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 ; Sun, 28 Oct 1990 01:59:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 28 Oct 1990 01:59:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #503 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 503 Today's Topics: Re: --- Space Station Budget --- Re: Pioneer 11 article Re: FITS images Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap Re: NAVY WITHOLDING EVIDENCE!!! Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap NASA Headline News for 10/24/90 (Forwarded) Re: LLNL Proposal Re: HST summary 10/22/90 Re: Some interesting SSME specifications. Re: Disposal of N-waste into the sun. 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 Oct 90 02:59:33 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: --- Space Station Budget --- In article <6780@hub.ucsb.edu> 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley) writes: >What is meant by "manned capability" as opposed to MTC or PMC ? It means "do the same thing, but for less money". -- 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 02:58:34 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Pioneer 11 article In article MJENKIN@OPIE.BGSU.EDU writes: >Question: How strong is "fairly strong?" Does this mean that Pluto/Charon >are the most distant objects of significance in the solar system (excepting >the Oort Cloud)... Conclusive proof is not available. But my understanding is that one is now fairly safe in saying that any further major planets must be either a very long way out, or a long way out of the ecliptic. More objects the size of Pluto/Charon would be possible, I believe -- Pluto is really tiny. >what does this do to theories about the perturbations >of the orbit of the outer planets? ... The most authoritative study of those perturbations, a JPL effort using all available data and the most thorough analysis yet done, says that they do not exist: there are no unexplained discrepancies in outer-planet orbits. Of course, we are talking about really small discrepancies with a massive list of observational errors, and there are probably people who would dispute the JPL conclusions. > Furthermore, does this evidence >lend any support or remove it from the brown-dwarf solar companion idea? My impression is that the companion idea was already pretty dead. There is no way to get it far enough out to avoid messing up the planets without putting it so far out that the dwarf gets lost fairly quickly (on a geological time scale) due to perturbations from nearby stars. -- The type syntax for C is essentially | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology unparsable. --Rob Pike | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 27 Oct 90 04:27:20 GMT From: well!jef@apple.com (Jef Poskanzer) Subject: Re: FITS images In the referenced message, abed@saturn.wustl.edu (Abed Hammoud) wrote: } I have some astronomical images in FITS format. I obtained } a program called "fitstopgm" from the ftp site fits.cx.nrao.edu; } this program worked for some of the images but did not for many } other (even thougt they are all FITS files). Considering I wrote the program without benefit of any documentation on FITS, it's not too surprising that there are cases it doesn't handle. If anyone can point me at a format description, I'd be glad to work on it some more. (It's not in titan.rice.edu:public/graphics.formats.) --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!jef For external use only. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Oct 90 15:39:51 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap In article <6781@hub.ucsb.edu> 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley) writes: >+ This HLV will cost less than ONE shuttle flight to develop. >+It will lift twice what the Shuttle lifts for a quater to half >+the launch costs. > >Sounds good. Good enough to get private venture >capital.....right ? ... Wrong. Where's the market? There is only one customer: the government. No venture capitalist in his right mind will fund this without clear signals from the government that they will buy a bunch. > Not at all, SSX is also 90 % off the shelf. And fo.. This seems to depend on who you talk to. Personally, I think Max Hunter has a lot on the ball... but it's hard to argue with the folks who point out that the RL-10 engines he proposes to use are not throttleable and are not sea-level engines, and SSX needs both. -- The type syntax for C is essentially | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology unparsable. --Rob Pike | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 27 Oct 90 06:31:12 GMT From: crash!orbit!pnet51!schaper@nosc.mil (S Schaper) Subject: Re: NAVY WITHOLDING EVIDENCE!!! Sounds like if he saw alien-like craft tested there, he ought to read a recent AvLeak. Our own people can do some pretty impressive stuff. BTW, I imagine that AL's speculations are at least as inaccurate as all those designs of the `stealth fighter' turned out to be. Say, want to buy some range land on Aphrodite Planitatia? No need to worry about the cattle stedding up in a blizzard, and a nice view of the mountains... Just e-mail me your credit card number... :-) Zeitgeist Busters! UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!schaper ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!schaper@nosc.mil INET: schaper@pnet51.