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 01:59:51 -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 01:59:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #65 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 65 Today's Topics: Re: NASA's lobbying on the net Re: Bush Approves Cape York Re: TV coverage (was Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration) Re: NASA's lobbying on the net Re: man-rated expendables Re: Free Space Station - Spacious but needs work Re: Grim LLNL Space Station Re: Personnel Launch System 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: 13 Jul 90 18:00:08 GMT From: usc!sdd.hp.com!samsung!emory!mephisto!prism!ccoprmd@ucsd.edu (Matthew DeLuca) Subject: Re: NASA's lobbying on the net In article <7980@ncar.ucar.edu> dlb@hao.hao.ucar.edu (Derek Buzasi) writes: >In article shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >#Fine. That's it, I'm out of here. ># >#Those of you who want to see the Shuttle land, ask Nick for passes. >#He's the authority, apparently. ># >#-- >Congratulations, Mary, on demonstrating for us exactly why Nick views >some NASA postings as being legally and ethically questionable. I suppose this is a silly question, but where else do you plan to get passes? They don't sell them at the local grocery store. And do you know the addresses to write and the numbers to call to get the information you need? I doubt Nick does, either. What Mary did demonstrate was one of the reasons why having NASA people on the net is so beneficial; quick, easy, and reliable access to information that you can't really get elsewhere. I recall having a question about something fairly obscure about the first few shuttle missions, about a year ago, and it was one of the posters from NASA (Hi Peter!) who pointed me to an e-mail address for the NASA Public Affairs Office, where I got a prompt and accurate reply to my question. I doubt any of the bozos wanting NASA off the net (except for when they post useful information, of course) could have told me that. -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, Office of Information Technology for they are subtle, and quick to anger. Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 90 05:08:11 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Charles.Radley@decwrl.dec.com (Charles Radley) Subject: Re: Bush Approves Cape York I have a copy of the Cape York original feasibility study report. The main reason is that Cape York is very close to the equator, making it very good (better than Cape Canaveral) for launching communications satellites. Caoe York also permits launches into all other inclinations, including polar. Also, the climate at Cape York is much better than at Cape Canaveral or Kourou, meaning there will be fewer launch cancellations caused by bad weather. -- Charles Radley Internet: Charles.Radley@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 18:54:44 GMT From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!pbs!pstinson@ucsd.edu Subject: Re: TV coverage (was Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration) In article <15076@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, leech@homer.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes: > > Nobody except a bunch of geologists got excited about Harrison > Schmidt landing on the Moon. I was excited about Harrison Schmidt landing on the moon and I'm no geologist. BTW: I was also thrilled that Gene Cernan landed with him. I watched ALL the coverage offered by the networks at the time and complained over the phone when they did not show the spacewalk while Apollo 17 was coasting back toward Earth. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 19:19:26 GMT From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Subject: Re: NASA's lobbying on the net In article <9007121952.AA26953@ibmpa.paloalto.ibm.com>, szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nicholas J. Szabo) writes: >(4) There is a very good reason for the laws, regulations and ethics > preventing a government agency from using its equipment for > political action. Political action? That's a bit strong. Nobody from NASA, so far as *I* have seen, has said "Please vote for Bill XYZ," have they? > Involuntarily obtained money was used to make > the postings in question. (As for the NASA employee who responded > "I'm a taxpayer too", all your tax money comes out of tax money, and > you get to vote just like I do). I consider this nickle-and-dime-ing stuff to death. It remindes me of those people who tend to bitch about long .sig files because it costs them money. You going to start tracking their personal phone calls at work too, huh? Nuf said. This is getting to be trite. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 19:11:19 GMT From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Subject: Re: man-rated expendables In article <18563@ttidca.TTI.COM>, sorgatz@ttidca.TTI.COM ( Avatar) writes: >+things happening. You lose power in Pegasus, you drop like a rock. You lose >+power in the X-30, you'll slow down and become a glider. > Uhuh, a glider with the glide-slope of a BRICK! Realize that the X-30 is not >gonna glide, oh you might lucky and be able to grease a dead-stick landing >but you'll look just like the X-15 doing it...minus the aft-mounted ablative >compound skids..and it'll take a hell of a long landing strip to shut down, >like according to some BOTE calcs: 5+ MILES! Add 2 if the chutes fail. Your >brakes will be gone in the first mile...then all you'll need is a change of >shorts! Gosh, it sounds like you've described the Space Shuttle, which, in a pinch, can land at any number of long airfields. But the shuttle (which comes in at, oh Mach 23), can land in what? Under 10,000 feet? ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 22:38:26 GMT From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Subject: Re: Free Space Station - Spacious but needs work In article <9007131906.AA04587@ibmpa.paloalto.ibm.com>, szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nicholas J. Szabo) writes: [ cut vince's quote, cut NY Times quotes] >This article brings to mind many questions: > >* How many NASA engineers agree the station needs to be > redesigned yet again? Again? Hum. Hopefully this time they'll add back in power. >* Why didn't the New York Times give the engineer's identities? So? Lots of people in High Government Offices are listed as "official sources." No conspiracy there. >* Why are we still talking about space station design 7 years into > the project? 7 years after the Apollo announcement, astronauts were > circling around the Moon. Design, development and launch of the > Pegasus booster took 2 years. Why is NASA taking so long? Hum. Congress (sorry, you CANNOT keep kicking NASA) changed the budgets around a couple of times, resulting in redesigns. Unfortunately, the Reagan Administration did NOT have a heavy committment to an expansion of the space program, at least not putting in money to bend metal, so things got designed a couple of times. A part of this responsibility rests with Our Governmental Process. The loss of Challenger also, no doubt, caused a delay and revision in terms of safety provisions. >* Another article reported a study that said there is an 86% chance of > a shuttle accident during assembly of the station. Can the > station withstand a 2-year shutdown in the shuttle program occurring > at any stage of assembly? If there are astronauts already in the > station, how are they to be rescued? Recall that NASA's previous > station, Skylab, plunged into Australia because of delays in the > shuttle program. This was probably the GAO study. Basically, if another shuttle is lost, Freedom is history, the way the station is currenty designed. > >* How does the priority of the station compare to other NASA projects > (Mission to Earth, planetary science, aeronautical research, etc.)? > What is the rationale behind these priorities? If NASA must decrease > its budget to help lower our national debt, which program will get cut > first? Congress has indicated a willingness to fund Mission to Earth over the space station. Planetary science and aero research will probably do as usual, mull around in the background and make quiet contributions to our knowledge at reasonable funding levels. >* What is the opportunity cost of the station? That is, what other > projects could be accomplished with the $30 billion++ station cost, > and how do the benefits of these compare to the station's? Opportunity cost? I guess we could do another set of Voyager-like probes. Or get into developing decent solar-sail technology. >* Has NASA explored the LLNL alternative of inflatable space stations? I think the National Space Council (you know, that thing so important they put Dan Quale on it) is looking at LLNL. >* Doens't the space station repeat the shuttle mistake of putting > all our eggs in one basket? Wouldn't a fleet of satellites better > perform the station's tasks? If you're talking about "science" or materials processing, probably a set of free-flyers isn't a bad idea. If you're talking about man-in-space, a bunch of sats won't do that for you. We want to go to back to the Moon and Mars too, remember? It's not so much eggs in the basket, but comprises on pieces of the pie. Everyone who rides on the station will have to make compromises on their activities so everyone else is happy. >* Is the turn-of-the-century science-fiction concept of a "space station" > still viable in light of advances in technology since 1900? Funny, the Soviets are doing quite well in their low-budget tin cans. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 16:30:04 GMT From: hao.hao.ucar.edu!dlb@handies.ucar.edu (Derek Buzasi) Subject: Re: Grim In article <1990Jul12.020842.1065@uoft02.utoledo.edu> fax0112@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes: #In article <7963@ncar.ucar.edu>, dlb@hao.hao.ucar.edu (Derek Buzasi) writes: # #> A car with a slight misadjustment of the ignition system is a poor analogy #> to the HST. After all, the HST is only within about 10% of spec -- in perfect #> analogy to the car I describe. If HST put 90% of the light into a 0.1 arc sec #> circle (which is about 90% of specified performance), that would match your #> analogy. However, instead it puts only 10% of the light into that circle -- #> which matches mine. #> # #True, but this does not mean that only 10% of the planned science can be done. #This rules out many progams and reduces the efficiency of many but there #is still a lot to be done. Maybe that is not sufficient to justify #HST, but I don't want to argue that at this point. Still, 50% of the projects #is not the same as 10%. # #Robert Dempsey #Ritter Observatory # # The only problem with this is that the subject that you don't want to argue is the really important one. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the 50% of the science that cannot be done includes all of the really far out, state-of the-art, edge-of-the-universe stuff. In that case, the scientific loss is much greater than 50%, and more probably approximates 90%. The question is not how many projects cannot be done, but rather *which* projects cannot be done. I strongly suspect that it is the potentially most valuable science which has suffered the most. -- ****************************************************************************** Derek Buzasi * "History is made at night. High Altitude Observatory * Character is what you are in the dark." dlb@hao.ucar.edu * -- Lord John Whorfin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jul 1990 16:20 EDT From: SIMMONS DONALD F <27000%AECLCR.BITNET@vma.cc.cmu.edu> Subject: LLNL Space Station To: Where can I find full details about the LLNL Inflatable Space Station? I don't mean the half-column blurb I have found in most magazines. I want details: materials, construction time, power supply, deployment, the works. If this plan really sounds like it would work, put Freedom on hold (it practically is already, from what I hear), and put some money into finding out for sure, IMHO. Donald Simmons 27000@AECLCR "In place of infinity we usually just put in some really big number, like 15" Computer Science prof. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 17:07:01 GMT From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!smith@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Thomas F. Smith) Subject: Re: Personnel Launch System In article <9007122138.AA19962@gemini.arc.nasa.gov> hack@lock.span.nasa.gov (Edmund Hack) writes: ... >a system called the Personnel Launch System (PLS). >... >doing work on booster concepts (Titan 4 class vehicle). >... >The PLS is expected to have 12 or so vehicles and a 20 year lifetime. I realize that you said Titan IV "class" vehicle but who else [in the USA] but Martin Marietta makes a vehicle in that class? MMC has a contract for 48 Titan IVs that will keep them busy for the next decade. And the payloads are NOT the kind that NASA can preempt. Any systems out there? -- This space reserved. Space Not Reserved. Space Commercialization Office, Space Systems Division, Los Angeles AFB, CA. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 02:57:09 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: BRIGHT TIDINGS FOR THE FUTURE [I have translated the quoted material below into mixed case for human consumption. CAPSLOCK cultists do have a certain barbaric splendor (like those Japanese soldiers who emerge from the jungle 40 years later) but reading their output is bad for the cholesterol level. TMN] In article <90193.112904GIPP@GECRDVM1.BITNET> GIPP@gecrdvm1.crd.ge.com writes: > Boy, what a bunch of pessimists you guys are: HST is dead! NASA is >washed up! Shuttle is trash that should be junked! Strawmen are wonderful targets. Whoever "you guys" are in the above quote, they are not the people posting to sci.space. No article has appeared here saying "HST is dead" or "NASA is washed up" or "Shuttle is trash." It's no coincidence that the best rebuttals quote the article or articles being addressed, so that this sort of foolishness doesn't happen. The actual criticisms made here are harder to dismiss. * Hubble delivers one-tenth the intended performance for five times the intended cost. Researchers *will* work miracles to recover some of the lost science, but NASA can take no credit for this. (What would all that extra effort have yielded with the data from a PROPERLY built observatory!) It's the performance that counts when NASA is judged. * NASA responds: by congratulating itself on the fractional performance remaining (assuming nothing else screws up). * NASA responds: by clucking its tongue at the sins of the "old agency" and promising that "the agency today" would never do such a thing (although "the agency today" actually launched the scope). * NASA responds: by invoking the "risks of space," as though it was a cosmic ray or a meteoroid that struck the brains of the PE engineer who built [say] the wrong corrector, of the the manager who let it go, and of the Lockheed and NASA overseers who took PE's infallibility for granted. (The real "risk of space" is that the fruits of ordinary human error suddenly lie beyond feasible repair. The commonsense control for this risk is to triple-check for stupid mistakes on the stuff you can't fix later, not to delude yourself into thinking nothing worth checking could go wrong.) * The Shuttle is not trash -- it is a glittering, awesome, triumphant albatross around the neck of the American space program. A generation of Western science was sacrificed at the altar of this program in search of a mission. Now they want to do it to us to the Nth power with "Space Station Fred." The difference is that we're no longer living in the Nixon era -- there are a lot more independent judgments available on something like the Station, so the fact that it WON'T do what it's supposed to do, even after N rescopings, is coming out (somewhat) early, with the result that it'll probably be scuttled. The day we cancel "Freedom" will be the first day of the 21st century. * NASA is being pilloried for inept performance at a job it has no business doing in the first place. Kennedy and LBJ exercised strong Presidential authority to throw money and people at three great experiments in American prestige and power: Vietnam, the Great Society and the space race. All of them died in the 70's, but the consequent bureaucracies live on bigger than ever: DOD, HUD and NASA. (All three are the focus of ongoing criticism and scandal.) Until we rethink the MEANING of "space program," we won't really have one: just the spasmodic kicks of a dying appendage of the 60's. -- Knowing when to optimize is ==>/ Tom Neff as important as knowing how. /<== tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #65 *******************