Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/po2.andrew.cmu.edu.348.0.0>;
          Mon, 15 Aug 88 04:08:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.andrew.cmu.edu.23069b5c.7c18b>;
          Mon, 15 Aug 88 04:05:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00365> for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 15 Aug 88 04:04:07 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01135; Mon, 15 Aug 88 01:04:11 PDT
	id AA01135; Mon, 15 Aug 88 01:04:11 PDT
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 88 01:04:11 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8808150804.AA01135@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #325

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 325

Today's Topics:
		      95% vs. 99.9% reliability
			    Re: Satellites
		     Re: Skintight suit reference
		      Earth Orbit material limit
	    Re: centralizing science (was NASA ASRM sites)
		    Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability
		 Re: Time skew -- does it hurt SETI?
		   Re: Disagree? I'll cut you off!
	Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells)
		    Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability
		       Re: 20-year anniversary
		    Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 88 22:00:47 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (MacLeod)
Subject: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability

In article <2087@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> konath@silver.UUCP (kannan) writes:
:In article <3763@teklds.TEK.COM: dant@mrloog.LA.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes:

::<My idea is that they launch Discovery on or before July 20, 1989, even 
::<if its faucets do leak.  Any others?

:Anniversary or no anniversary, launch Discovery only when Crippen
:is absolutely sure that there is nothing wrong and the Challenger
:tragedy should not as far as it is humanly possible be repeated. If
:there were no human lives at stake, go ahead and launch it but since
:it is a manned mission all precautions have to be taken.

I disagree, strongly.  There should have been an investigation of the
Challenger disaster, and when they found that the O rings failed below
a certain temperature, they should have continued launching >above that
temperature<, while working on a better engineering solution. 

There are many, many qualified scientists and pilots willing to risk their
lives in spaceflight.  The engineering effort necessary to move from a 
95% safety record to a 99.9% safety record has stunted the US space
program, focussed its energy in introverted paranoia instead of a healthy
adult acceptance of risk, and mave have given the Soviets an unbeatable
lead in space travel.  To me, the latter also implies the potential for
Soviet domination of the entire Earth. 

Michael Sloan MacLeod   (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 88 16:38:15 GMT
From: osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu!reader-c@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Charles Reader)
Subject: Re: Satellites


	More depressing, at least to me, is the fact that we have deep-space
probes sitting in warehouses gathering dust while we wait for the space shuttle
to fly again.

						Chuck Reader

------------------------------

Date: Sun,  7 Aug 88 20:04:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kevin William Ryan <kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Skintight suit reference

   I posted this once before, but in brief:

   NASA Report CR-1892, "Development of a Space Activity Suit", by James
Annis and Paul Webb.

   This contains a good history of pressure suits and describes the building
and testing of a couple of 'skinsuits.'  Photos include a couple of (to me)
disconcerting pictures of a man in long underwear and a bubble helmet in
vac chambers.
   Ask your nearby congresscritter to send it to you - that's how I got mine.
I also included a letter asking why the SAS hadn't been followed up on, instead
of the expensive full-pressure suits.  He never did answer that question...
   The preceeding reference comes courtesy of J. E. Pournelle, from the
Summer 1980 (Vol. 2, No. 3) _Destinies_, now a defunct publication.  Pity...

                                                    kwr

   "Jest so ya know..."

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 88 21:09:20 GMT
From: netsys!nucleus!hacker@lll-winken.llnl.gov  (Thomas Hacker)
Subject: Earth Orbit material limit


   In the news recently, I noticed a small article pertaining to the
limiting of certain projects that would put objects into geosynchinous
orbit.  One of the projects was a piece of art created by a French
sculpter that would reflect light onto the planet's surface and appear
as a bright object to the viewers below.  The article proceeded to
mention that many astronomers were against this because they feared that
the sky would become too "washed out" with light, thus decreasing the
visibilty in the night sky already filled with "light pollution". 

   Has anyone heard of what there was behind this and what the outcome 
will be?

------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 88 00:26:54 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: centralizing science (was NASA ASRM sites)

Well, I survived the humidity of Atlanta, and a fellow from GSFC held
a "Space Program BOF" which one could easily see the disillusion of
some potential "colonists."  [Tomorrow was too far away for them.]
I return home to see a few a few pieces
of mail saying "lighten up."  Well, I guess a few took my note too
seriously (If Tim's note is the one).  This is a contrast to an embarassing
amount of "fan mail" which I receive.  Anyways, I guess I'm just
reacting to a wide variety of stimuli and some of it's spilling into
sci.space.  Forgive me.

