Date: Sat, 30 Jan 93 05:04:26 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #093 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sat, 30 Jan 93 Volume 16 : Issue 093 Today's Topics: Beanstalk? Catch-22: (was Using off-the-shelf components) Mars Mission Mir and Solar Sail Combo, more. Reason for SSTO/DCX and Market+ Rent Mir/Commerical SS Fred not build it. (2 msgs) Saving an overweight SSTO.... Space Sta.Freedom pics/gifs/sketches info? Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger (4 msgs) Using off-the-shelf-components 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, 29 Jan 1993 00:34:27 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Beanstalk? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan27.192526.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes: >Does anyone know anythng about how to build a beanstalk? First you get some magic beans..... Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jan 93 15:37:58 From: Steinn Sigurdsson Subject: Catch-22: (was Using off-the-shelf components) Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: Funny, I've never had an airline ask me if my equipment was "air-qualified," much less subject it to vibration, outgassing, or ECM tests. That's the difference between a transportation system and an expendable artillery shell. Yes, you have, you were probably just too oblivious to notice. Next time you fly on commercial air, look for the little list of electronic equipment you cannot operate on an airliner, or just walk into the cabin carrying a medium sized radio with battery pack and tell them you want to call a ham friend from 30,000 ft. (or try carrying a propane tank into the passenger cabin, or a lead-acid battery, or a detonator...) Airlines restrict equipment allowed onboard according to outgassing, EM emission and vibrational stability, never mind what you can operate. | 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: Fri, 29 Jan 93 17:32:05 EST From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Mars Mission From: George Hastings Micael Adams sez; >>Im not sure if this idea is feasible, but, its an idea..` >>What about pre-positioning feul/food/gear packets along the route of the Mars >>mission or maybe send a unmanned mission ahead maybe by Solar Sailer(s). >>And pre-[.positioning the craft to be near na..mars when the Mir mission >>arrives at Mars. George Hastings replies: > Your first idea would be good on an arctic expedition, or >even on a lunar traverse, but not on a trip to Mars, since >everything bewteen here and there ALSO has to be revolving >around the Sun: different distances from the Sun = different >periods of revolution. You could drop stuff off evenly spaced >between here and Mars, but when you got to that distance, they >would no longer be lined up, having travelled along their >orbital paths since they were left. Sure, it's a trick, but it's just a matter of positioning in time as well as space. If NASA could guarantee schedules better... To first approximation, it's only a 3-d problem, since the extra time dimension is balanced by the fact that the route would be a 2-d one (roughly). Still, resupply being pre-positioned at the destination would be a lot easier. -Tommy Mac ------------------------------=========================================== Tom McWilliams |Is Faith a short ' ` ' *.; +% 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu |cut for attaining + . ' (517) 355-2178 -or- 353-2986 | . knowledge? ;"' ,' . ' . a scrub Astronomy undergrad | * , or is it just . . at Michigan State University | '; ' * a short-circuit? , ------------------------------=========================================== ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 93 00:40:23 GMT From: Philip Young Subject: Mir and Solar Sail Combo, more. Newsgroups: sci.space nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes: |> > (nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu) writes: |> >> What about pre-positioning feul/food/gear packets along the route |> >> [...] send a unmanned mission ahead [...] |> >> And pre-[.positioning the craft to be near na..mars when the Mir mission |> >> arrives at Mars. |> |> Question what would you use to get it there?? Automated Solar Sail would be |> nice.. Seems you only need rockets and such when you have to get someplace |> quick.. The auto-mission would do surveys of possibel landing/survey sights.. |> |> Any better ideas are expected.. |> |> |> Michael Adams Who needs it? Just beseech THE DIVINE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE to TRANSENDENTALLY translate the CREW to the appropriate OUTER SPHERE. Since they'd be in ASTRAL form, they wouldn't need any KIT at all. I suppose this would mean prior TERMINATION of their CORPOREAL FORMS, so we should perhaps choose VIRGINS ... -- Philip R. Young Data General Australia Pty. Ltd. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 00:11:33 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Reason for SSTO/DCX and Market+ Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan28.211519.20005@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: > In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: > >>>The ticket will cost (round trip) $100,000 to $200,000 (assuming you pack >>>them in like sardiens for a very uncomfortable trip). > >>On what do you base that estimate? > > 50 people flying round trip (and in a 15X15X30 space it won't be > comfortable) at a cost of $5M to $10M per flight. > >>What I heard from Boeing was "an order of magnitude more than >>existing jet aircraft," which puts it an order of magnitude >>below your figures. Other estimates support this. > > round trip to Australia is about $3,000 so Boeing is estimating > $30,000 or so which is well below an order of magnitude less than > my estimate. > > As to the difference, there are too many factors which could expalin > it. Indeed, it may be possible to cut the cost to $30K in volume but > you won't be able to offer those prices initially. As it is I don't > think the market for $30,000 airline tickets is that great. > >>As for being packed in like sardines, have you ever flown a >>cattle ca... er, jet airliner? > > You need to compare it to first class. > >>I'd rather spend 45 minutes, >>stuffed into a rocket, than 12 hours stuffed into an airplane. > > All things being equal, so would I. However, I wouldn't pay > $27,000 more for it. Would you? > > Allen > > -- > +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | > | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | > +----------------------138 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ I think the SSTo will more like in the begiining be used for high price cargo, and some cargo that has to get theri the next day. Such as express mail.. I actually thinkn that there will be a few seats in the SSTO and the rest will be cargo space.. Similiar to how they configure the local Alaska Air 737, where the front 2/3 to 3/4 of the airplane is cargo (in igloos (inclosed pallets)) and the rear is passenger space.. == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Im not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jan 1993 19:27:16 -0500 From: Matthew DeLuca Subject: Rent Mir/Commerical SS Fred not build it. Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan28.210546.19022@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <1k9b54INN5i1@phantom.gatech.edu> matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >>>I know Mir is far from ideal, but what is.. Why reinvent the wheel when the >>>wheel is already in Orbit?? >>Because if you just keep using the same wheel, you never develop better >>wheels. [...] >I'm not sure our current path will result in any difference. As it is, >NASA is avoiding cheaper commercial services as much as it can. We are >pouring more and more money into an infrastructure which is getting more >and more expensive. The end result has been a statis of the US space >arm for a long time. Agreed, we aren't doing the best we can with what we have. However, look at how much worse it would be if we just gave up and bought Russian or whatever; we'd have almost no space-related aerospace industry at all, and we'd be ceding the future to those nations who *do* maintain a space industry. >Maybe intelligent leverage of Russian technology (like Soyuz) combined >with US capabilities in ELV and cheap commercial HLV's will allow space >to become large enough to become self sustaining and end the stasis. Limited use of things like Soyuz for specific applications (such as the ACRV for the station) in lieu of spending large sums of money developing a domestic alternative is okay. Scrapping domestic capability in such a way (such as killing the Shuttle in favor of sending astronauts up on Soyuz, or scrapping the station in favor of leasing space on Mir) that we become dependent on others for access to space is suicidal. -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew Internet: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 23:59:45 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Rent Mir/Commerical SS Fred not build it. Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan28.210546.19022@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: > In article <1k9b54INN5i1@phantom.gatech.edu> matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes: > >>>I know Mir is far from ideal, but what is.. Why reinvent the wheel when the >>>wheel is already in Orbit?? > >>Because if you just keep using the same wheel, you never develop better >>wheels. Sure, we can do as some people have suggested and rent Mir and >>buy Soyuzes and use Energia and save lots of money, but the end result would >>be the complete stasis of the space arm of the U.S. aerospace industry, >>coupled with Russian dominance of space down the line. > > I'm not sure our current path will result in any difference. As it is, > NASA is avoiding cheaper commercial services as much as it can. We are > pouring more and more money into an infrastructure which is getting more > and more expensive. The end result has been a statis of the US space > arm for a long time. > > Maybe intelligent leverage of Russian technology (like Soyuz) combined > with US capabilities in ELV and cheap commercial HLV's will allow space > to become large enough to become self sustaining and end the stasis. > > Allen > > -- > +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | > | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | > +----------------------138 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ We can rent Mir and such mostly to be able to build our own SS Fred. Maybe as a base for construction.. Maybe also have a module that is attached to Mir, but which is US.. I still liek the commercial prize idea.. It is tiem the FED gave up space to commercialization and got out of the Space Race and got back to Space Science.. Michael Adams Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel nsmca@acad2.alaska.