Message-ID: <0abL4ku00VcJ4Klk59@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 1990 02:58:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #62

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 12 : Issue 62

Today's Topics:
		    Re: NASA's lobbying on the net
			  Re: Titan boosters
			  Re: buying Soyuzes
		   Re: Latest on the Space Station
		      Re: man-rated expendables
		  Re: BRIGHT TIDINGS FOR THE FUTURE

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  space+@andrew.cmu.edu.  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to
			 tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 14:19:38 GMT
From: thorin!homer!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: NASA's lobbying on the net

In article <9007112052.AA24159@ibmpa.paloalto.ibm.com> szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nicholas J. Szabo) writes:
>I would guess that the same ethical, and probably also legal, guidelines
>apply to the use of this equipment whether by employees, contractors, or
>anyone else.  Also, promoting NASA funding, insulting Congressmen  (the
>source of NASA's funding :-) and disparaging competing agency's efforts
>sound pretty close to political activity to my ears.

    Whereas IBM stockholders and upper management have no problems
with you using IBM equipment and money to post your opinions?
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``The tuba recital is one of the most memorable experiences of
      music school.''
	- Seen on a bulletin board in the UNC Music School

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 14:31:12 GMT
From: serre@boulder.colorado.edu  (SERRE GLENN)
Subject: Re: Titan boosters

In article <5462@itivax.iti.org> aws@vax3.iti.org.UUCP (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>However, if vibration is a big problem, I'm sure it can be fixed. At a
>savings of $150M per launch, we can spend a lot of money to do it. If I
>am wrong and it can't be fixed, (which I doubt) then we have lost nothing.
>
>  Allen

1) The Titan HLV is NOT a Titan II (which is the only Titan that astronauts have
gone up on.).  The most obvious difference is the presense (sp?) of SRMs.  

2) Does anyone out there know how much vibration a person can comfortably 
stand? Or rather, endure without being incapacitated?

3) Titan IV and/or Delta are not THAT much cheaper than the Shuttle, if any. 
The Titan HLV (or any U.S. HLV after the Saturn V) is just a pipe dream. 
We complain about the Shuttle not living up to its promises, but here you go 
quoting cost numbers from another promise.  If the net agrees on anything, it
is "Take all numbers not based on proven performance with a grain, or two, of
salt."

4) BTW, notwithstanding the above, I do think a Titan V is a good idea.  

--Glenn Serre
serre@tramp.colorado.edu

My opinions are probably directly opposed to those of my employer, 
Martin Marietta. In any case, they are my own.

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 17:37:39 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!rex!rouge!dlbres10@ucsd.edu  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: buying Soyuzes

In article <00939853.538CA460@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes:

DM> I think they made an offer of $500 million to launch Freedom on their
DM>heavy-lift monster. Two Energnas <sp> == 17 inital hardware flights for the
DM>Shuttle. And it all gets up there at ONCE!
DM>
DM>Unfortunately, this brilliant idea will probably be pissed on by NASA and
DM>Congress because A) It will take business away from the Shuttle, and
DM>American companies B) There could be "technology transfer" (This, despite
DM>the fact the Europeans would sell them the same hardware, and the coming
DM>glut of Soviet researchers in the U.S. will be able to read about all
DM>the technology in american college libraries) C) It'd be pretty damned
DM>embarassing for all sides if there was a launch failure. 

It would also be very bad form with all of the private launch system 
proposals floating around the US (Pacific American's Phoenix, Third
Millenium's Space Van) for NASA to just go ahead and help entrench
someone else's government-owned launch business.

It would make me want to cancel NASA altogether, which is something
I am not for now, and do not _want_ to be for.

Also, imagine if NASA went ahead and started contracting massive
amounts of computer construction to the Japanese government when
there were private companies here (or even private companies in
Japan) capable of doing the job.

Phil

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 12:19:53 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!Mike.McManus@uunet.uu.net  (Mike McManus)
Subject: Re: Latest on the Space Station


This has probably been discussed before, but can't some launcher other than the
shuttle be used for shipping trusses/girders/tools into orbit?  I can
understand the need for shuttle launches for assembly, and maybe even for
modules designed for shuttle launch, but I would think that there would be many
other other things, including resupplies for manned missions, that could go
some other route.

What other options (surely there are some) have been considered?  If none, then
what other options *SHOULD* they consisder?  Thanks...
--
Disclaimer: All spelling and/or grammar in this document are guaranteed to be
            correct; any exseptions is the is wurk uv intter-net deemuns,.

Mike McManus                        Mike.McManus@FtCollins.NCR.COM, or
NCR Microelectronics                ncr-fc!mikemc@ncr-sd.sandiego.ncr.com, or
2001 Danfield Ct.                   uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!garage!mikemc
Ft. Collins,  Colorado              
(303) 223-5100   Ext. 307

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

Date: 13 Jul 90 06:21:08 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!mvk@ucsd.edu  (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: man-rated expendables


This is in response to the article by Henry about the X-30 and its chances of
actually flying.

(This posting is based on rumors, office gossip, and conjecture, so treat it
as such.)

The X-30 may have a better chance at flight than you think, Henry.  It seems 
that the five prime contractors (Rockwell, McDonnell Douglas, General Dynamics,
Rocketdyne, and Pratt & Whitney) ARE interested in the X-30.  Or they are at
least interested in the technology the NASP will produce.  How interested?
There has been some talk that the primes will take over the funding of NASP
should government support stop.  They are gearing up to the challenges 
emerging from a unified Europe, a more vigorous Soviet Union, and Japan.  They
see NASP as a way for them to maintain their dominace of world aerospace for
the next several decades.

The hints are certainly there.  The NASP contractors have been matching the
government nearly dollar for dollar.  They have now unified into a single
team, urging cooperation instead of competition.  This is a rather unique
situation for America's aerospace companies.  The groundwork has been laid.
Whether they will go through with it is anybody's guess.  Let's hope they won't
have to.
                                                    Mike
mvk@pawl.rpi.edu

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

Date: 13 Jul 90 06:25:09 GMT
From: sgi!karsh%trifolium.esd.sgi.com@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Bruce Karsh)
Subject: Re: BRIGHT TIDINGS FOR THE FUTURE

>   BOY, WHAT A BUNCH OF PESSIMISTS YOU GUYS ARE:  HST IS DEAD!
>NASA IS WASHED UP!  SHUTTLE IS TRASH THAT SHOULD BE JUNKED!
>YOU READ LIKE A BAD SUPERMARKET TABLOID (WHICH I ADMIT HAS ITS
>ENTERTAINMENT VALUE).  MAYBE IT'S JUST MY OPINION, BUT I DON'T
>THINK ANY OF THE ABOVE ARE TRUE.  THEY ALL HAVE FLAWS, YES, BUT
>DOWN AND OUT, NO.

I agree with this sentiment.  By the way, is your shift key broken?  It's
kind of hard to look at all that upper-case once you've gotten accustomed
to reading text written with conventional upper/lower case conventions.

			Bruce Karsh
			karsh@sgi.com

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #62
*******************