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, 27 Oct 1990 02:14:59 -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, 27 Oct 1990 02:14:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #498 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 498 Today's Topics: --- Space Station Budget --- Re: Magellan Update - 10/24/90 Re: Theories needed on life Re: Theories needed on life Re: Some interesting SSME specifications. Re: Info wanted on Space Plane and Pegasus Re: Ulysses Magellan Update - 10/26/90 Re: Magellan Update - 10/26/90 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: 25 Oct 90 12:20:00 GMT From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!dahm.engin.umich.edu!sheppard@ucsd.edu (Ken Sheppardson) Subject: --- Space Station Budget --- Well folks, here's what we've got to work with now. I don't make the news, I just report it... ------------------------------(cut here)------------------------------ VA/HUD/IA HOUSE-SENATE CONFERENCE REPORT, HR101-900 MAIN POINTS REGARDING SPACE STATION FUNDING OCTOBER 16, 1990 o 1.9B for Space STation; a cut of 551M o Includes 106.3M for FTS o Includes 10M for solar dynamic power research o NASA should consider the possibility of an incremental approach to Space Station: ---begin man-tended capability ---followed by manned capability ---conclude with permanently manned capability o Maximum annual growth in NASA's budget cannot exceed 8-10% o NASA is to immediately implement a revised Space Sation design and assembly sequence with reflects an incremental approach: ---assumes outyear growth in Sation funding profile of approximately 10% per year with a peak year funding of 2.5B to 2.6B ---this could yield a man-tended capability on orbit as early as flight three or four of the assembly sequence ---NASA is to make its recommendation within 90 days of enactment of this bill ---incremental concept should permit each phase to be discrete and independent of the next phase o Space Station is capped at 640M in the interim, or 160M per month (will consider an extension or increase if necessary) o First Space Station phase should be devoted to a microgravity function, followed by a life science function and permanent manned capabillity o Each phase should be sufficiently independent to achieve on orbit operation of the phase should new funding threats evolve o It is doubtful if today's Space Sation design could be supported by the current launch system. Any rescoping should consider a realistic shuttle launch rate o 90-study should include principles previously committed to by NASA: ---a fully equipped U.S. microgravity laboratory before the launch of any habitat ---a requisite number of utilization flights per annum following the launch of the U.S. microgravity laboratory ---life science, centrifuge, and related support equipment shall be place in an area other than the U.S. microgravity laboratory ---a total of 75 kW of power (if all phases of the Station are developed) with at least 30 kW for the users and with power and modules added in increments that will ensure that user power will not be seriously degraded o NASA must redirect its efforts to designing a Space Station that incorporates an early manned capability and can be accomodated within the anticipated outyear funding available in the domestic discretionary spending area o A cut of 16M from the assured crew rescue vehicle o A cut of 12M from the 15M requested for integrated and attached payloads o 31M from engineering and techincal base and payload operations and support equipment to be allocated at the Agency's discretion o A cut of 15M from the 15M requested for Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory o A cut of 2.3M and 46 FTEs [Full-Time Equivalents] from the Space Station Level II office [Reston] o During fiscal year 1991, average employment in the headquarter's offices of NASA shall not exeed...482 staff years for the Office of Space Flight, including Level I [DC] and Level II activities for the Space Station...no funds may be used for details of employees from any organization in NASA to any organization included under the budget activity "Research and Program Management" except those details which involve developmental or critical short-term staffing assignments ------------------------------ Date: 25 Oct 90 15:09:41 GMT From: idacrd!mac@princeton.edu (Robert McGwier) Subject: Re: Magellan Update - 10/24/90 From article <1990Oct24.185545.11879@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, by baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke): > > MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT > October 24, 1990 > The Sun-earth-Magellan angle is now 2.5 degrees. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Am I wrong in assuming that since we are near superior conjunction that you meant Earth-Sun-Magellan. It is amazing that the X band stuff is making it past all the solar noise being generated at X band. Using black body radiation formulae (I don't even know if this correct), my guesstimate as to the half power beamwidth's of the 70 meter dishes, it is quite remarkable that we are still having good copy on the telemetry. Thanks for the updates! Bob -- ____________________________________________________________________________ My opinions are my own no matter | Robert W. McGwier, N4HY who I work for! ;-) | CCR, AMSAT, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 21:51:27 EDT From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Re: Theories needed on life >From: usc!srhqla!demott!kdq@ucsd.edu (Kevin D. Quitt) >Subject: Re: Theories needed on life >In article <90292.181834JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu> JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu (Jenni Sheehey) writes: >>It really *is* unlikely that anything even resembling *any* species >>presently on earth would be found on another planet by chance... > Unless you actually have proof of this, please label it as opinion. >Based on our profound lack of knowledge, it is equally likely that *most* >earth-like planets would develop humanoid life. "Equally likely" is a very slippery term. As you point out, likelihoods are presented based on current knowledge, but I believe there is sufficient information available to make an initial estimate, and I don't think the calculated odds are likely to come out 50-50. Certainly, the calculation is not simple, and there is a significant possibility of leaving out important factors. This might make a good topic for a doctoral dissertation. In reference to the original question, one possibility is that evolutionary forces might produce organisms of the same general structure as the ones found on earth, but with significant differences in detailed structure and in biochemistry. If there are intelligent life forms, they might form a society and a body of logic so alien to ours that there is little common ground. What doesn't seem to be mentioned much is the significance of the fact that our ecosystem evolved as a collection of organisms. A major part of our structure appears to be designed to facilitate interaction with our fellow creatures. Subtle feedback mechanisms are involved, and there may have been many points at which the collective course of evolution could have taken a different turn. Anything evolving outside of our specific ecosystem may have been subjected to very different evolutionary forces. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 26 Oct 90 01:30:53 GMT From: vsi1!hsv3!mvp@apple.com (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: Theories needed on life In article <1990Oct23.215652.24684@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >... and humans can and did (as of a few years ago, still do) hunt >things like antelope by chasing them until they drop from exhaustion. There was a fascinating article in Analog a year or so ago, which discussed the theory that humans are actually pretty well adapted as cursorial hunters. American Indians used to hunt horses by the "chase 'em 'till they drop" method. A manager at Unisys was written up in the company newsletter for running a 100 mile ultramarathon course in under 24 hours. He did not come in first place. There are *very* few animals that can do this. -- Mike Van Pelt | "I am too controlled, I am too clear, I am too Headland Technology | mature to be angry." -- Jesse Jackson. (was: Video Seven) | [Clear? I didn't even know he was into Dianetics.] ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp ------------------------------ Date: 25 Oct 90 16:26:06 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Some interesting SSME specifications. In article <344@frisbee.UUCP> matt@frisbee.UUCP (Matt Taylor) writes: >[ On a related note, wasn't there supposed to be a beefed up >version of the current SSME due to be incorporated into the shuttle >sometime soon? ] There is work in progress on a new "powerhead" -- pumps, valves, and injectors -- for the SSMEs, but it's still some ways from completion, and there is no firm plan to actually use it for flight. -- The type syntax for C is essentially | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology unparsable. --Rob Pike | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 26 Oct 90 05:09:33 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!nuts!frey!c8921212@ucsd.edu (Luke Plaizier) Subject: Re: Info wanted on Space Plane and Pegasus There was an excellent article on Pegasus in the October Issue of Ad Astra. If you know anyone with a copy, i suggest you read it. I have even contemplated writing NSS to tell them how well that article was written. Luke. