Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 11:12:04 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #154 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 12 Feb 93 Volume 16 : Issue 154 Today's Topics: An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...) Challenger transcript Fred is dead again. Money->Shuttle/SSF Polar Orbit Precursors to SSF Promises Refueling Freedom (3 msgs) Solar Sail power Soyuz I re-entry Space Station Freedom Fighters Supporting private space activities (2 msgs) The day before Challenger exploded. Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger (2 msgs) 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: Sun, 7 Feb 93 15:35:33 PST From: Brian Stuart Thorn Subject: An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...) Newsgroups: sci.space >Don't forget that it takes a week or two to really adapt to free fall and >get good at working there, even if you don't get spacesick. At just about >the time when a shuttle crew is becoming really effective, the mission ends. I thought both NASA and the Russians put the time at closer to 48 to 72 hours...? Also, it has been reported (Av Week? Space News? I forget...) that the Russians aboard Mir spend a considerable percentage of their time just taking care of Mir operations. -Brian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian S. Thorn "If ignorance is bliss, BrianT@cup.portal.com this must be heaven." -Diane Chambers, "Cheers" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Feb 93 15:34:50 PST From: Brian Stuart Thorn Subject: Challenger transcript Newsgroups: sci.space >Well, I remember reading a book entitled, "Challenger," or something like that , >which outlined the accident and the subsequent investigations which followed, >particularly the medical investigation made by NASA's Joseph P. Kerwin (Skylab >fans should remember him as the guy who did weightless acrobatics to "Also >Sprach Zarathustra" on the first mission.). Dr. Kerwin noted that the >emergency oxygen systems beneath four of the seven seats in the crew module ha d >been activated and that one had been used for almost three minutes. These >systems must be manually operated. This implies that as many as four >crewmembers were conscious after the explosion of the main propellant tank. >The second thing which was noted by Kerwin was the damage to the crew module >itself. The reconstructed cabin shows all the signs of impact damage (with th e >ocean) but none of the damage one would expect from heat and blast. This is >consistent with the evidence of high-speed camera footage of the event, which >clearly shows the orbiter being torn apart by aerodynamic stress after being >"jerked" upward into a high angle-of-attack by the explosion. The force of th e >nearly 3000 mph winds, even at that altitude, were enough to tear the wings an d >fuselage apart. These same recordings show the box-like crew compartment of >the orbiter emerging from the blast, following the trajectory of the bird at >the time of the explosion. Aaron, I don't think that it is seriously disputed that the 51L crew was alive after the breakup at 73 seconds. Its the anonymously posted "transcript" that angers the audience. Even if it is true (more evidence against than for) its posting here was in questionable taste, at best. Worse, the anonymous poster presented the transcript as fact, with no source except "friend of a friend at SpaceCamp" when it has been subsequently shown to be from a "National Enquirer" type rag. The person who posted the transcript was either: A) Carrying an axe to grind against the space community, B) Exceedingly naive, or C) Looking for a quick thrill. This the net can do without. -Brian >As far as the content of the "transcript" goes... Will the original poster >send me info about this? Sources? > >Aaron Christopher >Ball State Univ. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian S. Thorn "If ignorance is bliss, BrianT@cup.portal.com this must be heaven." -Diane Chambers, "Cheers" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 02:51:53 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Fred is dead again. Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <1kvlp0INN889@gap.caltech.edu> jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeff Foust) writes: >>However, sources say that this may be used to do a serious re-write >>of the NASA Act over the next two years. >Interesting... any idea what changes/additions/deletions are being considered? Well it's early yet and a lot can happen. However they where talking about tearing it down and starting over again. IMHO anything less won't do any good. We can't afford the waste going on now. As to what should be done, what do you think? Write your representative and ask him to do it. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------128 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 03:08:04 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Money->Shuttle/SSF Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb6.171745.