Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Wed, 6 Dec 89 01:36:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 6 Dec 89 01:36:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #313 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 313 Today's Topics: Re: shuttle/mir rescue? Re: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars CHI '90 Workshop: Computer-Human Interaction in Aerospace Systems Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars re: Gary Hudson NASA Headline News for 12/05/89 (Forwarded) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Dec 89 11:37:24 GMT From: nis!viper!dave@UMN-CS.CS.UMN.EDU (David Messer) Subject: Re: shuttle/mir rescue? In article njg@ccm.UManitoba.CA (Nicholas Gloor / Database Support) writes: >Given that the shuttle cannot reenter safely (lost tiles or >one of the wings fell off) would it be possible to transfer >the shuttle crew to mir via the new eva unit the russians are >putting up at Mir and wait for the next taxi home? Generally the shuttles orbital inclination is much less than that of Mir. It is highly unlikely that it would be able to match orbits. -- Remember Tiananmen Square. | David Messer dave@Lynx.MN.Org -or- | Lynx Data Systems ...!bungia!viper!dave ------------------------------ Date: 5 Dec 89 00:04:04 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!hutto!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Melton) Subject: Re: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format Could someone supply a short viewing guide for spotting satellites? I have a tracking program, but I have no idea of the brightness of the objects I am looking for. What are some prime targets for a novice at satellite spotting? Which are too faint to be bothered with? -- Henry Melton ...!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!hutto!henry 1-512-8463241 Rt.1 Box 274E Hutto,TX 78634 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 12:00:32 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars All this talk of which to fund, manned missions or unmanned, reminds me of what Ben Bova called the "Either/Or Fallacy". Somehow, we have allowed ourselves to be conned (presumably by the people holding the purse strings) that we can't have *both*. When you look at the costs involved, there's no immediate reason why we shouldn't. The fact that unmanned missions can (for the sake of argument) yield ten times as much scientific return as unmanned is not a reason why manned missions should be scrubbed. Unmanned mission enthusiasts look at the money that manned missions cost and say, "but we could do so much more science with that money". Why not look at the amount of money we spend on other things? For heaven's sake, Americans spent enough on board games last year to pay for the Voyager missions; there are plenty of places to get the money from. "Ah," they say, "but the money for unmanned missions *is* distributed from the same source as manned missions." That's the problem. They're forced to compete against each other for the wrong reasons. Hey, the same source of money also pays for HUD, and we compete with them for funds, why don't I hear unmanned mission folk railing against HUD inefficiency and expenditure? Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 5 Dec 89 18:29:24 GMT From: thorin!homer!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars In article <3037@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: >anywhere soon. That gives an automated Mars mission something >like a 20-year technological advantage over our earlier generation >of probes. Won't that amount to something? Such an increase in complexity, of both the mission and the hardware, may provide many new and fascinating failure modes. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``God is more interested in your future and your relationships than you are.'' - Billy Graham ------------------------------ Date: 5 Dec 89 23:41:22 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars A refinement on my proposal to keep the manned crew in Mars orbit and let it teleoperate rovers on the surface, would be to "land" the men on Phobos. This is little more than a free floating EVA from a propulsion/structural standpoint, and lets you do super-interesting science "manually." Phobos' orbit is low and fast, poorly suited for rover teleoperation, so an areosynchronous relay satellite would be called for. -- Canada -- a few acres of snow. ^v^v^ Tom Neff -- Voltaire v^v^v tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET ------------------------------ Date: 5 Dec 89 23:25:59 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars In article <49077@bbn.COM> ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes: >>Let's see. We add the cost of developing Titan-Centaur to the Voyager >>bill, or else deduct the cost of the Saturns from Apollo's. > >Fair enough, but let's not neglect the fact that manned flights require >larger boosters by their very nature because humans (as opposed to say >remote sensing experiments) make a very bulky, ineficient cargo. You're still making the mistake of comparing small, unambitious unmanned missions to big, ambitious manned ones. There were unmanned missions, notably the original Voyager project (whose shrunken remnants became Viking), that were planning to use the Saturn V because nothing else was big enough. For that matter, the Mars sample-return/rover mission people today clearly are badly cramped by the limitations of Titan/Centaur. >But even ignoring this, the point is that on a per-flight basis, any given >manned flight to, say, Mars