Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from holmes.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 ; Fri, 5 May 89 05:17:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0YMKOVy00UkZB29U5i@andrew.cmu.edu> Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 5 May 89 05:17:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #410 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 410 Today's Topics: Priorities at NASA? (long) Re: Myth: Only a Government can run a Space Program Re: Myth: Only a Government can run a Space Program (Was Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!) Re: Tesla Brilliant (but old hat) Pebbles Re: Magellan update ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 May 89 02:18:44 GMT From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (William Baxter) Subject: Priorities at NASA? (long) United States Congressional Record Hearings of the HUD Independent Agencies Committee, Subcommittee on Appropriations, April 19, 1988 Testimony of James Fletcher, NASA Administrator Mr. BOLAND. Let me ask you whether or not the Space Shuttle still retains the highest priority in the NASA budget request? Dr. FLETCHER. The Space Shuttle is a broad series of things, but getting it flying again is the highest priority, and following that flying at a rate which is sufficient to work off the backlog is certainly among the highest priorities. Mr. BOLAND. We are going to have some difficult questions with respect to where the priorities are, because this is what we will be doing when we finish these hearings, and sometime in the next few weeks we will sit down and mark up the entire bill. If we are forced to make cuts in the total NASA budget of $700,000,000 to $800,000,000, would you recommend that we protect the funding for the shuttle above all else? Dr. FLETCHER. It is hard to say above all else, because it is hard to say what that would do to the program. But certainly the Space Shuttle, both the return to flight of the Space Shuttle, which should be in August, must be protected. That is primarily the fiscal year 1988 budget. The fiscal year 1989 budget is primarily to keep the flight rate up to help turn around the three orbiters that remain in a period of time which will allow us to keep that flight rate up. Those are certainly high priorities. Mr. BOLAND. Is there any other program within NASA that enjoys a higher priority than the shuttle? Dr. FLETCHER. I don't think so, Mr. Chairman. That is certainly anomg the highest. However, all the rest of the programs have high priority, too. The low priorities went by the wayside. Mr. BOLAND. I understand they all have a priority. I am just trying to establish the fact of what NASA believes, and you as Administrator believe, to be the highest priority within the NASA budget. Dr. FLETCHER. Certainly flying at the rate that we aim to is among the highest priorities. ... Mr. BOLAND. Let's talk about the priority question again. If the shuttle has the highest priority, and you want us to try to protect it, we still have to find $700,000,000 to $800,000,000 in cuts. What has the second highest priorities? Dr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I don't think there is a second priority. A Space Station is just as important as the Space Shuttle. Mr. BOLAND. Of course, there is no Space Station without the Space Shuttle, I take it, because if you don't have the kind of space transportation system that is essential to have the kind of Space Station you envision, then of course, I would think the shuttle would enjoy the highest priority. Dr. FLETCHER. You are quite right when you say there would be no Space Station without a shuttle. On the other hand, without a Space Station, there will be no space program in the 1990's, no manned space program. We would really have to begin over again in terms of setting our targets on human exploration of the solar system. Mr. BOLAND. Let me try to give you a brief review and synopsys of what this Committee's view is on funding of the Space Station in the total budget picture. Last year the budget summit forced us to cut the station by $362,000,000 and we provided $424,000,000 as I remember. This year the request is for $967,000,000. It is my view, and I think probably the view of this Committee, that unless we can fund the station at about $900,000,000, it doesn't make any sense to fund it at all. Because if you fund it at only $700,000,000, for example, we will never get it built. In fact, all we will be doing is maintaining a base of people but we will never get any hardware. So tell us whether or not our view is correct. Either the funding should be at $900,000,000 or we don't fund it at all; how do you react to that? Dr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I think you are pretty close to the mark when you say the $900,000,000 is about a minimum that makes sense to go ahead with on the Space Station. I am not prepared to say we ought to just cancel the space program if we don't get that amount of money. In fact, I don't believe it is up to me to say. The President would have to sign up to that vecause he initiated the program in 1984. But certainly if you start cutting much below the request of the President, it doesn't make sense. Before this program is finished, we have got to be spending on the Space Station something like at least $2 and a half billion a year, and we aren't going to get there from here if we don't go much above $900 million. Mr. BOLAND. Now, if we fund the space station at $900 million in 1989 and we protect the