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 25 Oct 90 22:22:13 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!umich!sharkey!cfctech!teemc!fmeed1!cage@ucsd.edu (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap In article dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) writes: >In <9010250032.AA13018@iti.org> aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes: >aws>Now *THAT'S* risky. The above HLV's are all based on existing >aws>technology. Over 90% of the parts can be bought today. SSX >aws>on the other hand requires a lot of new stuff. It would be >aws>far more risky for LLNL to use SSX. > > You've said things to this effect before, but I remain unconvinced. >With regard to two alternatives to HL Delta: [notes two unbuilt, never-flown vehicle *proposals* of much different architecture than current boosters] When trying to build an OPERATIONAL space station, it is not the time to work on EXPERIMENTAL boosters. We have made that mistake once with Shuttle, and look what it did to us! On the other hand, one can just look at the cost of Titan IV and see that the LLNL staion need not cost terribly much to launch even if NO new booster is developed. -- Russ Cage Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department Work: itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage (CHATTY MAIL NOT ANSWERED HERE) Home: russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (All non-business mail) Member: HASA, "S" division. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Oct 90 21:20:21 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA Headline News for 10/24/90 (Forwarded) Headline News Internal Communications Branch (P-2) NASA HQ Wednesday, October 24, 1990 Audio Service: 202/755-1788 This is NASA Headline News for Wednesday, October 24, 1990 The tanking test for Atlantis was delayed from 7:00 am EDT today to 1:00 pm EDT this afternoon. There were no technical issues. Rather, the team fell behind their checklist in aft closeout activities. The Rotating Service Structure, originally set for rollback at 10:00 pm last night, was rolled back at 6:04 am this morning. The test will be carried live on NASA Select TV this afternoon. The STS-38 Flight Readiness Review will be held at the Kennedy Space Center next Monday and Tuesday, Oct. 29 & 30. A launch window for the Atlantis DOD mission is expected to be announced at the conclusion of the review. Activity on Columbia, to prepare that vehicle for its tanking test next Monday, continues to progress well. In addition to the orbiter activity, payload maintenance activities also continue on Columbia's Astro-1 astronomical observatory. Yesterday, engineers completed a functional test of the Broad Band X-ray Telescope and found no unexplained problems. Discovery continues to undergo reconfiguration work in the Orbiter Processing Facility. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Instrument turn-on procedures continue to go well with the Ulysses spacecraft. It is now about 10 million miles from Earth and moving outward from the Sun at a velocity of 91,600 miles per hour. A second trajectory course maneuver is scheduled for Friday, Nov. 2. Flight dynamics officers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory are currently evaluating Ulysses' trajectory in preparation for the upcoming maneuver. Spacecraft and instrument performance are reported to be excellent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The NASA Excellence Award has been renamed in honor of George M. Low. Administrator Richard Truly announced the change this morning at the keynote address of the Seventh Annual NASA / Contractor's Conference, now underway in Grenelefe, Florida. Deputy Administrator J.R. Thompson will announce the 1990 recipient(s) of the George M. Low Trophy at the award ceremony tonight. The award recognizes outstanding achievement in quality and productivity improvement. Here's the broadcast schedule for Public Affairs events on NASA Select TV. All times are Eastern. **indicates a live program. Wednesday, 10/24/90 6:30 am **Coverage of Atlantis Tanking Test, with commentary, from Kennedy Space Center Launch Pad 39-A. Coverage will remain live through completion of the test, now expected to be mid-afternoon. Mid-afternoon (approx. 