Date: Wed, 5 Aug 92 05:02:42 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #072 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Wed, 5 Aug 92 Volume 15 : Issue 072 Today's Topics: ask a NASA person...? (2 msgs) Energiya's role in Space Station assem Energiya's role in Space Station assembly Energiya role in Space Station assembly Fermi Paradox vs. Prime Directive Meteor Soaks Datona FL Methods for meteor avoidance More second-hand info on TSS NASA Tools Random Notes (Was Re: NASP, NLS, SSTO, etc.) Soyuz as ACRV (2 msgs) Star Trek Realism (2 msgs) TSS update (indirect via NASA Select) Two-Line Orbital Element Set: Space Shuttle What is FRED?? (2 msgs) What is the ASRM?? Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Aug 92 22:05:01 GMT From: Jay Dresser Subject: ask a NASA person...? Newsgroups: sci.space I have a listing of Internet BBS's that lists Spacelink (spacelink.msfc.nasa.gov) as having an "Ask-a-NASA-person" service, where I could ask a question of a genuine NASA guru. But after TELNETing to it and wading through their menus, I see no evidence of such a thing. Is this for real, or should I just ask the question here? -- Jay Dresser, jdresser@Tymnet.com ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 92 08:00:15 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: ask a NASA person...? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <2217@tymix.Tymnet.COM>, jdresser@altair.tymnet.com (Jay Dresser) writes... > >I have a listing of Internet BBS's that lists Spacelink >(spacelink.msfc.nasa.gov) as having an "Ask-a-NASA-person" service, >where I could ask a question of a genuine NASA guru. But after >TELNETing to it and wading through their menus, I see no evidence of >such a thing. Is this for real, or should I just ask the question >here? When you logoff of Spacelink, it prompts you if you want to "leave a message for NASA" and this is probably where you could leave your question. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | You can't hide broccoli in /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | a glass of milk - |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | anonymous 7-year old. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 92 00:45:28 GMT From: "Hugh D.R. Evans" Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug3.145353.18257@samba.oit.unc.edu>, cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil) says: > >So, my question: why is the Space Station being assembled in a 28.5 deg. >orbit? This locks out ANY participation by the CIS launch complexes for only >a few % gain in payload. (This also excludes the obvious benefit to earth >observations of an orbit at 40+ degs, perhaps an important selling point to >soon-to-be VP Gore.) Concerns re abort sites are irrelevant, in that NASA >has happily launched Shuttles to higher inclination orbits in the past. One reason I can think of that FRED isn't going into a 40+ degree inclination is the trapped proton fluxes that it would encounter going through the South Atlantic Anomaly ( maximum fluxes at ~ -40 deg west, -35 deg south). At a 28 degree inclination, the space station only slightly dips into the Anomaly. The total radiation dose received by a man inside a 4mm sphere of Aluminium ( SSF's skin will be about that thick) is 17 rads over a 30 day period, compared to 25 rads at a 40 degree inclination; requiring an extra 6 mm of Al over the entire surface of the space station in order to reduce the dosage to that of the 28 degree inclination orbit. This represents quite a considerable mass increase. Regards, Hugh Evans. ESTEC, ESA * Inet: hevans@estwm8.dnet.estec.esa.nl P.O. Box 299 * or hevans@estec.esa.nl 2200 AG Noordwijk * SPAN: ESTCS1::HEVANS The Netherlands * BITNET: HEVANS@ESTEC ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 01:12:21 GMT From: Gerald Cecil Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assembly Newsgroups: sci.space To summarize this thread so far: We can only get useful payloads to the Space Station from CIS launch sites if the station's orbit inclination is increased to, say, 45 degs. The payload penalty for a KSC launch is essentially negligible, but Energiya can then play a meaningful role because the inclination difference is small enough that the plane change can be done as a simple `dogleg' during the launch ascent without coasting and restarting engines. I dismiss the option of sending Energiya components over here because the infrastructure already exists in the CIS. As some of you have suggested, why duplicate (metric) plumbing, launch towers, and assembly buildings for just a few launches? (It's surely easier to move Mohammed or Fred to the Mountain than vice versa:-) We want to put up all the heavy stuff efficiently rather than delivering it suitcase by suitcase in an seemingly endless stream of (ultimately exploding) Shuttles. We want to `exploit' unique capabilities at the CIS launch sites so that they will remain viable (and solvent) for those nations to use once their (and our) economires recover, not pay for yet more civil engineering in Florida. I'm pushing Energiya because it's operational (or nearly so), not vaporware like many of the acronyms discussed in this group. Now the only speculation (this is a challenge!) that anyone has come up with as to why one would NOT want to orbit the Space Station at an inclination > 28.5 deg is the increased radiation load at higher latitudes. I have a hard time believing that the situation is much worse if one spends a little time at 45 degs, but are there any magnetospheric