is going to be vastly more expensive than any >given remote-sensing flight. With minimal gain in output. More expensive, yes. But I think if you look at the numbers, "minimal" is a gross underestimate of the difference in return. You'd need a massive unmanned effort, much bigger than anything currently planned, to equal the return from one manned mission. >>...Then add >>multiple outer-planet sample return missions ($$$$$!!!) to the Voyager >>budget, and the Ranger/Surveyor/LunarOrbiter missions ($) to the Apollo >>budget, so we're comparing apples to apples instead of apples to oranges. > >I'm afraid I don't understand this point. Presumably proposed manned >flight to Mars would have return missions? ;) In any case it wasn't simply >the necessity for return flights that made Apollo so much more expensive >than comparable unmanned flights. The point is, comparing a robot that does nothing but snap pictures from a distance to a complex multi-instrument onboard-intelligence mobile sample return mission is ridiculous. Compare apples with apples, please. Or explain why the push for a Mars sample return is ridiculous because remote sensing could tell us everything anyway. -- 1233 EST, Dec 7, 1972: | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology last ship sails for the Moon. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Dec 89 01:00:11 GMT From: ssbell!mcmi!denny@uunet.uu.net (Steve Armstrong) Subject: CHI '90 Workshop: Computer-Human Interaction in Aerospace Systems Call for Position Papers CHI '90 Workshop: Computer-Human Interaction in Aerospace Systems A limited attendance, invitational workshop on Computer-Human Interaction in Aerospace Systems is being organized for the CHI '90 conference in Seattle, Washington, 1-5 April, 1990. The workshop will be 1-2 April 1990. The purpose of the workshop is to explore issues facing designers and users of decision support systems in real-time, high-risk aerospace systems. The workshop will focus on the following issues: how do we model the user/operator in complex time-critical environments; how do we design the human-computer interaction (displays, controls, and aids) to ensure that the user is integrated into the decision process; what comprises an intelligent computer interface for a supervisory controller; how do we provide timely, context-sensitive information in real time without overloading or distracting the human operator; how do we design operator aids/tutors using knowledge-based technology that enhances the human-computer interaction and overall system effectiveness rather than replacing the human decision maker. Application domains include the design of human-computer interaction (e.g., displays, controls, aids, tutors) in satellite ground control systems, shuttle and space station control systems, and advanced aviation in both the cockpit and air traffic control. Workshop participation is limited to twenty people. Individuals wishing to attend the workshop may request an invitation by submitting a 3-5 page position paper discussing their experiences or research in the area of human-computer interaction in real-time complex dynamic systems (particularly aerospace applications). We encourage both human factors and systems designers, as well as other knowledgeable individuals to participate. We wish to obtain a balanced university/government/industry representation and interaction. The position papers of the invited attendees will be reproduced and distributed to the attendees prior to the workshop. Selected papers may be submitted for publication in the SIGCHI Bulletin. Also, workshop results will be reported in the Bulletin. Participants will be charged a $50 workshop fee to help defray the costs of coffee breaks and A/V equipment. Position papers are due no later than January 30, 1989. Three copies, double-spaced, should be sent to: CHI '90 Workshop on Computer-Human Interaction in Aerospace Systems Christine M. Mitchell Center for Human-Machine Systems Research School of Industrial & Systems Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332-0205 Phone: (404) 894-4321 E-mail: mitchell@chmsr.gatech.edu Fax: (404) 894-2301 Invited Participants will be notified by March 1, 1989, and will also be sent copies of the selected position papers together with a final agenda for the workshop. -- Good health is merely the slowest rate at which one can die. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 10:16:01 PST From: mordor!lll-tis!ames!scubed!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: ames!lll-tis!mordor!angband!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars Henry Spencer writes: >In article <8912031720.AA00715@ames.arc.nasa.gov> jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery >) writes: >>>>... If you want to develop a propulsion system you do propulsion R&D. >>>Except that if you don't have a specific mission to use that R&D on, the >>>funds for it tend to get cut off. >> >>Uh.... Henry... if you don't have a use for the propulsion R&D other than >>the mission it is supposed to "spin off" from... where is it supposed to >>"spin off" to? > >The missions that can be flown *once the propulsion system is known to be >available*. Oh, so prior to the start of any mission, you know of MORE THAN ONE mission that needs the propulsion system once it is developed, and for some reason, you choose to have the development paid for under the funding of one of these missions rather than the other. You then call the propulsion system a "spin off" of that mission which enables the other missions. I get it. So now I have an idea: Since having