Message-ID: <YYpfm2e00UkVEAu05Z@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed,  2 Aug 89 05:18:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #578

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 578

Today's Topics:
			     Re: Spinoffs
	       Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
   space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
		      Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon
		   Neptune Encounter Satellite Feed
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 20:05:15 GMT
From: haven!aplcen!stda.jhuapl.edu!jwm@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Spinoffs

In article <1501@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
}jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) writes:
}> Thousands, perhaps millions, of people owe their lives to something that
}> you can only do with a space program.
}
}Pardon my late entry into the spinoff debate -- but one must always remember
}that resources that went to the space program were therefore not available
}to go toward other uses.  We cannot know what advances would have resulted
}if those resources were not in fact diverted toward space.  A good guess would
}be that the advances would have been different -- but not necessarily less
}important.  The possibility always exists that in diverting resources toward
}space, we have actually harvested less important spinoffs than we might
}otherwise have gotten.
}
}Since this we obviously cannot predict such matters, the spinoff argument
}becomes pointless.  The best we can do is leave such matters up to the choice
}of individuals in the form of the free-market.

Since what I am thinking of can ONLY come from a space program, and NO 
other method could handle it, your opposition is unfounded.

Besides - the free-market DOES want a space program.


"In these matters the only certainty is that nothing is certain"
					- Pliny the Elder
These were the opinions of :
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu  - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp  - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET

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

Date: 20 Jul 89 20:29:37 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <1989Jul20.184051.19979@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <8907201027.AA07833@osteocyber.ortho.hmc.psu.edu> dsc@OSTEOCYBER.ORTHO.HMC.PSU.EDU (david s. channin) writes:
>> ... What are the laws, regulations, etc (if any) that prevent you from
>> doing the following:
>>     1. Walk into the Northrop offices in wherever.
>>     2. Pull out a bank check for x million dollars.
>>     3. Say,``I'd would like that nice T-38 that's in the showroom''.
>>     4. Fly away with same after filling the tank...
>>     
>>     Why wouldn't this scenario work?? (or would it?).

>The answer to item 3 will be "sorry, that is a USAF aircraft that is not
>for sale to civilians without government approval".  This is partly
>because the USAF paid for development and "owns the rights" to some
>degree, and partly because practically all of the military-aircraft
>manufacturers are utterly dependent on US government business and
>are desperately anxious not to annoy their big customer.  And the US
>government feels that private citizens should not be allowed to own jet
>fighters.

Change the scenario to:

     1. Walk into the Bede offices in wherever.
     2. Pull out a bank check for x million dollars.
     3. Say,``I'd would like that nice BD-5J that's in the showroom''.
     4. Fly away with same after filling the tank...

and you'll be on your way.  Just speaking personally, as a fairly
frequent flier, I'd really prefer that fighters be limited-distribution
items.  There are enough things to worry about, without worrying about
some yahoo out there in an F-something with sidewinders at my 747's six.

A more practical example is the private F-86 (bought surplus from the
RCAF) that hit the Farrell's in Sacramento.  I work at a facility that
flies high-performance aircraft (F-15, F-16, F-18, F-104, F-111, T-38
currently) and I have some real definite opinions about required
piloting skills.  We require our test pilots to fly a minimum of 200
hours per year, with specified minimums for each aircraft, to maintain
proficiency.  That F-86 driver had very low total time, low jet time,
and was what I'd consider non-current.  I think that there are certain
minimums that should be required.

Just because you can afford an airplane, doesn't mean you can fly it.
Look at the stereotype about MDs and Bonanzas.

More incidentally, the reason you can't buy a T-38 is because they're
no longer in production.  

But I don't know why those posters who despise the government and all
its fruits are panting to buy those fruits.  Let's see some consistancy
here!  :-)

--

M F Shafer                          shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center           arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
Dryden Flight Research Facility
                Of course I don't speak for NASA

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

Date: 21 Jul 89 03:14:20 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial

Soviets talk to managers for both NASP and Sanger, indicating interest in
joint hypersonic programs.  The US is interested in joint efforts between
NASP and Sanger, but German engineers say the US is too secretive about
its program.  A number of European companies are interested in NASP work,
but there are concerns about US technology-transfer restrictions.

Europeans tell US that they consider the inter-government agreements on
the space station to be promises, which should be kept or there will be
serious repercussions.  The Europeans, unlike many in the US, think
maintaining the content of the station is more important than maintaining
its schedule, if push comes to shove.

Lockheed and Aerospatiale team up to (among other things) propose a
modified Hermes as the space-station rescue vehicle.

Successful first launch of Titan 4 on June 14, carrying a missile-warning
satellite to Clarke orbit.

Successful Delta 2 launch June 10, carrying a Navstar.  The Delta and the
Titan 4 changed places in the Cape launch schedule several times as minor
technical problems delayed each.

Columbia mission, set for launch July 31, will carry two low-orbit DoD
satellites, one 20600 lbs and one 275 lbs.