shuttle from cuts, we have to find that $700 of $800 million somewhere else. We will have to take virtually every other increase for every probram above 1988. That can include Pathfinder, which is requested at $100 million; two or three of the new expendable launch vehicles at various estimates from $43 million to $60 million; the second TDRS tracking station; some salary money; AXAF, the Advanced X-ray Facility and on and on. The point is that fiven our allocation under the 302(b) allocation of the budget, if we are going to protect the shuttle and the station, mearly everything else has to go. Are you confortable with that, or are you willing to accept that fact? Dr. FLETCHER. I shudder every time you say you are going to have to cut back $700 million from the request. That in itself is frightening. Then when you start reeling off programs---- Mr. BOLAND. It is possible to do it with that size budget, isn't it? Dr. FLETCHER. I can't really answer that. ... Mr. GREEN. So I guess what we are asking you is do you want a space program which is going to consist of a shuttle and Space Station and really is going to have no money for mission to planet earth or new science starts, and if not, then help us find a way within the budgetary constraints we face. Dr. FLETCHER. Mr. Green, you are absolutely right. We are faced with some tough decisions. If you are not a reasonable optimist as Administrator of NASA, you don't belong in that job. I am optimistic that somehow the Congress will come closer to the $11 plus billion budget that the Senate Budget Committee voted on last week than the lower figure you are discussing today. So maybe we are eternal optimists and will go down hoping for the best. I really cannot imagine not going ahead with all the programs we have mentioned, particularly the ones the Chairman reeled off, such as the AXAF---- Mr. BOLAND. You can't imagine not going ahead with AXAF? Is that what you are telling me? Dr. FLETCHER. Yes. Mr. BOLAND. We are going to get into that a bit. Even with the cut of $700 million, you still have an increase of a billion dollars, $700 million over 1988. That is correct, isn't it? Dr. FLETCHER. That is correct, yes. Mr. BOLAND. You have some problem with cutting some of the other programs that I ticked off, plus others that are in the NASA budget. What enjoys the highest priority again? What about dropping the Space Station and funding all those programs? The answer is going to be no, I know. Dr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, everything you said about the Space Station is true. If you start cutting it much below $900 million, you night as well reconsider the program--unless you just want to keep it all for the next Administration, but somebody just said you are pushing the problem ahead if you do that. But the same is true of every one of these programs. ---- William Baxter ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 89 23:09:04 GMT From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Myth: Only a Government can run a Space Program In article <10935@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes: >I agree that NASA is EXTREMELY wasteful, and that its GOVERNMENT money could >be much more efficiently spent (possibly by getting rid of most of NASA and >using simple nonmilitary style contracts with provisions that force the >return of money if the hardware doesn't deliver). Unfortunately, the problem goes deeper than that. It's not just NASA. The bigger problem is Congressional micromanagement and the constantly changing budgets for every project. For example, it is virtually impossible for the government to promise money more than one year down the road, or to sign a contract which contains cancellation penalties... and any sane contractor is going to want such provisions in a "simple nonmilitary style contract", because said contract probably calls for payment on delivery rather than on contract signing, and no sane company is going to agree to that without cancellation penalties. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 89 18:54:42 GMT From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (William Baxter) Subject: Re: Myth: Only a Government can run a Space Program (Was Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!) In article <10935@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo (John McKernan) writes: >In article <23748@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes: >> many smaller companies are already >>spending money on their own launch systems. > my posting you quote above specifies >spending for planetary probes and manned space R&D. No private effort is >spending significant amounts of money in these areas, In most space programs the hardware is launched. It would seem reasonable to include the cost of launch in the cost of a project. But this is not the way NASA does it. After all, if you add launch costs to the Space Station project, you get a total of $61 billion. As for investment in manned space R&D, why don't you express your views to Space Industries, Inc.? Was your statement meant to be justification for the Space Shuttle and Space Station? > It is simply a fact that there is important research which will not >be done by private companies or individuals, and so must be done with >government money or something similar. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that we take the space service business away from NASA and leave them with only research to do. Their track record clearly indicates a preference for big development contracts which make aerospace companies happy, at the expense of space science of all types. William Baxter ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web ------------------------------ Date: 1 May 89 15:44:37 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!sparks@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (John Sparks) Subject: Re: Tesla I am feeling picky today, so sue me :-) In article <2973414@ub.cc.umich.edu> Henry_Edward_Hardy@UB.CC.UMICH.EDU writes: >The Smithsonian Magazine recently carried a list of some of Tesla's other, >less well-known patents and inventions: >> >> ...florescent lights, x rays, the electron microscope, microwave >> transmission, satellite communication, solar energy, guided missiles, >> computers, the automobile speedometer, television, vertical takeoff >> aircraft, and radar." Just how do you invent or patent Xrays? Seems like they were already there. >> disappeared into the U. S. military research complex. As late as >> September 5, 1945, Col. Holliday of the Equipment Laboratory, >> Propulsion and Accessories Subdivision, wrote to Lloyd L. Shaulis of >> the OAP in Washington, confirming an agreement for the photocopying of ^^^^^^^^ Photocopying?!? In 1945?!? I don't think so. >instant formation of these condensation clouds of several hundred miles in >radius could be related to the testing of a Tesla device "which could >instantly freeze whole armies into blocks of ice." Alright! Now we have the answer to the Greenhouse Effect! Or at the very least, a new appliance: The Microwave Freezer! Now we really can make milkshakes in the microwave. Ok, Ok. so I got carried away. But it does sound flakey doesn't it? Like something you would read in the National Enquirer. But I guess anything is possible (except touching your elbow to your nose) :-) -- John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps [not for RHF] | sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 Don't worry if you're a kleptomaniac, you can always take something for it. ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 89 02:51:22 GMT From: roberts@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Timothy Roberts) Subject: Brilliant (but old hat) Pebbles I saw the demonstration of the "Brilliant Pebbles" test vehicle on CBS News and was intrigued. Anyone who has ever fired a TOW or Dragon missle has seen exactly this image of a "bobbing" rocket. The Dragon uses 36(?) one shot solid fuel motors set around its waist like rows of tiny funnels. All forward momentum comes from the explosive that squirts the missle out of the tube. The side motors fire when the optical sight detects the missle dropping or straying from the "imaginary crosshairs" on the target. The missle itself produces an IR source that the sight detects and compares to the crosshair position. If the rocket's signal doesn't match the crosshairs, a pulse is sent through a wire to the Dragon missle. The Dragon then interprets the pulse into which motors to fire to stay aloft/on target. What this looks like is a ping-pong ball falling down a long tube. The ball/missle bounces from side to side as it contacts the wall/Guidence Corridor limit. So what? I am glad you asked. Put the sight on the missle and you don't need a wire. Put the IR source on a missle plume and you've got Brilliant pebbles. This thing is circa Viet Nam War and I have toted them all over Hawaii, Okinawa, and Thailand during my days in the Marine Corps. We were told the sighting system (which detaches from the launcher tube and is used on the next rocket) cost about 15,000 bucks. Each missle was on the order of $2000 and it went up in smoke when it was fired. That comes to $17K and a little bit of solder. Someone recently posted that the test vehicle for Smart Pebbles cost $500,000. You decide. Should I gain pleasure from the cheering of SDI engineers or write to my congressperson to stop the use of taxes on something that *VIOLATES* the ABM treaty. I like big science. I detest weapons based in space. The Peace Shield will make a lot of engineers rich and destabilize the current nuclear standoff. My last Question: If the Defense community and the science community are so closely related, Why haven't I seen Quasar photos taken through KH-12 or Lacrosse Spysats? Think about it folks, These things are up there right now and they are used to take picture of where we already are. You tell me which is more important to Congress, pushing the limits of our view of the universe or going through eachothers shitcans looking for intelligence secrets. Okay. Mr. Deitz, Mr. Spencer et al. The ball is in your court. Tat Tvam Asi, Svetakatu. Timothy P. P. Roberts (That Thou Art, boy!) UW-Milwaukee, Dept. of Physics 2835 N. Pierce St Apt #1 roberts@csd4.milw.wisc.edu Milwaukee, WI 53212 (414) 265-1935 ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 89 21:43:26 GMT From: thorin!threonine!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Magellan update In article <890502112213.00001CA5251@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: >The reason for the savings on propellant is that with the >later launch date the path to Venus is more direct, resulting in fewer TCMs. So, why didn't they plan to launch as early as possible in the window, then leave it in orbit until the optimal time for Venus injection? Atmospheric drag? -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ "Opossums ran amok in Chapel Hill this weekend..." _The Daily Tar Heel_, 11/1/88 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #410 *******************