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 23:24:25 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Saving an overweight SSTO.... Newsgroups: sci.space In ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In <1993Jan27.234815.1882@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >>True, but what's to stop them from simply stuffing some cargos in >>AIRPLANES and taking them to a pickup point? After all, flying a C-5 >>to Ecuador would have to be cheaper than flying a spaceship back from >>Ecuador to pick up a load. >The US Customs and State Department, to begin with, if you're >talking about satellites and other high-tech payloads. That would only apply to U.S. payloads, I would think, and perhaps not even then. After all, people contract to launch on Ariane out of French Guinea (sp?). >However, the marketing studies say that satellites are only >a small part of the market. The major markets are overnight >or same-day letter/package delivery, intercontinental passenger >flights (less than one hour to any point in the world, no time >for an inflight movie), and space tourism. >Space tourists might accept Ecuador as a jump-off point -- many >cruises depart from out-of-the-way points today -- but it will >reduce the size of your market. But Federal Express and Northwest >Airlines passengers won't. They want to go directly from San Francisco >to Tokyo. For S.F. to Tokyo you wouldn't have a problem. But we seem to be talking about two different sets of circumstances. My post was in response to the question of what you do if the thing is too heavy to make orbit. Well, that's what you do. For things like point-to-point between two busy points, if you have the range to do it you would have loads both ways. However, for orbital loads, you want to take advantage of the spin of the planet if you are too heavy to get on orbit with the vehicle. That's how the whole discussion of 'hopping' around the world picking up loads came about in the first place. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 23:14:55 GMT From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov Subject: Space Sta.Freedom pics/gifs/sketches info? Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.d,sci.space In article <93025.000212WBWQC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes: >Greetings. In search of: Space Station Freedom maps/schematics as jpegs, >gifs, tiffs, ascii line sketches/drawings; preferably with areas labeled. >No technical details needed - just simple geometric shapes for educ.purposes; >also general dimensions of modules/parts & whole. FTP info specially >welcome. Simple lists of modules also welcome. Thanks in advance. >If replying, e-mail to: (internet) wbwqc@cunyvm.cuny.edu > (bitnet) wbwqc@cunyvm.bitnet This is a re-post of an article from last year. I hope it helps. KJ>In article <1872.2A928EDB@catpe.alt.za> Grant.Smith@f5.n7103.z5.fidonet.org (Grant Smith) asks some reasonable questions: KJ>>I have [heard] a lot about space station Freedom, but still don't know KJ>>quite a few things..... KJ>>. KJ>>1) What will it look like (circular, conical etc.) KJ>>. KJ>>2) Above where will it orbit? Will it's orbit be fixed? KJ>>. KJ>>3) Will it be put into a spin for gravity purposes? KJ> KJ> KJ>Before I begin, I'll warn you: I'm a Shuttle guy, not a Freedom guy. KJ>I'll give you the best beginner-level answers I can, but there are some KJ>real SSF folks on the Net who may be able to shed more light. KJ> KJ>>1) What will it look like (circular, conical etc.) KJ> KJ>The current plan, under review yet again, is to have pressurized KJ>modules hanging in the middle of a 90-meter long truss. The four KJ>white, cylindrical modules are to be about 10 meters long, and five KJ>meters in outside diameter. Toward each end of the truss are to be KJ>solar panels for electrical power generation. Between the modules and KJ>the solar panels are to be some thermal radiators to rid the spacecraft KJ>of excess heat. (One recent re-design concept calls for half-length KJ>modules. They're less efficient, by almost all measures, but they're KJ>cheaper up-front.) KJ> KJ>The four modules are to be connected end-to-end to form a "race track," KJ>with "nodes" in between the modules. Atop one of the nodes is a KJ>"cupola" to allow external observation and visual navigation to assist KJ>rendezvous operations. (The modules have no windows, so the cupola is KJ>the only place to look out through glass. There will be several KJ>externally-mounted TV cameras.) Space Shuttles (and maybe other KJ>spacecraft) will be able to dock with one of the nodes. (There's a KJ>big fracas in the SSFP about docking vs. berthing. Don't ask.) KJ> KJ>Those are the major features. Now, for my next trick, I'll try an KJ>ASCII picture: KJ> KJ> SSSS SSSS SSSS KJ> SSSS T T SSSS SSSS KJ> SSSS T T SSSS SSSS KJ> tSSSStttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttSSSStttSSSSt KJ> tSSSStttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttSSSStttSSSSt KJ> SSSS T nMMMMMMMn T SSSS SSSS KJ> SSSS T cMMMMMMM T SSSS SSSS KJ> SSSS SSSS SSSS KJ> KJ> Legend: t = truss, S = solar panel, T = thermal radiator, KJ> n = node, M = module, c = Cupola KJ> KJ>I've "drawn" the solar panels facing perpendicular to your line of KJ>sight, and the thermal radiators parallel to your line of sight, but KJ>they will gimbal to maintain this geometry with respect to the Sun, so KJ>the panels get as much incident solar radiation as possible, and the KJ>radiators get as little as possible. Think about it. KJ> KJ> KJ>>2) Above where will it orbit? Will it's [sic] orbit be fixed? KJ> KJ>SSF will be in a circular orbit, about 250 nautical miles up, at a 28.5 KJ>degree inclination to the equator. (I'm unsure about the exact KJ>altitude, but that's close.) KJ> KJ>The spacecraft will be in one of the less stable "gravity gradient" KJ>positions, with one end of the long structure always pointed in the KJ>direction of travel, and the modules always pointed at the Earth KJ>below. I'll try another ASCII sketch. Think of this as a sequence KJ>of pictures, with "0" being the Earth: KJ> KJ> _ KJ> / \ KJ> | 0 0 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 KJ> / _ \ KJ> KJ> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KJ> KJ> KJ>Picture a stick (SSF) running clock-wise around a ball (Earth). This KJ>is certainly not to scale. Earth's diameter is around 7,900 miles. A KJ>250 nm orbit is just skimming the surface, barely outside most of KJ>the atmosphere. KJ> KJ>(For the orbital mechanics on the Net, this is an incredible KJ>simplification, and even blatantly wrong, because the orbit is KJ>counter-clockwise if Earth is viewed down the North Pole axis. KJ>For everybody else, it's probably just gibberish.) KJ> KJ>Just as with the Space Shuttle and every other large spacecraft, you'll KJ>be able to see it from Earth as a bright, moving spot at sunset and KJ>sunrise if the light is right. KJ> KJ> KJ>>3) Will it be put into a spin for gravity purposes? KJ> KJ>No. The structure isn't strong enough to do this. Strong structures KJ>tend to be heavy, and minimizing launch mass is one consideration. If KJ>we wanted spin "gravity," we'd put at least one module at the end of KJ>the truss, instead of clustered in the middle. Or, more likely, we'd KJ>use a tether that we could reel in and out for variable gravity. KJ> KJ>Spinning spacecraft make for a treacherous rendezvous. KJ> KJ>I'll try to get some introductory SSF briefing material scanned in and KJ>posted to ames.arc.nasa.gov. No promises. KJ> KJ>-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office KJ> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (713) 483-4368 KJ> KJ> "The earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind will not stay in KJ> the cradle forever." -- Konstantin Tsiolkvosky To which, Tom Russell replied: TR> Article 3219 of sci.space.shuttle: TR> Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle TR> Path: aio!sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov!russell TR> From: russell@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (thomas russell 283-4007) TR> Subject: Re: SSF TR> Message-ID: <1992Aug21.181303.9135@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> TR> Sender: news@aio.jsc.nasa.gov (USENET News System) TR> Organization: McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company TR> References: <1872.2A928EDB@catpe.alt.za> TR> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:13:03 GMT TR> TR> In Article <1992Aug20.000610.2462@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov TR> says: TR> TR> >SSF will be in a circular orbit, about 250 nautical miles up, at a 28.5 TR> >degree inclination to the equator. (I'm unsure about the exact TR> >altitude, but that's close.) TR> TR> >The spacecraft will be in one of the less stable "gravity gradient" TR> >positions, with one end of the long structure always pointed in the TR> >direction of travel, and the modules always pointed at the Earth TR> >below. I'll try another ASCII sketch. Think of this as a sequence TR> >of pictures, with "0" being the Earth: TR> > TR> > _ TR> > / \ TR> > | 0 0 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 TR> > / _ \ TR> > TR> > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TR> > TR> > TR> >Picture a stick (SSF) running clock-wise around a ball (Earth). TR> > ... TR> TR> TR> After the Station Builds reach the Permanently Manned Configuration (PMC), TR> it will spend most of its time in an attitude such that the truss is TR> purpendicular to the direction of travel. Thus the station rotates about TR> its long axis at approx. 