Date: Fri, 7 Aug 92 05:15:07 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #082 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 7 Aug 92 Volume 15 : Issue 082 Today's Topics: basic electrodynamic tether description Calendar and Zodiac Congressional Cutting Continues ... Energiya's role in Space Galileo issues (2 msgs) GPS Availability Meteor Soaks Datona FL Soyuz as ACRV (2 msgs) SPS and light pollution Two-Line Orbital Element Set: Space Shuttle 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: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 00:19:29 GMT From: Leigh Palmer Subject: basic electrodynamic tether description Newsgroups: sci.space In article <25286@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes: >Yeah. Webster's is wrong. They are only the same in a uniform gravitational >field, to which the Earth is an approximation *if you stay at or near the >surface*. That's terribly misleading. The Earth's gravitational field becomes more nearly uniform as one gets farther from the surface. The reason the approximation of uniform field does not hold is because the structure in question is large, not because it is far from Earth's surface. Leigh ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 03:00:01 GMT From: John Harper Subject: Calendar and Zodiac Newsgroups: sci.space In article gnb@duke.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes: > >Easter is defined as (from memory) the first new moon after March >21st (equinox? Coincidence? Wrong date?). The orthodox easter uses >the Julian March 21st, the western church uses Gregorian. So the >easters will either coincide or differ by 28 days, in some fixed but >not obvious pattern. > Close. IMHO the actual definition is as follows. The Orthodox Church uses the true equinox and new moon, as observed from Jerusalem. Easter Sunday is the first Sunday on or after the 14th day after the first new moon after the March equinox. (One must specify the longitude of the observer as it's Saturday or Monday in some places when it's Sunday in others. The Western churches (Catholic and Protestant) use Mar 21 instead of the equinox, and Clavius's algorithm instead of the real moon. The combined effect is that the Orthodox Easter is 0,1,4 or 5 weeks after the Western one. The Orthodox Easter never precedes Passover; the Western one may, about 1 year in 5 at present. Now go and re-read the Venerable Bede (the date of Easter was one of the main points of dispute between Celtic and Catholic churches) to see how what was of vital importance about 1300 years ago is now a non-issue. Should all this go in a FAQ? - it keeps cropping up here and in sci.astro See 1 old (11th ed) Encyc. Brit. (newer ones seem to give less detail) 2 Explanatory Supplement to the Astro. Ephemeris and Naut. Almanac 3 Calendar Act 1752 (for USA and British Commonwealth), or the (Anglican) Book of Common Prayer (often easier to find) John Harper Mathematics Dept. Victoria University Wellington New Zealand ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 92 20:09:31 GMT From: Kim DeVaughn Subject: Congressional Cutting Continues ... Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics,talk.politics.space I ran into the attached article in sci.research, and felt it should be posted to a broader audience. Followups have been directed to talk.politics.space. Note in particular that the recommendation, if followed, would kill SETI as well as NASP, and would all but kill the Space Exploration Program. Fortunately, the Senate will be making its own report/recommendations, and will hopefully reverse much of this. Thankfully, I hear that Traxler has resigned, and won't be around much longer! /kim vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv From: rsherme@diamond.nswc.navy.mil (Russel Shermer (R43)) Newsgroups: sci.research Subject: fyi 103 House Appropriations Committee Report: NASA Message-ID: <1992Aug4.195713.20245@relay.nswc.navy.mil> Date: 4 Aug 92 19:57:13 GMT Organization: NAVSWC DD White Oak Det. Posted for: Public Information Division American Institute of Physics Contact: Audrey T. Leath Phone: (202) 332-9662 Email: fyi@aip.org House Appropriations Committee Report: NASA FYI No. 103, August 4, 1992 Accompanying all appropriations bills is a report written by committee staff providing the committee's recommendations on how agencies should spend the money which is appropriated to them. Although these reports are not binding, federal agencies are usually quite reluctant to implement policies contrary to those of the committee which has jurisdiction over their budget. Both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees write reports, with a final "conference report" issued to accompany the final bill. Details of the Senate and conference reports will be provided in future editions of FYI. Below are selected portions of House Report 102-710, accompanying H.R. 5679, the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1993, as it pertains to NASA. Two major changes were made since this report was released. When the bill went to the House floor, the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM) program