Message-ID: <YYH4u9y00UkZI-VE5v@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 05:16:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #380

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 380

Today's Topics:
	     Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program
		  Help wanted for shuttle sighting.
	Deadline set for next astronaut selection (Forwarded)
			    Re: Empty Mir?
	      Re: UK astronaut to be launched by Soviets
			   '60 Soviet Blast
		     Re: failures and engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 89 17:04:37 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program

In article <7754@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@zeta.UUCP (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>>To make anything deep and significant
>>out of this, you basically need to assume that the Soviet space program
>>is run in the same chuckleheaded what-shall-we-do-in-space-today fashion
>>as the US space program (and indeed, most programs of any kind that are
>>funded on a year-to-year basis by democratic governments).  That's what
>>it takes to justify an abrupt shutdown of a major ongoing program.
>
>    This explains the remarkable success of Soviet 5-year plans in
>agriculture and the like, I suppose.
>    The Soviet space program is about the *only* large-scale activity
>they do well, and it's at large (hidden) cost to their economy...

Note, I didn't say that they were particularly good managers in general,
or even that their space program was terribly well managed.  What I said
was that they can make long-term plans and stick to them.  Not necessarily
good plans... but at least they don't get radically revised every year.

The fact is, sudden cancellation of a major program ought to be something
that happens once in a blue moon, when truly staggering problems appear
out of nowhere without warning.  Major programs should never reach the
status of being major without a clear understanding that they are desirable
and practical, and a clear commitment to adequate funding for the lifetime
of the program.  Doing otherwise is spectacularly wasteful.  Unfortunately,
the US government in particular (but it's not the only one) now treats
waste as a way of life and major program cancellations as an everyday event.
This has had devastating effects on the people who are trying to get work
done.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

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

Date: 17 Apr 89 18:41:00 GMT
From: uccba!ucqais!graines@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Gary Raines)
Subject: Help wanted for shuttle sighting.

Recently someone posted the net address of a newsletter/information source
that would caculate optimal viewing times for large orbital elements (shuttles,
Mir, Soyuz, etc.) given a viewers longitude, latitude, and altitude.  Due to a
recent local system diaster I have lost this reference.  Would someone please 
mail me the address of this newsletter/information source?

Thanks in advance for the assistance.

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

Date: 17 Apr 89 18:23:54 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Deadline set for next astronaut selection (Forwarded)

Barbara Selby
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     April 17, 1989

Jeffrey Carr
Johnson Space Center, Houston


RELEASE:  89-50

DEADLINE SET FOR NEXT ASTRONAUT SELECTION


     Applications received by NASA on or before June 30, 1989 
will be considered in the next astronaut candidate selection, now 
planned for early 1990.  The selection will be the first in the 
regular 2-year selection cycle announced last year.

     After 6 months of screening, medical evaluations and 
interviews, the astronaut candidate class of 1990 will be 
announced in January, and candidates will report to the Johnson 
Space Center, Houston, in July.

     NASA will continue to accept and review applications from 
the general public on an ongoing basis.  Those received after 
June 30 will be eligible for consideration in the 1992 
selection.  The number of selections made every 2 years will be 
based on projected requirements.

     Applications can be obtained by writing to the following 
address:  NASA, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
          Astronaut Selection Office
          ATTN: AHX
          Houston, Texas  77058.  
Applicants must be citizens of the United States.

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

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 89 11:58 EDT
From: "Life's so long when you're lonely." <CALVIN%JHUIGF.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>

bunny!hhd0@husc6.harvard.edu  (Horace Dediu) writes:

>I would not lend any arbitrarily minuscule proportion of credulity to any
>figure coming out of the official Soviet Union.  In a state controlled
>totaliatrian regime GNP is not defined, nor is a "Budget".  The state is the
>nation and the GNP is the budget.  Everyone works for the state and the
>state owns, buys and sells everything.  We cannot transplant economic terms
>defined by free markets to communist systems.

>Remember, the Soviets lie routinely about everything.  The testimony of a
>perjurer shall never again be considered in a court of law.  Id est, I trust
>nothing they say and anything the CIA may estimate, is up to
>interpretation.

(Sorry, I *couldn't* let this just sit...)

Yep. Once a bad-un, always a bad-un. A tiger can't change his stripes. People
don't ever change. Glasnost is just a big hoax for them damn commies to lull
us into a false sense of security and spy on us. Yup. Bein' a red-blooded
'Merican, nothing upsets me more than the thought of them damn ruskies. Can't
trust 'em. They all lie. Hell, let's nuke 'em while we can.

Damn commies.