experts out there who would like to comment? I thought that most of the nasty stuff drifts in from several RsubE under normal circumstances, except during intense storms when it can penetrate to ~1 RsubE ... still comfortably far away and 30 degs from the geomagnetic pole. Or, is the problem stuff that drifts UP from the ionosphere? How do the fluxes compare to the load in the South Atlantic Anomaly that the Space Station has to encounter in any case? Finally, how does the shielding on the Space Station compare to that on Skylab (which flew at 55+ degs)? True, Skylab was occupied during a solar Min (the next Max is what nailed it), but was radn shielding a real concern? -- Gerald Cecil 919-962-7169 Dept. Physics & Astronomy U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA -- Intelligence is believing only half of what you read; brilliance is knowing which half. ** Be terse: each line cost the Net $10 ** ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 92 03:35:37 GMT From: Gerald Cecil Subject: Energiya role in Space Station assembly Newsgroups: sci.space In article <92217.150646HEVANS@ESTEC.BITNET> HEVANS@ESTEC.BITNET (Hugh Evans) writes: >One reason I can think of that FRED isn't going into a 40+ degree >inclination is the trapped proton fluxes that it would encounter going through >the South Atlantic Anomaly ( maximum fluxes at ~ -40 deg west, >-35 deg south). At a 28 degree inclination, the space station only slightly >dips into the Anomaly. The total radiation dose received by a man >inside a 4mm sphere of Aluminium ( SSF's skin will be about that thick) >is 17 rads over a 30 day period, compared to 25 rads at a 40 degree >inclination; requiring an extra 6 mm of Al over the entire surface of the >space station in order to reduce the dosage to that of the 28 degree >inclination orbit. This represents quite a considerable mass increase. Thank you for quantifying the exposure. I don't recall the exact dimensions of a Space Station module, but if I take 4 of radius 2 m x 12 m long we need an extra mass of 9800 kg. I guess we'd have to tuck that away on Energiya somewhere. (Doesn't strike me as excessive.) (Re the exposures: my Particle Data Booklet reminds me that 250-300 rads of wholebody exposure in 30 days produces 50% mortality.) -- Gerald Cecil 919-962-7169 Dept. Physics & Astronomy U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA -- Intelligence is believing only half of what you read; brilliance is knowing which half. ** Be terse: each line cost the Net $10 ** ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 92 22:26:30 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Fermi Paradox vs. Prime Directive Newsgroups: sci.space In article <9208041334.AA12553@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes: >... One can imagine something like >the "non-interference rule", where contact with Earth is *illegal*. That >would require a coherent interstellar culture in the local region. The hard part is making it stick for many millions of years, and be sufficiently airtight that there are no leaks whatever. (Despite all the true-believer hoopla over UFOs, there is not one case of an unquestionably extraterrestrial artifact being found.) Moreover, bear in mind that until recently -- at most a few million years ago -- this planet had no intelligent life, and was ripe for colonization or other exploitation even if such a rule existed and was 100% enforced. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 92 00:36:52 GMT From: "James T. Green" Subject: Meteor Soaks Datona FL Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Heard on Local TV News: A giant wave that drenched Datona FL and caused a lot of damage in July turns out to have probably been caused by a 1 meter meteor! I wonder if this'll give the beancounters in Congress any incentive to fund a near-Earth Asteroid finder program. True, not many 1 m objects can be found, but perhaps this can scare them enough to look for big ones on the way to turn DC into a crater :-) /~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@eros.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ | | | "It is mankind's manifest destiny to bring our humanity into | | space, to colonize this galaxy. And as a nation, we have the | | power to determine whether America will lead or will follow. | | | | I say that America must lead." -- Ronald Reagan | ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 92 22:58:41 GMT From: Kenneth Tolman Subject: Methods for meteor avoidance Newsgroups: sci.space >>After the meteor from last year passed withinn 4 minutes of the earth (the >>large one), I was wondering if we have any system of avoiding these >>large beasts??!! I read that if it hit the earth, millions could have died. >> >>With a problem like this, surely there must be some defence!!! >> > >One idea springs to mind if you know the time and direction of impact, get >to the other side of the Earth PDQ! Or live in a polar climate, the chances >of getting a direct hit should be a bit less, although similarly >catastrophic to a perpendicular strike. An oblique bolide impact, such as one striking the poles, actually could be WORSE for the unsuspecting native. It sometimes can kick up even more debris, due to its "skitter". I would think that being well informed is the best protection, along with a self propelled airplane. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 92 00:50:06 GMT From: John Roberts Subject: More second-hand info on TSS Newsgroups: sci.space Apparently after more heroic efforts and at least one additional problem, they got it out to 517 (feet, yards, meters - pick your units), whereupon it stuck. There are plans to attempt to get it further out, perhaps in "manual" mode (whatever that is). Before this latest problem, there was discussion of reducing final deployment to 6km, to try to get back on schedule. There's supposed to be a daily update at 11PM EDT, which I hope to catch directly, so some of these numbers can be firmed up. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 92 00:27:47 GMT From: Bruce Dunn Subject: NASA Tools Newsgroups: sci.space > John Roberts writes: > > No release of the TSS yet - it appears to be stuck. > > Maybe they need to unpack the Ferrous Portable Leverage Application > Mechanism (FPLM), the Passive Maximal Kinetic Transfer Device (PMKTD), > and the Linear Metallic Abrasive System (LMAS), and try an EVA. :-) Crowbar, hammer, and file? -- Bruce Dunn Vancouver, Canada Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 92 20:49:13 EST From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu Subject: Random Notes (Was Re: NASP, NLS, SSTO, etc.) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <93@newave.mn.org>, john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes: > While driving into the parking lot at the USAF Museum in Dayton on Monday, > I saw an X-30 mock-up departing Wright-Patterson AFB on the back of a > semi-truck. It was painted white and blue with red trim. Since the plane > was about 40 feet long, I suspect that it was a 1/3 scale mock-up. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You are correct. This model was made by senior engineering students at Mississippi State University for NASA and the NASP JPO. It should be at the AF Museum until the end of August (I can get the exact date if you are interested). P.S. I am one of the people they roped in to 'man' the NASP booth at the U.S. Air and Trade Show, so if you have any questions feel free to ask. -- Jim Batka | Always remember ... | Buckaroo Modemman | No matter where you go, there you are! | Bonzai --------------+--------------------------------------------+-------------- | Work Email: BATKAJ@CCMAIL.DAYTON.SAIC.COM | Elvis is | Home Email: JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU | DEAD! --------------+--------------------------------------------+-------------- | 64 years is 33,638,400 minutes ... | Beatles: | and a minute is a long time. | Yellow Submarine ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 92 22:48:05 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Soyuz as ACRV Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug04.153540.14334@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: >> [losing shuttles] >>You don't have to rely on me for this; your own NRC and OTA will tell you the >>same thing... if you bother to listen. > >Forgive me, but harping on it is getting on my nerves. Will it give you great >joy to see another bird lost? No. Nor does it give me joy to see otherwise-intelligent people sticking their heads in the sand and pretending it will never happen. This will make things *worse*, not better, when the inevitable eventually occurs. We need to *plan* for less than 100% reliability, not fumble around trying to improvise when our noses are rubbed in it. >>>If you have to fix Freedom, you can't do it from a tin can... >>Odd. Why? There have been two major space-station-salvage missions flown >>to date, both successful, both using Soyuz-type technology... > >If you had your choice of [shuttle] verses a 3 man shot with limited >supplies, tools, no CanadaArm, which would you choose? The one with a better chance of success, which is probably the shuttle. But how many 3-man shots can you launch for the cost of running the shuttle for one year? If I had my choice between three attempts using 3-man capsules, and one using the shuttle, I know which I'd pick. I note, also, that we have changed the subject: the claim that it just can't be done using capsules has quietly been dropped. >Furthermore, both "rescues" were simple; i.e.; hit one docking adaptor, go >inside, do whatever. With a shuttle, you could use the CanadaArm ... > to grab onto the truss or use to remove/replace/restore a flapping >solar panel. Much like the way the first Skylab crew deployed a sunshade and then freed and deployed the surviving main solar array. Nice though the arm is, I'll take men in spacesuits over it any day when the job gets tricky. >Of course, if we went tin-can, we could leave the CanadaArm home and cut back >Canadian participation in the United States space program. Tsk tsk, you're showing your ignorance. We participated in the earlier programs too (although in still smaller ways). -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 92 02:38:00 GMT From: seds%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: Soyuz as ACRV Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug4.150511.24762@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes... >In article <64976@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: > >>I'm not saying that. Show me a proposal that has a capability similar to >>the shuttle, and I'll go for it. > >The overall system I am proposing does exactly that. You have yet to find >any technical holes in it. > The return capability is near zero Allen. In a previous post you stated that Hubble could not be returned, why not? LDEF weighs as much as HST at 33,000 pound and it was returned with no problems. How about as a transfer vehicle for Heavy payloads returning from Lunar