Date: Wed, 9 Dec 92 05:07:40 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #524 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Wed, 9 Dec 92 Volume 15 : Issue 524 Today's Topics: absolutely, positively overnight (2 msgs) Another Orbit Question Apollo 10 LM (was Re: pre-fire Apollo schedule) Clinton/Gore & Space exploration Earth Movie Galileo Cruises By Earth Goldin... NASA software standard needed Orbit Question? Potential uses for the DC-X Rush... Rush Limbaugh says problems with HST is a DoD hoax! Shuttle replacement space policy Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) US weather satellite question US Weather Satellites 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 17:34:00 GMT From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasda.Gov Subject: absolutely, positively overnight Newsgroups: sci.space In article , prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes... >In article jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes: >>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes: >> [stuff deleted] >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. [stuff deleted] >ADennis, do you wish to elaborate on this, or was this an elaborate >attempt to pull my leg that day... I read about this a few year ago and confirmed it with Father Medaris (Formerly General Bruce Medaris, Von Braun's Early Boss at the ABMA. I forget whether I read this in Medaris's book "Count Down to Decision" or in the Book "The Rocket Scientists". Anyway this was the rational for building the Saturn 1 as an Army project. The first Saturn I was test fired in 1959 and the first flight of the bird was in 1963, BEFORE the Gemini missions. The Saturn V first stage, the F1 was also originally conceived as an Army engine, also by the Von Braun Team. I think the troop transporter rational was how they were able to get funding for the Saturn 1 booster before the Kennedy era. Both of the books I mentioned are great reading, Although Medaris's book will be pretty hard to find. Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 92 20:03:54 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: absolutely, positively overnight Newsgroups: sci.space In article <8DEC199211340713@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasda.Gov writes: >>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 read about this a few year ago and confirmed it with Father Medaris ... >... this was the rational for building the Saturn 1 as >an Army project. Except that it wasn't an Army project, actually. The startup funding came from ARPA in 1958, after early design studies in response to somewhat vague DoD requirements. Originally the contract (ARPA funding the work at ABMA [the Army Ballistic Missile Agency, i.e. von Braun & co]) was only for a ground test of the 8-engine cluster; this is why the tanks were built by clustering existing tankage, to save time and money on a project that wasn't originally meant for flight. Late in 1958 ARPA enlarged the contract to cover flight demonstrations, still with only one stage. As of 13 Oct 1958, ABMA listed its customers as (1) ARPA (as a generic carrier for R&D of "offensive and defensive space weapons"), (2) the three military services (navsats for the Navy; spysats, comsats, and weather satellites for Army and Air Force; "support" for Air Force manned spaceflight; "surface-to-surface supply" for the Army), (3) NASA (support of space missions, plus as a possible testbed for the F-1 and similar engines), and (4) other customers, possibly including the UN and private companies. In that order. ARPA's number one priority, actually, appears to have been geostationary comsats, although they weren't identified quite so explicitly. It also thought of the Saturn as a general-purpose heavy lifter. (Reference: "Stages to Saturn", NASA SP-4206, pages 26-38.) In summer 1959, ARPA funding for Saturn ran into big trouble, as Herbert York (DoD Research & Engineering head) decided that there was no valid military mission for it, citing a belief that boosters based on existing ICBMs were a better method for launching comsats. York was eventually talked into continuing support temporarily, on condition that work be started on moving ABMA and Saturn to NASA, since they were the only ones who seemed to have real need for Saturn. >The first Saturn I was test fired in 1959 and the first flight >of the bird was in 1963... The first Saturn I flew on 27 Oct 1961, actually. >... the F1 was also originally conceived as an Army engine, also by the >Von Braun Team. Sorry, dead wrong here. The F-1 originated with a USAF program in 1955, arrived at NASA in 1958 when USAF spaceflight was transferred to NASA, and became a full-scale development effort with a major NASA contract in 1959. -- "God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 92 20:44:02 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Another Orbit Question Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >Beep beep beep. Innumeracy alert. :-) Blush. You're right of course. Gary ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 19:27:00 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Apollo 10 LM (was Re: pre-fire Apollo schedule) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space In article <1992Dec8.100407.1@fnala.fnal.gov> higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >> Apollo 11 >> (July 1969) in fact had the very first LM