was reduced by $380,000,000, leaving $100,000,000; and an across-the-board cut of 1% was applied to all programs in the VA/HUD bill except veteran's medical care. This reduction is not included in the numbers below. For all of NASA, "the Committee has recommended a total program level of $14,036,102,000 in fiscal year 1993, which represents a reduction of $956,925,000 below the request, and $278,948,000 below [the] 1992 level." For Research and Development: "The Committee recommends a total of $6,670,650,000 for the research and development activities of NASA. This is $1,060,750,000 below the budget request. That reduction includes the following increases, decreases, and changes to the program areas described below: -$525,000,000 from space station. The Committee directs that this reduction be taken in recognition of the existing understanding between the Committees on Appropriations and the agency. Under that arrangement, NASA should implement any schedule slip first in the permanently manned capability while making every effort to preserve current first element launch and man-tended time-lines. -$159,000,000 from space transportation capability development including: -$115,000,000 from the national launch system leaving $10,000,000 for a continued NASA presence. -$150,000,000 from space science including: A. -$30,000,000 from life sciences maintaining the program at the 1992 level. The Committee directs that the reduction be taken at NASA's discretion except that not less than $10,000,000 be applied to the request of $18,000,000 for development of the centrifuge. B. -$75,000,000 from the earth observing system platform (EOS). C. -$20,000,000 from materials development. D. -$10,000,000 from research operations support. E. -$5,000,000 from information systems. F. -$13,500,000 (the full request) from the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) program. G. -$50,000,000 as a general reduction to be taken at NASA's discretion. H. +$20,000,000 to continue work on the gravity probe "B" program. I. +$33,500,000 to continue the consortium for international earth science information network (CIESIN) program. -$80,000,000 (the full request) from the national aerospace plane (NASP). The Committee regrets that because of budget pressures this program must be given a lower priority. The Committee believes, however, that the NASP effort is important to the country's future aeronautical preeminence and would fund the activity if additional allocation was available. -$28,800,000 of $31,800,000 requested for the space exploration program. The reduction should be taken from the request of $28,800,000 for exploration precursor missions." Other report sections include: Space Flight, Control and Data Communications; Construction of Facilities; Research and Program Management; and Office of the Inspector General. ############### Public Information Division American Institute of Physics Contact: Audrey T. Leath (202) 332-9662 ##END########## ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [ Any thoughts or opinions which may or may not have been expressed ] [ herein are my own. They are not necessarily those of my employer. ] -- UUCP: kim@lust.diag.amdahl.com -OR- ked01@juts.ccc.amdahl.com DDD: 408-746-8462 USPS: Amdahl Corp. M/S 249, 1250 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 BIX: kdevaughn GEnie: K.DEVAUGHN CIS: 76535,25 ------------------------------ Date: 03 Aug 92 08:03:04 From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org Subject: Energiya's role in Space Newsgroups: sci.space Concerning the use of former Soviet space launchers to orbit spacecraft in the 28 degree orbit of Space Station Freedom: The Soyuz spacecraft has a mass of 7 tons. The Soyuz launcher cannot possible put this mass into a 28 degree orbit, as it is designed to place the 7 ton spacecraft into a 51 degree orbit (when launched from Baikonur). However, the Proton, when launched in a dog leg maneuver, could place a stripped down Soyuz into a 28 degree orbit. This would involve launching the Soyuz due east from Baikonur (46 degrees latitude), and then, over China, turning southeast. The Proton would have to have four stage; presumbly this configuration would require a new payload shroud and extentions to the Proton service tower. The Proton KM, a modification of the current design, could easily send a Soyuz to the orbit of SSF. In this case, the Soyuz would be fully loaded. Energiya, on the other hand, could easily send large masses to the orbit of SSF, assuming it carried an orbit stage that burned hydrogen. At least 30 tons, one and a half times the mass of the largest SSF component, could be carried into orbit. It is likely that no current SSF payload will be orbited by Energiya for political reasons. However, I would not be surprised to see an agreement where the former Soviets would link up a large module with SSF..... ___ WinQwk 2.0 #0 --- Maximus 2.00 ------------------------------ Date: 03 Aug 92 08:03:10 From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org Subject: Galileo issues Newsgroups: sci.space HS>>Ulysses will come somewhat close to Jupiter in 2004. Same