by a rogue piece of space junk or hit by the upper stage payload shroud from a flying saucer :-). Phil ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 90 11:39:45 GMT From: ksr!clj%ksr.com@uunet.uu.net (Chris Jones) Subject: Re: Hubble In article <4202@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@thesis1 (Jay Maynard) writes: >In article <1990Oct17.162252.6109@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu >(Henry Spencer) writes, about the Hubble Space Telescope: >>It's working. the cameras are not as useless as some >>people thought. > >...or were led to think by biased, NASA-bashing news coverage. > >Of course, the media NASA-bashers didn't want _this_ to get out; it would >get in the way of their crusade. It seems to me that the NASA-bashing in this forum has been much more vitriolic, one-sided, and unreasoned than what I observed on the part of journalists. Of course, the Usenet media-bashers didn't want _this_ to get out; it would get in the way of their crusade. -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj ------------------------------ Date: 17 Oct 90 17:17:44 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Re: Voyager question dwj@cnd.hp.com (Dave Jerzycki) writes: > > Ron, > Just a few quick questions regarding the Voyager spacecraft... > > 1) What is the approx. location of Voyager 1? Voyager 2? Voyager 1 is south of the ecliptic plane, leaving the solar system at a 35 degree angle. Voyager 2 left south at a 48 degree angle. > 2) What is the approx. transmit/receive time of the commands relayed to/ > from the spacecraft? Round trip light time - Voyager 1 -> 12 hours 6 minutes Voyager 2 -> 9 hours 18 minutes > 3) How long before we lose contact with them? Until the year 2019. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 17 Oct 90 04:59:53 GMT From: beguine!Bill.Green@mcnc.org (Bill Green) Subject: Hubble So, what's the status of the Hubble telescope? I haven't seen anything posted recently and haven't heard much about it on the news. Anyone have a current update? -- ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 90 23:18:06 GMT From: abvax!iccgcc!herrickd@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Launch cost per pound In article <9010060050.AA01380@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>, roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes: > > I think we're agreed that the highest priority for pro-space-commercialization > people should be to see to it that NASA has no significant ability to hamper > commercial space activity. If this can be accomplished, many of the other > criticisms become moot. A possible second priority is to use commercial > services as much as possible for government-sponsored launches, to provide > business for the commercial launchers and encourage the industry. More > controversial is legislation to protect startup US launch companies from > foreign competition until they are self-sufficient. > John Roberts > roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov I thought NASA was ordered by a president to leave those big shuttle tanks in orbit for somebody to use. Did that disappear in the Challenger problems or is it still pending or has it been stomped out of existence? dan herrick ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 90 13:48:03 GMT From: ubc-cs!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Brian or James) Subject: Re: Man-rated SRBs (was Re: Junk the shuttle?) Anyone out there know if the failure rate for solid boosters used in weapons systems like TOW missiles or Phoenix C missiles is comparable to the failure rate for SRBs used to launch things to orbit, and if not, why? I can think of a few right now; the TOW missile's operational life is much shorter than the SRBs [a few seconds compared to minutes] and perhaps they don't have as much time for things to disasterously wrong. I'd be a bit hesitant fire a missile if I thought it had a .02 chance of destroying myself and the plane I launched it from, but I suppose the risks from *not* firing are much larger :) James Nicoll ------------------------------ Date: 17 Oct 90 00:30:45 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: Ulysses Update - 10/16/90 ULYSSES MISSION STATUS October 16, 1990 The Trajectory Correction Maneuver that Ulysses is executing this week has been going so smoothly that the series of operations involved in the maneuver have been simplified. In the Trajectory Correction Maneuver, Ulysses is firing its thrusters to adjust the aim point for its closest approach to the planet Jupiter and to speed itself up by 99 meters per second (about 220 miles per hour). When designing the maneuver -- originally planned to span four days -- the flight team built in ample time to readjust the spacecraft's spin rate after periods of thruster firing. Ulysses spins at about 5 revolutions per minute (rpm) as it moves through space. As the trajectory maneuver has been executed, however, flight controllers found that the spin rate was not affected as much by thruster firing as originally thought possible. Thus the number of the spin rate adjustments could be reduced. The trajectory maneuver will conclude Thursday morning, October 18, Pacific Daylight Time. On Friday, October 19, flight controllers will begin to turn on Ulysses's nine science instruments. All covers on the science instruments will be released with the exception of the HISCALE (Heliospheric Instrument for Spectra, Composition and Anisotropy at Low Energies) instrument. The first instrument to be turned on will be the Energetic-Particle Composition and Neutral Gas instrument. All onboard systems were operating normally. The five-year mission to study the Sun's poles and interstellar space beyond the poles is conducted jointly by NASA/JPL and the European Space Agency. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #465 *******************