Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 05:10:08 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #238 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Mon, 1 Mar 93 Volume 16 : Issue 238 Today's Topics: Alternative Space Station designs Apollo Missions (Recollections) Aurora (rumors) (2 msgs) Battery help needed! Book Computers/AI in Shuttle-SSF Fallen Angels Freedom refueling (Mir-Progress, long) Galileo Antenna: Net Brainstorm Session? Human Distance Record:Apollo 13 Nobody cares about Fred? payload return from Fred SOLAR gravity assist? Yup. Space IR telescope schemes SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) (2 msgs) The Future of Fred UN Space Agency? 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, 26 Feb 1993 00:51:12 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Alternative Space Station designs Newsgroups: sci.space wrighte@hp-3.cae.wisc.EDU (Edward Dansavage Wright) writes: >Info request to the net.... >I am interested in space station designs not based on the >"power tower" concept as was/is Freedom. I am interested in >alternative designs such as inflatable structures, geodesic >dome configurations etc. Could someone please provide a starting >place to look for this information? Is there a particular NASA >installation I should contact? Freedom isn't based on the "power tower" but the "dual keel" config instead (although one of the keels is missing or something). A geodesic configuration probably wouldn't be needed, but do a search of the periodicals index under "Oliver Harwood" to find out about the ideas of an engineer who was thinking of using something slightly similar... (i.e. a geodesic framework, not a dome). >As always, >Ed Wright >University of Wisconsin at Madison Please be careful. There's another Edward Wright who posts regularly to this group. Hey, Gary, it's time to get scared! There's two of him! -- Phil Fraering |"...drag them, kicking and screaming, pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|into the Century of the Fruitbat." - Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 02:40:31 GMT From: Dave Michelson Subject: Apollo Missions (Recollections) Newsgroups: sci.space In article gerhard@mikas.llnl.gov ((Michael Gerhard aka Elmo P. Suggins)) writes: > >Since I missed almost all of the 1969 TV coverage of Apollo 11, it was a >real treat when in July of 1989, celebrating the 20th anniversary of the >landing, that A&E cable channel rebroadcast the entire CBS(?) coverage of >the mission... Actually, A&E rebroadcast the *NBC* news coverage. (NBC is one of the owners of A&E :-) >Anyone else with good memories? As Dan Rather said on the 1989 CBS show "The Moon Above, The Earth Below", "The America of 20 years ago... they did things differently." Interesting note: At one point, there were plans to launch at least three (possibly four) space stations during the late 1960's - one or two MOL's and two or three AAP workshops. At least they got one up by 1973! --- Dave Michelson University of British Columbia davem@ee.ubc.ca Antenna Laboratory ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 93 04:42:33 GMT From: Dean Adams Subject: Aurora (rumors) Newsgroups: sci.space PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes: >The plane must have been flying at an altitude of at least 10 kilometres, >because it was not picked up on radar. Since when does radar stop at FL 300? ATC radar should cover that territory quite well. Also, Aurora could very likely incorporate stealth characteristics. That is still no reason to go blaming every strange "explosion" on Aurora. >Similar explosions have been reported in the US over the past year, >notably in the Los Angeles area, where seismologists detected acoustic >shock waves. I have never heard L.A.'s skyquakes called "explosions". >(end of article) >This Aurora seems really dangerous for people (near-collisions), Are you kidding?? There has been ONE report of a near miss. That makes it "really dangerous"? Come on! Get real... >buildings and environment (shock waves). WHERE has Aurora been "really dangerous" to buildings or the environment? >Also, it has a strange habit of shouting "Hi folks, I'm coming to >spy on you !". NO, it has an occasional habit of shouting "Hi, i'm back from spying". At *OPERATIONAL* speeds and altitudes, there would not likely be any noise detectable from the ground... >The best would be to stick it on the ground. And exactly why do you say that? Too much competition with "UFOs"? :-> ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 1993 23:41:56 GMT From: steve hix Subject: Aurora (rumors) Newsgroups: sci.space In article PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes: > >This Aurora seems really dangerous for people (near-collisions), Fly around long enough in civil airspace without filing flight plans... >buildings and environment (shock waves). Also, it has a strange >habit of shouting "Hi folks, I'm coming to spy on you !". More on the order of "Bye, I have just left the neighborhood." (By the time you hear the sound, the aircraft is gone.) >The best would be to stick it on the ground. I would certainly hope not. It would be nice to de-classify it sometime, though. -- ------------------------------------------------------- | Some things are too important not to give away | | to everybody else and have none left for yourself. | |------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----| ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 93 05:00:45 GMT From: "kevin.w.mckiou" Subject: Battery help needed! Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.electronics,sci.aeronautics,sci.chem,sci.engr In article <1mjbakINN781@gap.caltech.edu> bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu (Benjamin John McCall) writes: >Does anyone have any information on alternative battery technologies, or >even suggestions about who I might get in touch with (by phone or by email)? > You might look into Ni-Cads. 100 lbs of Sanyo high-capacity cells KR-2800CE could deliver ~163 amp-hours at 12 volts. That's just 19% short of your goal. I would try contacting Sanyo directly to get some idea of what else might be available. Good Luck! ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 1993 22:17:12 -0500 From: Pat Subject: Book Computers/AI in Shuttle-SSF Newsgroups: sci.space In article gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: | |>Might work inside the |>Shuttle until someone drifted in front of the sensor... | |Actually, I believe the Shuttle program is already using infrared |technology for the communications headsets worn inside. I thought the SUits already had a qualified IR system. Is the IR system only for the crew area? ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 93 02:31:46 GMT From: James Thomas Green Subject: Fallen Angels Newsgroups: sci.space In article <2001@tnc.UUCP> m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes: > >In the SF book 'Fallen Angels' by Larry Niven & others, a launch >vehicle named PHOENIX was described. In the afterward, it was claimed >that such a launch vehicle (SSTO/VTOL) could be build for $50M-200M. > >Anyone have information on the design of this critter? > See all the posts about DCX/Y/1/etc and SSTO . . . POHENIX = SSTO /~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@eros.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ |I didn't do it! Nobody saw me do it! You can't prove anything! | | | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 19:59:46 GMT From: Dennis Newkirk Subject: Freedom refueling (Mir-Progress, long) Newsgroups: sci.space In article jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes: >Allen, could you (or perhaps Dennis Newkirk) post a description of just how the >Russians refuel Mir? It's not imediately obvious to me that they do an EVA to >refuel. I'm not saying they don't, I'd just like someone to actually explain >what they do before we all take it for granted. See below. >>>|> Maybe we don't need tankage. Maybe we use fuel from the OMS. On some STS flights they dump OMS propellant to get the center of mass desired for reentry (usually they burn opposing thrusters) so there is left over propellant sometimes. The Russian Progress M system has a way around this waste, read below. Salyut/Mir Space Station Refuelling and Resupply Copyright (C) 1993, by Dennis Newkirk For those who don't know, Salyut 6-7 and Mir use a pressure fed storable propellant propulsion module at the rear of the station designated OUD. The system includes 2 main engines (1 on Mir), 4 blocks of attitude control thrusters and 6 propellant tanks positioned around the rear docking port. The main engines are rarely used since spacecraft are usually docked at the port (and not really trusted after many years of disuse). When this is so, the docked spacecraft are used to boost the stations orbit whenever propellant supplies allow. Progress Description The Progress was a highly modified version of the Soyuz, used to auto- matically deliver cargo to the space stations. The Soyuz design was altered by replacing the capsule with a tankage section. The Progress spacecraft usually weighed about 7,020 kg. at launch depending on the amount of cargo. Payload capacity was 2300 kg. of which about 1000 kg. was maximum weight of propellants, and 1300 kg. maximum orbital module cargo. It was 7.94 meters long and 2.7 meters diameter at the base. Internal volume of the cargo module was 6.6 cubic meters. The docking collar of the Progress includes propellant line connectors in addition to the standard electrical and communication connections. The Progress docked only at the aft port of Salyut 6 and 7 stations because it was the only port with propellant line connections. Mir forward and aft (and Kvant) ports are equipped with the