HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Update - 04/15/92
Followup-To: sci.space
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  Magellan, JPL
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 06:42:45 GMT

Forwarded from the Magellan Project

                    MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                       April 15, 1992

1.  Magellan continues to map Venus under the M2094 command
    sequence which started Friday, April 3rd.  All systems are
    nominal and pointing accuracy of the antenna is excellent.
    The spacecraft temperatures are remaining stable.

2.  Magellan is sending radar image data using the 360 kHz
    subcarrier at 115.2 kbps.  The signal-to-noise ratio at
    the DSN (Deep Space Network) stations is varying between
    0 and -3 db.

3.  As we approach Superior Conjunction on June 14, increased
    use of the 70 meter antennas is desirable, but may only be
    possible for targetted areas.  As during Cycle 1, we will
    reach a point prior to June 14 when com-munications cannot
    be maintained, causing another "Superior Conjunction Gap."

4.  The Solar Array Drive Mechanism (SADM) "slip," an
    accumulating difference between the array position as
    indicated by the stepper motors vs the on-board computer
    reference, will be corrected by ground commands tomorrow..
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Denial is always the first
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | sympton.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 

Newsgroups: sci.space.news
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 04/16/92
Followup-To: sci.space
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  Galileo, JPL
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 05:56:58 GMT

Forwarded from Bill O'Neil, Galileo Project Manager

                         GALILEO STATUS REPORT
                            April 16, 1992

     The Galileo Spacecraft is operating normally in the dual-spin mode and
transmitting coded telemetry at 10 bps.

     Yesterday, the Spacecraft, under stored sequence control, returned from
the cooling attitude to a 5 degree off-sun attitude; the sun acquisition was
completed at approximately 2025 PDT.  Sun gate data indicated no change in
antenna rib configuration.

     Today, April 16, 1992, real-time commands are scheduled to checkout the
Star Scanner (SS) and reacquire celestial reference along with collecting
wobble ID data.  Tracking is scheduled over DSS-63 (Madrid 70 meter antenna),
DSS-14 (Goldstone 70 meter antenna), and DSS-43 (Canberra 70 meter antenna).

     Tomorrow, real-time commands are scheduled to update the system fault
protection in preparation for the HGA (High Gain Antenna) motor turn-on planned
for April 29.  Tracking is scheduled over DSS-14 and DSS-43.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Denial is always the first
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | sympton.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |
From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Payload Status for 04/13/92 (Forwarded)
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:26:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr13.222657.29245
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Apparently-To: sci-space-news@ames.arc.nasa.gov


                           PAYLOAD TEST AND ACTIVITY SHEET
                             Tethered Satellite/EURECA

                                  April 13, 1992

          George Diller
          NASA Kennedy Space Center
          407/867-2468
          FTS 823-2468

          Mission: STS-46
          Orbiter: OV-104 Atlantis
          Crew: 7
          Pad: 39-B
          Launch timeframe: July wk 1 (NET)
          Launch window: mid-morning
          Mission Duration: 7 days
          Landing Site: KSC (early morning)
          Primary TAL: Ben Guerir
          Orbit: 185 statute miles  28.5 degrees

          Current location: Operations & Checkout Building (O&C)        

          Upcoming Activity: (* denotes change since last status)

          TSS End-to-End test  4/22 *
          TSS Final thermal blanket installation activity 4/23-30 *
          EURECA arrives VPF  5/18 *
          EURECA Interface Verifiacation Test  5/27 *
          EURECA End-to-End Test  5/29 *
          TSS installation into payload canister 6/2 *
          EURECA installation into payload canister 6/5 *
          Transfer TSS/EURECA to Pad B  6/9 *

          Activity Completed:

          TSS arrival 11/16/90
          Reel Assembly mated to experiment pallet  2/8/91
          Final fit check with Satellite Support Assembly (SSA)  4/12
          Satellite Support Assembly mated to experiment pallet  7/16
          Flight tether installed  9/11
          Flight tether testing completed  9/13
          Deployer to pallet IVT completed  10/21
          Mate Satellite to Satellite Support Assembly  12/18
          Connect tether to satellite/mate to deployer boom  1/15/92
          Satellite System and Experiment Functional Tests complete  2/28
          Satellite IVT Complete  2/29
          Begin Satellite closeout activities  3/17
          Power on TSS/load software for MST 3/17
          Mission Sequence Test  3/19-3/24
          Move to CITE stand  4/2
          Interface Verification Test CITE sequence complete  4/10
From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Shuttle Status for 04/06/92 (Forwarded)
Apparently-To: sci-space-news@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:12:51 GMT

              KSC SHUTTLE STATUS REPORT - MONDAY, APR. 6, 1992  2:30 PM


               STS-49/INTELSAT RESCUE - ENDEAVOUR (OV 105) - PAD 39-B

          WORK IN PROGRESS:
          - Post flight readiness firing operations at the launch pad.
          - Gaseous hydrogen injection test in the aft compartment.