that was light enough to fly >> a complete lunar landing and takeoff... > >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. I no longer recall exactly where I saw this mentioned, and it doesn't get much play in the various histories. The dress-rehearsal mission was thought justified for several other reasons. Michael Collins's "Liftoff", however, talks about it. He says that the Apollo 10 LM *probably* could have flown a lunar landing if some fuel had been offloaded to lighten it, but the margins would have been slim and hard to predict. It would probably have been tried if the end-of-1969 deadline had been imminent, but as it was, the risk was unnecessary. The Apollo 11 LM would be lighter, and there was still time. (NASA was ready to fly 11, 12, and 13 before the end of 1969 if necessary; with 11 successful, 12 was postponed to the original 13 launch window to give the KSC crews a breather and give more time for science assessment of the 11 samples.) So, as actually flown the Apollo 10 LM was indeed a little too heavy. -- "God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Dec 92 22:15:30 EST From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Clinton/Gore & Space exploration Simon sez; >>... While I didn't vote for Clinton/Gore, I won't >>write off our space program yet. Carlos sez; >... Gore is very pro 'environmental' technology so yes EOS will >be alive. But read their policy statement regarding space (posted here before >the election) >*Biggest focus- Mission to planet Earth >*The only reason they mention to keep Freedom is because it creates jobs. >Whether you think Freedom will or will not generate good science, keeping it >only for the jobs is a lousy way to run a space program. It's a lousy way to run anything! Imagine applying the same logic to the Farm Problem: "We found that recent initiatives by John Deere and International Harvester have severly affected the job market in agriculture...:-)" >*Moon, Mars, and the Space Exploration Initiative, are mentioned as worthy >goals... when we have the money. In other words not for a long, long time. I'd have to say this is just fine, as I think the most useful goals are to find the resources that would make exploration/exploitation cheaper. I know the goals on Mars include resources, but between the fact that it's supposed to be manned, and NASA's history of doing high-profile, national prestige-motivated missions, I think there are more cost effective ways of doing the actual science that we all want done. Like CRAF (RIP ;-( Mars ain't goin' anywhere, and any water on the moon has lasted a few billion years, so waiting long enough to learn of any resources that would make exploration/colonization easier for actual humans won't change the situation or damage the knowledge-to-be. Imagine how easy a Mars mission would be if we spent the last twenty years looking for easily accessible minerals and volatiles in the near-earth Asteroids or comets (assuming we decided to use them). As much as the Apollo mission did for our culture and knowledge, I still find myself thinking that it was done primarily for National Prestige. And I can see this same goal in much of what NASA does. That would be OK, I guess, except that it gets in the way of achieving valuable goals. Not only does it cost money, but opportunity. >I seriously think that for all his technology talk, the space program will be hurt under Clinton. Especially if, as has happened, in the fact it gets linked >to defese simply because they both use Aerospace. I heard recently on the news that this latest STS mission was the last time the shuttle would be used for military purposes. That means that Clinton-Gore would have a hard time cutting it (and, by extension, the other non-DoD parts of the space program) under the guise of cutting defense. But never underestimate the ability of a opportunist demagogue! On a related note, I assume space will still be a valuable part of the DoD's strategy, so what will they be using from now on, if not the shuttle? Titans and/or Deltas? Would the DC-1 be a potential market for the military, or is the market not even a concern, as much as gettting it to work, at this point? -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: 9 Dec 92 03:30:37 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Earth Movie Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary,sci.space In article <1992Dec8.131618.13405@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, tes@gothamcity.uucp (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL]) writes... >>> >>> When will the Earth movie being made by Galileo be compiled, and when/how >>> can we see it? >> There are two movies that will be made. The first is called the Earth Zoom movie, and will cover a 48 period after the flyby as the spacecraft moves away from the Earth. The second movie is called the Earth/Moon Conjunction movie, and the first images for that won't be taken until December 16. At this time from the spacecraft's perspective, the Moon will appear to pass very close to Earth, and can be captured in a single field of view of the SSI camera. 