Date: Wed, 9 Dec 92 05:04:06 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #523 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Wed, 9 Dec 92 Volume 15 : Issue 523 Today's Topics: absolutely, positively overnight Apollo 10 LM (was Re: pre-fire Apollo schedule) Comsats to the Pole! (was Re: Orbit Question?) (2 msgs) Cryogen costs Galileo at 115.2 kb/s Orbit Question? Rumors and the people who start them Rush Limbaugh says problems with HST is a DoD hoax! Russian lunar program (was Re: US/Sov space comparisons) Science use of the Sr-71 (2 msgs) Scuttle replacement (2 msgs) Shuttle replacement Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) YOU can do real cosmonaut training 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: 8 Dec 92 15:16:32 GMT From: Pat Subject: absolutely, positively overnight Newsgroups: sci.space In article jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes: >sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes: > >I know you had a smiley but I want to follow up anyway. The big problem with >transoceanic flight is that it would be much to expensive (and besides the >jet lag would be awful :-). This may not be the case for highly trained >specialists or maybe special operations troops in the event of a really >important situation (though I'm skeptical). The costs could become reasonable >for packages because they can be fairly light yet valuable and there are >situations in which very high speed shipping is necessary. In fact, it looks ccording to Wingo, the Saturn 1 was developed under an Army spec to be able to rapid deliver 800 airborne troops anywhere in the world in 20 minutes. i dont know if they would have had to parachute in or if the capsule dropped them, but it was interesting. and that was a first generation vehicle. ADennis, do you wish to elaborate on this, or was this an elaborate attempt to pull my leg that day... ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 92 10:04:07 -0600 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Apollo 10 LM (was Re: pre-fire Apollo schedule) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <1g0bvkINNj0s@transfer.stratus.com> waisnor@norland.diag.stratus.com (Robert Waisnor) writes: >>Does anybody happen to know what the flight schedule would have been if the Apollo 1 fire >>had not occurred????? [summary deleted] > Apollo 11 > (July 1969) in fact had the very first LM that was light enough to fly > a complete lunar landing and takeoff. The hiatus after the fire gave a lot > of subsystems, the LM in particular, time to catch up. All of us watching the Apollo 10 crew circle the Moon, detatch the Lunar Module, and descend to a low altitude were thinking, "What if they land it, and jump the gun on Apollo 11? Must be tempting!" Henry, you imply that Apollo 10's LM couldn't actually land and return. Can you elaborate? This is the first I've heard of this. (Probably I haven't read enough Apollo history.) Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey | Comet Swift-Tuttle is Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory | Mama Nature's way of Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET | saying it's time to Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV | get off the planet. SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS | --Dale Amon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 12:53:47 GMT From: M22079@mwvm.MITRE.ORG Subject: Comsats to the Pole! (was Re: Orbit Question?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec7.183845.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: > >In article <168B6F2FF.M22079@mwvm.mitre.org>, M22079@mwvm.mitre.org writes: >> A few comments about Geosynchronous satellites, >[...] >> 6) A geostationary satellite can see up to about 82 degrees North Latitude > >I asked about Antarctic communications last week, and received a reply >from Richard Dyson at the University of Iowa, who has wintered at >South Pole Station. They *do* use GEO satellites to communicate by >phone-- at least during a short time window each day. Apparently when >some not-quite-equatorial GEO satellites are at the southern end of >their daily figure-eight oscillation, they are visible to South Pole >antennas. (Nice homework problem: how tall does an antenna at the >South Pole have to be, before it can see a perfect equatorial >geostationary satellite all the time? I haven't worked it out.) I was very careful to say geostationary. I should also note that McMurdo in Antartica is at about 72 degrees South. Part of the problem with views from the poles is obstructions, the other is the oblateness of the earth. I believe that an 8 degree inclination on a geosynchronous satellite will give substantial visibility at the pole, but 100% coverage requires a phased constellation of geosynchronous satellites each with substantial inclination. KPITT@MITRE.ORG ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 19:22:42 GMT From: Nick Haines Subject: Comsats to the Pole! (was Re: Orbit Question?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec7.183845.