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 ; Sat, 14 Jul 1990 01:32:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 14 Jul 1990 01:31:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #63 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 63 Today's Topics: NORAD orbital prediction FORTRAN source code Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration -- support robotics Re: HST Re: Energia Re: LOOK FOR (SOVIET) UNION LABEL Re: grim tidings for the future Re: Titan boosters Re: NASA Budget Re: Suspensions of Shuttle Commanders Re: SETI funding cut Re: Short Fuse on "Outreach Program" kit Re: Titan boosters Re: The Decay of NASA's technical culture 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: 13 Jul 90 07:24:37 GMT From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!uniwa!vax6!tgumleyle@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Liam Gumley) Subject: NORAD orbital prediction FORTRAN source code I am interested in obtaining the FORTRAN source code for the NORAD orbital prediction model which uses the orbital elements posted by Dr. TS Kelso from the Air Force Institute of Technology. I have been in contact with Dr. Kelso regarding the source of the elements and the availability of source code, and he has been very helpful. However he does not have access to an anonymous ftp site that I can reach to get the source code. He suggested I try and find someone who does. Any suggestions ? BTW, I am most interested in the accuracy of the ground track prediction for polar orbiting earth satellites. Does anyone have any experience/opinions ? =============================================================================== | Liam E. Gumley "We've gone completely crazy!" _--_|\ | | Department of Applied Physics - the Dodgey Brothers. / \ | | Curtin University of Technology \_.--._/ | | Perth, Western Australia. v | | Internet:tgumleyle@cc.curtin.edu.au I think, therefore, | | Bitnet:tgumleyle%cc.curtin.edu.au@cunyvm.bitnet all opininons are my own.| =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 17:06:17 GMT From: vax8530!njzy@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (T. Joseph Lazio, Cornell University) Subject: Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration -- support robotics In article <2341@l.cc.purdue.edu>, cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: > In article <4557.269b1f40@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>, njzy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (T. Joseph Lazio, Cornell University) writes: >> Robots do have the ability to react to the unexpected, thanks to >> human controllers on the ground. Further, I think that if you >> examine the record, particularly of Voyager, you will see that most >> things to which the probes had to react were equipment failures. >> While it is easy to reroute instructions or shut down instruments, >> it is a bit more difficult to shut down life support. > > This is where the time problem comes in. The problems of Voyager were not > so urgent that a 5 hour interval between noticing the problem and correcting > it was of importance. If Voyager had detected a rock which would hit it in > one hour and destroy it, well, that's all, folks. Perhaps you do not recall the concern voiced by many scientists before the Neptune encounter. Voyager was planning on crossing the plane of the rings (remember that pre-encounter evidence for rings was inconclusive). In the minds of many, again pre-encounter, there was a good chance that Voyager would get nailed by a piece of ice going *very* fast. Moreover, you assume that a manned craft would be able to detect the rock in time to do something. Since the biggest danger is not from fist or car-sized rocks but from centimeter and millimeter sized rocks, this assumption may not be justified. -- T. Joseph Lazio Cornell University (607) 255-6420 lazio@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu lazio@pulsar.tn.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 04:09:19 GMT From: att!watmath!watserv1!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: HST In article <90193.173725WTU@psuvm.psu.edu> WTU@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >Can somebody tell me why the HST is not shoot to the geostationary >orbit? Other than political reasons that NASA want to use shuttle >for HST, so they get two birds with one stone. Is there any >fundemental scientific reasons that the HST should be at the orbit >it is right now rather than a higher one? (a) It's big and heavy and difficult to boost to high orbit. (b) Maintenance and refurbishment are not available at all in high orbit, which is significant for HST because new instruments are already under development (and a damn good thing, too, the way it's turned out!). If it were easy to get it there and visits weren't an issue, then yes, a high orbit would be better. Actually, you might want to put it further out than geostationary, to get it completely clear of the Van Allen belts. -- NFS: all the nice semantics of MSDOS, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology and its performance and security too. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jul 90 20:08:54 EDT From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Re: Energia >From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) >>And then this large, unproven (total of two flights to date, I believe) >>rocket blows up, taking half your space station with it. >B) If they trust Buran and their cargo with it, why shouldn't we? I guess > it's cuz they're Foreigners, eh? You may not have noticed, but they don't trust Buran. Something on the first flight scared them, and they've been trying to fix it before they risk another launch. Also, didn't the first of the two Energia launches have something wrong with it? Maybe not total failure, but something substandard. I think the general opinion is that they both have potential, but that they have not yet proven their reliability. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 90 16:31:44 GMT From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: LOOK FOR (SOVIET) UNION LABEL In article <90193.071857GIPP@GECRDVM1.BITNET> GIPP@gecrdvm1.crd.ge.com writes: > LAST BUT NOT LEAST, WHO WANTS TO GO BACK TO CAPSULES? >WHAT CAN YOU DO STRAPPED INTO THE NOSE CONE OF A BALLISTIC >MISSILE? ... About as much as you can do strapped into the cabin of a shuttle orbiter. -- NFS: all the nice semantics of MSDOS, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology and its performance and security too. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 90 04:30:56 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Charles.Radley@decwrl.dec.com (Charles Radley) Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future The only launch facilities NASA control are the KSC Complex LC-39 a/b for the Shuttle, and Wallops Island for sounding rockets. All the other launch facilities are controlled by the US, including the commercial ELV sites at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Air Focre thus control all lu\aunches of the following: Deltas, Titans, Atlas's. NASA only gets involved to the extent that they BUY those launch vehicle from the commercial providerws, and arrangment set up post-Challenger. -- Charles Radley Internet: Charles.Radley@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 18:57:55 GMT From: serre@boulder.colorado.edu (SERRE GLENN) Subject: Re: Titan boosters In article <5464@itivax.iti.org> aws@vax3.iti.org.UUCP (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >>3) Titan IV and/or Delta are not THAT much cheaper than the Shuttle, if any. > >It costs about 50% more (per pound) to send your payload on a Shuttle >over a Commercial Titan. A CT launch costs less than half a Shuttle launch. I know we went through this before, but did we (this group) ever come to a conclusion on how much we thought the Shuttle cost per pound to LEO is? Note that CT is not a heavy-lift vehicle, and it required very little new design to make it fly (basically just a new fairing and payload adapter). >>The Titan HLV (or any U.S. HLV after the Saturn V) is just a pipe dream. > >Well, the HL Delta isn't. Granted it doesn't exist yet so there is some >risk but McDonnell Douglas seems to be betting a half a billion dollars >of it's own money they can do it. Well, tell us about the HL Delta then. (Inquiring minds want to know!) --Glenn Serre serre@tramp.colorado.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 20:17:23 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!ogicse!unicorn!n8035388@ucsd.edu (Worth Henry A) Subject: Re: NASA Budget In article <9007121729.AA07889@sununix.comm.wang.com> DAN.S.SULLIVAN@office.wang.com (Dan Sullivan) writes: > >>all of this could be paid for with the money saved from ... > >... > >If you dobt this, look at the proposals for spending the so called >'peace dividend' >dan.s.sullivan@office.wang.com REALITY CHECK : WHAT PEACE DIVIDEND??? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The so-called peace dividend has already been consumed by the S&L bailout. The bailout will cost $150++ billion, and quite probably another $50-$100 billion spent on prosecution and administrative costs. The bottom line is something like $200++/yr per household for the next 40 years. I hope I'm wrong..., but, the unfortunate political REALITY is that given this fiscal drain -- combined with deficit reductions, long neglected social problems, and Congressional outrage at NASA's recent difficulties -- NASA can only look forward to a 70's-style skeletal budget for the next decade, if not longer. Do you really think President Bush is going to continue his already weak advocacy for SEI, now that he's been forced to utter the T-word? The only hope that I can see for major space exploration initiatives, is in international efforts. Unfortunately, Washington is not willing to give up control in order to allow this to happen, although, budget realities may eventually force a decision between: 1 > A skeletal NASA? 2 > Merge with the ESA, the Soviets, Japan ..., to form a vigorous, productive, independent, and affordable, World Space Agency? 