          WORK COMPLETE:
          - Flight Readiness Firing at 11:12 a.m.  EDT for 22 seconds.  The
          initial look indicates the test went well.  Engineers are analyz-
          ing the data.

          WORK SCHEDULED:
          - Deconfigure the launch pad from the test.
          - STS-49 payloads transfer to the launch pad this weekend.
          - Post-FRF inspections of the main propulsion system and main en-
          gines.
          - Terminal Countdown Demonstration  Test  with  the  flight  crew
          planned April 17.

                       STS-50 - COLUMBIA (OV 102) - OPF BAY 3

          WORK IN PROGRESS:
          - Payload pre-mate testing.
          - Close outs of the midbody.
          - Installing thermal blankets in the midbody.

                STS-46/TSS AND EURECA - ATLANTIS (OV 104) - OPF BAY 1

          WORK IN PROGRESS:
          - Post flight inspections and tests.
          - Preparations to remove the ATLAS payload from the payload bay.

                     STS-53/DoD - DISCOVERY (OV 103) - OPF BAY 2

          WORK IN PROGRESS:
          - Orbiter modifications.
          - Modifications for the drag chute.

          WORK COMPLETED:
          - Structural inspections of the vehicle.

                  STS-50 - SOLID ROCKET BOOSTERS/MLP-3 - VAB BAY 3

          WORK IN PROGRESS:
          - Closing out the booster field joints.
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Solar Power Satellites... what do *you* know?
From: repalmer@oread.cc.ukans.edu
Date: 9 Apr 92 09:00:40 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Serces

In article <53206@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
> In article <5T9JiB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:  
> 
> The fear is that solar power satellites are infinitely more vulnerable
> to foreign military attack than are Earthbound power plants within one's
> national borders.  Short of launching a nuclear-tipped ICBM, it would
> be very difficult for a foreign power to fry the Vogtle nuclear power
> plant here in Georgia by direct military means.  It would, however, be
> trivially easy to sweep the entire geostationary belt (where I would assume
> SPS's would be located) clean of functioning satellites.  I fully support
> developing SPS as a viable power source, but it will be a near-impossibility
> to defend.
> 
> Your 'psychological failure mode' is simply people realizing what you 
> don't.

I've always wonder why anyone would think that the most effective nuclear
attack would be from ICBMs.  Wouldn't it be easier to smuggle the peices of a
low grade nuke, assemble them on a flat be and park it in the vacinity of a
power plant?  How many tons of drugs come in each day?  If you launch ICBMs we
know who to retaliate against-smuggle them in and we have to depend on
intellegence-seems a safer bet for the attacker.
Rick

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 04/01/92 (Forwarded)
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 13:21:34 GMT

In article <1403@newave.UUCP> john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.230858.25611@news.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>> Also on Friday, KSC officials will celebrate the topping off of 
>> the Space Station Processing Facility.  The final beam is set to be 
>> hoisted atop the 3-story, 63,000-square-foot structure at 2:00 pm EST.  
>> Construction began just over a year ago for the $56.2 million processing 
>> facility.  When completed, the structure is expected to house over 1,000 
>> technicians, engineers and managers who will process space station 
>> payload and other hardware. 
>
>Is this the only Space Station "Hardware" being built, or is there other
>building projects currently going on at NASA connected with Fred?  Has
>construction started yet on any of the flight hardware?

I thought someone more authoratative would answer by now, but since no one
has, I'll take a stab at it.

No, that is not the only hardware being built.  As of November, about half of
the solar cells for FEL were built and delivered.  I expect most should be
done by now.  Fabrication has also started on the US lab module -- see the
AvWeek about two weeks ago for pictures.  Other assorted pieces of equipment
have begun to trickle in.

Right now, however, most of the hardware is in the engineering test stage.
Prototypes have been made and are undergoing space qualification testing.  As
I understand the process, if nothing major fails the tests and another redesign
isn't forced on NASA, FY93 funds will be spent putting hardware into produc-
tion and finishing the testing.  FY94 funds will mainly be spent finishing
FEL production, and FY95 will be mainly for Shuttle integration and launch.