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: [...] Nice homework problem: how tall does an antenna at the South Pole have to be, before it can see a perfect equatorial geostationary satellite all the time? I haven't worked it out. [...] On a perfect sphere radius r, an altitude h will give a view \theta around the sphere, where cos \theta = r/(r+h). (trivial trigonometry). So an eqautorial geostationary satellite (h = 36000 km) can see around to 81.3 degrees of latitude, and an antenna at the South Pole has to be 74 km high to make up the difference. Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 13:43:21 GMT From: Gary Giles Subject: Cryogen costs Newsgroups: sci.space In article John Roberts, roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov writes: >In article John Roberts, roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov writes: >...I've never been able >to find out where NASA gets the fuel (they have big spherical tanks, but that >doesn't necessarily mean it's produced on-site), or what they do with the >stuff that's drained out of the tanks when a launch attempt is cancelled. I saw a NASA report detailing a plan to ship coal to Florida and manufacture LH2. Is this being done or even planned? My recollection was that the breakeven point was at more flight per year than current plans. Gary Giles geg@ornl.gov ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 92 03:19:59 GMT From: Steve Derry Subject: Galileo at 115.2 kb/s Newsgroups: sci.space Anybody know why Galileo is still transmitting at 115.2 kb/s rather than the max data rate of 134.4 kb/s? By now it is close enough to Earth that 134.4k should be achievable. -- Steve Derry ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 8 Dec 1992 08:47:50 CET From: TNEDDERH@ESOC.BITNET Subject: Orbit Question? Newsgroups: sci.space The trajectories of the russian com-sats are called Molnyia or Tundra trajectories. They are highly inclined and do one rev in 12 or 24 hours. The apogee where the slowest part of the trajectory is reached is above the northern hemisphere in order to provide long coverage. That's why they are also high eccentric. Inclination is about 63 deg where the pertubations of the argument of perigee are extremly low. High inclined geostationary trajectories have a groundtrack like an '8' where the node is placed above the equator. They are spending halftime of a rev either above each hemisphere. Regards -Thorsten- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thorsten Nedderhut | Disclaimer: mbp Software & Systems GmbH | c/o ESA/ESOC/FCSD/OAD/STB | Neither ESA nor mbp is responsible Darmstadt, Germany | for my postings! tnedderh@esoc.bitnet | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Dec 92 14:44:44 EST From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Rumors and the people who start them I wrote; >>I heard the strangest rumor recently. The doubt factor is pretty high, >>but I'm curious if anyone has anything to add about the reality or origin >>of the rumor. [HST/DoD/ET rumor here] >>You're buyin' it, right? :-) Does this sound familiar to anyone, or >>is it a total crock? One way or the other, how do you know? >Tom, you're an astronomy undergrad and you even consider the possibility of >this? First of all, Hubble is an optical telescope. If there were an alien >signal I'd be much more worried about the military hijacking all the radio >telescopes. Second, given the number of people who have worked on the problem >and the number of astronomers (some of whom are on the net) who are involved >with HST, this kind of thing would be completely impossible to keep a secret. >Josh Hopkins But, many times the mechanics of a rumor are as interesting or more interesting than the rumor itself. Given the number of people on the net involved in HST and similar projects, I thought they may have had something interesting to add, about the rumor or the people involved. Rush Limbaugh was only the carrier of a message. I was curious about it's origin. I get tired of reading so much argument about the DCX/Y/1, when it's less than a year until it actually gets tried :-) Finally, you should always *consider* the possibility of anything. Dogmatic endorsement or belief in the face of contradictory evidence, no, but consideration, yes. The thing that convinced me that it was untrue was the inability of the DoD to hide the alleged radio signal from the thousands of both professional and amateur radio astronomers, who only need look up to blow the whole cover. If it existed, we would have heard of it. -Tommy Mac -----------------------------============================================ Tom McWilliams | What a tangled web we weave, when at ". | 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu | , .first we .practice .*' .| (517) 355-2178 -or- 353-2986| '. ' . . to decieve , | a scrub Astronomy undergrad | After that, the , + | at Michigan State University| improvement is tremendous! '. , .' | ------------------------------=========================================== ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 92 13:35:18 GMT From: Thomas Clarke Subject: Rush Limbaugh says problems with HST is a DoD hoax! Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec7.204454.24356@csc.ti.com> dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes: > > Interesting that you state your opinion that he pays no mind to any opinions > contrary to his own. It was posted long ago in this newsgroup that he > prefaced this "story" as being ridiculous. Please note the number of > "open-minded" posters who freely posted what Limbaugh "thinks". Perhaps > someday they too will stop paying "no mind to any opinions contrary to" their > own. To beat a dead horse (elephant?), I heard him discuss the rumor on the radio. He did present it as a rumor, but not as a ridiculous rumor. Something to the effect that all the people who use the HST mirror fiasco as an example of America's declining expertise should consider this rumor... The implication being that while maybe the military is not actually looking for the optical signature associated with the radio emissions of little green men, perhaps the military had some reason to cause the data from the HST to be degraded. Kind of like the rumors about SEASAT; its synthetic aperture radar detected nuclear submarine wakes all too well -- a definite no-no -- so the military had SEASAT terminated. -- Thomas Clarke Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL 12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826 (407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 18:14:01 GMT From: Dennis Newkirk Subject: Russian lunar program (was Re: US/Sov space comparisons) Newsgroups: sci.space First, about the race between Apollo and Zond: When the Russians flew Zond 5 and 6 around the moon, NASA accelerated Apollo lunar orbit missions. This had the side effect of accelerating the US lunar landing project while the prospects of a Russian circum-lunar orbit flight did very little to advance their N1/L3 landing project since they used almost totally different hardware (the Block-D, LOK-Soyuz capsule and cosmonauts being the only common parts). In article pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes: >The N-1 wasn't the only rocket they had capable of lunar flight. >Proton is capable of sending a small manned capsule to lunar orbit >and back. (Or at least on some sort of lunar flyby; I guess it depends >on whether you have one or two people in the capsule etc...) No, it was a 2 person craft. Russian articles sometimes talk of 'lunar orbit' missions for the Zond but it was capable of only circum-lunar fly-by. (Phil Fraering) writes: >Now get this: some of these Zond missions were Soyuz capsules without >the orbital module and a little more propulsion No. The Zond (L-1) spacecraft carried less: a KTDU-53 main engine (same as the Soyuz engine but without the backup) and no torus tank. It could NEVER have entered and left lunar orbit. Only needed mid course corrections. henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: #They flew unmanned precursor tests: the Zond lunar #flights were stripped-down unmanned Soyuzes. If a man had been aboard #the last one of those, he'd have survived in comfort. (On the previous #one, he'd have had a rough flight but not a fatal one.) There was time #to launch another before Apollo 8. Nobody knows why it wasn't done; #the best guess is that they were trying but ran into minor problems of #some kind and missed the window. -AND- (Phil Fraering) writes: >At the end of the mission the Zond performed a lifting re-entry maneuver >similar to the Apollo missions' and landed. True, but unfortunately, many Zonds experienced guidance failure during reentry. For instance, no flights were scheduled to land in the Indian Ocean but Zond 5 and 8 did just that. Zond 4 may have landed in China, I still haven't heard if that's verified. Leonov (lead cosmonaut for the Zond mission) says the first 2 tests failed. 3 more failed during launch, and Leonov says one cabin depressurized in flight. They only launched 10 and at least 9 failed although some of those fell back to Earth somewhere.... (Phil Fraering) writes: >In short, they could have done it. They did send a manned capusle on >a lunar flyby and back; they simply neglected to put a cosmonaut in. >In retrospect, they should have. I think you may want to reconsider based on the statistics above. (Phil Fraering) writes: >I also wonder what would have happened if they had put all the effort >they put into the N-1 into a good upper stage for the Proton and >in beefing up their docking technology. They could have gotten to >the moon shortly after we did... There were many different ideas. In fact, these different ideas and political games are what lead to the N-1 being delayed for many years. Regardless of boosters, the spacecraft weren't ready until well after 1970. The lander may have been ready around '72 but the lunar version Soyuz was apparently never space tested and it had a totally new engine module. 1960 - Korolev KB begins plans for N-1 and N-2 boosters, government delayed project until 1965. April 1961 - Chelomey KB circum-lunar project approved July 1962 - Keldysh report supports N-1, Glushko and Chelomey oppose it 1963 - Due to Glushko's opposition, Korolev picks Kuznetsov KB to develop N-1 engines, but it isn't part of rocket industry and its managment April 1963 - Korolev KB starts conceptual development of N-1 and L-3 Chelomey and Glushko counter with proposal for UR-700 booster Yangel counters with proposal for R56 booster Oct 1964 - Chelomey proposes Proton for lunar orbit mission Korolev counters it can only do so using EOR scheme Chelomey counters with proposal for UR-900 booster to eliminate EOR mid-1965 - Korolev continuing conceptual development of N-1 and L-3 Chelomey circum-lunar mission behind schedule Korolev takes over circum-lunar mission mating the Proton to a modified LOK (Soyuz) (Yuri Semenov in charge) and