NASA issues yet another long-range shuttle manifest.  This one forecasts
a rather more gradual climb in launch rate, reaching 13-14 in 1993 as
space station activity begins.  It includes several reserve slots, being
held open in hopes of accommodating future delays without requiring another
major revision.  Several expendables are included, notably a Titan 4 for
CRAF in 1995.

SDI sounding-rocket neutral-particle beam experiment delayed to at least
mid-July after they pushed the button and nothing happened!  The failure
of the Aries sounding rocket to ignite on command is being investigated.

More on Buran's appearance at Le Bourget.  Photo from above showing Buran
on Mriya; Buran looks tiny compared to the US orbiters on 747back.  The
orbiters are almost exactly the same size -- the difference in appearance
is because Mriya is so bloody enormous.

Yuri P. Semyonov, chief designer of Buran, says "Anyone who says Buran is
a copy of the US shuttle is a fool".  Despite the general similarity in
shape, the systems are very different.  Semyonov revealed that Buran was
battery-powered during its flight last fall, as its fuel cells are not
yet ready for flight.  (The USSR does not seem to be giving Buran a very
high priority at present.)  What surprised US observers most was the
Soviet decision to fly Buran in during rainy weather.  The US shuttle
carrier is never flown through rain or even damp-looking clouds, and a
weather aircraft precedes it to be sure.  But Buran/Mriya came in for a
landing at Paris through wet clouds and visible rain, with no escort.
Semyonov says:  "We are not afraid of rain."  The Soviet tiles seem to
be rather more durable than the US ones, although apparently they are
less heat-resistant, and may need replacement after only 10 missions.
Semyonov did not discuss the specifics of the tile design.  US observers
were generally impressed with the appearance of Buran's tiles; there is
little sign that Buran had flown a reentry.  Some of this may be just
weather exposure:  photos just after Buran's landing showed more upper-
surface blackening than was visible at Paris, and the difference may be
because Buran has been sitting outside at Baikonur.  There was a bit of
streaking in some areas on the wings where filler material between tiles
had apparently melted; the same thing happens on the US orbiters.

Buran's propulsion systems are a bit different from the US ones.  Notably,
Burans attitude-control and maneuvering engines burn LOX and kerosene
rather than hypergolic fuels.  There are general similarities in overall
thruster placement, but many detail differences.  An important internal
difference is that the shuttle's nose jets run off tanks in the nose,
whereas Buran puts all its major tankage in the tail, with only small
supplementary tanks in the nose.

Unlike the US orbiters, no tailcone fairing is used for ferrying Buran
on Mriya.  Anatoli Bulanenko, deputy chief designer at Antonov, says
that such a fairing was used when carrying orbiters on smaller aircraft,
but Mriya's wide-span horizontal tail has no central vertical fin and
there were no turbulence problems with it.  [Mriya's tailspan exceeds
the wingspan of WW2 heavy bombers.]  Bulanenko says "...it was
very simple for us... it was just another payload."

Arianespace explores the idea of marketing small-satellite launch services
for Pegasus.  Frederic d'Allest, Arianespace chairman, says "We are
intrigued with Pegasus..." but cautions that the idea is only being explored,
with no specific agreement yet being negotiated.

Arianespace reports net profit of about $20M for FY1988.

Internal NASA review underway on Shuttle-C.  The definitive design takes
the shuttle tail section, minus fin and minus one SSME, with a cylindrical
payload section instead of the orbiter, plus existing ET and SRBs.  In
addition to the space station, SDI's Zenith Star is another possible
payload, and various other groups are interested.  The payload envelope
is 81x15 ft, with growth potential to 96 ft.  The reference mission is
100 klbs into 220nm orbit from KSC.  Second-generation improvements
could include recovering the tail section and increasing payload diameter
to 24ft.  A decision on further work is expected in late summer.


[This being the 20th anniversary of Apollo 11's landing on the Moon --
landing at 1617 EDT, Armstrong's "one small step" at 2256 EDT -- it
seems an appropriate time to editorialize a bit...]

YOUR CHOICE
-----------

In all the fuss about lunar bases and Mars missions, it is easy to lose
track of one big, unpleasant, nasty fact that has gone from unlikely to
certain in the last 20 years.  Unless something changes radically...

None of us is going.

Ever.

Remember the early days of the shuttle program, when weekly launches were
seriously planned, and the shuttle was going to open up space?  Remember
"routine access to space"?  Well, you and I may remember it, but as far
as NASA is concerned, it's dead, buried, and forgotten.  And most of the
other players in the business never believed in it in the first place.
(For reasons that shouldn't be hard to think of, I'm talking here about
spaceflight in the "free world", and ignoring the fact that the USSR
*has* routine access to space, for anyone they feel like sending up.)
Oh, there are a few "crazies" here and there who disagree... but they
aren't making much progress against entrenched Expert Opinion, and
consequently they may never get a chance to try for real.

Remember when Jerry Pournelle said "we're going if we have to walk!"?
Did you agree?  Did you think you meant it?  I did.  Of course, we
never really thought we'd have to walk.  All we had to do was wait for
a few years, contributing a bit of cheerleading here and there, and we
could thumb a ride.  Or, if worst came to worst, buy a ticket.