(Does this make you feel more comfortable, Horace? GOD FORBID we should get
along with them or, even worse, promote cooperation and understanding, right?)


Damian Hammontree
System Programmer, Johns Hopokins School of Medicine, Baltimore

PS - Apologies to those on this newsgroup who are above this and who wish to
discuss REAL stuff. I just felt it needed saying.

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

Date: 17 Apr 89 02:30:46 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!yunexus!maccs!gordan@rutgers.edu  (Cheerfully Anachronistic Turnip Venerator)
Subject: Re: Empty Mir?

In article <2789@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
>
>New Scientist (15/4/89, p.20) reports that an editorial in Pravda (the week
>before) seems to be supporting people within Glavkosmos who want to push the
>Soviet space programme towards concentration on remote-sensing satellites.  So
>there may be something to this.  Anyone got access to the Pravda piece and
>know how to read between the lines?


The article in question is on page 3 of Pravda, 8 Apr 89, written by A.
Pokrovskii (no affiliation given).  The following is a summary and
paraphrase of some of the main points.  Sorry for the sloppy
stream-of-consciousness style here, I'm too lazy to write this up more
carefully.


The article is critical of the secretiveness of Soviet space
organizations.  Just like in the bad old days, many state organizations
use a policy of secrecy not only to safeguard legitimate state secrets,
but also to cover up mistakes, bungling, and slackness.  The space
program alas, fall into the same category.

Problems with computer programming are noted during the reentries and
landing of both the Soviet-Afghan and Soviet-French missions.  So the
problem of Phobos-1 being lost due to its being sent an incorrect
command was not an exceptional case.  No comment was forthcoming on the
part of the flight-control organizations in the face of previous Pravda
articles on these flights (15 sept, 22 dec).

Other examples of lack of openness on the part of Soviet space
organizations:

In a pre-launch interview Sergei Krikalev talked about a new module for
Mir, which would contain, among other equipment, spacesuits for
autonomous movement [MMUs?].  Now the flight is almost over, and it's as
if no one has ever heard of this new module.  Maybe there are technical
difficulties, but if so the public ought to be informed.

Mentions that before the launch of the French-Soviet mission, there was
a press conference in Leninsk with French & Sov space representatives.
The sign on the building where it was held was changed from "Officer's
Garrison" to "House of Culture".  Why?  Who were we trying to fool?
Ourselves?

This secretiveness will not go unpunished.  Recently, with regret, but
understanding he was coming from, read words of playwright Viktor Rozov,
sharply critical of "billions of rubles" spent on the Phobos probes.
And he's not the only one.  Some candidates for the house of people's
deputies included a point in their election campaigns about cutting
space exploration expenses.  Well-known author Chingiz Aitmanov, already
elected a deputy, says we must think over these "astronomical
expenditures".

What a contrast to the sincere outbursts of enthusiasm and pride after
Gagarin's flight.  What's happening to our space program?

It's broken up into many different bureaucratic organizations and
administrations, each pulling for its own interests.  Hard to get
straight answers as a result, hard to pin down responsibility, hard to
find out where the money is being spent, or even how much.

Still remember how "Interkosmos" president B. Petrov hemmed and hawed
uncomfortably at a 1975 press conference when asked by American
journalists how much the Soviet Union had spent on the Apollo-Soyuz
mission.  Not much has changed over 13 years, judging by the performance
of O. Shishkin at a press conference about Energiya.

Not enough benefits trickling down into the Soviet economy.
Particularly, remote-sensing photos & other data not benefiting forest,
farming, fisheries management... a lot of data just sitting in archives,
monopolized by "Priroda" organization.

Soviet space program should place an emphasis on international
cooperation in "global ecological monitoring", as recommended at the UN.
None of the current Soviet space organizations is capable of doing this
on its own; they must be united under competent leadership.

Very sharp criticism of Buran.  Much was said and written about it, but
after the unmanned test flight it got stuck in the hangars at Baikonur.
Is it not to be considered a reliable component of the same
tried-and-true system of orbital stations and expendable rockets?  Are
there technical problems with it?  As before, we can only guess, no
information is leaking out to us from those hangars.  But even so it is
clear that billions of rubles so much needed by the economy are sitting
idle for a long time.

After problems with Phobos-2, deeper analysis of the situation and
examination of problems organized by 12 specialized groups of engineers
and scholars.  Here we go again with committees and subcommittees.
Convenient to spread the blame around.  No clear vision of future
development of soviet space program, of how to apply its results to
benefit the economy.  And, apparently, it makes sense to the deputies of
the future Supreme Soviet to include this problems in their sphere of
interests.