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes: >Seems liek we are stuck with the Shuttle wether we like it or not.. Also seems >like we are stuck with SSF. So lets all do what we can to support them.. If we are stuck with them then it doesn't matter if we support them or not; we get them either way. Since we don't need to support them to get them, they let's use our energy to get what we DO want. >It seems liek the best we have for the moment If we support it instead of alternatives (like Delta Clipper) it is the best we will ever have. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------128 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 01:33:24 GMT From: Dave Michelson Subject: Polar Orbit Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >I admit that I too would like to see numbers, but I'm inclined to give >Tennyson the benefit of the doubt -- I don't know him personally, but >some of my friends do, and they've got considerable respect for him. You no doubt noticed that I *was* giving Prof. Tennyson the benefit of the doubt. I would, however, like to know what numbers he was using because the very simple "back of the envelope" calculations that *I* did showed the improvement to be virtually negligible. I can only assume that he's taking something else into account -- and I would like to know what that is. Either that, or he was misquoted or quoted out of context. By contrast, even the simplest calculations show that launching from the equator (and avoiding a costly dog leg or plane change maneuver) offers a significant advantage over launching from KSC when launching into equatorial orbit. --- Dave Michelson University of British Columbia davem@ee.ubc.ca Antenna Laboratory ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 02:47:31 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Precursors to SSF Newsgroups: sci.space In article roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes: >-Playing on a toy car for a few hours and lugging an astronaut around the >-payload bay aren't my idea of good tests. >The latter obviously has nothing to do with the structural integrity of SSF, >but it's potentially helpful in turning up really big blunders in the >assembly schedule and assembly protocol. Six or seven years ago I would have agreed with you. Today, I can't help but wonder what's the point? If a serious problem is found it is far too late in the design cycle. Such a design problem would likely cost tens of billions to fix. >The degree to which the actual Intelsat rescue mission differed from the >water tank simulations was alarming to the SSF program, ' Well it's about bloody time! >and was the main >impetus for the recent addition of these tests. I agree with you that >more sophisticated tests are highly desirable. Too little too late. Freedom has got to be the shoddiest large scale engineering project every attempted. Almost no prototyping, zero integration testing. Only now are they asking themselves if it can even be built. The old truss alone would have been enough to kill it if they ever tried to assemble it in orbit. If it wasn't for the 'evil micromanagers' in Congress we wouldn't have the pre-integrated truss. >I should have mentioned the truss in my previous post. To what extent would >the payload bay assembly work done on the first flight of Endeavour >be relevant? I don't know. My gut feeling is that it may be enough to fix minor problems. The bottom line is that the very few hours spent are a drop in the bucket. Far more was needed and it should have been done long ago. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------128 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 02:33:46 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Promises Newsgroups: sci.space In article roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes: >One thing I found disturbing relates to the reception on the day after >the inauguration, during which Clinton shook hands with and spoke with >~2500 people... (I believe these people were selected >by lottery, plus some showed up uninvited.) I would doubt that very much. If nothing else, the people where self selected by signing up for the lottery. There is a saying among lawyers: never ask a question in court unless you already know the answer. Clinton's a lawyer and would make sure no embarassing statements where made. >Allen - I presume letters would go to the White House now? See my post about Delta Clipper. Mail should go to the White House now. Please do not send email; I doubt very much anybody will pay attention to it. But please write. At best Clinton sees space as welfare for aerospace and Gore as a way to monitor the environment. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------128 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 02:39:20 GMT From: Josh Hopkins Subject: Refueling Freedom Newsgroups: sci.space nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes: >(Frank Crary) writes: >> And the Soviets have had an unmanned resupply craft, launched on a >> cheap, Atlas-class launcher, available for such refullings. As >> far as I know, NASA has no plans to develop such a craft, and as >> a cargo/fuel transport the Shuttle isn't exactly cost-effective... >> By the way, how do they plan to get around the no-liquid-fuel-payload >> requirement imposed on the Shuttle after the Challenger accident? There isn't a ban on liquid fuels on the shuttle. There is a ban on Centaur and they might be cautious of some other LH2/LOX designs. However, Freedom thrusters use hydrazine if I recall correctly and that gets launched all the time. On the subject of cost effectiveness, you're right. This is definately an example of paying high maintenance costs to lower the development costs. The Europeans have talked about doing Freedom logistics with the Ariane Transfer Vehicle which would be a smart end for the Ariane V. I think they'd prefer to pay their share of Freedom costs in trade rather than currency. >Why not ship the feul up by auto, in a form that is volitle or less so.. >Propane is less volitle to a point, or have the feul suspended in a medium that >makes it less suseptible to explosion/fire... I had a hard time translating and parsing this bit. The answer to what I think the question is would be that you can't just transmute your fuel for the fun of it whenever you want to. Any idea along these lines that might be possible runs into serious weight limits and the problem you're trying to solve isn't really much of a problem anyway. -- Josh Hopkins jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Q: Why did the chicken cross the mobius strip? A: To get to the other... er, uh... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 04:28:49 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: Refueling Freedom Newsgroups: sci.space In article jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes: >...On the subject of cost effectiveness, you're right. This is definately >an example of paying high maintenance costs to lower the development costs. >The Europeans have talked about doing Freedom logistics with the Ariane >Transfer Vehicle which would be a smart end for the Ariane V. I think they'd >prefer to pay their share of Freedom costs in trade rather than currency. The Japanese, by the way, are expecting to use their HOPE robotic spaceplane/microshuttle for Freedom logistics (and are designing their lab module accordingly...) Of course, this is only for research support of their own experiments: The design doesn't consider station keeping fuel, etc... However, this does show a lack of confidince in Space Shuttle-based logistics... Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ Date: 8 Feb 1993 00:23:14 -0500 From: Matthew DeLuca Subject: Refueling Freedom Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb8.042849.7057@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >The Japanese, by the way, are expecting to use their HOPE robotic >spaceplane/microshuttle for Freedom logistics (and are designing >their lab module accordingly...) Of course, this is only for research >support of their own experiments: The design doesn't consider station >keeping fuel, etc... However, this does show a lack of confidince >in Space Shuttle-based logistics... Actually, it's probably a pretty smart move. While I don't think it necessarily shows a lack of confidence in the Shuttle, it does show that they aren't about to be delayed or held hostage by U.S. payload and logistics scheduling; they've got their own route to get materials to and from the station. I would like to see an unmanned alternative to the Shuttle for primary logistics support; don't suppose anyone knows if this is in the works or not? -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew Internet: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 00:59:43 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: Solar Sail power Newsgroups: sci.space In article zkessin@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Zach K) writes: >Given all the talk on solar sails I thought a few quick calculations >would be in order. > L*A >F= ---------- > 4*pi*c*R^2 >A= Area of sail im m^2 >R= 1.5E11 m >L= 4E26 w >So F(A) = 4.72E-6N/m^2 I tend to remember L/4*pi*R^2 as 1400 W/m^2, instead of calculating it... There is also a factor of two you left out: The sail reflects the light, so the force is twice sunlight's momentum flux. Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 03:39:01 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Soyuz I re-entry Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy In article <1993Feb7.155409.29785@fuug.fi> an8785@anon.penet.fi (Tesuji) writes: >On April 23, 1967 while Soyuz I and comsmonaut Vladimir Komarov >were being monitored, one of the intercept operators reported ... >I'm sorry all you NASA engineering 'droids don't like the human side >of space exploration -- probably reminds you of your cowardice. Speak for yourself. Some of us just prefer the "human side of space exploration" to be based on credible reports; the folks who watch the Soviet/Russian space program think this one is a hoax, just like the purported "Challenger transcript". If I recall correctly, it contains known factual errors. -- C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology effect since OS/360. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 03:39:33 GMT From: tomas o munoz 283-4072 Subject: Space Station Freedom Fighters Newsgroups: sci.space This message is posted as a favor to the Space Station Freedom Fighters. You may reply to them with the phone / fax / address provided. If you'd like, you can reply to me and I will forward the response. Thanks. ===================================================================== SECTION: National dateline FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Griffin, 713-488-4075 Fax: 713-488-7903 Freedom Fighters push petition to save space station Move over Contras, Afghan rebels, even Luke Skywalker and Han Solo. There's a new group of freedom fighters on the scene. Except the "freedom" this group is fighting for is Space Station Freedom. Volunteers calling themselves the Space Station Freedom Fighters are busy collecting signatures from across the country in a petition drive which supports the completion of NASA's space station. Much like the Perot volunteers last year, these citizens are canvassing the country with their petition seeking signatures from every state. The Freedom Fighters will then present their petition to the new Congress hoping to convince the lawmakers to continue funding for the orbiting laboratory. "There has never been a demonstration of public support quite like this for a spacecraft," said Cynthia Griffin, Freedom Fighter volunteer and writer. "Probably the closest was years ago when the public named the first space shuttle after the Enterprise from Star Trek." The Freedom Fighter petition drive started in Houston last summer with a public rally in support of Space Station Freedom. Nearly 700 people turned out to show their support and sign the petition. Since then the petition has collected over 10,000 signatures from forty-eight states. The grass roots effort has been driven entirely by volunteers without the benefit of a formal organization or network. "We gave the petition to friends and relatives to sign and it spread from there," explained Griffin. Who can be a Freedom Fighter? "Anyone who signs the petition and passes it around." That includes children, according to Freedom Fighter Dave Majchrowicz, an aerospace engineer. "I'm a Freedom Fighter because I want my four children to have something to look forward to. I'm doing this mainly for children because they will gain the most from Space Station Freedom in the next century." For Patrick Williams, college student, becoming a Freedom Fighter was only natural. The lure of space began when his mother took him to see Star Wars as a child. "The space program motivated me in school," he said. "I want to see Space Station Freedom completed and I would like to be in space one day." Griffin notes that Space Station Freedom is targeted for cancellation by some members of Congress. "I would like to ask them if they could stand before a classroom of children and tell the children they canceled the manned space program," said Griffin. "Because in effect that's what they would be doing. Our country is benefiting from thirty years of technology provided by our space program. We must continue it. Space Station Freedom is the next step." The Freedom Fighter petition reads in part: "We, the people of the United States of America, petition the Congress and President . . . to establish, in orbit, Space Station Freedom and to do so by the end of the decade." [for blank copies of the petition for Space Station Freedom, send a stamped self-addressed envelope to: Space Station Freedom Fighters 16582 Space Center Blvd. Houston, TX 77058 -- ======================================================================== Tom Munoz | munoz@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov Thought for the day [plagiarized from someone else]: Engineers think equations are an approximation of reality. Physicists think reality is an approximation of the equations. Mathematicians never make the connection. ======================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: 8 Feb 93 01:04:21 GMT From: Kenneth Ng Subject: Supporting private space activities Newsgroups: sci.space In article Subject: Supporting private space activities Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb8.010421.1611@sugra.uucp> ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes: >:... that tower got removed for the shuttle program. The orbiter >:has no lightning protection between the VAB and the pad, so they worry >:about the weather during a rollout. > >Any reason why the shuttle doesn't have a similar mechanism? I think it was just awkward for other reasons to have a tall tower on the mobile pad. There is a lightning-rod system in the external tank's nose cap, but presumably they prefer not to trust it with live SRBs involved. -- C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology effect since OS/360. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Feb 93 15:34:02 PST From: Brian Stuart Thorn Subject: The day before Challenger exploded. Newsgroups: sci.space Lines: 33 Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU >The second is the wind shear. This was the worst wind shear of any >Shuttle flight on record. If my memory serves the wind at 35,000-40,000 feet >was about 85 mph. According to the Rogers report it was at this time that the >O-ring seal re-ruptured. This initiated the burn through due to the fact that >the overall propellant was much closer to the outside of the casing. (The >SRB's burn fuel from the center outward)This is what caused the failure of The >ET supports from melting a short time later. > >It seemed to be implied that the was a major contributing factor to the >failure of Challanger that was never really reported. >Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville Dennis, I remember reading about the windshear effects not that long after the accident (maybe three or four months). The GOES weather satellite photo shortly after the accident got around in the technical media along with reports. I think Discover magazine mentioned this in its Challenger disaster issue a few months after the accident, too. Its not that it didn't get reported, its just that by the time this was clearly established, THE EXPLANATION was that the SRB had failed. The media didn't care about windshear contribution, so if it made the papers at all, it was on Page 19A, right below the ad for City Tire Company. -Brian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian S. Thorn "If ignorance is bliss, BrianT@cup.portal.com this must be heaven." -Diane Chambers, "Cheers" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 03:03:02 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle In article <4285@phred.UUCP> petej@phred.UUCP (Peter Jarvis) writes: >>>...... They knew and accepted the risks. Their deaths >>>were sad, of course, but it was not a great tragedy. >PJ - Not a great tragedy? I would call losing 7 very valuable professionals >PJ - in that manner a great tragedy. Valuable? I think there is no shortage of astronaut candidates. Almost all would likely be just as good. Getting killed is part of the buisness. They volunteered and they knew the risks. I don't mean to sound callus and I am very sorry they died but this is the price of progress. >PJ - What has to happen for it to *be* a national tragedy? Being part of >PJ - the job doesn't make it less tragic. What word would you use? Well I would have considered the loss of the teacher a tragedy except that Mary and you have shown me that she was briefed extensively on the associated risks. BTW, thanks both of you; that is something which has bothered me over the years. These are people who died for something they care about. They dies to help open the next frontier. It's great that people exist who care that much about something. Imagine a world where nobody found anything worth dying for. That would be tragic. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------128 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 8 Feb 93 01:37:58 GMT From: 00bldotson@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle In article <1993Feb04.134032.9556@omen.UUCP>, caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes: > In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>to move the primary O-rings out of position) that was devastating. >>The SRB joint certainly was a bad design that needed real revision, >>but lowering the leak-test pressure back to its original value and >>avoiding low-temperature launches would have been enough to make >>launches reasonably safe, safe enough to resume a limited schedule > > As I recall a number of safety related changes were made after > Challenger, quite apart from the SRB joints and the escape pole. > Were these significant in terms of overall safety? In other > words, how much safer is Shuttle for having stood down all that > time compared to just not flying on cold days, etc.? >These alterations made in the SRB joints and O-rings repaired that gaps that was the main problem with the boosters. Even though the cold was a factor, it was only a factor in the fact that it made the rubber expand to the point that it allowed minute leaks to sprout, carrying explosive gases directly into the flame of liftoff. With the new seals, this does not happen. This greatly improved the pverall safety of the problem, as this will never be the cause of another explosion of the shuttle. >>People who are close to it tell me that the pressure to get the launch up >>on time is present again. Bearers of bad news are never going to be overly > > Much of the pressure to launch Callenger came from the media. > Remember how the TV anchors were taking shots at NASA for not > getting Challenger off? (Significantly this aspect never quite > made it to the Challenger TV movie scripts....) These days the > media doesn't seem to get on NASA's case for launch delays. > > The Challenger break-up certainly rather lowered my spirits for > some days. I'm certain this had more to do with what the > shuttle means to us than with the abrupt death of 7 fine > individuals, none of whom I knew of beforehand. > > Why don't we mention the workers killed working on Shuttle? > They didn't have the Right Stuff, they didn't get a chance to > Touch the Face of God, but they paid the price just the same. > > -- > Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf > Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ > Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software" > 17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD Portland OR 97231 503-621-3406 ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 154 ------------------------------