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 ; Mon, 29 Apr 91 01:38:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4c6v58O00WBwE-9057@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 01:38:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #478 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 478 Today's Topics: Re: NASP Re: Saturn V and the ALS Re: Alexander Abian wants to blow up the moon? Re: Saturn V vs. ALS Re: Alexander Abian wants to blow up the moon? Re: Galileo Solution Re: Galileo works? The state of Galileo 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: 28 Apr 91 06:43:51 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!mvk@ucsd.edu (Michael V. Kent) Subject: Re: NASP In article <73462@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> v071pzp4@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu writes: >Any chance anyone out there working on the NASP can post regular updates >on progress with the NASP? > >Scientific/Engineering hurdles & successes, budget concerns, progress >on the prototype when its construction is started... > >I for one am very interested, and can't seem to find enough about >it in magazines, etc. I bet a lot of others are interested too. Probably not a good idea. Most of NASP is classified. What isn't will prob- ably be in Henry Spencer's AvWeek summaries. For a peek at the program, check out the 29 Oct 90 issue of Aviation Week. Michael Kent mvk@itsgw.rpi.edu ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 91 20:11:41 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!kksys!edgar!saylor!jim@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Jim Anderson) Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS After spending an hour or so trying to catch up on news, this discussion on the Saturn V and the ALS brings two questions to mind: 1. Bunches of figures have been brought up regarding cost per pound to orbit. What was Saturn V's cost to orbit? 2. The talk about increasing launches by an order of magnitude or so with use of a 'rebuilt Saturn V/VI/ALS/whatever' brings to mind the discussion that keeps cropping up (that I haven't seen for a while though) about space debris. Wasn't the Saturn V putting a bunch of garbage into orbit? And wouldn't any serious usage of a heavy lift launcher produce that much more space garbage? Would this garbage start affecting launch successes? (If a payload isn't usable once it gets on station, and stays usage, I don't consider it a successful payload. -- Jim Anderson (612) 636-7451 Saylors Software First jim@saylor.mn.org or jim@aob.mn.org 6532 Edenvale Blvd Lucifer designed MS-DOS to try men's souls. Eden Prairie, MN 55346 ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 91 08:40:39 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!news.cs.indiana.edu!ariel.unm.edu!hydra.unm.edu!omega@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Charles J. DiBella) Subject: Re: Alexander Abian wants to blow up the moon? -- ======================================================================== Charles J. DiBella omega@hydra.unm.edu University of New Mexico, Albuquerque Home (505) 281-1661 ======================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 91 04:33:35 GMT From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) Subject: Re: Saturn V vs. ALS Frank Crary (me): >>However US companies CAN make long term investments. Orbital Sciences >>Corporation has yet to make a cent on the Pegasus launcher... Is this not >>a long term investment in space infrastructure by a US company, wh >>thinks there is a market? Henry Spencer: >It is. Now for the hard part of the assignment: name three more such >investments, to justify the plural in "companies". The OSC/Hercules >Pegasus effort is a rare exception, not the rule. While OSC is the most succesfull example, they are not the only one: The following small launch vehicles are being designed by US firms, without government support. Industrial Launch Vehicle, by American Rocket Company. This project also is doing technology as well as vehicle development since the ILV will use hybred sloid/liquid oxygen rockets. Conestoga Launch Vehicle, by Space Services, Inc. Astra B, by E Prime Aerospace Corp. While these rockets have yet to fly, they are ungoing projects funded by american inversers, rather than a major government. OSC is also, by the way, continuing to develop upper stages (on its own hook) including, I believe, an electronic propulsion (Ion drive) upper stage. Frank Crary UC Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 91 06:22:29 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.iastate.edu!vaxf.iastate.edu!S1TAL@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Subject: Re: Alexander Abian wants to blow up the moon? I've read about Dr. Abian's ideas about blowing up the moon a couple times now in the Iowa State Daily. One thing that REALLY makes me wonder about the guy is this: Does he expect the moon to simply disintegrate cleanly in front of our eyes, provided all of us on Earth decided to blow it up (yeah right) !? It would seem to me that anyone who uses any kind of common sense would happen to realize that there will be moon debris everywhere, including bombarding the Earth, perhaps even killing off all life on the planet via a massive impact of a relatively "small" piece. Perhaps I should visit Dr. Abian's office some day and ask him about what he thinks of that.....Hmmm.....We'll see about that. (He seems QUITE gung-ho in his opinions.) Many people theorize that an asteroid struck the earth millions of years ago, causing mass extinction. Most asteroids are quite tiny compared to the moon, and when you consider that such a seemingly small piece of rock can do so much damage to a planet, it really makes you think. (Especially since the Earth very recently almost had a date with an astroid that was about 17th magnitude, and just over 100,000 miles away from us (half the distance from here to the moon) ) I can see that I'm starting to ramble so I'll quit while I am ahead (?). Tony A. Landin (S1TAL@ISUVAX.BITNET) -- Iowa State student ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 91 23:30:54 GMT From: rochester!dietz@louie.udel.edu (Paul Dietz) Subject: Re: Galileo Solution In article <27522@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >I dunno about this one. Getting a look at the atmospheric composition >of Jupiter from the 'top' of the atmosphere on down to where the probe >stops transmitting would seem (to me) to be worth a *lot* more than >a few extra asteroid encounters, especially considering that the original >encounters can still be done. Not to mention, the extra detail (as compared >to Voyager) we can get on the moons of Jupiter is worth a lot, especially >for Io and Europa. Dropping all this for a few measly asteroids seems to >be a waste. I was not clear. This change in plans assumes the relay doesn't get built, so that most of the science at Jupiter (all of it?) can't get done. I was assuming the relay would not be built for reasons of budget and time pressure. Question: would Galileo have used the main antenna to receive signals from the atmospheric probe and, if so, would the relay spacecraft be supposed to replace Galileo in this function? If not, could the atmospheric probe's data be returned even if the orbiter is not captured into orbit about Jupiter, but instead flys by Jupiter on a path that would return it to the inner solar system? Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 91 17:41:14 GMT From: swrinde!sdd.hp.com!samsung!transfer!lectroid!sw.stratus.com!tarl@ucsd.edu (Tarl Neustaedter) Subject: Re: Galileo works? In article , dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) writes: > I heard from a friend over here (who I guess heard it on the news) > that the moment of inertia for the Galileo probe is totally in > agreement with a correctly-performed antenna deployment. In short, the > antenna deployed, but the sensor doesn't know (sound familiar to > anyone?). Uh, no. According to av week (apr 25 p 25), the antenna is less than half deployed. I believe I'm allowed to quote a few paragraphs from av week without violating copyright. The comment about rate of spin is at the end. Deployment normally takes under 3 min. before microswitches on the ballscrew mechanism shut off the dual driver motors. But on Apr.11 the motors were shut off after 8 min. by a software timer, and motor current telemetry indicates they ran normally for about the first 17 sec., or 7 deg. of rib rotation [out of 68 deg.], then slowed until they stalled at about 50 sec. [1 sentence deleted]. One of the ribs partially obscured a Sun sensor behind the antenna, indicating it was between 34 and 40 deg. of deployment. By integrating the motor current to determine the ring position, engineers estimated the HGA had a lopsided deployment, with the opposite ribs at about 17 deg. and the ring bending the ballscrew. The degree of HGA opening matches the change in spin rate seen in Galileo. HGA is "high gain antenna". Please correct your friend. You may want to get the current (apr 25) issue of aviation week for a more detailed explanation. ----------------------------------------------------------- Tarl Neustaedter tarl@vos.stratus.com Marlboro, Mass. Stratus Computer Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 91 05:12:32 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!ptimtc!nntp-server.caltech.edu!palmer@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (David Palmer) Subject: The state of Galileo According to the information I have (from someone with an instrument on the probe) they have not tried anything at all to deploy the antenna, beyond the nominal command. When they discovered that the antenna had not deployed properly, the first thing they did was decide whether it would hurt the antenna to just leave it the way it was for a while. Once that was decided, they set up a tiger team to analyze the situation. The tiger team does not report back until May 10. There are a lot of things they can try. For instance, there are two motors on the antenna deployment mechanism, but only one is normally used. Using both motors may force it open. They may pulse the motors, to try to shake it open. They may shake the spacecraft other ways as well. These are just my uninformed guesses as to possible solutions. It is far too early to decide that there is no hope for the current antenna. -- David Palmer palmer@gap.cco.caltech.edu ...rutgers!cit-vax!gap.cco.caltech.edu!palmer "Operator, get me the number for 911" --Homer Simpson ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #478 *******************