Remember, the above is just a (very) loose paraphrase.  None of
the phrasing above should be even remotely construed as a quote.
Reading it over, the original article is not nowhere near as
blunt or direct as the above summary makes it out to be.

The article does not appear to be an editorial, just an ordinary
article.  What hidden agenda, if any, the author may have is not clear.
Note, just because it was published in Pravda doesn't mean (especially
these days) that it's "official" policy.  The Soviets are passionate
readers and love to carry on debates in the pages of periodicals; it's
likely that a reply politely begging to differ will soon be published in
the pages of this same (or some other) publication.

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

Date: 17 Apr 89 14:40:24 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: UK astronaut to be launched by Soviets

In article <1019@esatst.yc.estec.nl> neil@esatst.UUCP (Neil Dixon) writes:
>1991, Thatcher's next election year. A cheap publicity stunt is
>obviously more important than any participation in Europe's own
>(albeit flawed) manned space program. It will be interesting to see
>how this can be justified, since their is no obvious profit to be
>made; but then again, there's always the T-Shirts, Commemorative Book,
>Record, Video, etc :-).

The mission is to be paid for by a consortium of british
industrial companies who have experiments they want done
in a weightless conditions.

The soviets are reported to be interested enough in the
results of the experiments to reduce the cost of the flight
in return for access to results of the experiments.

The British Government isn't involved except to sign the
bits of paper allowing the flight to go ahead.

Rumor has it that astronaut will be a civilian test
pilot or scientist. Details of the selection procedures
are to be announced in the next few weeks.

None of this, of course, will prevent Mrs. Thatcher claiming
full and sole credit for bringing about the flight.

Especially with a general election coming up.
	Bob.

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

Date: 18 Apr 89 01:17:31 GMT
From: agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!franny.Berkeley.EDU!c8-1eb@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Rachel David)
Subject: '60 Soviet Blast

Here is an article of possible interest, reprinted from "The San Jose
Mercury News," 4/17/89:

	SOVIETS BLAME SPACE RACE FOR BLAST IN 1960

		The Soviet Union lifted the veil Sunday on the worst disaster
        of their space program with a magazine article that blamed a 1960 
	launchpad explosion on the race to catch up with the United States.
		The weekly Ogonyok said program workers flouted safety rules
	in their haste to develop the first Soviet intercontinental ballistic
        missile, the R-16.     
		Sunday's article said the 1960 accident incinerated victims on 
	the launchpad, including the director of its rocket program.
		Chief Artillery Marshal Mitrofan Nnedelin, a World War II 
	veteran serving as the first commander of the newly created Soviet
	rocket forces, was about 60 feet from the missile when it exploded,
	the article said.
		The magazine said "a significant number" of people died in the
	explosion and fireball at the secret launch pad at Tura-Tam near the 
	Aral Sea.  It said "practically nothing was left - only some metal 
	change, keys, etc."
		Accounts of the disaster have circulated abroad, but Ogonyok's
	report was the first in official Soviet media.


Robert Ferguson, U.C. Berkeley

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

Date: 17 Apr 89 13:36:06 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: failures and engineering

In article <1989Apr16.015123.602@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> [stuff by me about successful planetary missions]
 
> Yup, see them -- but study them properly.  Mariner 2, struggling past Venus
> with one problem after another developing.  The early Pioneers, a total
> disaster area.  Voyager 2, limping towards Neptune with its primary command
> receiver dead and its backup one ailing (and don't blame this on the length
> of the mission -- the problems developed almost immediately after launch),
> not to mention the lubrication problems in the scan platform.  The Viking 1
> lander, dead before its time due to human error back on Earth.
  
OK, so things do break - but with careful analysis and/or use of back-up
systems, Mariner 2 and Voyager 2 were (and are) highly succesful missions.
Both Viking landers lasted longer than the designed for "primary mission"; 
the human error after that was sad, though.

> [Seasat slip-ring failure, TDRS-1 electronic problems [???], Galileo
>  thruster problems, GOES encoder failures]
  
The last GOES which failed had already outlived its expected lifespan.

> I repeat my comment:  the major factor in how quickly you learn is how
> often you try.  It is *not* possible to get everything right the first
> time.  NASA, ESA, etc. like to pretend otherwise, but the universe has
> a habit of reminding them that they're wrong.

I'd say that on the whole NASA has had more first time successes than
the Soviets, especially in the field of planetary exploration. This must
say something for JPL's and contractors' designs.

Don't get me wrong though, I'd be the first one to suggest we should have 
*more* missions!
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #380
*******************