orbit? Your system could never do that without very large weight penalties for providing for the return capsule. By the way someone here stated that COMET could return 750 kg. That is not true, COMET Weighs 750 kg. The return capsule payload is only 60 kg. >>If capsules were so wonderful to begin >>with, we would never have built the shuttle. > >Huh? Odd as it may seem this won't be the first time anybody has gone >up a technological blind alley. > The shuttle as you well know Allan was designed by Cap Weinberg and the Office of Managment and budget. It is starting to look like the Shuttle with its large payload capablity might just have some uses in the future after all. I have to look at it some more. >Reusable spacecraft ART the way to go (although it's hard to call the >Shuttle reusable"). However now is not the time. Larger markets are >needed. To promote those markets we need to lower costs. Using the >Shuttle doesn't do that. > You stated in an earlier post Allan that you could return a satellite from orbit using your technological approach but NO ONE is even suggesting that, that as I have seen. >>>>You are making the fatal mistake of tossing out a current technology for >>>>one that doesn't exist yet... > >>>I didn't see Allen saying that. > >>I see Allen using the savings from canning the shuttle to build his pipe >>dreams. > >Pipe dreams? I don't call conservative designs from experienced spacecraft >builders pipe dreams. > >However, it is clear you haven't been reading my postings. The HLV will be >built by the contractor and owned by the contractor. There will be no >out of pocket expenses unless and untill the contractor has demonstrated >the ability to reduce costs. > >All we agree to is to buy launch services when they are available. > >*THEN* and only then (when the new system has been demonstrated) do we >ship the Shuttles to the Smithsonian Air and Space. > The HLV as I have stated in this post has no return capability worth talking about. and for the future of space development this will begin to be a more and more desired and actually demanded feature as the space infrastructure grows. Don't go shipping the Shuttles off the othe museums quite yet or you may see a future generation berating us for losing a valuable technology. By the way a winged return vehicle is the only way to go to keep the G level anwhere near an acceptable level for delicate payloads returning. No matter what it is called. >>I'd like to see a Soyuz: > >>(a) Stay up for two weeks for large-scale biomedical studies. > >No problem. It will fly up to Fred, do the experiment, and return. > >>(b) Put a crew of three outside to mate a new booster to a communications >> satellite. > >No problem. Put the booster on a HLV, send them up in a Soyuz to Fred, and >they they mate the booster. > Allan this will only work in the fortitutious event of the satellite becoming stranded at SS Freedom orbital altitude and inclination. I do not think this very likely. >>(c) Deploy and retrieve a tethered satellite. > >No problem. Put the crew in a Soyuz, send them to Fred, deploy and retrieve >the satellite from there. > Sorry a Soyuz would be a very iffy deployer. Our Delta missions can only do very small payloads because of the physical limitations of deploying masses that approach your own mass as would be the case for any Soyuz deployer >>(d) Retrieve and return a long-duration exposure facility. > >No problem. Use the OTV to retrieve the facility, bring it to Fred. There >remove the experiment panels, attach new ones, and return the experimental >panels with the next supply drop. > >Why do you insist on focusing on one small part of this approach and then >demand it do everything? > > Allen > Allan there are some things the Soyuz can do and there are some things that an HLV can do, but you know believe it or not I am regaining my respect for the Shuttle and its versatility. It is not the best vehicle in the world but it is becoming more and more each mission what Wherner Von Braun meant it to be, a pathfinder to the heavens. Dennis Wingo ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 92 23:08:22 GMT From: Kenneth Tolman Subject: Star Trek Realism Newsgroups: sci.space >Now, another problem, why do they all fall unconcious within about 2 minutes >of losing "LIFE SUPPORT"? Contrary to popular belief, life support is NOT related to breathing,etc.. it is related to the VR interface. Life support is commonly thought of as being the temperature control, gravity control, pressure control, atmospheric content control, etc. But clearly it is not, for these things could not fluctate so wildly as to knock them out so quickly- (or with some time limit- 3:00 minutes until life support fails is the common threat) What life support IS is the cyberspace link up to the mainframe. All of the crew of the enterprise really sit on a lunar sub station- hooked into a supercomputer which provides the realistic ship/interaction/and environment. When life support fails- they lose their individual links to the mainframe and thus are unconscious. Notice, this also explains why they have such an interesting voyage. It is fabricated by social engineers, computer imagination, and a good dose of silliness put in by the original programmer. It also explains why everyone speaks english, why all the planets are breathable, and why the whole thing reeks of having been written- it was in a loose way by the mainframe. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Aug 92 02:21:47 GMT From: Scott Stanford Subject: Star Trek Realism Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Jul31.122019.17825@cscdec.cs.com> jack@cscdec.cs.com (Jack Hudler) writes: >In article wsj@wpd.sgi.com writes: >> >>interstellar space. AND the way the shuttles bank and turn as if they're >>airplanes. > >They bank and turn because, if they didn't, you'd bitch that they didn't. >-- >Jack Hudler - Computer Support Corporation - Dallas,Texas - jack@cs.com True, but also because pilots/passengers would still feel G-forces in turns, and it's more natural to have these just going up-and-down as opposed to side-to-side. Or do the shuttles have the same high-quality fake gravity machines as the ships? my $.02 Scott stanford@leland ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 92 22:32:38 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: TSS update (indirect via NASA Select) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <9208041925.AA14312@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes: >No release of the TSS yet - it appears to be stuck. Latest radio news reports say that problems with an electrical connector were cleared up after repeated attempts. Doesn't sound like they needed an EVA. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 22:15:22 GMT From: TS Kelso Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set: Space Shuttle Newsgroups: sci.space The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when possible). Documentation and tracking software are also available on this system. As a service to the satellite user community, the most current elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below. The Celestial BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil (129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space. STS 46 1 22064U 92 49 A 92217.16443287 .00089207 00000-0 25599-3 0 107 2 22064 28.4767 325.1610 0005057 291.0993 84.2223 15.91617334 560 EURECA 1 22065U 92 49 B 92217.31526294 -.00987981 00000-0 -42166-1 0 100 2 22065 28.4446 324.5151 0017653 115.7028 244.0547 15.41399649 571 -- Dr TS Kelso Assistant Professor of Space Operations tkelso@afit.af.mil Air Force Institute of Technology ------------------------------ Date: P From: Michael Corvin Subject: What is FRED?? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle References: <1992Aug3.051304.28891@newshost.anu.edu.au> <1992Aug4.140921.19282@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> <1992Aug4.172003.21215@iti.org> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 21:53:55 GMT Lines: 9 Source-Info: Sender is really news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU What program does "fred" refer to? I've seen it mentioned quite a bit but have never come across what it actually is... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Corvin PP-ASEL, PP-G zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com just another spaced rocket scientist at Martin Marietta Astronautics Group ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- =============== My views, not Martin Marietta's ======================== ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 92 22:34:02 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: What is FRED?? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle In article <1992Aug4.215355.8158@den.mmc.com> zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin) writes: >What program does "fred" refer to? I've seen it mentioned quite >a bit but have never come across what it actually is... It's a cynical nickname for Space Station Freedom, coined when the thing shrunk yet again a couple of years ago. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 92 04:38:00 GMT From: seds%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: What is the ASRM?? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle In article <1992Aug4.172003.21215@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes... >In article <1992Aug4.140921.19282@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> pettengi@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (James B. Pettengill) writes: > >>the asrm program is dead for now but not for long. it should be resurrected >>latter this year or next. > >Don't count on it. > >>Space Station Freedom can't get off the ground without asrm. > >Unless they use Energia. > > Allen > >-- Allen the ASRM's do give more lbs to orbit but they are not REQUIRED for putting SSF up. Also have you considered the problems integrating a payload to a vehicle with unknown dynamics of the mating? That is what happened to Skylab when the heat sheild was lost causing the loss of the Large Solar Array. It was a dynamics problem relating to pogo of the S V first stage. Hou can you say with the assurance that you seem to put in your messages that some equally harsh problem would not happen with SSF components? It would not be nice to get to orbit with a hab module structurally destoyed by a dynamics problem. This is a problem that you cannot know about until you actually launch. The shuttle does not have this problem due to the long operational experience and low g forces that are part of the shuttle's standard operating procedure. Even with the three G acceleration of the Shuttle, the qualification level for payloads in the cargo bay is +/- 10 G in the flight direction +/- 6 G in the X and Y Axis perpendicular to flight. This info from the NASA payload safety documents. Just a little "technical" objection Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntville. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 072 ------------------------------