In article <3434@cadnetix.COM> beres@cadnetix.COM (Tim Beres) writes:
>In article <12474@ames.arc.nasa.gov> eugene@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Eugene N. Miya) writes:

>
>>In article <3417@cadnetix.COM> beres@cadnetix.COM  (ME)
>>> [paraphrasing myself...] Sure seems like a lot of NASA centers, all with
>>> big projects.
>
>>Anyway, we have this growth problem.
>
>To clarify: I am not upset at growth in programs, per se, but at possible
>savings that could accrue from centralizing administrative, facilities and
>support functions.  As for applications and research, congress seems unable
>to comprehend any of the justifications or the technology anyway; they just
>see jobs/prestige/votes stemming from various facilities (NASA and otherwise).

To elaborate: there is increasing centralization going on at this moment.
This is not unique to NASA, or the US.  Consider the centralization of
much of technology in Japanese to one new city.  They also fund government
research thru 2 major ministries.  ESSA has a different problem, and
the SU a further one.

The future of science and technology in the USA is a tricky one.  You have
probably heard of proposals for a cabinet-level Dept. of Science
and Technology.  There are pluses and minuses to this proposal and who
ever the new Prez is will have lots of his hands.  You are talking
about yanking DARPA from DOD, merging DOE/NASA and parts of DOC, DOT,
EPA, etc.  This is certainly a worthy topic for discussion. Again,
pluses and minuses, and there is lame-duck lethergy in Washington at
the moment.

>>Speaking about centralization, perhaps we need more centralized
>>rather than decentralized computer facilities.  Yeah that's the ticket!
>>Ok, you guys, back to your punch cards.  None of this workstation stuff,
>>If 1 person on a SUN is good, then 15 is 15x better.  Right?!
>Get real, Eugene.  See comment below.

Actually in my sarcasm, the SUN example is true to the extreme.  The
example came from one of my colleagues at Dryden.  A dozen of us were
unable to convince this fellow the importance of single user workstations
(I'm posting from an IRIS 4D thru to a VAX; glad I'm not at Dryden).

>>newly emerging concept of NSF "Centers without Walls."
>
>Now we're talking.  How about research and developement occuring in this
>manner; build up and use university and corporate R&D centers - with a few
>computing hubs.  Consolidate engineering and technology applications into
>a few NASA centers.  I just wonder why it is necessary to launch from the
>cape (used to live in Fla, too - so I do know the effects of greasing the
>local economy with jobs/projects.  Rep. Nelson was 1 district over from me.
>What he did for KSC and the local economy was good - but is it good for the
>nation's space program?),  monitor/communicate from JSC, Marshall's in the
>loop and who knows who else takes part in each Shuttle mission.  Why not
>merge some of these facilities into larger facilities, with combined support
>and resources.  The nature of the jobs they do won't change, they'll just
>be under one roof.  
>
>Thinking about this...no way congress will do it (assuming this *is* a good
>idea - I'm open to persuasion).

Well, several factors enter into selection of Centers.  I think
economic (where is land cheap?) was a major one at the start of the 1960s.
Now, it's where will the jobs be centered?  FL was important because
of launch directions and minimal energy to orbit (Cuba is carefully
factored out of directions, and we have a launch over water policy
to protect public lands (read buildings).  If I really had my
way, I would want to live in Santa Barbara and watch launches from
home (if not working).  Better yet, let's launch from near
the Silicon Valley [well, I guess you guys are making me silly again]
we will have to ease "over water" restrictions.  It will at least expose
space program to more modern electronics as suggested necessary by
Henry.  We now have to pick up and move not only Centers, but families,
contractors (100,000s) and their families.  In time, these Centers will
be like airports or toxic waste dumps (people want them, but not
in "my backyard.").

I don't know what the long-term solution
will be.  We have two major computing facilities at Ames (meiosis) and
we justified our existence by similar interdisciplinary splits
at other supercomputing facilities (most notable LCC and NMFECC
at Livermore).  Now we see a re-collection (collapse) of separate
administrations happening all over.  This does not please users
but it does make the bureaucracts happier.  Anways, I'm getting long winded
again.  Let me finish by saying that our society is one the verge of
some major changes.  The Soviet Union isn't alone.  The problems
come from within and without the US.  Some redundency will exist
(and will need to exist), and how we are going to pay for getting into
space (with all of our other problems): you got me, but merging a few
NASA Centers isn't going to help.  Eyes on Duke.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 88 00:37:34 GMT
From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability

Interesting discussion.  Extreme full-speed ahead discussion tend to get
ignored in NASA (especially when dealing with lives, especially
when some are the scientific creme of America).  Also note
the McNeil-Lehrer discussion with Bruce Murray and Fletcher.