168 images are allocated for this movie and it will be taken over a 14 hours period. The movie will show the Moon passing by as the Earth slowly rotates beneath it. As far as I know, both movies will be ready for the December 22 press conference, and most people will see it for the first time on the evening news the same day. >I have another question that maybe Ron Baalke can answer. Is Galileo going to >take any footage of the lunar eclipse tomorrow? I think that would be an awesome >short movie, and a once in a lifetime chance. > No, I don't think so. Galileo's emphasis on the next couple of days is on the Earth. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | The 3 things that children /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | find the most fascinating: |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | space, dinosaurs and ghosts. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 92 03:19:48 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Galileo Cruises By Earth Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Paula Cleggett-Haleim Headquarters, Washington, D.C. December 8, 1992 (Phone: 202/358-0883) James H. Wilson Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena Calif. (Phone: 818/354-5011) RELEASE: 92-217 GALILEO CRUISES BY THE EARTH NASA's Galileo spacecraft flew by the Earth this morning at 10:09 a.m. EST at an altitude of 189 miles (304 kilometers) above the South Atlantic Ocean, completing a 3- year gravity-assist program and setting a course to reach Jupiter in December 1995. This, the third gravity-assist for Galileo, added about 8,300 miles per hour (13,300 kilometers per hour) to the spacecraft's speed in its solar orbit and changed its direction slightly so that its elliptical orbit now will reach to the orbit of Jupiter, about 480 million miles (780 million kilometers) from the sun. On its way to the Earth encounter the spacecraft flew about 68,000 miles (110,000 kilometers) north of the moon at 10:58 p.m. EST last night. Departing from the Earth in a slightly southerly direction, it again crosses the moon's orbit at about 9:15 p.m. EST today. The Galileo flight team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., programmed the spacecraft to measure the near-Earth environment and observe Earth and the moon during this flyby. Scientists will obtain a great many images and spectral scans of the northern regions of the moon and of various areas on Earth over a period lasting several days. This provides scientific data from new perspectives in some cases and helps the scientists calibrate their instruments for the Jupiter orbital mission planned for 1995- 1997. The Galileo orbiter will fly ten different elliptical orbits of Jupiter with close passes by each of the major satellites and extended observations of the planet and its magnetosphere. Galileo's atmospheric probe, which will descend into Jupiter's atmosphere on Dec. 7, 1995 to observe that environment for the first time, is being checked out during the near-Earth flight. The Galileo Project is managed for NASA by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The atmospheric probe is provided by Hughes Aircraft Company under contract to NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif. - end - ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | The 3 things that children /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | find the most fascinating: |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | space, dinosaurs and ghosts. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 92 16:50:30 -0600 From: pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) Subject: Goldin... \Scattered throughout the evening were references to national politics. /Sagan joked about Republican party follies. Goldin said there was strong \bi-partison support of the space program. Even Bush personally asked for /better public education. Goldin was not partison, perhaps hoping to keep \his job in the next administration :-) As has been said before here, Goldin's a democrat... Of course, now that the democrats control _everything_... we're all democrats or out of power... after all, if there are any irregularities in any of the future elections (which the Democrats will win all of) a committee of Democrats will be appointed to investigate... Also, in a stunning display of bipartisanship Gore will prob. push for having republican Truly put back in as NASA head to assure that nothing further is done... ;-) hopefully ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 92 20:37:17 GMT From: Glenn David Sanders Subject: NASA software standard needed Newsgroups: sci.space Does anybody know how to get ahold of the following NASA software standard: 70-80-344B (programming standards) Please reply by e-mail. Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 20:16:56 GMT From: "Shadan M. Ardalan" Subject: Orbit Question? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <92343.084750TNEDDERH@ESOC.BITNET> writes: >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- > The period of a Molnyia orbit is half a sidereal day (nearly 12 hours). It's eccentricity is about .72 The information about it's inclination is correct, but it is also important to mention that the argument of perigee is 270 deg. This places apogee in the northern hemisphere, therefore providing most of its coverage there. What all this buys the Molniya orbit is a repeating groundtrack over the the area the russians wanted to see the most: simultaneous coverage of the USSR and the US :-) Shadan M. Ardalan ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 92 10:22:12 -0600 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Potential uses for the DC-X Newsgroups: sci.space In article , prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: > > So we are spending the money to build the DC-X and flight test it. > are there any useful science missions it could conduct while up there? The DC-X has a pretty low altitude, but SDIO has expressed interest in buying a suborbital DC-X followon, referred to as "DC-X Prime," for use as a re-usable sounding rocket. Sorry, don't have any numbers at my fingertips; presumably it's considerably larger than DC-X, but not as difficult to engineer nor as expensive as DC-Y. I wonder if the market size is enough to justify DC-X Prime's development, though. Bill Higgins | Sign in window of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory | Alice's bookstore: Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET | "EVER READ BANNED BOOKS? Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV | YOU SHOULD!" SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS | Gee, I hope it doesn't become | *compulsory*. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 92 14:50:45 GMT From: John C Sager Subject: Rush... Newsgroups: sci.space In , pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes: >\Because nobody takes him seriously. He's just a nut mouthing off. >Actually I think he was joking... Guys like that don't have a sense of humour. I expect it was coldly calculated to further the career of Rush Limbaugh. I'm heartily thankful that he is an un-person over here, we've got enough self-seekers of our own:-( John C Sager Mail: B67 G18, BT Labs Email: jcs@zoo.bt.co.uk Martlesham Heath Tel: +44 473 642623 IPSWICH IP5 7RE Fax: +44 473 637614 England ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 19:25:13 GMT From: Doug Page Subject: Rush Limbaugh says problems with HST is a DoD hoax! Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec8.133518.22355@cs.ucf.edu>, clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes: |> 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. I just discussed with several people who heard Limbaugh report this rumor last week. None of us heard it the way you report it. The fact that there is a rumor is a fact. He did not report the rumor as fact. He, in fact, used it to set up a joke about Carl Sagan. I was encouraged to check the summary of the show in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh by the lunch crowd. I did so, and here's the sumtotal of what Limbaugh said: o Rush normally doesn't deal with rumors, but there's a juicy one which he can't resist. This rumor is "floating around squid-like" and concerns how the Hubble Telescope was launched with one of its camera lenses installed backwards. Of course, this event was roundly proclaimed as proof that American industry was going to hell in a handbasket. The rumor, though, is that the Hubble Telescope is actually working flawlessly, and has been ever since its launch. The military, though, put out the story about it not working so that they could take it over to investigate some mysterious radio waves coming from space for the past six years. Now that the military's research is done, the Hubble is working flawlessly. Rush doesn't give much credence to the rumor, especially since Carl Sagan is not involved, and if anyone would be involved with alien life forms, it would be Sagan. Is the rumor ridiculous? Sure! Did the rumor say that the HST was being used to look at the mysterious radio waves? No. (An optical telescope can be used to investigate the SOURCE of radio waves.) Did Limbaugh say that the rumor was true? No. Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with Limbaugh was not my point. My point was that so-called "openminded" individuals were attacking Limbaugh for what someone said he said. They made neither attempt to confirm what he said nor the context of it. Limbaugh's show is built on satire. Unfortunately, many don't seem to be able to recognize satire when it comes from a conservative position . Maybe, if Limbaugh hosted SNL . . . More than enough said, Doug Page *** The opinions are mine (maybe), and don't necessarily represent those *** *** of my employer. *** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 16:36:56 GMT From: Edmund Hack Subject: Shuttle replacement Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec7.013701.2623@netcom.com> hage@netcom.com (Carl Hage) writes: >Out of curiosity and perhaps a more reasonable comparision, could someone >post where and how KSC gets it's LOX and LH2? I know that for Apollo, there was a LO2/LN2/LAr plant adjacent to KSC. I worked summers for the company and hitched a ride on the company jet with their top plant engineers down to a launch. They didn't produce LH2, but said it was brought in to a holding tank farm near the pads. The LOX and LN2 was sent in via pipeline. (The LN2 was used to reduce the risk of fire during fueling as an oxygen displacer and to help quench the pad after launch.) I would assume the plant is still there. This company had a lot of air separation plants and a gas pipeline system running along the Gulf Coast, but only produced H2 at one site, and it was gaseous. LH2 is difficult to deal with and not in high demand. -- Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX hack@aio.jsc.nasa.gov - I speak only for myself, unless blah, blah.. "You know, I think we're all Bozos on this bus." "Detail Dress Circuits" "Belt: Above A, Below B" "Close B ClothesMode" ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 92 20:13:11 GMT From: Steinn Sigurdsson Subject: space policy Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space Any opinions on what effect having Sally Ride as science, space and technology co-ordinator will have on Clinton's space policy??? | Steinn Sigurdsson |I saw two shooting stars last night | | Lick Observatory |I wished on them but they were only satellites | | steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? | | "standard disclaimer" |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 | ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 92 21:05:04 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) Newsgroups: sci.space In <1992Dec7.173321.2812@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: >Mass ratio is a very good measure of margin, and DC-Y's will be very >very much pushing the envelope. If that's true, a supertanker must also push the edge of the envelope. But, of source, that's absurd. >>Exactly Gary. Your complaints are the shuttle. Your solutions are the DC. >>The shuttle has 4 engine types, separate engines for each mode of flight, >>three different heat protections, 8 cargo bay doors, . >Yes, *totally* separate systems, completely different backup systems, >*exactly* what I'm calling for above. Those are not totally separate systems, and adding asterisks to every other word doesn't make them so. All those systems must operate perfectly, or near-perfectly, for a Shuttle flight to be a success. >>DC,x,y,1 will have one common set of engines. the RCS i think uses >>LH2/LOX. The same engines will do orbital manuevers, landing, takeoff. >Single point failure. One system must do everything. Just because the DC has multiple engines of one type, that doesn't make them a single failure point. By your logic, a four-engine aircraft like the 747 should have four types of engines -- one turbojet, one turbofan, one propjet, and one reciprocating engine. Would it be safer that way? Of course not. Just because one engine fails, that does not mean another, independent engine of the same type is going to fail also. Airplanes don't work on the basis of sympathetic magic. >Now if *DC-1* can deliver >10 kilopounds to *orbit* 100 times in a year with no failures, I'd >be much more impressed. I'd even consider buying a ticket. But there >are many *giant* steps between DC-X and DC-1. So lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 92 17:33:09 GMT From: PWITH@ESOC.BITNET Subject: US weather satellite question Newsgroups: sci.space In article , roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) says: > >The US loaned a weather satellite to Europe some years ago (by shifting its >position to cover Europe), and Europe is returning the favor by loaning one >of theirs to the US. > >John Roberts >roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov Just nitpicking here, but..... I don't think the US actually 'loaned' a satellite to europe. Rather Europe or more specifically ESA was asked to take over control of GOES-A for the GARP in 1979. I quote from the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society special edition on the European Space Operations Centre (Volume 40 No.6) and the section by the head of the Spacecraft Operations Division, Mr. D.E.B. Wilkins on this subject: "This weather satellite, similar to Meteosat, has been offered by the United States NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency) to the World Meteoro- logical Organisation (WMO) as a replacement for the Russian GOMS satellite. "In 1979 several agencies offered geostationary meteorological satellites for GARP, the Global Atmospheric Research Project. In the event the Russians could not provide their GOMS satellite and the USA offered GOES-A for the Indian Ocean, if ESA could take over control of the satellite. In less than one year, assisted by NASA and NOAA, ESA had:" [...list of events during the preparation for taking control deleted....] " - taken over control of GOES-A at 15degs W longitude, and drifted the sat- ellite to 57degs E longitude,positioning it and maintaining its station at this point. (GOES-A was now designated GOES/Indian Ocean), " - performed mission control of GOES-I/O from 1 December 1978 to 30 November 1979 when the satellite was drifted eastwards to Guam and returned to NOAA control. "This is believed to be an unique example of international cooperation in the space field." (end quote) This JBIS was published in June 1987. The above does not appear so unique now that NOAA will be using Meteosat-P2 in the near future, although spacecraft control will remain at ESOC. Standard disclaimer. Nothing to do with my employers. -peter w- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 92 04:01 GMT From: Karl Dishaw <0004244402@mcimail.com> Subject: US Weather Satellites The discussion on the GEOS-NEXT troubles left out most of America's weather satellites. NOAA has four satellites in sun-synchronous (polar LEO) orbits, 2-3 of them operational, and the Air Force DMSP constellation has 2.5 operational birds. Plus there's a Chinese (?) weather satellite that broadcasts realtime data we can use. 450-mi high closeups don't make for good backdrops on the 6o'clock news but we are getting a lot of weather data. Karl "sold my soul to Uncle Sam . . . now marked down for resale." ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 524 ------------------------------