N-1 Block-D August 1965 - Chelomey continues work on lunar mission spacecraft Jan 1966 - Korolev dies in surgery mid-1966 - Mishin completes N-1 project draft with 95,000 kg payload to LEO L-3 spacecraft complex design draft also completed 1967 - engine tests uncover unstable combustion problems and corrections made 1967 - first N-1 test article completed 1967 - Chelomey begins mockup fabrication for UR-700/LK-700 direct ascent lunar landing project without funding - Glushko supports it Dec 1968 - manned Zond cancelled, Chelomey awarded Almaz project Feb. 21 1969 - 4L N1/L3S first launch failure 1969 - Mishin plans for N1/L3M LOR lunar landing mission with 5-30 day stay ....more removed.... Nov. 24 1971 - first LK (lunar module) test - Kosmos 379 1971 - N1/L3M proposal complete, 1972 - N1/L3M plan approved ....more removed.... 1974 - Glushko appointed to replace Mishin, all N1 work stopped. Chelomey proposes UR700M for (240,000 kg LEO) Mars mission, rejected. Glushko later proposes Zenith booster and lunar colony plan which is rejected except for Energia which is tied to military need for Buran project. I hope this info clears up some misconceptions. Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com) Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector Schaumburg, IL ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 15:24:03 GMT From: Pat Subject: Science use of the Sr-71 Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec8.023733.15287@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) writes: >In article prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >> >>Has NASA or NOAA or some other group looked at using the Sr-71 for science >>missions? or does it lack any advantage over the U-2s. i am sure it >>is much more expensive to operate then the U-2, but i am not sure >>if it has any real advantage other then speed. >> > >SPEED -is- the advantage... It's a little difficult to conduct >Mach 3+ research programs with the U-2 (ER-2)... :-> > >FYI, NASA Ames-Dryden FRF operates two SR-71As and one SR-71B >for a variety of high altitude/supersonic flight research projects. > Given that we have a pretty good understanding of that flight region, what are they actually, doing? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 16:12:34 GMT From: Mary Shafer Subject: Science use of the Sr-71 Newsgroups: sci.space On 8 Dec 92 15:24:03 GMT, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) said: P> In article <1992Dec8.023733.15287@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) writes: >In article prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >> >>Has NASA or NOAA or some other group looked at using the Sr-71 for science >>missions? or does it lack any advantage over the U-2s. i am sure it >>is much more expensive to operate then the U-2, but i am not sure >>if it has any real advantage other then speed. >SPEED -is- the advantage... It's a little difficult to conduct >Mach 3+ research programs with the U-2 (ER-2)... :-> >FYI, NASA Ames-Dryden FRF operates two SR-71As and one SR-71B >for a variety of high altitude/supersonic flight research projects. P> Given that we have a pretty good understanding of that flight region, P> what are they actually, doing? Among the proposals that I've seen are external burning and launching HALO. There are a variety of proposals but these two seem to be the most sensible. The SR-71 is not particularly suitable for atmospheric sampling because of the aerodynamic heating, which affects the species that might be collected. -- Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all." Unknown US fighter pilot ------------------------------ Date: 07 Dec 92 21:14:30 From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Subject: Scuttle replacement Newsgroups: sci.space Phil G. Fraering writes: >Or are you the 'folks' who are terminating DC-X, Space Van, Sea >Dragon, Laser Launchers, gun launchers, Phoenix, and mass drivers >to get one more year of Scuttle launches? Ahhhhh Phil... I hate to point this out, but none of those programs were ever planned for NASA funding. DC-X -- SDIO funding (DoD) Space Van -- Never suggested for NASA funding. Looking for commercial funding, as they have been for the past decade. Sea Dragon -- after being dead for over a decade, currently the closest program is SEALAR, which is funded by the Naval Research Lab. Laser Launchers -- what little funding is being spent comes from LANL, and LLNL, both DoE labs, with a large component of SDIO funding. Not NASA funded. Gun Launchers -- what is being spent comes through LLNL, which is probably SDIO or DOD money. Again, not NASA funded. There is also a commerical company, and some US Army experimental work looking at gun-powder propelled suborbital gun projectiles, but none of that comes from NASA. Phoenix -- Gary Hudson's concept. Never proposed for NASA funding, and a failure at getting commercial funding. Mass Drivers -- Funded by a little NASA money in the late 1970's, but most of the money came from the National Magnetics Lab (which was primarily funded by Department of Transportation for MagLev trains), and by the Space Studies Institute. Furthermore, almost none of these programs even comes out of the same budget allocation that NASA gets funded out of (HUD/IA) so you can't even say that funding NASA takes funds away from them through NSF or NIH or VA or HUD. I didn't see a smiley face -- but I hope you were joking about that comment. It seems to be rather incorrect in implying that NASA funding was being withheld for these things. Now, in the general principle that NASA _should_ be investigating these things, I'll agree with you. NASA's advanced technology and developments programs should be beefed up. But as it stands, it is difficult for NASA to fund programs which duplicate efforts funded by other government agencies (unless they are specifically set up as a joint program such as NASP was, and have very specifically defined different charters for each agency), or program which were never proposed to be funded by NASA. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wales Larrison Space Technology Investor --- Maximus 2.00 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 92 13:41:19 -0600 From: pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) Subject: scuttle replacement \Phil G. Fraering writes: />Or are you the 'folks' who are terminating DC-X, Space Van, Sea \>Dragon, Laser Launchers, gun launchers, Phoenix, and mass drivers />to get one more year of Scuttle launches? Wales Larrison writes: \Ahhhhh Phil... / I hate to point this out, but none of those programs were ever \planned for NASA funding. / DC-X -- SDIO funding (DoD) \ Space Van -- Never suggested for NASA funding. Looking for / commercial funding, as they have been for the past decade. \ Sea Dragon -- after being dead for over a decade, currently the / closest program is SEALAR, which is funded by the Naval \ Research Lab. / Laser Launchers -- what little funding is being spent comes from \ LANL, and LLNL, both DoE labs, with a large component of / SDIO funding. Not NASA funded. \ Gun Launchers -- what is being spent comes through LLNL, which is / probably SDIO or DOD money. Again, not NASA funded. There \ is also a commerical company, and some US Army experimental / work looking at gun-powder propelled suborbital gun \ projectiles, but none of that comes from NASA. / Phoenix -- Gary Hudson's concept. Never proposed for NASA \ funding, and a failure at getting commercial funding. / Mass Drivers -- Funded by a little NASA money in the late 1970's, \ but most of the money came from the National Magnetics Lab / (which was primarily funded by Department of Transportation \ for MagLev trains), and by the Space Studies Institute. OK, you just re-iterated that these projects don't get money from NASA. \ Furthermore, almost none of these programs even comes out of the /same budget allocation that NASA gets funded out of (HUD/IA) so you \can't even say that funding NASA takes funds away from them through /NSF or NIH or VA or HUD. \ I didn't see a smiley face -- but I hope you were joking about /that comment. It seems to be rather incorrect in implying that NASA \funding was being withheld for these things. Well, I'm saying something similar. You just stated above that NASA isn't doing any of those things. \ Now, in the general principle that NASA _should_ be /investigating these things, I'll agree with you. NASA's advanced \technology and developments programs should be beefed up. / But as it stands, it is difficult for NASA to fund programs which \duplicate efforts funded by other government agencies (unless they /are specifically set up as a joint program such as NASP was, and \have very specifically defined different charters for each /or program which were never proposed to be funded by NASA. Most of the people in those programs would be glad to be getting money from NASA. I suspect that they only went to other sources when advanced propulsion money from NASA wasn't forthcoming. This is the sort of stuff NASA was chartered to do... and could possibly do if it weren't so tied up with pork barrel programs, like ASRM, which is advanced propulsion only by the wildest stretch of the imagination. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 92 14:12:43 GMT From: news@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu Subject: Shuttle replacement Newsgroups: sci.space This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 16:01:56 GMT From: Aaron Sawdey Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) Newsgroups: sci.space In <1992Dec7.194132.19219@wuecl.wustl.edu> gene@wucs1.wustl.edu (_Floor_) writes: >In article <1992Dec5.165219.18302@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >] always mean higher reliability. A truck engine is usually good for >] a million miles while a formula one engine may last 100. They both >] put out roughly the same amount of power, but one masses a lot more >] than the other. >] >What?!? What kind of a comparison is that? I don't really think this is >an appropriate example of your point. A formula one engine is tortured >by blipping rapidly back and forth between 3,000 and 13,000 rpm continually >for two hours. It isn't the size that's the factor, is the use! I think >a tree trunk versus a twig is a better example of your scale/reliability >dependence point. > Gene Van Buren, Kzoo Crew(Floor), Washington U. in St. Lou - #1 in Volleyball Actually, the difference in mass is significant. A formula 1 engine would fit into the engine bay of my Honda CRX -- I think they're usually about 1.5 liters displacement with LOTS of turbocharging -- (I can't guess what it'd be like to drive it with 750hp under the