2:30) **Magellan-at-Venus report from Jet Propulsion Laboratory. This will follow immediately the conclusion of the Atlantis tanking test. All events and times may change without notice. This report is filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12:00 pm, EDT. It is a service of Internal Communications Branch at NASA Headquarters. Contact: CREDMOND on NASAmail or at 202/453-8425. NASA Select TV: Satcom F2R, Transponder 13, C-Band, 72 degrees West Longitude, Audio 6.8, Frequency 3960 MHz. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Oct 90 23:01:13 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: LLNL Proposal In article <9010262321.AA02614@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes: >NASA has been trying for the last few years to convince people that a >calculated probability that another Shuttle orbiter could eventually be >lost should be regarded as a normal part of doing business, and the message >never seems to sink in: [simulated conversation deleted...] Well, the public in general realizes the risks. What upsets the public in general, and those of us who track space in particular, is that the shuttle, which is so expensive in the first place, is so unsafe. It's not just the chance that another orbiter will be lost. It's the chance that $ 3,000,000,000.00 (count those zeroes and imagine) worth of sophisticated hardware will be broken up into bite-sized pieces, then picked up off of the ocean floor again (at great cost) and then cemented into an unused missle silo. That kind of makes the risks involved one hell of a lot less acceptable. We have to differentiate between meaningful space exploration and a potlatch with space exploration thrown in on the side. Phil Fraering dlbres10@pc.usl.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Oct 90 02:17:05 GMT From: phoenix!woodhams@princeton.edu (Michael Woodhams) Subject: Re: HST summary 10/22/90 In article <3607@idunno.Princeton.EDU> marty@pulsar.princeton.edu writes: > >Any idea what the magnitude limit for WFPC2 will be? Will it be 28th mag? >People around here have HST projects that are pushing that limit >(like counting faint galaxies, etc.). Also, that 25th mag number seems >optimistic; probably means for single object in uncluttered field >(do such things exist? :-)). > From the WF/PC instrument handbook: Table 2.2.1 WF/PC Dynamic Range within Single Exposure Min V Max V Configuration Exposure (sec) Magnitude Magnitude Wide Field 0.11 9.3 16.6 Wide Field 3000 20.4 27.5 Planetary 0.11 8.4 16.0 Planetary 3000 19.5 27.0 This was published in 1985, and refers to WF/PC I. The overall configuration of WF/PC II is very similar to WF/PC I. I expect the major changes will be better electronics and lower chip readout noise, and of course corrective optics. So these numbers should be pretty close to what WF/PC II will do. Michael Woodhams. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Oct 90 06:31:14 GMT From: crash!orbit!pnet51!schaper@nosc.mil (S Schaper) Subject: Re: Some interesting SSME specifications. So, what would the velocity vector be after four hours of 100% thrust on the SSME's? Zeitgeist Busters! UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!schaper ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!schaper@nosc.mil INET: schaper@pnet51.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 27 Oct 90 03:33:44 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Disposal of N-waste into the sun. In article <9010260348.AA02093@angband.s1.gov> SC05212@SWTEXAS.BITNET writes: > An earlier writer states that long before our sun dies we will have both >control over it and earths tectonic movement. The man was a zoologist. I do >not believe that he realized the scale of project he was talking about... I'm not a zoologist; I run their computers. As for the scale of the project... There are people still alive who remember a time when man could not fly, radio did not exist, and the total electrical generating capacity of the planet was measured in megawatts. Today, the total population of Earth's skies at this moment (at any moment, in fact) is a minimum of several hundred thousand, and the population of low Earth orbit is non-zero. Today, we get live television from Neptune, plus pictures of the surface of Venus taken through an opaque cloud layer. Today, the power feed to *this building* is rated in megawatts, and we build machines the size of a man with power outputs measured in gigawatts. Our world has changed beyond recognition in one lifetime. I do not believe you realize the scale of the projects we will be undertaking in a mere millennium, never mind the lifetime of the Sun. -- The type syntax for C is essentially | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology unparsable. --Rob Pike | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #503 *******************