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!
From: Kurtis.Lindqvist@p1.f6.n220.z2.FIDONET.ORG (Kurtis Lindqvist)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Color ufo-pics soon at uf
Date: 3 Apr 92 17:44:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 2:220/6.1 - Soft Gateway, Helsinki


  > I did scan them today and will make them soon available in color-GIF
  > format
  > at the UFO-pics-FTP-site at phoenix.oulu.fi (130.231.240.17).
  >
  Is it possible to get a BBS phone number?
  - kurtis -

===
 * PQ-Under-Trial 2.14 * Wounder when the flying CD-ROMs will land......


--  
Kurtis Lindqvist - via FidoNet node 2:220/801
If you wanna be sure your reply comes via casino, use: ...!fuug!casino!6.1!Kurtis.Lindqvist
This might come back via other gateways: Kurtis.Lindqvist@p1.f6.n220.z2.FIDONET.ORG
From: wade@birch.ssc.gov (d. wade)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: ozone
Date: 11 Apr 92 16:58:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SSC Laboratory, Dallas, TX

It seems  


``
..
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jchapin@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (John M. Chapin)
Subject: microbots for repair?
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date:  9 Apr 92 06:23:17 GMT

Researchers such as Rod Brooks at MIT have been making good progress
on extremely small insect-like robots (10-100 grams) that have enough
battery power and intelligence on board to move around in complex
environments.

Looking forward 5 years, would it be worthwhile to take ~1 Kg of an
interplanetary probe for a half dozen robots and a recharging/
programming station?  Then if something goes wrong that requires
physical help (eg. Galileo, or perhaps micrometeorite impacts on
the really long missions) the robots could crawl to the site and
apply a small amount of force as directed.

The risk is obvious--that a robot will go haywire and crunch itself
in the middle of a previously-working part or die right at the
aperture of an instrument.

Still, this might be a valuable backup system to have if the
mission is in jeopardy because of an unanticipated physical problem.

[If this is a well-studied idea I'd appreciate a pointer to the
 article/book.]

-John Chapin
-- 
-----------------------
John Chapin
jchapin@cs.stanford.edu
-----------------------
From: jburger@oldcolo.UUCP (Joseph Burger)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Solar Power Satellites... what do *you* know?
Date: 7 Apr 92 12:10:04 GMT

Interesting approach to non-logic.  'now i know ew were wiretapping the 
homes...'  which you do not prove, and then go on to the ultimate
idiot comment that 'see during wartime we are also good at trashing
civil liberties.'  
Dumbest comment I have read since 'If we can put a man on the moon
why can't we cure.....'
======================================================================== 
Joseph J. Burger          |    The more corrupt the state, the more    | 
Space Analysis & Research |  numerous the laws. -  Cornelius Tacitus   | 
Colorado Springs, CO      |                                            | 
jburger%oldcolo@csn.org   |     In politics. an absurdity is not a     | 
ding.a.ling (719) 260-0500|            handicap. - Napoleon            | 
========================================================================
From: DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SDI update
Date: 9 Apr 92 05:47:14 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) says:

> DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
>> What level of reliability do you suppose an automated, space based
>> interceptor
>> will achieve?  Three nines? (a fantasy number, but let's go with it)  Do you
>> suppose there is any political reality that will allow civilians to be
>> exposed
>> to that level of risk?...  Even 10**-6 failure would be intolerable.  BP
>> will ensure that space will be a military-only enterprise...

> Why do you assume that BP would be turned loose as a robot, completely
> beyond control from the ground?  Regardless of occasional overenthusiasm
> from some technical people who should know better, nobody is going to
> authorize that.  The possibilities for accidents and international incidents
> are just too great.  At the very least, I would expect to see interceptors
> requiring an "arm" signal from the ground, supplied by a human.

The problem is that BP only has a few minutes to respond.  Requiring human
intervention may (depending on the technical sophistication of the opponent)
slow the reaction time to the point where it is too late.  Even if not too
late, delayed reaction requires more platforms in orbit, increasing the cost
and complexity.  In any case, it is not obvious that putting a human in the
loop will improve the risk to an acceptible level.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Cost of lunar base
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:17:52 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Apr3.162108.3498@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>... The textile industry is the 
>major consumer of water in the South after agriculture. Just getting enough
>water to drink and for food crops from native materials is likely to be a 
>major problem on the Moon.

It is going to be absolutely, unconditionally necessary to recycle water
virtually completely in any substantial lunar base or colony.  For one
thing, it is too valuable to throw away, since the Moon is very short of
hydrogen (even if we find polar ice).  For another, there is nowhere to
throw large quantities of volatile waste without greatly increasing
the density of the lunar atmosphere, which is undesirable for several
reasons.  Water for textile production is a capital investment, not an
operating cost.
-- 
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix.     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                             -Dick Dunn |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: bhoughto@hopi.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Moon Market Survey
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:39:52 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp, Chandler, AZ

In article <LDZ1iB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>How much would you be willing to pay for a small amount of moon dust?
>Say, a fraction of a gram.