hood ;-) while a 750hp truck engine would be as big as the entire passenger compartment (guess: 8-12 liter turbodiesel?). Same power means similar amounts of waste heat (probably the F1 engine is less efficient, so it'd more waste heat to get rid of). Much smaller size of the F1 engine means the heat is much more concentrated -- and probably less evenly distributed. This applies to two rocket engines of different sizes and similar thrust as well. Disclamer: I'm not a rocket scientist nor an automotive engineer. Corrections welcome, Flames > /dev/null ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 92 13:15:14 GMT From: George Hastings Subject: YOU can do real cosmonaut training Newsgroups: sci.space Aerospace Ambassadors of Huntsville, AL has announced a second opportunity for average citizens for participate in a week of REAL Cosmonaut Training in Star City, Russia. Those who go on the training trip will try out the REAL STUFF to see if they have the "Right Stuff"! The trip in February, 1993 will fly from the U.S.A. to Helsinki, Finland. The trip from Helsinki to Moscow will be via the Russian national airline, AEROFLOT. A day and a half in Moscow will allow tours of the city, Red Square, the Kremlin, and cultural events while adjusting to the different time zone, eight hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time. Bus transportation will be provided to Zhvuzhdny Gorodok (Star City), 40 miles north west of Moscow. Star City is like the Johnson Spaceflight Center in Texas where two cosmonauts (Titov and Krikalev) are now training as space shuttle astronauts. Housing will be in the Orbita Hotel in Star City, and all meals will be provided. Participants will be given full spaceflight physical examinations. They will attend lectures and briefings by top Russian scientists, engineers, and the cosmonauts who are responsible for guest-cosmonaut training. There will be numerous opportunities to use the actual training equipment used to train the cosmonauts for spaceflight. Sessions will be conducted inside the full-size MIR Space Station training model, as big as a three-bedroom house. Participants will ride the centrifuge to experience the actual G-forces encountered during liftoff into orbit on the Russian Proton rocket. There will be rendezvous-and-docking practice of the Soyuz-TM Spacecraft with the MIR Space Station. Another very realistic simulator will be used to teach trainees how to fly the Russian Manned Maneuvering Unit "IKARUS". There will be opportunities to practice in two different kinds of space suits: the lightweight Sokol space suit used during liftoff and reentry in the Soyuz-TM Spacecraft, and the Orland heavy duty suit used during spacewalks outside the MIR Space Station. The Russian space agency trains cosmonauts for EVA (Extra-Vehicular Activities) in a giant neutral buoyancy tank, three stories tall and a hundred feet across. Space suited trainees are weighted just enough to cancel out the tendency to float to the top of the water, but not enough to make them sink to the bottom. Neutrally buoyant, not floating or sinking, they can then practice many of the movements and maneuvers necessary in true weightlessness. In preparation for weightlessness training, participants will be tested in the high-altitude chamber, taken to the pressure-equivalent of 15,000 meters, and will practice using oxygen masks. A variety of devices will be used to do vestibular training. Celestial navigation will be practiced in the Russian Buran Space Shuttle simulator. One of the highlights of the training session will be the opportunity to experience REAL WEIGHTLESSNESS while riding aboard the IL-76 MDK Cosmonaut Training Aircraft. This large, windowless cargo plane has had most of the seats removed, and the floor is covered with thick padding. Trainees sit on the floor while the plane climbs to an altitude of approximately 20,000 meters. It goes into a slight dive to build up speed, pulls up sharply under full engine thrust, and then throttles back the engines to idle while the pilot gently pushes the nose of the aircraft down. Inside, passengers float gently off the floor, drifting weightless in the air for about thirty seconds as the plane falls at the same speed as everything inside. As the pilot pulls out of the dive, trainees experience about two to two-and-a-half times the force of gravity. The plane then climbs to altitude to do another weightless parabolic arc. By the end of the training flight, participants will have been weightless for a minimum or at least five minutes! The total cost of the round trip transportation to Helsinki, Moscow, Star City, and return, room and board, city tours, cultural events, plus use of the Cosmonaut Training Facilities and equipment, the training personnel, and the airplane ride on the IL-76 MDK weightlessness training aircraft, is $2,800. If you are interested, or know someone else who might be interested in participating in only the second group of American citizens ever admitted to this formerly closed Russian training facility, send E-mail to: ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu George Hastings or Mathematics & Science Center 72407,22@compserve.com 2401 Hartman Street Richmond, VA 23223 Office: 804-343-6525 FAX: 804-343-6529 -- ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 523 ------------------------------