arguments HS>>Cassini plus it is not known what Ulysses' operational status will be HS> HS>Plus Ulysses isn't built for high-speed data transmission at all. Sin HS>has no imaging instruments, it doesn't need it. I believe its peak da HS>rate is something like 8kbps -- better than 40bps, but given that you' HS>get only one quick flyby, hardly a huge advantage. HS>-- JPL is certainly making heroic efforts to return data from Galileo at Jupiter. My original questions still stand: can Ulysses and Cassini be used as relay stations for Galileo when they appraoch Jupiter in the early part of the next century? I know that Galileo is not *supoosed* to be functional at that point in time, but neither are Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, Voyuager 1, and Voyager 2. And I know that neither Cassini or Ulysses are able to funciton fully as relay stations, but both can certainly outperform the current Galileo configuration of 10 bps. ___ WinQwk 2.0 #0 --- Maximus 2.00 ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 92 02:51:49 GMT From: "James T. Green" Subject: Galileo issues Newsgroups: sci.space David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org speakith unto us: >HS>>Ulysses will come somewhat close to Jupiter in 2004. Same arguments >HS>>Cassini plus it is not known what Ulysses' operational status will be Why use Cassini? As I Understand it, Cassini's observational abilities are equal or better than G's, so why clog it's signal with extra stuff, even if it's possible? /~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@eros.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ | | | M y K a r m a r a n o v e r m y D o g m a ! | ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 92 22:47:46 GMT From: "Mr. Lyn R. Kennedy" Subject: GPS Availability Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.electronics Can anyone tell me the status of the GPS system? I understand there are not always three satellites visible in the U.S. When will that be the case? Thanks in advance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 73, internet | lrk@k5qwb.lonestar.org Lyn Kennedy packet radio | K5QWB @ N5LDD.#NTX.TX.US.NA pony express | P.O. Box 5133, Ovilla, TX, USA 75154 -------------- "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo -------------- ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 92 01:29:30 GMT From: Jim Scotti x2717 Subject: Meteor Soaks Datona FL Newsgroups: sci.space In article sailor@cellar.org (Rick Emerson) writes: >gwc@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Greg F Walz Chojnacki) writes: > >> From article <1502@tnc.UUCP>, by m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY): >> > >> > -----I quote----- >> > 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! >> > >> IS there any source on this meteor event other than a TV news repor >> >> Greg > >Yes. A very definative report from a guy in a boat who saw a flash around >the same time the wave hit. I guess that wraps up that issue. > >Bwa-hahahahahahha! > >If a 1M rock dropped in at speeds roughly on the order of kilometers per >second, there'd be a darn sight more than a splash. > A couple of comments: First, from the numbers of 10 meter asteroids (or perhaps I should call them meteoroids) which have been discovered in the last two years by Spacewatch, and from the number of bright fireballs, we can estimate the number of impacts per year that should be expected from objects less than 10 meters in diameter. We expect that about 10 objects of about 10 meters or larger should impact the Earth each year. Most of them will burn up or fragment into smaller pieces high in the atmosphere probably resulting in a shower of smaller objects which are occasionally seen to land. We can also estimate that about 5000 objects of 1 meter or larger impact each year, or about 14 each day! In other words, impacts of these sized objects are a common occurance and almost always results in simply a bright fireball and occasionally in falls of meteorites. Second, if a small object were to actually survive to hit the surface of the Earth with cosmic velocity intact, a 1 meter object would probably make a crater about 10-20 meters in diameter. A 10 meter object, impacting at around 20 km/sec would make a crater around 200 meters in diameter. It is unlikely however, that such an object would maintain its cosmic velocity. Rather than impacting at 20 km/sec, it would more likely be decelerated to perhaps only 5 km/sec if it survived intact. A 1 meter object deposits about 0.6 kilotons of TNT equivalent into the atmosphere/ground, while a 10 meter object deposits about 60 kilotons of TNT equivalent into the atmosphere/ground. An object 10 meters in size surviving to impact at 5 km/sec would deliver about 4 kilotons of TNT equivalent energy and I suspect might make the kind of wave seen here. I would guesstimate that maybe 1 in 100 objects of this size are strong enough to survive the dynamical stress of atmospheric entry to reach the surface of the Earth more or less intact. Sorry this got so long, but I would conclude that the probability of seeing impacts of