Date: Wed, 14 Apr 93 05:10:59 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #458 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Wed, 14 Apr 93 Volume 16 : Issue 458 Today's Topics: Apollo Training in Iceland Clementine Science Team Selected Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter? Cool book Did any DC-X gifs show up? (2 msgs) Help viewing Voyager CD ROMs on Mac Orbital RepairStation Quick reaction shuttle Russian Operation of US Space Missions. Space on other nets (2 msgs) Space Station Quick Reaction Shuttle. (2 msgs) Voyager pictures Why is SDIO doing "Clementine"? Will the launch be visible from NJ? 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: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 04:29:06 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Apollo Training in Iceland Newsgroups: sci.space In article stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson) writes: >>I've read that Apollo astronauts were >>in Iceland to train because some of the >>landscape does indeed resemble the Moon. > >Some of the Astronauts trained near Sudbury in Ontario for that reason. >(The Nickel smelters wiped out the plant life down wind at the time) Actually, they were in Sudbury not because of the desolation caused by the smelters, but because the Sudbury nickel deposits are at the bottom of a very large meteorite crater. (There is still debate about whether the nickel deposits are the remains of the meteorite or metal-rich deep magma brought up by the impact.) Their interest was in the crater, not in the plant life or lack of same. If they were in Iceland, presumably it was for training on volcanic geological formations, which are everywhere in Iceland. If they wanted superficial resemblance to moonscapes, they need not have gone so far afield. Trips like that were motivated by the geological history of the regions, not by surface appearance. -- All work is one man's work. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology - Kipling | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 01:35:01 -0500 From: Mark Prado Subject: Clementine Science Team Selected Newsgroups: sci.space Reply to: mark.prado@permanet.org > Basically, SDIO wants to test out new sensors for potential anti-missile > use -- international treaties won't allow you to test them on satellites > (the idea of testing them on natural bodies is pretty much a treaty > loophole). SDIO missions Delta 180 and Delta 181 tested sensors on other bodies in orbit around Earth. For example, Delta 180 tested them on the object it eventually intercepted at the end. They were fully orbiting "satellites". The Homing Overlay Experiment in 1983 tested IR sensors on an RV over the Pacific. It intercepted that object. In other words, treaty compliance is not why we're going after an asteroid instead of something else. If an official or a columnist said it was, then I would appreciate it if you or someone else would tell me who. (One of my assignments for SDIO in 1986-87 was ABM Treaty compliance of all their space experiments. It was a fairly easy case. Perhaps someone in some heavy position could use some of the public statements of my case which were put into old press releases and a congressional report.) All the best, - Mark Prado mark.prado@permanet.org * Origin: PerManNet Communications, Washington D.C., U.S.A. (1:109/349.2) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 02:21:21 GMT From: Kenneth W Durham Subject: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Regarding all the 'secondary' effects in a 3-body problem (as commented on in the Comet in...Jupiter posts), are there any functions concerning this problem already written up? Ken ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 05:40:38 GMT From: David Meese Subject: Cool book Newsgroups: sci.space There is a new book that was put on the market about 6 months ago by Marshall T. Savage. It contains many interesting ideas for economically begin to send man into space enmasse. All the ideas and methods seem like they might actually work. The name of the book is "The Millennial Project" Get your hands on a copy and see what you think. Dave dmeese@lamar.colostate.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 1993 23:14:28 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Did any DC-X gifs show up? Newsgroups: sci.space THere was a picture in this weeks Space News. Is it just me, or does it still look like a dairy products plant? pat ------------------------------ Date: 14 Apr 1993 08:34:25 GMT From: Diaspar Virtual Reality Network Subject: Did any DC-X gifs show up? Newsgroups: sci.space The rollout was great and I got lots of great shots. I attended the press briefing and got shots of the DC-Y model, too. All in 3D David H. Mitchell ------------------------------ Date: 14 Apr 93 01:24:36 GMT From: "David Gaba M.D." Subject: Help viewing Voyager CD ROMs on Mac Newsgroups: sci.space Two and a half years ago I purchased a set of CD ROMs from the University of Colorado Lab for Atmos. and Space Physics. They were Space Sciences Sampler and Voyagers to the Outer Planets. My plans to get a CD ROM player never materialized. My buddy just got a CD ROM player on his Mac IIVX so we thought we'd try them out. The set of disks came with two sets of software: Pixel Pusher (a JPL product) and Image 1.26 (an NIH) product. The documentation with Pixel Pusher was pretty meager and that for Image was pretty cryptic, but we pressed ahead. With Pixel Pusher we could never get past messages something like This file has no PDS label, please fill in the following info (a bunch of slots with most zeros). Yet, we could open the image file in Word and see the label file at the beginning. With Image we followed the instructions as best we could but just got pseudo-random images. Yes, I can contact the originators (and I will) but -- has anybody had similar problems? Are there newer programs that make displaying these images easier for the common person? If so what? Etc. Thanks, David Gaba me.dmg@forsythe.stanford.