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 ; Thu, 7 Dec 89 01:25:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 01:25:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #315 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 315 Today's Topics: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars Hearings on HR2674 (4 of 6) Galileo Update 12/6/89 (Forwarded) Payload Status for 12/06/89 (Forwarded) Desubscribing Re: SPACE Digest V10 #314 Re: The International Space Habitat Program ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 Dec 89 12:36:01 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: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars Henry Spencer writes: >In article <14973@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >>An unmanned sample return / rover mission seems like a very workable baseline >>that gives scientists dizzying amounts of data without waiting out another >>fifteen years of NASA plodding and contractor shell games... > >Except that it will take almost as much plodding and contracting to mount >a sample-return/rover mission, probably. Sigh... there was a time when >such things got done in years, not decades. The only reason we aren't flying probes the way we were in the 60's (fire off a few to different places, find out something, quickly send others to answer questions raised by earlier ones) is because NASA assasinated our space transportation capabilities with the Shuttle Program. There is no overriding reason to build massive, one-of-a-kind, multi-billion dollar, do-everything-in-one-shot-for-everyone-forever probes which then sit on the ground for a decade or so getting various subsystems modified while it is waiting for a slot on a government-run "space transportation system." Increase the availability of space transportation and everything else comes out in the wash. As Paul Harvey would say: "It's true!" --- Typical RESEARCH grant ($ = 1million): $ Typical DEVELOPMENT contract: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ------------------------------ Date: 6 Dec 89 19:42:01 GMT From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!sharkey!itivax!vax3!aws@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Hearings on HR2674 (4 of 6) Below is testimony fron the hearings on HR2674. The next step is to pressure Congressperson Nelson of Florida to send the bill to 'mark up' so it can get to the floor. This information comes from Tihamer Toth-Fjel of the Ann Arbor Space Society and Catherine Rawlings of Congressperson Packard's office. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- REMARKS OF STEPHANIE LEE-MILLER DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE & APPLICATIONS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NOVEMBER 9, 1989 * * * INTRODUCTION I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY THANKING YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE SUBCOMMITTEE TODAY. I AM PLEASED TO REPORT, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT THE OFFICE OF COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION (OCST) HAS MADE MUCH PROGRESS IN THE MONTHS SINCE I APPEARED BEFORE THIS SUBCOMMITTEE LAST APRIL. SINCE THEN, THE FIRST DOT-LICENSED U.S. COMMERCIAL ORBITAL LAUNCH HAS TAKEN PLACE IN YOUR HOME STATE. THERE, ON AUGUST 27, A MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DELTA ROCKET CARRYING A SATELLITE OWNED BY THE BRITISH SATELLITE BROADCASTING COMPANY LIFTED OFF FROM CAPE CANAVERAL. IT WAS A BEAUTIFUL LAUNCH, PERFECTLY EXECUTED. IN ADDITION, OCST RECENTLY ISSUED ITS THIRD QUARTERLY MANIFEST FOR 1989. THE MANIFEST SHOWS THAT THE NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL LAUNCH CONTRACTS HAS GROWN TO 33, AND THIS FIGURE IS EXPECTED TO INCREASE SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE COMING MONTHS. WE HAVE ISSUED SEVEN LAUNCH LICENSES AND INSURANCE ORDERS FOR SEVEN LAUNCHES. AND WE AT OCST ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO SPACE SERVICES INC. OF AMERICA'S SECOND LICENSED SUBORBITAL LAUNCH NEXT WEEK. IN ADDITION, I HAVE ESTABLISHED AN EDUCATION INITIATIVE, A PROGRAM TO REACH OUT TO EDUCATORS AND STUBENTS TO STIMULATE THEIR INTEREST IN SPACE-RELATED CAREERS. LAST MONTH OCST HOSTED A CONFERENCE, A MEETING OF LEADERS FROM ACROSS THE NATION, TO NETWORK AND SOLICIT INPUT FOR AN SPACE EDUCATION ACTION PLAN. WHILE I AM VERY PLEASED BY THE SHORT-TERM PROGRESS OF THIS NEW INDUSTRY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD URGE THE COMMITTEE, OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND PRIVATE LAUNCH COMPANIES TO BEGIN FOCUSING ON THE PLACE OF A U. S. COMMERCIAL LAUNCH INDUSTRY IN OUR SPACE PROGRAM OVERALL AND THE THINGS WE AS A