Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.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 ; Tue, 23 Apr 91 01:40:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 01:40:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #442 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 442 Today's Topics: Overlapping Interests (was Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits) SPACE Digest V13 #429 Re: why _I_ think we need a space station NASA Headline News for 04/22/91 (Forwarded) Energia (was Re: Saturn V blueprints) Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Apr 91 14:49:49 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!maytag!watmath!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (James Davis Nicoll) Subject: Overlapping Interests (was Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits) In article shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >In article <1991Apr19.192219.25895@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> >rdm2@chaucer.uucp (25362-roe mcburnett(H053)m000) writes: Material deleted > I don't wish to flame anyone here but suggesting that *WE* read > something about something without the least reference as to what it > is or where to even find references to it is, IMHO, impolite at the > least. > >Jeez, do you want a reference for Spitfires and Hurricanes every time >someone mentions them, too? Remind me never to talk fighters if >you're in the room. R100 and R101 are just about as well known. Is the overlap between folks interested in space and folks interested in lighter-than-air vehicles as large as it sometimes seems? Hmmm. Maybe we need a sci.airship newsgroup :) I highly recommend sci.space folks read about the history of the airship industry. Very beautiful machines, doomed by possibly short-sighted economic and military decisions. We could have a wonderful argument, for example, over whether or not the US Coast Guard should have kept using airship instead of planes (unless of course I misremember and it was the *navy* that dumped airships for search and rescue). The return to glory and golden age of LTA vehicles has always been something that might happen in a decade of so (Especially during the Oil Embargo and Crisis in the 70s when LTA fuel efficiency looked good enought to outweight their lack of speed and *perceived* safety problems), but it never seems to arrive. There seem to me to be great similarities beween LTA programs and some space programs, but that might just be my lack of caffine talking :) James Nicoll ------------------------------ ReSent-Message-ID: Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 91 17:39:03 EDT Resent-From: Tommy Mac <18084TM@msu.edu> Resent-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu Date: Sat, 20 Apr 91 01:59:34 EDT Reply-To: space+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@msu.edu From: space-request+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU%CARNEGIE.BITNET@msu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #429 Comments: To: space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU To: david polito <15432DJP@MSU.BITNET>, Tom McWilliams <18084TM@MSU.BITNET> Subject: Re: test Einstein's theories during next total solar eclipses >> With all this talk of observing total solar eclipses, I hope some >> people are planning to do some real science. For instance, why >> not record images (photographic film or CCDs) of the star positions >> near the sun during totality and compare to the same region at night >> (ie not during the eclipse) to look for shifts in the stars >> apparent positions and check Einstein's predicted angular shifts >> due to space curvature around the Sun. > Sounds like a good idea, but I can see a few problems. First of all, >to do the experiment suggested you need (I think) an image that shows an >area about a degree by a degree to show enough reference stars. So, using a >CCD is probably out unless you use a *very* short focal length. Also, if Not necessarily. You wouldn't need (or want) the entire sun's image. It is more ephemeral than the other nearby stars, and doesn't give you the data you want anyway. Perhaps a group of stars with the sun's limb on one edge would be better. You could get more potentially shifted stars, and more reference points. There is still the problem of whether or not you could actually SEE the stars in question (i've never seen a live eclipse, so i don't know) P.S> Einstein's theory was proven back in 1917 this same way. I think they concluded that Al was correct to 5 decimal palces. It's probably been done hundreds of times since. Tommy Mac 18084tm@msu Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU> ------------------------------ Date: 22 Apr 91 22:37:16 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: why _I_ think we need a space station In article <0094783B.D761EDE0@CCVAX1.NCSU.EDU> seward@CCVAX1.NCSU.EDU (Bill Seward) writes: >Of course, I would like to see a better designed one put up. I heard the >other