ONE specific mission enables you to get the propulsion R&D done without cut off, how about if you go ahead and propose MORE THAN ONE specific missions that must use the developed system? That way, it will be even LESS likely to be cut off! And just think, once you have come up with a justification for developing such a system, all you need to do is get all those missions funded ON THEIR MERITS AS MISSIONS (including within their budgets their share of the amortized cost of development and operation of the transporation system), let the PI's for those missions put the required transportation services out to bid and BINGO, you have meritorious need funding competitive development of the propulsion system. That can free up your PI's to concentrate on the real objectives of the missions! Of course, this ignores alternative uses for that money -- for example, flying the hundreds of vital missions that can use existing space transportation systems which could come down in cost by a factor of 10 with some reasonable economies of scale. That way, the PI's would gather information on what they REALLY want to do in space, providing SOLID justification for developing new transporation services in a stochastic stream of missions provoding a stable market -- rather than a BIG DEVELOPMENT PROJECT that invites every baboon on Capital Hill to kick it around. --- Typical RESEARCH grant ($ = 1million): $ Typical DEVELOPMENT contract: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ------------------------------ Date: 6 Dec 89 00:08:55 GMT From: milton!maven!games@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Games Wizard) Subject: re: Gary Hudson In article <7117@portia.Stanford.EDU>, doom@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Brenner) writes: > I just attended a talk by Gary Hudson (sponsored by the Stanford > Libertarians). > > His current project is a company called Pacific American Launch > Vehicles (soon to be re-named Pacific American Spaceship Company). > > The vehicle design he's working on (the Phoenix) is a > version of the project that the National Citizen Advisory Council > on Space was pushing to the government. I noticed Pournelle > dropping some hints about it in a "computer" column, but outside of > that, I'd heard nothing about it. > Anybody know anything more about this? Like a real address for him? I would like to send him mail, and see if he has any flashy literature. (Actually I would just like to see what they have going, and obviously in order to do that, I have to be able to get ahold of them.) Thanx in advance, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trendy footer by: John Stevens-Schlick Internet?: JOHN@tranya.cpac.washington.edu 7720 35'th Ave S.W. Seattle, Wa. 98126 (206) 935 - 4384 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My boss dosn't know what I do. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Dec 89 20:43:22 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA Headline News for 12/05/89 (Forwarded) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tuesday, December 5, 1989 Audio: 202/755-1788 ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is NASA Headline News for Tuesday, December 5.... The Flight Readiness Review for the STS-32 mission concluded today at the Kennedy Space Center. Following the completion of the review space shuttle officials selected December 18 as the date for launch. On the launch pad, workers have concluded the payload verification test and are getting ready to begin closure of the orbiter's payload bay doors. The helium signature test of the main engines has also been completed. Meanwhile...the orbiter Discovery that arrived back at the Cape yesterday morning has been detached from the 747 carrier aircraft and was moved to the orbiter processing facility this morning. The Huntsville Times reported yesterday that to help reduce potential contamination to the Hubble Space Telescope, the Kennedy Space Center has halted all burning-off of swamp areas until after the STS-31 launch next march. The huge telescope is presently in a protective cover as it undergoes final checkout at KSC's Vertical Processing Facility. Cal Tech scientists say that the sonic boom created by the space shuttle orbiter Columbia as it passed over Los Angeles last August created ground motions that indicated earthquakes may shake L.A. skyscrapers more severly that previously thought. The boom caused many buildings built on relatively soft ground to sway and create small earthquake-like motions. NASA has announced that on January 5 it will begin implementation of a broad-based, "drug free workplace" program. It places strong emphasis on education, training and assistance coupled with a limited amount of random drug testing of selected "sensitive" positions. Tass news agency reports that Soviet ground controllers have freed a jammed solar array on its Kvant-2 re-equipment module, but a malfunctioning automatic rendezvous system has delayed docking with the Mir space station until tomorrow. The module carries a variety of supplies for the station and a manned maneuvering unit. * * * * ----------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA Select TV. All times are Eastern. Thursday, December 7.... 11:30 A.M. NASA Update will be transmitted. All events and times are subject to change without notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------- These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon, Eastern time. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC), NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #313 *******************