NATION MUST DO TO FACILITATE THE INDUSTRY'S LONG-TERM SUCCESS AND ITS COMPETITIVENESS IN THE GROWING WORLD COMMERCIAL LAUNCH MARKET. IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS SINCE I BECAME DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION (OCST), I HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET ONE-ON-ONE WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE U.S. COMMERCIAL LAUNCH INDUSTRY AND TO HEAR THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS AND THEIR EFFECT ON A COMPANY'S ABILITY TO PRODUCE COST-EFFECTIVE, COMPETITIVELY-PRICED LAUNCH VEHICLES. THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO RAISED AGAIN WHEN I MET WITH CONGRESSMAN PACKARD LAST SUMMER TO DISCUSS COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION ISSUES. AT THAT TIME, THE CONGRESSMAN INFORMED ME THAT HE WOULD BE DRAFTING LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS FEDERAL PROCUREMENT PRACTICES AFFECTING SPACE TRANSPORTATION. AND WHILE I AM NOT IN A POSITION TO PRESENT AN OFFICIAL ADMINISTRATION VIEW ON HIS BILL, H.R. 2674 (SPACE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES ACT OF 1989), SEVERAL FEATURES OF THE BILL ADDRESS IMPORTANT CONCERNS OF THE U. S. COMMERCIAL LAUNCH INDUSTRY. ALSO, IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, DOT' S COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS BEEN STUDYING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT PRACTICES AND COMMERCIAL LAUNCH COSTS. ITS STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE DECREASING THE LENGTH OF THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS, REDUCING THE PAPERWORK INVOLVED, AND LIMITING THE SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT LAUNCH PROGRAM REVIEW. INCIDENTALLY, DOT IS NOT THE FIRST GOVERNMENT AGENCY TO EXPLORE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT PRACTICES AND COST. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE AREA OF GOVERNMENT SPECIFICATIONS, THE HIGH COST OF PRODUCTION HAS BEEN SHARPLY CRITICIZED IN THE 1986 PACKARD COMMISSION REPORT ON DEFENSE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, ENTITLED A QUEST FOR EXCELLENCE: NO MATTER HOW DOD IMPROVES ITS ORGANIZATION OR PROCEDURES, DEFENSE ACQUISITION SYSTEM IS UNLIKELY TO MANUFACTURE PRODUCTS AS CHEAPLY AS THE COMMERCIAL MARKETPLACE. PRODUCTS DEVELOPED UNIQUELY FOR MILITARY USE AND TO MILITARY SPECIFICATIONS GENERALLY COST SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN THEIR COMMERCIAL COUNTERPARTS." RATHER THAN RELYING ON EXCESSIVE MILITARY SPECIFICATIONS, DOD SHOULD MAKE GREATER USE OF COMPONENTS, SYSTEMS, AND SERVICES h9AILABLE "OFF-THE-SHELF. " IT SHOULD DEVELOP NEW OR CUSTOM- MADE ITEMS ONLY WHEN IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THOSE READILY AVAILABLE ARE CLEARLY INADEQUATE TO MEET MILITARY REQUIREMENTS. " THESE VIEWS WERE ALSO CITED IN SECRETARY CHENEY'S RECENT DEFENSE MANAGEMENT REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT. AS WE ANALYZE THE FEDERAL ROLE IN PROMOTING COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION, WE SHOULD BE MINDFUL OF SOME OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDER THEIR APPLICA8ILITY TO LAUNCH SERVICE PROCUREMENTS. LET ME TAXE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO EMPHASIZE THAT OCST'S NUMBER ONE PRIORITY, AS DEFINED IN THE COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH ACT, IS PROTECTING THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC -- THAT IS, REGULATING THE COMMERCIAL LAUNCH INDUSTRY TO ENSURE THAT ITS ACTIVITIES ARE CONDUCTED SAFELY. THIS MANDATE SHARES OCST'S VIEW OF ANY PROPOSALS, FROM PRIVATE INDUSTRY OR CONGRESS, FOR CHANGING CURRENT REGULATIONS OR POLICIES PERTAINING TO GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT OF COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SERVICES. THERE IS CERTAINLY ROOM FOR IMPROVING THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE GOVERNMENT DOES BUSINESS WITH PRIVATE LAUNCH FIRMS, BUT SAFETY MUST ALWAYS COME FIRST. A MAJOR ASPECT OF OCST'S MANDATE AS OUTLINED IN THE COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH ACT IS TO HELP FACILITATE THE GROWTH OF THE U. S. COMMERCIAL LAUNCH INDUSTRY. AS PART OF ITS ROLE IN PROMOTING A STRONG, COMPETITIVE U.S. COMMERCIAL LAUNCH INDUSTRY, OCST RECENTLY INITIATED A STUDY OF GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT PRACTICES AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE COMMERCIAL LAUNCH INDUSTRY. OCST IS COORDINATING REVIEW OF THE STUDY WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES, AND ITS FINDINGS WILL BE ISSUED NEXT YEAR. THE STUDY WILL SEEK TO ANSWER A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT QUESTIONS, INCLUDING: 1. IS THERE A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GOVERNMRNT'S METHODS OF PROCURING LAUNCH SERVICES AND THE ABILILITY OF THE U.S. COMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY TO COMPETE? 