6 degrees/min to keep the module pattern oriented TR> towards earth. This general attitude is refered to as the Local Vertical TR> Local Horizontal (LVLH) orientation. This is only a general attitude because TR> the station flys with its principle axes more or less aligned TR> with the LVLH frame. Deviations from the principle axis alignment are TR> used to generate gravity gradient torque to oppose the small aerodynamic TR> torques which are experienced in LEO. This attitude is normally called the TR> Torque Equilibrium Attitude (TEA) and must be maintaned to prevent TR> momentum saturation of the Control Moment Gyros (CMGs). TR> TR> To borrow Ken's picture: TR> TR> TR> Velocity into page TR> TR> O-------> Out of Orbit Plane Direction TR> | TR> | TR> | TR> \|/ TR> TR> Earth TR> TR> TR> SSSS SSSS SSSS TR> SSSS T T SSSS SSSS /|\ | TR> SSSS T T SSSS SSSS \ _ / TR> tSSSStttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttSSSStttSSSSt TR> tSSSStttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttSSSStttSSSSt 6 deg/min TR> SSSS T nMMMMMMMn T SSSS SSSS rotation TR> SSSS T cMMMMMMM T SSSS SSSS TR> SSSS SSSS SSSS TR> TR> Legend: t = truss, S = solar panel, T = thermal radiator, TR> n = node, M = module, c = Cupola TR> TR> TR> Clear as Mud right? Hope this helps a little. TR> TR> The Attitude which Ken refers to is used for orbit reboost prior to PMC. TR> The SSF attitude control community refers to it as the Arrow Orientation. TR> TR> As for the rest of Ken's response, I'll go along with his simple answers... TR> TR> - Tom Russell / MDSSC-Houston Our friend from BITNET also asked for: >[...] Simple lists of modules also welcome. [...] The US has a Laboratory and a Habitation module ("Lab" and "Hab"). The Japanese have a module, and the Europeans have a module. There are four (?) "nodes" between the modules, one of which provides the capability for Shuttle docking/berthing (and there's a BIG story behind the docking/berthing decision). -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (713) 483-4368 "...Development of the space station is as inevitable as the rising of the sun." -- Wernher von Braun ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:30:05 GMT From: Rich Kolker Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle All these kids... I was in elementary school, I was in nursary school, geez :-). I was at work, programming for AT&T. In those days, Washington DC had a station that b that broadcast NASA Select because it was free (the station had no budget). I was watching on one of the first Casio B&W LCD televisions, 1 1/2 inch diagonal screen. When the explosion took place, I knoew it was too early for SRB sep, and expected to see the dot they were follwoing with the camera to resolve itself into an orbiter in the midst of an RTLS. Then it impacted the ocean. ------------------------------------------------------------------- rich kolker rkolker@nuchat.sccsi.com < Do Not Write In This Space> -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 23:06:22 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle In <1993Jan28.010055.1691@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes: >Just a reminder- 7 years ago today- 11:38am EST.... >So, where were you when the Challenger disaster took place? I was at work, and I remember not believing it when the first person told me about it. Once I heard it from someplace more believable, my next thought was to wonder who was up, because one of the mission specialists grew up where I did and his sister was a friend of the family; I didn't even know who was scheduled. I didn't think that he was, but I didn't know. And I remember my growing outrage over the next several days, both over the Press's morbid fascination and repetition and over the fact that so few people seemed to remember that there were SEVEN people on that bird and not just ONE. Six professionals and one passenger. The prfessionals probably had a better idea of the risks than the passenger, but the passenger is the one that gets labelled 'hero'. As you can tell, this still bothers me. I don't know when they changed it, but when I learned the word, 'hero' applied to someone who knew the risks and went in anyway. Just getting killed or being in the wrong place at the wrong time didn't qualify. It seems to these days, though (a la the 'heros' of the Iranian Embassy, while there's apparently amnesia about the men who got killed in the attempt to get them out). -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 21:11:53 GMT From: Michael Corvin Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle Where I was: (senior, Mech.E., at TUNS in Nova Scotia) My best friend Donald and I were shooting the breeze with our prof Dr. Bell when another of our profs, Dr. Kujath, looked in, pale faced, and simply said "..it's blown up, the shuttle has blown up...". Some lessons have been learned from the tragedy. It has made us less complacent and lead to a revitalized Shuttle program. It is unfortunate how little is heard in the popular media about the impressive launch rate achieved last year and to be repeated this year. We are doing a lot of 'space trucking' and good science up there... On the other hand, organizational reform has been incomplete, as evidenced by the Hubble problems and the current, ongoing troubles with the GOES-NEXT program. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 23:25:07 +0000 From: Anthony Frost Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger Newsgroups: sci.space > Just a reminder- 7 years ago today- 11:38am EST.... > So, where were you when the Challenger disaster took place? I was sitting in front of a reel to reel video tape machine in the TV station I worked in at the time, setting up to record an item from studio for the evening local news program. I saw the newsflash on a network monitor out of the corner of my eye, switched the machine to the network line and hit record. We spent most of the rest of the time until transmission going through frame by frame trying to work out what had happened... Anthony ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jan 1993 19:24 CST From: wingo%cspara@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: Using off-the-shelf-components Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1k92r2INNbi8@mojo.eng.umd.edu>, sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes... >In article <27JAN199317130244@judy.uh.edu>, wingo%cspara@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: > >>You know I feel like I am the Shell Answer man for space of late. > >Tough job, but somebody has to do it. :) > >>You can fly any commercial hardware you like on the shuttle as long as it >>meets the flamablity, outgassing, offgassing and EMI requirements. > >[ Dennis describes his off-the-shelf hardware & experiment ] > >>These components were integrated into a structure that fits in a Middeck >>locker and all of the above components passed the shake tests, outgassing >>and offgassing tests, as well as near compliance on EMI which required a >>waiver, which was granted. > >Let me ask you two quickies: > > A) Do you have to recertify every time you fly? I guess you do > because no one experiment flies that frequently (yet). > > B) Is there a database of commercial hardware which has been > "flight tested"? If, let's say me and DeLuca want to put > together our own flight experiment, we can just go to a book, > pick out the pieces, integrate them, and get them tested with > a better chance of passing pre-flight checks? > > Answer to A) If you do absolutely nothing to the experiment (possible in our case) then you do not have to recertify. In 99% of instances you modify the experiment or replace your materials or such and so forth. You have to basically pass three major tests to get your hardware on the shuttle in the inhabited area. 1. Shake Test This is a dynamic test where they put your payload on a table and shake it to the requirements laid out in either the Goddard or JSC documents relating to shuttle payloads. If I remember right the spec is +/- 10 g in the thrust direction and +/- 6 g in the off axis directions. For a comparison the Delta spec calls for +/- 10 g in all axes plus adding random vibrations, a much tougher spec. This drives up the cost of payloads, something the Allen's of the world never consider. You can get out of having to test by demonstrating by analysis a factor of 2 safety. This is a great pain and it is far easier to test your hardware. 2. Offgassing/outgassing This test screens for contaminants that are on NASA's no-no list. These include things such as PVC's (most commercial electronic connectors and cables are have PVC coatings). These offgas clorine, a no-no in the orbiter. There are many other tests that are related to this such as the flamablity tests where non of your materials can outgas or off gass toxic fumes if they catch on fire. This greatly limits the choices of materials that you can use and is the reason that you must modify almost all commercial hardware to fly it. 3. EMI/RFI You also have to meet the specs on the amount of radiated energy and conducted energy from your experiment. Conducted energy spec says that your cannont conduct back into the shuttle main power more than a certain level of low and radio frequency noise. This spec gets tighter as the frequency rises, with a Notch at 2.1 Ghz which is the shuttle communications frequency. This spec covers all radiation (rf) up to 10 Ghz. The second part of this is the RFI test meaning that you cannot radiate energy over certain levels from your experiment. Most computers fail this test with flying colors due to the radiation from quartz crystals, bus transitions of logic states, and video monitor radiation. This test is the one that gets the most waivers given to it in the course of qualification. There is work underway to update the spec to a more reasonable level. That in a nutshell is it for A B) No there isn't and it would be a good thing to have. A qualification here is that none of this hardware flys as is. There is ALWAYS some modifications that have to be done to meet the above specs. The Russians do have a more relaxed set of qualifications regarding materials but the ones for shock and shake are more rigorous than U.S ones due to the high accelerations of their launch vehicles Dennis, UNiversity of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 093 ------------------------------