3 > Eliminate NASA, and all civilian government involvement in space? Which would you chose? HW 7/13/90 PS - Perhaps we need a sci.space.politics newsgroup, so that those not interested in the politics of space, insulted by such crass realities, or unable to believe that others have opinions differing from their own, don't have to be irritated by the periodic flurries of such postings. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 20:52:23 GMT From: swrinde!emory!mephisto!uflorida!mlb.semi.harris.com!jujeh.mlb.semi.harris.com!krl@ucsd.edu (Ken Lyons) Subject: Re: Suspensions of Shuttle Commanders In article <750.269C3FBD@ofa123.fidonet.org> Charles.Radley@ofa123.fidonet.org (Charles Radley) writes: >Regardelss of whose fault it was, I think it is more to do with some >kind of NASA internal regulation prohibitng astronauts from engaging in >hazardous activites, which presumably mean astronauts should not take >part in aerobatics, period. Does "hazardous activities" include participating in Space Shuttle missions? :-) K.Lyons ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 90 02:38:49 GMT From: kchen@apple.com (Kok Chen) Subject: Re: SETI funding cut drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) writes: >In <37441@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> gwh@earthquake.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) writes: >>[paraphrased from an article in San Fransisco Chronicle] >> >>The House of Representatives cut all funding for the SETI >>project in next year's budget. >>... The house action was preceded >>by a presentation of tabloid alien articles and a reference >>to the SCOTI: Search for COngressional Intelligence . > >Another example of the verb "to proxmire". In all fairness to Proxmire, he apparently golden fleeced SETI based upon advice from a congressional aide. He stopped opposing SETI when it was personally explained to him what it was all about. Moreover, the fleece didn't cause SETI to die. It simply caused work to be scaled back (albeit somewhat drastically in certain areas) until funding was restored. Kok Chen, AA6TY kchen@apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 90 21:08:12 GMT From: ssc-vax!wanttaja@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Ronald J Wanttaja) Subject: Re: Short Fuse on "Outreach Program" kit In article <1990Jul12.031106.14523@agate.berkeley.edu>, chernoff@dirac.berkeley.edu (Paul R. Chernoff) writes: > > I can't believe that NASA/RAND are serious about this. With an August 1990 > deadline, how can they expect to get any well thought out *new* ideas > about space exploration, manned or unmanned? Welcome to the world of government contracting. I've worked two responses for government requests for proposals (RFPs) so far this year, and both required submission within 30 days of the RFP release. This is very common for low-value contracts... and since the Outreach one is essentially a "no-value" one, it is even less surprising. I've been on a number of small proposal teams over the years. The shortest response period I've seen is two weeks. Most run 30-45 days. Sixty days is luxurious. The longest submission period I've seen for a study contract has been 90 days... and that was for a $22M contract on Space Station! The "Project Outreach" announcement probably isn't intended as a signal to don your thinking cap to try to come up with new methods. It's merely announcing a way to submit any ideas you already have. When I think of the page limits, mangagement volumes, detailed cost breakdowns, rigid submission formats that go with ordinary government RFPs with 30-day response times, writing something up for Project Outreach seems trivial. They're just looking for good ideas they may have missed. Ron Wanttaja (ssc-vax!wanttaja) ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 13:41:10 GMT From: cellar!ddavey@bellcore.com (Doug Davey) Subject: Re: Titan boosters In article <1990Jul12.162759.21761@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > > The manned Titans have all been Titan IIs, without the solid boosters. > However, they did plan to man-rate the IIIM, with big SRBs, so it can > be done. > In light of the problems the shuttle has with crew escape while the SRBs are burning, I'm curious what the escape plans were for a human-rated Titan IIIM. I believe the Gemini capsules had ejection seats, which I assume would be unusable during the SRB burn. Would the human-rated Titan IIIM have used an escape rocket to pull the capsule away as the Mercury and Apollo systems did? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Doug Davey bellcore!cellar!ddavey ddavey@cellar.bae.bellcore.com ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 90 05:11:09 GMT From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Charles.Radley@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Charles Radley) Subject: Re: The Decay of NASA's technical culture I did not read your entire meassge, but you did not appear to mention the problem NASA has hiring and keeping people. They are not permitted to pay salaries to compare with those available in private industry. Congress keeps vetoing pay raises. -- Charles Radley Internet: Charles.Radley@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #63 *******************