2. DOES THE GOVERNMENT ADD EXTRA LAUNCH SERVICES COSTS THROUGH ITS PROCUREMENT PROCESS? 3. CAN THE GOVERNMENT ChRRY OUT LADNCH OPERATIONS WITH LESS DETAILED OVERSIGHT WHILE STILL MAINTAINING SAFETY STANDARDS AND RISK CONTROL? WE IN GOVERNMENT NEED TO TAKE A CRITICAL LOOK AT WHAT PERCENTAGE OF GOVERNMENT LAUNCH COSTS RESULT FROM ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD THAT IS NOT CRITICAL TO QUALITY OR SAFETY AND CONSIDER HOW ADMINISTRATIVE REDUCTIONS COULD BE MADE. MR. CHAIRMAN, SINCE THE COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH ACT OF 1984 WAS PASSED BY CONGRESS MORE THAN FIVE YEARS AGO, A WHOLE NEW INDUSTRY HAS BEEN CREATED. THE LARGE COMPANIES AND SMALLER ENTREPRENEURS WHO HAVE RESPONDED TO THE CALL FOR A U. S. COMMERCIAL LAUNCH INDUSTRY HAVE INVESTED MORE THAN HALF A BILLION DOLLARS OF THEIR RESOURCES INTO THE U.S. ECONOMY AND HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR WILLINGNESS TO BECOME AGGRESSIVE PLAYERS IN THE WORLD COMMERCIAL LAUNCH MARKET. IT'S UP TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO ENSURE THAT OUR POLICIES DO NOT HINDER THE SHORT-TERM DEVELOPMENT AND THE LONG-TERM SUCCESS OF THIS VITAL NEW INDUSTRY. GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT PRACTICES ARE A MAJOR ASPECT OF FEDERAL POLICIES AFFECTING THE U.S. COMMERCIAL LAUNCH INDUSTRY. WE SHOULD SHAPE THEM TO BE AS HELPFUL TO THE GROWTH OF INDUSTRY AS POSSIBLE, OF COURSE, KEEPING IN MIND OUR FIRST PRIORITY TO ENSURE PUBLIC SAFETY. THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR TODAY. I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU OR YOUR COLLEAGUES HAVE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Allen W. Sherzer | Is the local cluster the result | | aws@iti.org | of gerrymandering? | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 6 Dec 89 23:17:45 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!forsight!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Galileo Update 12/6/89 (Forwarded) GALILEO MISSION STATUS December 6, 1989 The Galileo spacecraft is 9.25 million miles (50 light-seconds) from Earth today. It has gone 71 million miles along its curving road to Venus in the 49 days since launch, and has 114 million miles and 65 days to go until Venus encounter and almost 2-1/2 billion miles, 6 years and 2 days to Jupiter. Things are going well. Since last Saturday, the third Earth-Venus cruise sequence of commands has been in effect. The principal activities at this time involve characterizing (exercising, checking out and understanding) spacecraft functions and equipment to be used in Venus scientific observations in February 1990. Last month's characterization focused on elements used in the November 9-11 trajectory change maneuver -- propulsion, attitude control, communications. This month's adds such things as articulation control, particularly the scan actuators. Galileo's scientific instruments will be checked out separately December 27-30. The spacecraft is still in what is termed dual-spin mode, with the main part of the orbiter rotating at about 3 rpm and the lower portion of the craft fixed in relation to space. Temperatures are within acceptable limits, though several are still cooler than predicted. Automatic maneuvers are performed as needed every day or so to keep the spacecraft oriented in relation to the Sun. Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov Jet Propulsion Lab M/S 301-355 | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov 4800 Oak Grove Dr. | Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 6 Dec 89 21:52:10 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Payload Status for 12/06/89 (Forwarded) Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 12-06-89 - STS-31R HST (at VPF) - The GST-8 test continues with no problems reported by LMSC. All facility environmental readings remain nominal. ECS support and monitoring continues. - STS-32R SYNCOM (at Pad A) - SYNCOM ordnance and closeout activities were completed yesterday. SYNCOM battery charging was performed yesterday and will continue on a daily basis. Payload bay doors were closed and PCR was secured late on second shift last night. - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at O&C) - HUT vacuum pump reconnection and checkout was complete yesterday. All experiment cruciform cable connections were completed. WUPPE GSE cable connections to test panel were completed. During OSP troubleshooting an open was discovered to be at a recessed pin on the RAU Z. Power up for OSP retest was completed. OSP star trackers are working. An over current condition occurred and is under engineering evaluation. - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) - Rack rotations were performed on racks 8 and 11. Scheduled for today are rack rotations on racks 6 and 12. Rack 4 and 10 side structure mods continue. Pyrell foam replacement continues. - STS-42 IML (at O&C) - No activity. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Dec 89 13:27 MDT From: Subject: Desubscribing Hi there, I really like your spacenet articles, but right now I just don't have enough time to read everyone everyday and it's just taking up too much of my disk space and wasting paper. Can you take me off of your mailing list? Again, nothing wrong with the articles, just too busy! Jeff Kirkley ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Dec 89 20:30 CST From: "Brian P. McCarty (N9IWP)" Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V10 #314 (re:summer employment) Are these positions only summer, or are there permamnent type positions. I am graduating with a BSEE with an emphisis in computers. I'm a ham so I have some communications knowledge. I have about a 2.8 GPA (spend too much time on bitnet). Is it worth my bother to apply? Brian McCarty bitnet: UCSBPM@UWPLATT internet UCSBPM@UWPLATT.WISC.EDU soon to be UCSBPM@UWPLATT.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 6 Dec 89 19:10:39 GMT From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!kcarroll@uunet.uu.net (Kieran A. Carroll) Subject: Re: The International Space Habitat Program jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) writes: > > >>>In my judgement, the >main< reason for exploring space is because we intend > >>>that people live and work there, someday soon. > >>Right, and since "WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY," we should stop piddling > >>around with science and just "DO IT." > >Despite the sarcastic intention of the remainder of JB's posting, > >this is one statement that I can agree with. > > OK, Kieran, since "WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY" for people to live, work and > play in space NOW (with objectives other than gathering scientific > knowlege) how about if you go around and convince all those private > investors who must be just chomping at the bit to make big bucks in space > that they should plow their hard earned capital into your moon/mars > development plan... Well, Jim, there's a difference between having the capability to make something work (a solar power satellite system, say), and making a venture profitable (although we're all rabid socialists up here in the Great White North, they do still teach us words like "profit" in school :-). And even in cases where a healthy profit potential is fairly certain to exist (solar power satellites, say), private investors still tend to shy away until other conditions have been met. For example, private investors like to see the profit rolling in pretty well right away -- 2 years is a long time to wait for a ROI, these days, let alone 20 or 40 years. Just because investors aren't queueing up to put their money into a venture doesn't mean that the venture isn't viable. > ...did you think that money is no object as long as The Government engages > in enough Long Range Planning? If they're >good< plans :-) Seriously, if governments don't do long range planning, then who will? Private investors? It is to laugh... > Has the Canadian government become so angry at the US that they have decided > to assist the most destructive forces within US society by funding "think > tanks" in Canadian universities to come up with sophistry in support of > those forces? No, I only destabilize the US economy on my lunch hour :-) Anyway, what's your point, Jim? (Do you have a point, Jim?) Are you arguing that there should be >no< government space funding? Or that just >space science< should be funded? If the latter, what do you include in your definition of space science? Is it just taking photographs of outer planets (the one activity that unmanned probes are clearly better at than manned ones, for now)? Or does it include investigations into microgravity materials science? How about funding of a proof-of-principle solar power satellite demonstration? How about funding advanced launcher-propulsion development? In short, do you have some rationale for deciding which types of government research you lash out at? If so, then >explaining< it would contribute a lot more to the discussion, than would posting endless insulting replies. -- Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #315 *******************