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Oct 90 06:41:53 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Re: Ulysses In article <1990Oct22.050939.28883@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> rwmurphr@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree) writes: >Dear Ron Baalke: > >Could you comment, either by E-mail or in sci.space or sci.astro about the >possibility of an extended mission for Ulyssess? After 1995 comes and the >south pole of the sun is past, what's to stop Ulyssess from making the >trip again and again? What does the orbit evolve too? Also, will the >mission be limited by 1)expendables-attitude gas 2) power from the RTG >etc. Is there political support at ESA for an extended mission? Is JPL >providing the communications and ESA the operations or what? Thanks.. > There are currently no official plans for an extended mission for Ulysses after 1995. However, that doesn't mean there will not be one. The main contraints on an extended mission will be the power output from the RTG's and available hydrazine fuel. At launch, Ulysses was receiving 285 watts from the RTG's, and was carrying 33 kg of hydrazine. At the end of its primary mission in 5 years, the power output from the RTG's will have dropped to 250 watts, which is enough to fully power Ulysses, but will continue to dwindle as time goes on. The amount of hydrazine left at that time is unknown as that is dependent on how much is used for trajectory course corrections. After 1995, Ulysses will be undoubtedly be tracked by the Deep Space Network for as long as possible, such as what is being done with the Pioneers and Voyagers. After a gravity assist from Jupiter in 1992, Ulysses will be in a highly eccentric solar orbit with a period of 6 years, extending from the orbit of Jupiter to about 1.4 AU from the Sun. When Ulysses loops back around for another solar pass in 1999-2000, the power available from the RTG's will not be sufficient of support a fully functional spacecraft; however, a limited mission is possible to make further measurements of the Sun. Also, with Ulysses having an orbital period of 6 years, and Jupiter having an orbital period of 11.9 years, the two will come in close proximity of each other in the year 2004. If enough hydrazine is still left, a course maneuver burn could possibly be performed to get the spacecraft close enough to Jupiter for another gravity assist. If this is possible, then this opens the door to a number of possibilities of where to send the spacecraft next. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 26 Oct 90 17:48:21 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Magellan Update - 10/26/90 MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT October 26, 1990 As the Magellan mission approaches Superior Conjunction, the project has reviewed daily the increasing difficulties with telecommunication, navigation, spacecraft performance, and radar data quality. The basic question was not whether to suspend mapping, but when. A decision was made to suspend mapping at the end of orbit #676, 6:33 AM PDT on Friday, October 26. The spacecraft stopped its mapping maneuvers, and will hold its position with the High Gain Antenna pointed to earth and the solar panels directed toward the sun. The radar sensor remains in standby mode. Although the high rate X-band communications are still possible, they are expected to deteriorate rapidly during the next 24 to 48 hours. The loss of reliable communications also makes it difficult for the navigation team to obtain the doppler data necessary for precise calculations of the radar track. During Superior Conjunction the spacecraft engineers will have time to analyze the solar panel oscillations and the possible tape recorder track degradation. By putting the spacecraft in a quiescent state while a a good engineering telemetry margin still exists, the expected damping of the vibrations can be observed. It will also provide time for careful planning of spacecraft command sequences when mapping is resumed. The mapping will resume in early to mid-November. The portion of Venus which is not imaged during this Superior Conjunction period will be covered during the extended mission eight months from now. Stephen Saunders, the Project scientist for Magellan, provided images and text for a special pictorial on Magellan to be published in the November issue of Scientific American. He also provided a special images for the covers of the abstract volume of EOS. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 26 Oct 90 21:43:42 GMT From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Stuart Warmink) Subject: Re: Magellan Update - 10/26/90 > A decision was made to suspend mapping at the end of orbit #676, 6:33 AM > PDT on Friday, October 26. The spacecraft stopped its mapping maneuvers, and > will hold its position with the High Gain Antenna pointed to earth and the > solar panels directed toward the sun. As the Sun lies pretty much in between Magellan and Earth, won't the dish antenna be rather effective at focussing the Sun's light and heat at the secondary reflector and perhaps even the receiver/transmitter? I guess it all depends on how good the dish's surface is at reflecting those wavelenghts without scattering. Is the surface shiny? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM | Hi! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #498 *******************