connections. The Progress service module used a modified version of the OUD pressure feed engine system. The Progress was also used to test the new engine system before the beginning the Soyuz T flights, which used the same system. The pressurized instrument section of the service module was lengthened and equipment for automatic docking was apparently installed in this additional space. The Progress carried twice as much instrumentation for rendezvous and docking as the Soyuz. In the cargo section, pressure was maintained at 760 mm. but temperature varied from 3 to 30 C during flight. Special equipment carrying racks were installed depending on the cargo to be carried. The hatch, with the docking probe, could be opened automatically or manually. Another feature of the docking hatch and probe was the ability to remove the entire hatch from its mounting, to facilitate movement of cargo. The probe is stored in the space station and installed or stowed in the Progress before undocking. The Progress could carry enough cargo to supply a Salyut with two or three cosmonauts for three to six weeks. One figure quoted by the soviets was 30 kg. supplies per-person per-day. A typical cargo consisted of 200 kg. of water, 600 kg. of propellant, 250 kg. of food, 450 kg. of air, experiments, mail, replacement parts, materials samples, fresh food, video taped movies, concerts and cartoons, clothes, books and music and nature sound cassettes. Propellant was transferred from the Progress to the station by closing off the stations tanks and using a pump to lower the pressure of the tanks from an operational pressure of 220 Atmospheres, to about 3 Atmospheres by extracting nitrogen from the tanks flexible bellows. This took several hours because the pumping consumed a quarter of the Salyut station's electrical power (one kilowatt) and the Salyut's batteries had to be recharged periodically during the process. The Progress tanks were pressurized to 8 Atmospheres using its own nitrogen supply. When the valves were opened, most of the propellant flowed to the stations tanks which were then closed off refilled. The same process was used for both fuel and oxidizer tanks. The lines in the docking collar were then purged with nitrogen after refueling, to prevent the volatile fuel and oxidizer residue from spilling out onto the station after undocking. It was not uncommon for fuel and oxidizer transfers to be done days apart, and never at the same time probably due to power constraints and safety concerns. All refuelling operations can be done remotely from mission control, and usually cosmonauts only observe. The cosmonauts usually observe the docking of the Progress from 10 km. distance and could boost the station away from a malfunctioning ship. The cosmonauts could orient the station manually during the docking or let the stations automatic systems point the station. The Progress' were unloaded and refilled with waste, used equipment and air regenerators. Special tools for unfastening the equipment in Progress were carried on Salyut stations including a recoilless hammer, a lock-on screwdriver, pliers, and a power screwdriver. Many items like air regeneration tanks, clothes and human wastes were disposed of using Progress ships that burn up on re-entry. When a Progress was not available, the cosmonauts put the small trash in bags and put it out through the scientific airlocks. These bags quickly fell into the atmosphere and reentered due to atmospheric drag after about a month. This is used rarely on Mir. Progress M Description Revised Progress design using a Soyuz TM service module, Kurs (enabling docking at the forward Mir port which does not have Igla), and solar panels. The propellant section was connected to the propulsion section so propellant can be shared and unused orbital maneuvering propellant transfered to the station. The cargo compartment (orbital module) was slightly lengthened adding 1 cubic meter to the volume, and payload capacity was increased by 200 kg. (2700 kg. total). Capable of indepandent flight for up to 30 days. Docked lifetime is 108 days. The orbital module also can be equipped with a NPO Energia return capsule capable of carrying 100-150 kg.. The capusle is carried in the orbital module and is used to replace the docking probe after filling the Progress with trash, and the old probe. The capsule is 60 cm. in diameter. After retrofire the capsule seperates and pressure sensors trigger parachutes after reentry. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 93 03:14:28 GMT From: Keith Johnston Subject: Galileo Antenna: Net Brainstorm Session? Newsgroups: sci.space Dear netters: This is the first time I have posted to this group, but I have always found the net to be full of great ideas from people around the world. I was wondering if those who are more knowledgable than I might enlighten the rest of the net with the problem of Galileo's antenna to see if someone out there might come up with a way of getting it unstuck! This may have already been done, but if it hasn't, why not? Keith Johnston -- JOHNSTON,KEITH BARKER Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt1057a Internet: gt1057a@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 93 14:24:36 GMT From: Jonathan McDowell Subject: Human Distance Record:Apollo 13 Newsgroups: sci.space From article <1993Feb23.190911.29487@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, by pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron): > > Okay, now for a toughie (I don't know the answer, I'm really looking for it). > > Who was the loneliest man in the Universe? In other words, which of the Apollo > "third men" got furthest from his teammates, and was, hence furtherest from any > living human? That we know of :-) Wow, that's a toughie! Ken ("T.K.") Mattingly holds the record for the most *time* spent alone on the lunar farside, in the longest US solo spaceflight aboard CSM-113 Casper (the Apollo 16 CSM), 81 h 29 min, of which some fraction (anybody know how much) was spent out of contact with all other humans, with the body of the Moon between him and everyone else. In my book, this makes more loneliness that simple distance. But *distance* is trickier. I tried looking at the post-undocking lunar orbits of the CSMs, and the one with the highest apoapsis was CSM-114 America (Apollo 17 CSM), with 130 km altitude. But they're all pretty similar, the lowest being 118 km, and the errors introduced by time variation of the orbit induced by mascons and by uncertainty in the distance to the LM due to the non spherical shape of the Moon are probably larger than the differences bweteen the orbits for different missions. It's even possible that the dominant uncertainty is tracking errors - errors in our knowledge of the position of the CSM for the early missions not carrying a radar altimeter - and so the answer may not even be derivable from archival tracking records if they still exist. - Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 00:44:58 GMT From: tomas o munoz 283-4072 Subject: Nobody cares about Fred? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb25.141221.18374@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: |> The biggest thing which needs to be brought down only weighs a few thousand |> pounds. We could build a logistics module with a kick motor and heat |> shield and return the few things we need that way. I don't know what you mean by "need to be brought down" or "few thousand pounds". From SSF resupply/return studies, approximately 90 - 95 percent of everything that is planned for delivery to the SSF will need to be returned; This number does not include the crew or the orbiter, just logistics items and logistics carriers. That's 90-95% of delivered mass in the ~150k-200k lbm range. Maybe that is a few thousand pounds. If you start saying lets get rid of trash [food garbage, etc...] then you could drop down to approximately 85%. You will then need to develop a trash disposal system. You can't just send stuff to orbit and leave it there. That's MSFC's booster mentality. -- Tom Munoz ================================================================== Thought for the day: "One million microfiche = one fish" ___________ ___ ____ ____ /_________ /| /___/ \ /__ /\ /___/| |___ ___|/ / _ \ /| | \ \/ | | | | | | | | | | | \/ | | | | | | | | | | | |\ /| | | | | | | |_| |/ | | \/ | | | |__|/ \_____/ |__|/ |__|/ munoz@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov ================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 04:30:36 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: payload return from Fred Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb26.004458.28853@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> munoz@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (tomas o munoz 283-4072) writes: >|> The biggest thing which needs to be brought down only weighs a few thousand >|> pounds. We could build a logistics module with a kick motor and heat >|> shield and return the few things we need that way. > >I don't know what you mean by "need to be brought down" or >"few thousand pounds". From SSF resupply/return studies, >approximately 90 - 95 percent of everything that is planned >for delivery to the SSF will need to be returned... True, but that's not what he said. What he said was that the (single!) biggest thing that needs to come down in *one* *piece* only weighs a few thousand pounds. You don't need to bring trash down in twenty-ton lots. We can return few-thousand-pound objects using off-the-shelf reentry technology. For trash, omit the heatshield. >You can't just send stuff to orbit and leave it there... Why not? Most of it will be more useful up there than down here. And a heavier station is *better*, because it reduces the frequency with which reboost is needed; even trash is more useful as station ballast than as return cargo. -- 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: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 04:32:07 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: SOLAR gravity assist? Yup. Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb26.023127.14504@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >Bill Higgins asks about a "solar gravity assist". > >This is *not* the same as the more well-known Jupiter gravity assist. Paul, go back and read Bill's posting much more carefully. He really is talking about a Jupiter-style gravity assist, not an Oberth gravity- well maneuver. And no, he has not lost his marbles. Read his posting. -- 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: 25 Feb 93 12:57:21 GMT From: clements@vax.ox.ac.uk Subject: Space IR telescope schemes Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article <1993Feb18.213311.1@stsci.edu>, gawne@stsci.edu writes: > I wrote: >> |> To continue to the next logical step, we need to build and launch SIRTF. >> |> The IRTF (Infra-Red Telescope Facility) on Mauna Kea will always be >> |> stymied by that same atmosphere. Using what we've learned from HST we >> |> can build a high quality IR telescope for space observations. > > and Dave Rickel replied: >> There was a proposal in SPACEFLIGHT a couple months back to build a large >> passively cooled IR telescope. I seem to remember that they proposed sticking >> it in the L-2 spot (presumably the sun-earth L-2 spot). Is this SIRTF, or >> something else? > > Not the SIRTF I know of, but the planning for SIRTF is so nebulous right > now that it well may be a suggested modification. > The proposed instrument is not a redesign of SIRTF but a new proposal, initially from Harley Thronson and Tim Hawarden, called EDISON. It would have a passivly cooled mirror and support structure with actuvely cooled detectors, probably using closed-cycle cryogenic fridges. This allows a large refelctor, eg. similar in size to the HST mirror (perhaps a use for the spare???), which would cool down to about 50K over a long period. In contrast SIRTF and ISO use cooled primary mirrors, at 4K, but then have to have very small mirrors (0,5 m or under) and have limited lifespan. I may be able to forward an article by Amanda Baker on EDISON written for the UKSEDS magazine if anyone is interested. Dave -- ================================================================================ Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department ================================================================================ clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax | Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de dlc @ uk.ac.ox.astro | Saint Germain... ================================================================================ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 23:51:01 GMT From: tomas o munoz 283-4072 Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb25.022755.18710@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: |> >...You would still have |> >to completely redesign the system for on orbit refueling. |> |> Perhaps that should have been done from the start. Actually, this was done from the start with the original O2/H2 propulsion system which would use water from the orbiter fuel cells. It was scrapped for the cheaper [upfront $] present design. |> Last time I checked, 200 not 270 nm was the operational altitude of |> Freedom. Also, as I recall, Mir reboosts every month or so as a |> general rule. Freedom would require replacement of its station keeping |> motors after 180 days of normal operations. However, there are Last time I delivered altitudes to the SSF program they ranged between ~180 nmi and ~270+ nmi depending on solar cycle. There is not defined operational altitudes right now and they certainly will not be constant altitudes. However, there is a regime which defines where the SSF will fly. |> things that can be done, in extreme emergency, to increase this: |> Using all available fuel to boot to a high orbit, and putting |> the solar arrays into a minimum drag cross section pointing would |> extend the station's life to a year or two without resupply. However, |> that would have very serious consequences: A roughly fifty percent |> reduction in power (is that even enough to keep life support and |> housekeeping running?) and the station would be inaccessable to |> the Shuttle until it's orbit had decayed (I'm not a ACRV could |> make an emergency crew return from such a higher orbit, either.) This reboost will not send SSF out of Shuttle's altitude capability. -- Tom Munoz ================================================================== Thought for the day: "One million microfiche = one fish" ___________ ___ ____ ____ /_________ /| /___/ \ /__ /\ /___/| |___ ___|/ / _ \ /| | \ \/ | | | | | | | | | | | \/ | | | | | | | | | | | |\ /| | | | | | | |_| |/ | | \/ | | | |__|/ \_____/ |__|/ |__|/ munoz@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov ================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 00:11:32 GMT From: tomas o munoz 283-4072 Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb25.023555.20128@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: |> A Titan IV should be able to deliver an extra ACRV. I also don't |> see why you couldn't put a few people in that extra ACRV, and |> thereby both deliver and retrieve humans. I'd like to hea the astronaut office express their views on putting crew on top of a Titan IV in a vehicle with no manual control capability. |> >How do you perform the actual payload transfer from the expendable |> >to the SSF if the SSF is unmanned? - You really need IVA for this |> >operation. |> |> Which sort of unmanned: After MTC, you just need to get people to |> the station, and there are only a few launches (low risk) before |> MTC. No, after MTC you still 11 assembly flights and 8 utilization flights. I don't quite understand your definition of low risk. |> >This is true at almost any place along SSF assembly. In the PMC |> >phase, you have the ability to fully feather the PV arrays and have |> >orbital lifetime ranging up to ~1.5 years. |> |> At the price of almost complete (complete? What exactly do you |> mean by "fully" feather?) loss of power. Yes, at the price of very little power generation. However, you can go to a minimum power configuration and remove the crew to achieve this. Fully feathered means the edge of the solar arrays to the "wind" in an LVLH orientation. Fully feathered does not mean zero power, because at times in the orbit [orbital noon], fully feathered arrays point directly to the sun and generating full power capability. -- Tom Munoz ================================================================== Thought for the day: "One million microfiche = one fish" ___________ ___ ____ ____ /_________ /| /___/ \ /__ /\ /___/| |___ ___|/ / _ \ /| | \ \/ | | | | | | | | | | | \/ | | | | | | | | | | | |\ /| | | | | | | |_| |/ | | \/ | | | |__|/ \_____/ |__|/ |__|/ munoz@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov ================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 93 03:00:39 GMT From: Michael Pereckas Subject: The Future of Fred Newsgroups: sci.space wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.MSfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >PS just to make sure you know, the batteries are in building 4487 room >C101. This is the Skylab battery room and is still in use. Too many on >here forget things like the battle for the power system that pitted >the DC power system against a 20 khz AC system. This battle was won and >is one of the unknown things done to build a good station. This is the kind of thing I like to hear about. Can you fill us in? I remember hearing something about 20 kHz power a few years ago, but nothing since. -- Michael Pereckas pereckas@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu "The more I stab myself in the foot, the less I want to kick my head off." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 00:47:01 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: UN Space Agency? Newsgroups: sci.space phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser) writes: >In article <1993Feb20.174127.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes: >> Is there a UN Space Agency and if there is can someone post info here and >> forward the info to me here: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu >They have the Committee for the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPOUS) >Chair is a Mr. Jasentuliyana (Sp?) If this is COPOUS as in COPOUS treaty, then it's probably a bunch of third-world jerks (and assorted liberals from everywhere else) whose countries can't keep up a satellite for more than 2 weeks whining about how space is used by the West to oppress the South... (and they ain't talking about Dixie, if you know what I mean). >--- >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >| Carlos G. Niederstrasser | It is difficult to say what | >| Princeton Planetary Society | is impossible; for the dream of | >| | yesterday, is the hope of today | >| | and the reality of tomorrow | >| carlosn@phoenix.princeton.edu |---------------------------------| >| space@phoenix.princeton.edu | Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra | >--------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps: Ad Astra pre la Cosa Nostra? -- Phil Fraering |"...drag them, kicking and screaming, pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|into the Century of the Fruitbat." - Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_ ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 238 ------------------------------