day that NASA has 9 years of R&D in FREEDOM, with the implication >that they really couldn't start over--it'd take too long. Horse-phucky. >When they started, they were probably designing on paper and without the >help of computer modeling. Using advanced design technology plus the >lessons they (should) have learned, they ought to be able to do a complete >rethink/redesign in 2-5 years, depending on $$ and political/bureaucratic >BS. >...IMHO... Actually, they have done at least the last two or three redesigns on paper. According to hearsay: they did a lot of work in the project's first year and a half or so, and have spent all the time since redesigning the station over and over and over to fit varying needs and the procrustean bed of the projected launch capacity of the time the station will be launched, which IMHO is the biggest problem facing the station. Given the assumption (or even better) the reality of a decent launch capacity for whatever time the station(s) is (are) going to be launched, and if the engineers on the project are really given the Freedom to go ahead with what _they_ (and the biologists and the material science people) want, a decent design will emerge. Of course, if the station is to fufill various needs, like biology etc., why not simply give each set of researchers the money needed to accomplish (or whatever appears to be the needed amount) the job and let the various groups deceide on their own how to do the job. Various groups could team up and 'merge' their projects onto one platform/ station or deceide to go it alone. I don't like imagining how much hard disk space all the various redesigns take up. -- Phil Fraering dlbres10@pc.usl.edu "The Soviet Union has neither soviets nor unions." - Eric Hoffer (in 1974). ------------------------------ Date: 22 Apr 91 23:45:18 GMT From: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA Headline News for 04/22/91 (Forwarded) Headline News Internal Communications Branch (P-2) NASA Headquarters Monday, April 22, 1991 Audio Service: 202 / 755-1788 This is NASA Headline News for Monday, April 22, 1991 . . . With the exception of the weather, everything is on track for the launch of Discovery on the STS-39 Department of Defense mission tomorrow morning at 7:05 am. Kennedy Space Center test director Al Sofge said today that the countdown process, which began last night at 8:45 pm, is right on schedule and is going "pretty much according to the book." The flight crew arrived from Houston on Saturday evening. Commander Mike Coats and pilot Blaine Hammond spent much of yesterday in the Shuttle Training Aircraft flying test landing runs. The vehicle is currently in the middle of a 12- hour hold, which it will come out of at 4:45 pm this afternoon. At 10:45 pm tonight, the KSC launch team will begin the STS-39 external tank liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen loading operation. The crew awakes at 2:10 am tomorrow and should be secured in Discovery's cabin by 5:25 am. The situation with the weather is due to a front located over western Florida and in the Gulf of Mexico. This front is expected to produce strong winds and possibly thunderstorms. The current probability of violating launch and return-to-launch-site abort mode constraints for Tuesday is 50 percent. The probability of a violation for a Wednesday or Thursday launch is 30 percent both days. Weather at the trans-Atlantic emergency landing sites, Zaragosa and Moron, Spain and Morocco will support a launch. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Payload Operation Control Center at Goddard Space Flight Center, reports that the Gamma Ray Observatory is continuing to perform nominally. Both the Oriented Scintillation Spectrometer Experiment and the Burst and Transient Source Experiment are operating and have successfully measured data during orbital passes through the South Atlantic Anomaly. The spacecraft will be pointed at the Crab Nebula later this week for the beginning of instrument calibration. The operations team expects to begin science operations early next month. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Johnson Space Center announced several shuttle flight crew assignments last week. David Hilmers has been named a mission specialist on the STS-42 International Microgravity Laboratory flight. He will replace the late Manley Carter. JSC also named Jerry Ross payload commander for the Spacelab D-2 mission on STS-55. Ross, along with Jay Apt, just completed space station extravehicular activity engineering work on Atlantis' STS-37 flight. Both Hilmers and Ross have three previous shuttle flights under their belts. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Galileo project management at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory reports that intensive analysis of the problem that prevented deployment of Galileo's high-gain antenna is continuing. A "tiger team" of specialists from a variety of JPL and industry engineering disciplines has been assembled to study the problem and how to correct it. Project officials say they expect to carry out considerably more analysis and ground testing before determining a date for another deployment effort. The deployment difficulty poses no immediate problem for the spacecraft, which otherwise is functioning properly. One side of the antenna appears to be deployed more fully than the other side, suggesting that some restriction may be affecting a portion of the antenna's movement. Project officials say Galileo is still scheduled for its planned flyby of the asteroid Gaspra on October 29, even if the antenna is partially deployed. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NASA Friday issued a request for proposals to establish up to two additional Centers for the Commercial Development of Space (CCDS). This is the fourth solicitation in the CCDS program, and seeks centers which would specialize in the commercialization of advanced satellite communications technologies. NASA's current nationwide network of 16 commercial development centers specialize in seven research disciplines: materials processing, life sciences, remote sensing, automation and robotics, space propulsion, space structures and materials, and space power. Here's the broadcast schedule for Public Affairs events on NASA Select TV. Note that all events and times may change without notice, and that all times listed are Eastern. Monday, 4/22/91 2:30 pm Project and science teleconference on Hubble Space Telescope's first year since launch, live from the Goddard Space Flight Center (note: this is audio only). 10:45 pm Begin process of loading liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen into STS-39 external tank. Tuesday, 4/23/91 2:30 am Live coverage of the STS-39 Discovery mission begins, from Kennedy Space Center. 5:25 am Discovery crew cabin hatch is closed. 7:05 am Scheduled launch of Discovery on STS-39 mission. This report is filed daily at noon, Monday through Friday. It is a service of NASA's Office of Public Affairs. The contact is Charles Redmond, 202/453- 8425 or CREDMOND on NASAmail. NASA Select TV is carried on GE Satcom F2R, transponder 13, C-Band, 72 degrees West Longitude, transponder frequency is 3954.5 megaHertz, audio is offset 6.8 MHz, polarization is vertical. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Apr 91 23:17:05 GMT From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!qucis!akerman@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Akerman) Subject: Energia (was Re: Saturn V blueprints) Perhaps this has been discussed before, but, at least conceptually, is there any reason NASA shouldn't use Energia as its heavy-lift vehicle? I imagine politically that would be far too straightforward, but it seems to me the Soviets have a launch system and little cash and NASA has no system and lots of cash. Couldn't NASA at least license some of the technology? It would be a shame if civil strife or economic difficulties in the USSR caused Energia to go the way of Saturn V, leaving the world's two great space-faring nations without a big lifter. And, on a slightly unrelated note, as has been mentioned, the Shuttle does lift a fair amount to orbit, just most of it isn't payload. Aside from the orbiter itself, doesn't the external tank reach about 90% of escape velocity? Richard Akerman Incompetent Physics Graduate Student Akerman@Bill.Phy.QueensU.Ca/ Akerman@QUCdnAst/ "I will go mad." -- Arthur Dent ------------------------------ Date: 22 Apr 91 00:36:02 GMT From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits In article <1991Apr19.192219.25895@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> rdm2@chaucer.uucp (25362-roe mcburnett(H053)m000) writes: OK-- What in the world is R100 and or R101, Can you give any references where one could read up on them. R100 and R101 were airships, one built by the British government, one built by privat enterprise. The privately-built one worked splendidly, with a Canadian visit, etc, and the government-built one suffered a structural failure in a storm on its maiden voyage to India. In one of the few cases of micromanagemental justice, the bureaucrat responsible for it died in the crash. Read Neville Shute Norway's biography, "Slide Rule". Be flexible on the last name, it may be Shute or Norway, although originally his fiction was published as Shute since he was a practicing engineer as Norway and his biography was published as Norway. I don't wish to flame anyone here but suggesting that *WE* read something about something without the least reference as to what it is or where to even find references to it is, IMHO, impolite at the least. Jeez, do you want a reference for Spitfires and Hurricanes every time someone mentions them, too? Remind me never to talk fighters if you're in the room. R100 and R101 are just about as well known. -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA "Turn to kill, not to engage." CDR Willie Driscoll ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #442 *******************