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 ; Thu, 20 Jun 91 02:01:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 02:01:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #669 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 669 Today's Topics: Re: SR-71 Baja Re: Fred vs. Exploration: head-to-head competition Re: Rational next station design process Re: The Long Term Re: Babies in Space Antenna testing Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures 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 May 91 21:36:26 GMT From: skipper!bowers@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) Subject: Re: SR-71 In article <1991May24.125500.1@dev8g.mdcbbs.com> rivero@dev8g.mdcbbs.com writes: >In article <7P5622w163w@lobster.hou.tx.us!n5abi>, lobster.hou.tx.us!n5abi!gak (Gene A. Kennedy) writes: >> The June issue of Popular Mechanics includes an article on the SR-71 and >> mentions that NASA is putting three back in service for research. Does >> anyone know where they will operate from? I would guess Edwards but the >> article never says. >At least one is at Edwards, and was operational when I saw it, even though >the plane had been officially "retired". A second SR-71 is supposedly >going to be used to help monitor the ozone hole over antartica. In both >cases, the aircrafts value lies in its extreme altitude. Uh, I guess I can comment some on these aircraft. One is about 40 feet (about 1 wing span) from where I am typing this in our hangar here at _DRYDEN_ Flight Research Facility, located on Edwards Air Force Base. A second one is located about 1/4 mile away in another hangar. The third one is located at Palmdale, currently. NASA is/was negotiating for a 4th airframe, the twin cockpit trainer as well. And just because the Air Force `retires' an aircraft has little to no bearing on what NASA flys (note that we still have operational F-104s, long gone from the Air Force inventory). The photo in Pop Mechanics shows 4 people (2 crews) who are ready to fly as the funds become available, Rodgers Smith and Steve Ishmael are the pilots and Marta Bohn-Meyer and Bob Meyer are the flight test engineers (Bob is my supervisor). Just my $0.02... -- `In the changing of the times, they were like autumn lightning, a thing out of season, an empty promise of rain that would fall unheeded on fields already bare.' -Abe Shosaburo Albion Hideto Bowers ARA #3239 MCI #91-5896 DIOC #5937 DOD #900 PSIA #137 Ducati owner/enthusiast/apologist Sandan Muso Shinden Ryu Iaido bowers@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!bowers ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 91 21:28:56 GMT From: prism!gt6180a@gatech.edu (HENEY,PAUL JOSEPH) Subject: Baja I've noticed that there's a lot of interest as of late in the upcoming total solar eclipse and Baja in general. I have put together a short (26 pages) booklet which I've sent all over the world, called Baja 1991. It deals with why this eclipse is so special and why it's being called THE BIG ONE. It isn't incredibly technical, but it does explain everything from how eclipses occur to effects like shadow bands. I've been told that it's especially helpful in convincing non-astronomer spouses to tag along. Lately, I've been getting a lot of orders, and it occurred to me that readers of these newsgroups might be interested. If you would like a copy, send $6 ($8 foriegn) to: Paul J. Heney 312 Lisa Ann Drive Huron, Ohio 44839 This does include postage. Hope to see all of you in Baja! Clear skies! (let's hope...) -Paul -- HENEY,PAUL JOSEPH Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt6180a Internet: gt6180a@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 29 May 91 00:39:23 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!rex!rouge!dlbres10@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: Fred vs. Exploration: head-to-head competition In article schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes: \The study of comets, their fragments, and earth-crossing meteoroids /can be justified in the interest of national security, at the very \least. I don't see any private groups, for-profit or not, rushing /out to do this. Uh, they seem to be doing at least as much of it as the federal gubbimint is. One of the major search programs is heavily supported by the Space Studies Institute, although there is some gov funding too. The Spacewatch telescope which does the research was, I believe, built with funds contributed by private groups. The upgrade will possibly be funded by a university association which gets as much money from alumni as from the state. Note that the Spacewatch telescope is the only scope dedicated to studying asteroids. SSI is one of the only groups, public or private, that I know of that actively pursues asteroid data. Besides, with a lot of the 'big science' astronomy stuff that the government tends to do, a lot of the Solar System/asteroid data is given ultra low priority or sometimes 'filtered out' from general sky surveys. Phil Fraering || Usenet (?):dlbres10@pc.usl.edu || YellNet: 318/365-5418 Standard disclaimer, whatever a disclaimer is, applies. ''It hardly mattered now; it was, in fact, a fine and enviable madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is beyond the reach of a strong left arm.`` - Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, _The Mote in God's Eye_ ------------------------------ Date: 29 May 91 01:25:57 GMT From: celit!dave@ucsd.edu (Dave Smith) Subject: Re: Rational next station design process In article <5995@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes: >I don't think anyone is denying that some research can't be done without a >long-term manned facility. [ ... ] >Could it possibly wait until space engineering can provide better >facilities for less cost? How is space engineering going to get any better unless we do some? Computer simulation is not enough, we all know this. Neither is building small unmanned probes. Have you any proposals for doing space engineering without building a station? -- David L. Smith FPS Computing, San Diego ucsd!celit!dave or dave@fps.com "It was time to stop playing games. It was time to put on funny hats and eat ice cream. Froggie played his oboe" - Richard Scarry ------------------------------ Date: 29 May 91 14:05:52 GMT From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll@uunet.uu.net (James Davis Nicoll) Subject: Re: The Long Term In article <1991May29.050330.24034@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1348@argosy.UUCP> kevin@locke.UUCP (Kevin S. Van Horn) writes: >>>>One year is long term? ... >>>Well, in the US it is... >>Give me a break. I'm always hearing about how American business doesn't look >>past the next quarter's profits. But what do you call it when a group of >>venture capitalists finances a startup (like the one I'm working for -- MasPar) >>with the expectation that they'll have to wait maybe five years to see a >>return on their money? > >Medium term at best. Ask the Japanese. Or ask Holland. They planted a large number of hardwood trees to make ships out of (The English had had a negative effect on the number of ships in the Dutch fleet). Hardwood trees take a *long* time to mature; the ones I am thinking of were ready for harvesting in the 1960s, I think. Now, granted that ship technology had changed enough that the trees were not useful for their original purpose (A danger in very long term planning), wood is still a valuable commodity. James Nicoll ------------------------------ Date: 29 May 91 15:16:25 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!ox.com!fmsrl7!wreck@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Ron Carter) Subject: Re: Babies in Space In article <1991May24.060814.6285@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) writes: > Growing children would probably be seriously damaged by improper >bone formation due to the zero-G effects. If you are talking about babies and toddlers, you may very well be right. You'd probably want your living quarters in a centrifuge anyway. But if you are talking about foeti, I bet you are wrong. In adults, bones demineralize and weaken when they are not stressed. Bed rest is a good way to study this phenomenon. A fetus floating in amniotic fluid is already experiencing nearly zero-G conditions, and has to resist no gravitational loads. Bone mineralization in the foetus must be driven by other mechanisms than stress. Which brings up an interesting point: what is it that causes foetal bones to mineralize? Studying the changes in gene expression and enzyme/protein production in osteocytes in maturing animals in zero G may well give us breakthrough discoveries which will allow us to treat diseases such as post-menopausal bone loss in women and other difficult bone disorders. [Cross-posted to sci.med. Please direct followups correctly.] ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 91 11:51:38 GMT From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a752@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Bruce Dunn) Subject: Antenna testing Difficulty in unfurling antennas (and solar panels) seems to be one of the major causes of satellite and spacecraft failures (Galileo, newly launched Anik, nearly Gamma Ray Observatory). Presumably, unfurling is difficult to simulate on the ground. Is there any particular reason that the shuttle hasn't been used as a routine test bed for unfurling mechanisms? The only test I can remember was a test of a large stowable solar array, several years ago now. -- Bruce Dunn Vancouver, Canada Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca ------------------------------ Date: 29 May 91 21:01:40 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!hela!aws@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures In article <1991May29.184556.10643@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >If we want to increase the lifetime, assuming your comment about it being >fuel-limited is correct, the best way is to launch more fuel in the first >place, If you can Nick. Most do put in as much as they can. The designers are however limited by the total weight of the satellite, center of gravity, shape of the fairing, and other constraints. >rather than adding heavy, complex, and error-prone refueling equipment. We don't know how heavy and error prone it will be. Field replaceable components also add weight, complexity, and error to satellites yet Solar Max got several additional years of life because of them. It depends on the numbers. With a good OMV it could well be practical to do refueling at some fuel depot in LEO. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. | | aws@iti.org | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #669 *******************