If the problem were one simply of temperature (Yeager also put this argument
forward, and launching above them temp), it would make the problem easier.
It is not.  There are other long-term problems, suffice it to say.

The problem, as Feynman pointed out, is how do you quanitify this?
I can easily say 99.9 or 95 percent based on some metric, but which.
Anyway, the point is partly moot, we are here now, we are dealing with lots
of unknowns (I don't work in manned space, and we don't launch based
on popular democracy).  [A good reference on pressure BTW is "Normal
Risks" which I am currently rereading].

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

You can send money to NASA or you can send it to the Richard Feynman
Memorial Fund for Cancer Research [UCLA], P.O. Box 70021, Pasadena, CA 91107
or both.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 88 05:35:42 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!tmca@rutgers.edu  (The Anarch)
Subject: Re: Time skew -- does it hurt SETI?

In article <61351@sun.uucp> msodos%amanda@Sun.COM (Martin Sodos) writes:
>
>Ergo, I put forward for your consideration that even if life such as
>ours is fairly common on the universe, that the time alignment problem
>would make it extremely unlikely that we would/will ever encounter it.

For an entertaining discussion of such "time windows" read Stanislaw Lem's
latest "Fiasco". Probably one of his best, though not of the light-hearted
Pirx the Pilot or Cyberiad kind. The "skew" becomes a narrow time window
bordered on one side by the necessary technological advancement and on the other
by self-annihilation or evolution to a society unninterested in contact with
such lowly creatures as ourselves.

Tim.

	Clean as a Q-Tip
	Quiet as Nylon.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 88 19:18:35 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hp-sde!hpfcdc!hpfclm!myers@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: Disagree? I'll cut you off!

>And who elected him dictator?  Or you his enforcer?  This network does not
>need to answer to any one person, even you.  

*Especially* not him.

Bob M.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 88 19:12:12 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hp-sde!hpfcdc!hpfclm!myers@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells)


>Main power on the space station is specified as 220 VAC at 20 kHz.


AC?  Why AC?

Bob M.

hplabs!hpfcla!myers

------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 88 14:00:46 GMT
From: kerog@eneevax.umd.edu  (Keith Rogers)
Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability

In article <3659@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
>I disagree, strongly.  There should have been an investigation of the
>Challenger disaster, and when they found that the O rings failed below
>a certain temperature, they should have continued launching >above that
>temperature<, while working on a better engineering solution. 


	I couldn't agree more.  This has been my attitude ever since the
Challenger disaster.  I just don't see why they have to spend more than 
two years without a single flight, missing many important launch windows
for various projects, just to have an all temperature space shuttle,
when they could have just flown it on a warm day in almost perfect safety.

	Sure the O ring thing had to be fixed, but did it have to kill
the entire U.S. space program in the meantime?

Keith Rogers

------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 88 15:38:29 GMT
From: sunybcs!campbl@rutgers.edu  (Scott S. Campbell)
Subject: Re: 20-year anniversary

In article <3763@teklds.TEK.COM> dant@mrloog.LA.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes:
>Next year will be the 20th anniversary of Apollo 11 and I'm sure that
>everyone would like to celebrate it.  It never hurts to be prepared in
>advance, so lets start to kick ideas around.
>
>---
>Dan Tilque	--	dant@twaddl.LA.TEK.COM

How about a commemorative(sp) stamp issue??  


-
Scott S. Campbell
campbl@cs.buffalo.edu 		
campbl@sunybcs.BITNET

------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 88 15:28:24 GMT
From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul F. Dietz)
Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability

In article <1704@eneevax.UUCP> kerog@eneevax.umd.edu.UUCP (Keith Rogers)
writes:
> I just don't see why they have to spend more than 
>two years without a single flight, missing many important launch windows
>for various projects, just to have an all temperature space shuttle,
>when they could have just flown it on a warm day in almost perfect safety.

It has been stated many times before, but let's do it again.  The Rogers
commission did NOT say that the shuttle would be safe to launch in warm
weather.  They said that so many things were wrong with the joint design
that it was impossible to determine what actually caused the leak.  Cold
was a contributing factor, but O ring damage has occured on launches in
hot weather, too.

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V8 #325
*******************