But that's not the way it worked out.  The "No Riders" signs on the trucks
not only haven't come off, they've been joined by new signs, paint still
wet, saying "Teamsters Union Only -- No Non-Union Personnel Allowed On
This Vehicle".  You can ride the bus, but you have to pay in Swiss francs
and learn Russian first... and the driver inspects your baggage before
deciding whether to let you on.  Put your thumb, and the rest of your hand,
back down by your side and give it a rest; nobody is paying attention.
You can stand there FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, and nobody will pick you up.

Is space *important* to you, worth time and effort and sacrifice, or just
a spectator sport?  Remember "we're going if we have to walk!"?  Did you
say that?  Did you *mean* it?

If so, why aren't you putting on your walking shoes?

Or are you still waiting for the ride that isn't going to come?

Yes, I know...  It's one ghodawful long walk, and the odds are you won't
make it.  Do you really think the odds are better if you don't try?

There are 168 hours in a week.  After deducting sleep and some minimal
survival necessities, most people have about 100 hours for activities
they have some choice about.  Is space *important* to you?  Does it
matter enough to spend, say, one whole hour a week doing something to
slightly increase your chances of getting up there someday?  *DOING*
something, mind you, not reading a book or scanning Usenet or something
else quiet and easy and pleasant, but going out and taking trouble and
making an effort and spending time that could be more enjoyably spent
on something else?  One hour out of a hundred?

Then why haven't you done it lately?

And please don't try to claim there's nothing you can do.  Go harass
your Congressman about the Space Launch Services Purchase Act, HR2674 --
ask him whether he supports it, and if not, why not.  (Don't just pick
up the phone, go VISIT him -- it only takes an hour or so, and it has
much more impact.  If you don't know who he is or where he is, FIND OUT.)
Find and start putting some effort into a group that is *doing* something
in space, like Amsat or SSI or WSF.  (Not just a bunch of cheerleaders,
like some we could name -- walking shoes, remember?)  If you *really*
think those signs are going to come off those trucks in your lifetime,
start badgering the right people about NASA funding.  (The word is
"badgering", not "watching".)  If, like me, you think those signs are
there to stay, find out who else is working on building trucks and what
you can do to help.  Or get together with some like-minded friends and
start working on how to make better truck mudguards, or something like
that -- you'd be amazed at how little work is really being done, and how
much a few determined people can help.  There are lots of ways to stop
putting wear on your behind and start putting it on your shoes.

Or you can just go back to watching TV and dreaming about that ride
that might come someday, maybe.  Like you've been doing for 20 years now.

Your choice.


-- 
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

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

Date: 21 Jul 89 16:46:34 GMT
From: cica!ctrsol!emory!stiatl!john@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (John DeArmond)
Subject: Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon

In article <481@gronk.UUCP> johnl@gronk.UUCP (John Limpert) writes:
>
>I started working at a NASA tracking station shortly after ALSEP was
>shut down.  The story I heard was that NASA ran out of money to receive,

John,

The question at hand is did NASA leave the transmitter on the moon running?
You could probably answer this as well as anyone.  I read a new report in
the local yellow rag that the transmitter had been left on and that only
the tracking station had been shut down.


-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC                     | Manual? ... What manual ?!? 
Sales Technologies, Inc.    Atlanta, GA    | This is Unix, My son, You 
...!gatech!stiatl!john    **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!!

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

Date: 21 Jul 89 23:06:06 GMT
From: usc!venera.isi.edu!cew@apple.com  (Craig E. Ward)
Subject: Neptune Encounter Satellite Feed

One of the Los Angeles AMSAT people gave me this over the phone.  I am not a
ham-radio operator so any mistakes may simply be misunderstandings on my
part.

NASA has purchased time on the AURORA-1 satellite for broadcasting live
pictures of the Voyager Neptune encounter.  The broadcasts will be August 21
through 29 from 12 Noon until 6:00 pm.  The broadcast will be for all 24
hours on August 24.  AURORA-1 is at 139 degrees west for those with satellite
dishes.

This is a special for the West Coast so those that use it and would like to
see the practice continued (i.e. for Shuttle missions) should write:

				  Les Gaver
			  NASA TV Video Operations
			    400 Maryland Ave. SW
			    Washington, DC 20546

to thank him for setting things up this time.

East Coast service will be from the usual F2R-13 satellite (the AMSAT contact
said everyone over there would know how to find it).

My connection to AMSAT comes from OASIS, the LA/OC chapter of the National
Space Society.  People in the Los Angeles area interested in space activism
can call us at (213) 374-1381.  Outside Southern California, call NSS
headquarters at (202) 543-1900 for the name of the chapter nearest you.
You can also get a weekly update of space news from the NSS Hotline at (202)
543-1995; however, the text of the message is uploaded to USENET so you could
just read it here.

-- 
====================================================================
ARPA: 	cew@venera.isi.edu
PHONE:	(213)822-1511 ext. 111
USPS:	USC Information Sciences Institute
	4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1100
	Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Slogan:	"nemo me impune lacessit"
====================================================================

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #578
*******************