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 93 05:58:09 GMT From: Michael Nielsen Subject: Orbital RepairStation Newsgroups: sci.space It seems to me that so many billion of dollars are floating around in orbit around the earth (i believe it is something like a satelite for every degree of a circle, probably increased by now)). So It seems like a huge opportunity for the development for an orbital station capable of carrying out a repair of a vehicle in orbit, with out the clumsy suits (of course this adds problems). Sort of a space dry dock, should not really be that impossible, could perhaps be constructed using a flexable blimb like construction, which is erected around the satillite or other such vehicles like extra planetary veichles could be constructed in orbit (means a lot of small payloads (ie using these spare missil that are hanging around)). Just thinking aloud, and before some one mentions the costs of such a system, I have though of this, but I cannot see that it would out weigh the benefits, as in being able to recommission some of the older, useful satellites. mike -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- JOKE == (:->) Michael Nielsen @ 1993 cemn@groper.jcu.edu.au Disclamer :- I'm Innocent ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 01:08:11 GMT From: Josh Hopkins Subject: Quick reaction shuttle Newsgroups: sci.space prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >(Josh Hopkins) writes: >>(Pat) writes: >| >|How difficult can it be to keep a >|>shuttle stacked, and waiting for the occasional light weight >|>mission? >| >|Try impossible. Or at least, not practical for the amount of money we're >|willing to spend. For one thing, you'd be tying up a launch pad or VAB spot. >|For another, the shuttle doesn't have an infinite shelf life. >What I am asking is essentially a historically speculative question. >It is irrelevant now, due to the number of commercial launchers >available and a sudden surfeit of Russian equipment. >However, My understanding is that the Orbiters have a 20 week mission >cycle. From landing at edwards to Next flight. Much of that time >is spent re-furbishing engines, etc. The VAB has 4 Bays. one could >stack 2 SRB,s an ET and OV-100, and leave it parked in a spare bay. Don't forget a crawler. >I know the SRB's should be good for quite a long time. AF solids sit around for >years qiting for doomsday. An unfueled ET, should be good for a few years >also. The big question is the Orbiter gaskets, seals, etc..... That is indeed the big question. I don't know what the shelf life of each such component is. However, I doubt that it is long enough (you would need something on the order of years). The Titan launchers are required to be able to last one year on the pad, and in at least one case they had to refurbish the vehicle after such a period. I recall the story of one Saturn IB launch (told by Pouge perhaps?) in which the engineers were called in to determine if the vehicle was safe to launch after numerous delays left it on the pad. The fins (which were apparently load bearing structures) had developed cracks. by using a special cradle and keeping the stack in the VAB you might be able to extend its shelflife, but it still won't be indefinite. >But you keep a maintenance team hanging about. And they cost money. They also take the vehicle offline whenever they do maintainance, which means that either you need two backup orbiters or you don't fly missions while the backup is down (or you just accept a higher risk). None of these choices are very logical. >To me, back in 1979,80 it would have made sense to keep an orbiter >ready to go, as nothing else as a rescue vehicle. In 1983, if a shuttle >took an unrepairable event, Fuel cell explosion, etc. it may have >made sense to have an orbiter that could get up there in 24 hours. But that wouldn't have been possible. To launch an orbiter that is in the VAB, you must move it to the pad (a distance of a few miles at less than walking speed), fill an enormous fuel tank (which takes hours), clear the launch, program in the orbital parameters, do the calculations, check the systems, in short, you must do much more than 24 hours worth of work. Therefore, you must define a mission wherein the crew can survive for days or weeks, but can't get down by themselves. There just aren't many ways things can catastrophic so politely. >If STS was going to be an Operational system, it makes sense to have a hot standby >running. But if STS were an operational system, in the sense envisioned in the late 70s, it wouldn't _need_ rescuing. -- Josh Hopkins jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu "Tout ce qu'un homme est capable d'imaginer, d'autres hommes seront capable de le realiser" -Jules Verne ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 1993 23:31:15 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Russian Operation of US Space Missions. Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro I found out something interesting today. COBE the Cosmic Background Explorer is planned for shutdown THis year, because there is insufficient funds to keep it alive. Would it be possible for the soviets to Run it? THis is kinda a henry Spencer, Dennis Newkirk question, But it should be 10 times cheaper to do it there. Do the Russians have the X band Capable Large Dishes to command and control things like COBE and Magellan? If not, what kind of ballpark money would it take to get them up and running? How difficult would it be to send people over to train them and get them running? pat PS for those interested, at GSFC, COBE costs appx $1 million a year to run. Anyone know a science foundation that can pick up the tab?: ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 23:36:02 -0500 From: Mark Prado Subject: Space on other nets Newsgroups: sci.space > From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) > Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory > > For an article I'm writing, I would like to know more > about space-related chatter on other networks, especially > commercial services in the U.S. Notably, if anyone here knows someone else who would like to get access to space-related resources on the Internet, but do not have an Internet link, then they may be able to get them via my store & forward hub here in the Washington, D.C., area. All they need is a modem and suitable software. > Fidonet I basically use FidoNet_technology, not FidoNet itself, to distribute sci.space, sci.space.news, United Press International (UPI) newswires, and other things to people who have a modem, a phone line :), and FTSC-compliant (i.e., FidoNet-compatible) software. This little network is called PerManNet. We also have a "PerManNet Quick Startup Kit" shareware software package, including our complete INSTALL.EXE and some nice documentation in case it's needed. It's very nice. Further, we offer some optional "loadable modules", like a ListServ (yes, you can host your own listserv using a PC, and it's fully automated), and ftpmail. These two (and other optional modules) are for the more ambitious, leader types. > 0rigin: Internet <=> permanet.org FTSC, Voice: 703-715-8473 Any inquiries should go to: mark.prado@permanet.org * Origin: PerManNet Communications, Washington D.C., U.S.A. (1:109/349.2) ------------------------------ Date: 14 Apr 1993 08:31:31 GMT From: Diaspar Virtual Reality Network Subject: Space on other nets Newsgroups: sci.space ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 04:04:51 GMT From: nsmca@ACAD3.ALASKA.EDU Subject: Space Station Quick Reaction Shuttle. Newsgroups: sci.space Here is a better idea than a quick reaction shuttle.. Build a space station and have a space vehicle docked for missions in and around earth. Possible uses for a quick reaction vehicle is: Astronaut/medical emergencies: Basicaly an Ambulance designed to search for, rescue and stabalize a patient for transport to the space station for more work. Basically what is current for a ETT/EMT/Paramedic basically EMS (Emergency Medical Services). Once the patient gets back to the station and stablized, they can be treated at the station or transported to earth via either regular shuttle run or by Drop Capsule for splash down on earth. Search and Rescue: Like above, basically is used to perform search and rescue of astronauts, maybe not in a critic situation, but in a need of rescue. Satellite Rescue: Basically as in patient rescue, but not as critical. Basically go find, repair onsite if possible, if not possible, then capture and transport to station for repairs, if still not able to repair then ship to earth via shuttle/drop capsule. If its a satellite, gets it and brings it back for repair at the Stations Workshop. Or if its to bad, sends it to earth via scheduled shuttle missions or via the same basic method as a patient, but it can be easier (less need to preserve life).. If anyone has seen a few books on early future space exploration.. Saw a book about a Doctor who is hired to be the medical officer on a space station/microwave orbital power collector and beamer.. Can't remember the author and name, but I liked the idea and such.. Also the fact that the station was a commercial project and not a government one.. And the interplay and such.. I know the analog of Bush Medicine and such can be made into space.. Imagine if you will an accident where a person has multiple trauma and might die if not gotten to care soon. Problem is its up to a half hour to the airport at their village and the local health aid, then on a plane to medevac them to Nome and the local/regional hospital (with a nurse/doctor (normally an intern but might be a full doctor or a paramedic if available)) onboard from Nome.. Then upto an hour or more to get the person stablized once in Village or Nome.. Then an hour (or more) flight to Anchorage.. BAsically by the time the person gets from a village to Anchorage and a full care hospital it can be from 4 to 12 hours, depending on the patient and the weather conditions.. We once had a medevac (I was not on it) from Big Diomede, the weather was terrible, the Russians could not get there for at a minimum of two days, the Army Guard/Coast Guard might get there the same day or next.. Well they got there the next day, weather.. The soldier was then taken via Little Diomede (another patient on Little Diomede which is next door to Big) to Nome and finally to Anchorage.. Big Diomede is in Russia if you did not know.. We here in Alaska have very good reasons to see normal relations between Russia and the US, cause we are in the cross hairs, we have family over there and we would be on the for front on relief to Providenya and Eastern Siberia. Food is in short supply there.. And it will get worse.. Anyone who has lived in Alaska for long, especially the Bush knows how satellites and such have affected us here in the Bush.. Does anyone know of the Iditarod? C.1930 a Influenze epidemic was raging in NW Alaska and a vacine was needed there. Well via plane, and dog sleds to Nome from I believe Anchorage took almost 3 weeks.. Well that same trip is now about 45 minutes.. Well enough of this.. == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked (This is a repost of a post I made earlier with more spelling errors and the subject was . So I reposted it now..). ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 1993 22:43:58 -0700 From: Ken Hayashida Subject: Space Station Quick Reaction Shuttle. Newsgroups: sci.space >Here is a better idea than a quick reaction shuttle.. > >Build a space station and have a space vehicle docked for missions in and >around earth. Interesting idea...I vote for the Centaur as a propulsion module. Here's a description of my ultimate space station (BTW I think we should build the current design since it has advanced to the point of achieving its CDR and design freeze in a few weeks [opinions?]) Small truss as a framework to link the following parts: 1 module for medical/pharmaceutical research 1 module for dedicated materials research with furnace 1 module for closed loop ecosystem system 2 habitation modules for 2 astronauts each Each of these hab/lab modules would be half the size of the current modules, about the size of the end nodes of the current station design. Each module would also need identical electrical and data interfaces. In addition, each module would have identical docking mechanisms so that the combination of modules could be altered or changed. Several unpressurized modules, including a propulsion module, a electrical supply module (i.e. for solar panels or for a nuclear generator). Once these modules are manufactured and orbited, if built within the proper weight limits, they could be sent on to lunar orbit. The same modules from space station could go to the moon or further. Thus, I argue that part of the NASA exploration program should include the development of a Centaur like upper stage for the delivery of several ton payloads to the moon or Mars. Here's a different space station design idea. Build shuttle Z and replace the shuttle on the stack with a payload the size of the External Tank. That volume would validate the ETCo people's ideas and set the stage for orbital use of ET's (external tank, not extra-terrestial [for all you Spielberg lovers]). Ken khayash@hsc.usc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 14 Apr 93 04:16:07 GMT From: "THE SKY ALREADY FELL. NOW WHAT?" Subject: Voyager pictures Newsgroups: sci.space Hi, I hope I'm posting this to the right group. I would like to get some big, blow-up prints of the pictures that Voyager took on its way past Jupiter and Saturn. Does anyone have any idea how I could come by them? I looked through the FAQ's but I didn't see anything relevant. Thanks in advance for any information. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur. Garrett Johnson "This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've Garrett@Ingres.com settled into the situation and found my bearings. THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 93 14:36:31 GMT From: "Rudy J. Cazabon" Subject: Why is SDIO doing "Clementine"? Newsgroups: sci.space I have a question. Why was SDIO given the necessary funding levels to conduct the "Clementine" fly-by of the Moon? None of the arguements concerning the testing of new-technology sensors and autonomous navigation techniques for near-Earth operations seem to consistent with this flight's intent of orbiting the Moon and eventually fly-by the asteroid Geographos. I wonder if the funds and resources that SDIO has received for this mission, at least for the lunar and asteroidal fly-bys, would have been better spent by NASA in its attempt to fund the Lunar Resource Mapper and a proposed JPL micro-craft to go to an asteroid. Although I have not seen the actual costs of the Clementine mission, whatever number is published most likely will not reflect the development cost of the sensors and autonomous GNC suite. This is a question of relevance. In many respects this sounds like a throwback to the late-1950s and early- 1960s when Air Force generals cited that going to the Moon was a good idea since it could be used both as a reconaissance platform, which is done today in an indirect manner, however; and as a staging base for nuclear interceptors. If anyone "out there" has more information concerning the Clementine mission I would truly appreciate if I could get some pointers as to where to go get it. Sincerely Rudy Cazabon gt2593d@prism.gatech.edu ccastcz@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 04:24:34 GMT From: Bob Egan Subject: Will the launch be visible from NJ? Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space In article <4766@phred.UUCP>, petej@phred.UUCP (Peter Jarvis) writes... > >You may have seen attitude thrusters firing. The Shuttle has no beacons. >It doesn't need them. > As I said..I was Very surprised....and was not aware of them... I think we/I got an earlier accurate explanation..thanks > >>now..was this a "fly w/ us and see the shuttle by a departing airline >>out of logan, or is this a chase plane for NASA" ???? > >It was probably neither. Departing airliners have dedicated routes to follow >with ground controllers telling when and where to turn. As far as I know, >NASA does not chase its ascending Shuttles. > Well..I donno...I am a pilot...and I am very well versed (sp) in the routing to/in the Boston TCA and the ARSA at Providence. This plane was outside both, but in controlled airspace. Assuming it was a commercial airliner, he could have requested a deviation which, assuming a quiet airspace, and occasion, might have been approved by NY or Boston Center....it just seemed all to unusual. Someone raised the point about what is NASA's plan should the shuttle need to abort its ascent...failed OEMS burn perhaps?? and land/ scrub along the east coast...wouldn't it make sense they have people in this airspace ? Also, to answer someones question...the Shuttle does indeed have VHF and UHF 200 Mhz radio on-board. I can't post the frequencies here, but I will be willing to e-mail them. drop me a note. > >Peter Jarvis.......... Thanks Peter, Bob ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 458 ------------------------------