Not with my life, or even a fraction of it.

All items brought back from the moon, even a speck of
moon dust, are Property of the US Government, and if
anyone possesses them privately they are breaking
Federal Law.

				--Blair
				  "Spit it out."
				  -my favorite part of COPS!
From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Solar Power Satellites... what do *you* know?
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:07:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Boeing AI Center, Huntsville, AL

ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>The fear is that solar power satellites are infinitely more vulnerable
>to foreign military attack than are Earthbound power plants within one's
>national borders.  Short of launching a nuclear-tipped ICBM, it would
>be very difficult for a foreign power to fry the Vogtle nuclear power
>plant here in Georgia by direct military means.  It would, however, be
>trivially easy to sweep the entire geostationary belt (where I would assume
>SPS's would be located) clean of functioning satellites.  I fully support
>developing SPS as a viable power source, but it will be a near-impossibility
>to defend.

Of course, if the SPS sports a 500MW free electron laser (used to
deliver power at long range to spacecraft), I would hardly call it
defenselss.

Dani Eder

-- 
Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Civil Space/(205)464-2697(w)/232-7467(h)/
Rt.1, Box 188-2, Athens AL 35611/Member: Space Studies Institute
Physical Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.
***THE ABOVE IS NOT THE OPINION OF THE BOEING COMPANY OR ITS MANAGEMENT.***
From: speth@cats.ucsc.edu (James Gustave)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Mars for $30M ???
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:24:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32462
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


Aha!  I new that had to be off by some orders of magnitude.

It seems to me, that some private citizens, with some corporate backing
(possibly from the sale of endorsments), could probably beat NASA and/or
the ex-Soviets to Mars.  What do you think?


-- 
Jim Speth
speth@cats.ucsc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gabriele@aero.org (Mark Gabriele)
Subject: Re: SDI update
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
	<1992Apr8.054146.8156@zoo.toronto.edu>
	<GABRIELE.92Apr8110315@solecism.aero.org>
	<1992Apr9.015456.19418@zoo.toronto.edu>
	<GABRIELE.92Apr9094352@solecism.aero.org>
	<1992Apr10.192156.22924@zoo.toronto.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:09:40 GMT

Henry Spencer writes:

>...Just how big and how credible a failure are we talking about here?  We
>*were* talking about failures of individual interceptors, not the entire
>system going berserk.

Let's assume that one interceptor fails - its communications die.
Communications being a fairly complex element, and lots of
interceptors in the population, this is not unlikely.  We then have a
"pebble" out there whose status we don't know.  From then on, we can't
be sure that that thing isn't going to go after the first missile
launch it sees as it passes by.  We can say that "we think it's
unlikely because it was not armed the last time we saw it", but that's
about it.  Do you propose that anytime such a failure occurs, we send
up a special mission to go get the damn thing and make sure it can't
hurt anyone?  Or maybe all of the pebbles should send and receive an
"I'm alive and well" message on a regular basis and self-destruct if
they don't get a response?  Then can such responses be jammed by an
enemy hoping to deactivate the constellation?  It gets very
complicated very fast - countermeasures and counter-countermeasures ad
infinitum, all constrained by space and weight requirements of the
spacecraft.  Sure, you've got multiply-redundant arming systems,
redundant comm systems, redundant this, that, and the other.  These
pebbles are beginning to look boulder-sized, aren't they?  Can't have
that, got to cut weight somewhere...

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I don't see this as an idiot plot, and won't
until I can understand why this is not a danger.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to design a system like this that
has a low risk factor.  I'm saying that it's ugly and it introduces
risks that I don't think are worth taking for the potential benefits.

=Mark
From: DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SDI update
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:38:18 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) says:

> mwallis@clubzen.fidonet.org (Michael Wallis) writes:
>> Hmmm ...  how will BP handle traffic to and from LEO by things like
>> NASPs and DC-1s? ...

> Space launchers don't act like missiles, don't follow missile trajectories,
> and aren't fired twenty at a time.  And it's easy enough to arrange for
> them to file flight plans.

>> ... What steps are being taken now to ensure this system
>> doesn't accidently shoot down a shuttle?

> About the same ones taken to make sure that Patriot doesn't accidentally
> shoot down an airliner.

What level of reliability do you suppose an automated, space based interceptor
will achieve?  Three nines? (a fantasy number, but let's go with it)  Do you
suppose there is any political reality that will allow civilians to be exposed
to that level of risk?  If you do, just imagine an automated terrorist
killer at the airports.  Even 10**-6 failure would be intolerable.  BP will
ensure that space will be a military-only enterprise, at least as far as human
travel is concerned.