objects larger than 1 meter diameter is very high and that it would require an object of at least a few meters to have caused a wave as seen in this case. A 1 meter object would likely not strike the surface with enough velocity to cause "a darn sight more than a splash", though it would make a nice little splash. > > | Richard B. Emerson | Reply to Rick@SSG.com | --------------------------------------------- Jim Scotti {jscotti@lpl.arizona.edu} Lunar & Planetary Laboratory University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 USA --------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 03 Aug 92 08:03:08 From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org Subject: Soyuz as ACRV Newsgroups: sci.space MD>Besides, who is undocking the Soyuz docked to the station? I don't th MD>they can fly under complete autonomous control. Soyuzes have flown under complete autonomous control on several hundred ocasions. ___ WinQwk 2.0 #0 --- Maximus 2.00 ------------------------------ Date: 03 Aug 92 08:03:06 From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org Subject: Soyuz as ACRV Newsgroups: sci.space A few facts might help this thread at this point of the discussion: 1) Landing a Soyuz on water: I don't know why this is an issue, because there is plenty of land for an ACRV to aim at; the best bet would be to go for Dryden at Edwards AFB. However, if people here really must worry about a perceived inability of Soyuz to land on water, not to worry: the Soyuz has successully splashed down many times. The Zond missions all landed in water (the Indian ocean and Black seas), and one Soyuz landed unintentially in water (Soyuz 16, I believe). The Soyuz descent capsule floats. 2) The androgenous docking adaptor designed for Apollo-Soyuz has been updraded by the Russians. One is already in orbit on the Mir space station (on the Kristall module). With two Soyuz capsules and two docking ports on SSF equipped with these adaptors, no EVAs are necessary to rescue 4 astronauts from a major SSF failure that cuts off the crew from one of the two Soyuzes. You simply pile all 4 people in the Soyuz they *can* access, detach the Soyuz, detached the Soyuz automatically from the other port, and dock the Soyuzes together (which is the main attribute of the androgenous docking adaptor), and do a shirt sleeve crew transfer. With the automatic Kurs rendezvous system, the docking of the 2 Soyuzes, on a good day, could be performed automatically, allowing the crew to rescue themselves even if a skilled pilot were not available. The keys to the above are: 1) decide to use Soyuz as an ACRV, and 2) agree to use a androgenous docking adaptor on SSF. For those who are making noises about *not* using Soyuz as a rescue vehicle, I would be interested to know their alternative. I certainly hope they are neither pinning their hopes on Congress fully funding a US ACRV, nor expect to leave a crew on SSF without an ACRV. ___ WinQwk 2.0 #0 --- Maximus 2.00 ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 92 04:27:32 GMT From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" Subject: SPS and light pollution Newsgroups: sci.space In article <9208040046.AA10222@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes: > I don't know how much SPS would affect ground-based searches for asteroids > and comets, since they're basically searches for point sources that move > over time, without much need to exactly characterize those point sources > in the initial observations. It probably would affect them adversely. The SpaceWatch telescope on Kitt Peak is used for asteroid searches in dark time, when the Moon is close to New. David Rabinowitz is a regular in the dining hall then (at dinner time, or when it's cloudy). During bright time, that telescope is used for a precision radial velocity program, to search for extrasolar planets. A telescope with a relatively short focal length and wide field of view will be easy affected by background; they don't even use the Burrell-Schmidt during bright time, unless there is an exceptionally bright comet around. Considering SPS are to ring the celestial equator, near the ecliptic where the asteroids are, this doesn't bode well. (My biggest problem with SPS still is: do you really think you can make a living at it? Seems to me that ground-based Solar would be amazingly cheaper and less trouble. Wind is making surprisingly good progress, too. And these contraptions are made of native materials, too: from Earth.) Fred Ringwald Department of Physics & Astronomy Dartmouth College Hanover, NH 03755-3528 ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 92 22:23:47 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 92218.74351504 .00089950 00000-0 25599-3 0 185 2 22064 28.4738 313.3435 0003760 322.1309 119.3474 15.91785710 818 EURECA 1 22065U 92 49 B 92218.41658223 -.00012275 00000-0 -29381-3 0 145 2 22065 28.4578 316.8810 0024198 130.6771 229.6337 15.40526527 163 -- Dr TS Kelso Assistant Professor of Space Operations tkelso@afit.af.mil Air Force Institute of Technology ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 082 ------------------------------