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 02:26:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0abffUu00VcJ0M4U5V@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 14 Jul 1990 02:25:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #67 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 67 Today's Topics: Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing Re: NASA's lobbying on the net Re: one opinion.... Re: NASA's lobbying on the net Asteroid Re: HST Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration -- support robotics Re: Free Space Station - Spacious but needs work Re: grim tidings for the future Re: Suspensions of Shuttle Commanders Re: grim tidings for the future Re: The Decay of NASA's technical culture Re: man-rated expendables Space Services RIFs Staff Re: Nasa's budget Re: Titan boosters 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 04:20:26 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Charles.Radley@decwrl.dec.com (Charles Radley) Subject: Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing I see, so you are in favour of US corporations losing business to the Chinese baby-killers. -- Charles Radley Internet: Charles.Radley@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 16:33:33 GMT From: hao.hao.ucar.edu!dlb@handies.ucar.edu (Derek Buzasi) Subject: Re: NASA's lobbying on the net In article shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: #In article <9007112052.AA24159@ibmpa.paloalto.ibm.com> szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nicholas J. Szabo) writes: # # Look, I am not trying to be a grinch here, I just want to point out # that this is an unfair situation for other government agencies and # private companies, and that some (only a small fraction, actually, # but NASA posts quite a lot) of the posts have been legally and ethically # questionable. I certainly don't want to discourage Ron Baalke et. al. # from their informative, valuable postings. A agree with Tom Neff that # it would be a great loss if sci.space lost these postings. But I # strongly disagree that NASA equipment should be used for promoting the # agency. # #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. #Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer # NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA # Of course I don't speak for NASA # "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all"--Unknown US fighter pilot -- ****************************************************************************** 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: 12 Jul 90 04:40:46 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: one opinion.... Whilst we do not all claim to be "experts", I have 13 years in the aerospace industry as a systems engineer, worked on several NASA programs (still do). I have great respect for the informed lay public, who in my experience sometimes are better informed than some of my peers and customers !! -- Charles Radley Internet: Charles.Radley@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 21:38:14 GMT From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!unicorn!n8035388@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Worth Henry A) Subject: Re: NASA's lobbying on the net In article <9007121952.AA26953@ibmpa.paloalto.ibm.com> szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nicholas J. Szabo) writes: > >(5) There is a large audience not able to participate in this discussion > because they lack taxpayer-funded equipment. Some people like myself > are fortunate enough to have access to private equipment and we need > to speak up for the others. > Don't forget that the net upon which you are posting is itself heavily subsidized in various ways by taxpayers and stockholders. Your self-righteous and hypocritical spiel has done nothing to serve the public and may well have done much to damage this most interesting and valuable social experiment called the "NET". ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 05:55:04 GMT From: att!mcdchg!laidbak!obdient!vpnet!vortex@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Jason J. Levit) Subject: Asteroid Anybody hear about this new asteroid that passed within 3 million miles of earth? If not, here's the details... It passed by Tuesday, and was estimated at 300 feet to 1,000 feet in diameter. It made one of the closest crossings of earth orbit in 50 years! They named it 1990 MF (people at JPL). They started tracking it on June 26th, when it was 8 million miles away. It was traveling at 12,500 mph.... So, another "near miss". They're coming closer and closer and closer....how many would have liked to nuke this one? :-) -- Jason J. Levit - KB9BUU | A good planet is hard to find. Let's save this one! vortex@vpnet.chi.il.us | Apple II Forever ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 19:35:49 GMT From: psuvm!wtu@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu Subject: Re: HST Is it true that we don't have anything big enough to boost HST to high orbit?(i.e. if they are willing to do it). How about Saturn V, Titan III? I know Saturn V is out of commission, but for 1.5B bucks, isn't it worth it to get it working? ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 90 16:32:48 GMT From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a684@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Nick Janow) Subject: Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration -- support robotics rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer) writes: > Anyone who proposes an American manned space-presence should, I think, be > willing to guarantee steady financial profits, or failing that, to have a > detailed script for how the program will entertain. Entertainment must be > continuous; promises of One Big Entertaining Event 20 years from now wouldn't > wash. One uniquely entertaining event per month would suffice, I think. The crew will be selected for their appearance and acting abilities (Reagan would have supported this (-: ). There wouldn't be room for scientific experiments (taken up by cameras & special-effects equipment). That's not a problem though, since there wouldn't be time for scientific experiments; (they have to prepare for the next sit-com and soap opera). Mission specialist? Nope, they have a director instead. Sitcoms from space. :-) ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 90 16:34:12 GMT From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a684@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Nick Janow) Subject: Re: Free Space Station - Spacious but needs work We have "design for manufacturing", "design for marketing" and now "design for the environment"; how about "design for robot maintenance"? Space station elements could be designed for easy maintenance by robots or remote manipulators (teleoperators on Earth). Human EVA is necessary if robot maintenance is not made an important design criteria. I certainly think this scenario is possible; it just requires a change in policy (and design criteria). The technology is there, it just needs to be applied. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 12:42:52 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!xylogics!world!ksr!clj@ucsd.edu (Chris Jones) Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future In article <1990Jul4.150619.3757@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo (Henry Spencer) writes: > With the latest expansion module, Mir is bigger than Skylab. They're close, though I think Skylab was a little larger. Skylab had a mass of 75000 kg. Mir basically consists of the contents of four Proton (SL-13) launches, and in that configuration the launcher can put 21000 kg into low earth orbit. However, the Mir core has a mass of 20000 kg and the Kvant 1 has a mass of 11000 kg after jettisoning its propulsion module, so even if we assume that the two latest expansion modules are 21000 kg each (unlikely, though they're probably close), we end up with the current configuration being 73000 kg. I suppose the Progress missions could have brought enough equipment to push Mir up past Skylab. It's mostly academic, anyway, since Mir exists and Skylab doesn't, and Mir still has 7 unused docking ports which can accept future expansion modules (not counting the two axial ports for Soyuz and Progress missions). ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 90 04:58:52 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Charles.Radley@decwrl.dec.com (Charles Radley) Subject: Re: Suspensions of Shuttle Commanders 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. -- Charles Radley Internet: Charles.Radley@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 90 04:29:03 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 Your numbers are low I believe. Galileo I understand to be $1.5 billion, and HST $ 2 billion,. -- Charles Radley Internet: Charles.Radley@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 21:20:44 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!ogicse!unicorn!n8035388@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Worth Henry A) Subject: Re: The Decay of NASA's technical culture In article <753.269C3FC1@ofa123.fidonet.org> Charles.Radley@ofa123.fidonet.org (Charles Radley) writes: >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. > Trowing money is not going to solve the problem! Most enthusiastic and capable young professionals (and more than a few older ones as well) are more than willing to give up some pay and put in a lot of free overtime for projects they are enthusiastic about. However, when faced with bureaucratic and professional obstacles, and public indifference, they are eventually going to become frustrated, cynical, and indifferent toward their own work and careers; no matter how well they are paid. They then either leave NASA, possibly even changing careers, or they begin counting the days until retirement (not a good thing when one has not yet reached mid-life). Given the unpredictability of NASA's budgets and the high burnout factor, NASA, like the military, should limit "career" positions to a core of management, very-senior engineers, and other support roles necessary to provide continuity and limit all others positions to something like a five year or less appointment. NASA would receive a continual stream of young, enthusiastic engineers who don't know what is "impossible"; just like during NASA's heyday. The senior engineering positions could be filled by engineers on long term sabbatical from industry, military or academia. Newly-graduated engineers receive valuable experience they can take to industry. Industry receives a source of experienced junior engineers and a carrot with which to reward their senior engineers and to fight burnout. And, since only the core of NASA's staff would be career, NASA would have greater flexibility in adjusting staffing levels, resulting in fewer mid-life career crises brought on by NASA's periodic cut-backs. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 04:06:00 GMT From: att!watmath!watserv1!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: man-rated expendables In article <00939903.464A6A20@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >>>...me thinks I'll wait til the successors of the X-30 go up. >>In that case, meet you there...I ought to have a decade on-orbit experience >>by then 8-) >Riiight....it's your life. You'd better call Lloyd's of London; nobody else >is going to write insurance for you. They're not going to write insurance on flying in experimental high-tech aircraft, either. (What? You think the X-30's immediate successors are going to be certified as airliners? I have this bridge to sell you...) -- 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 08:07:03 PDT From: Edmund Hack X-Vmsmail-To: AMES::"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" Subject: Space Services RIFs Staff Space Services Inc. has laid off all of its staff as of 7/3/90, due to termination of venture capital funding by a subsidiary of Houston Industries. A few of the staff are working at no pay to complete a bid package for a series of Air Force launches that are being procured competitively. Houston Industries is the parent company of Houston Lighting and Power Co., which is under fire due to extreme cost overruns in the construction of the South Texas Nuclear Plant. That makes one dead (SSI), one critical list (AMROC) and one recovering well (OSC) in the start-up commercial launcher company ranks. Edmund Hack, hack@lock.span.nasa.gov Lockheed ESC "Incredibly expensive financial market software created here." ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 90 04:38:31 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Charles.Radley@decwrl.dec.com (Charles Radley) Subject: Re: Nasa's budget To answer your question, no there are no manned expemdable launch vehicles left, nor capsules, nor the ability to build them. NASA burned their bridges when they went to the Shuttle. The drawings of the old Saturn and Apollo hardware have disppeared, and cannot be re-generated, plus all the tooling has been dismantled. -- Charles Radley Internet: Charles.Radley@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 15:44:50 GMT From: shlump.nac.dec.com!star.dec.com!hughes@decuac.dec.com (Gary Hughes - VMS Development) Subject: Re: Titan boosters In article <25304@bellcore.bellcore.com>, ddavey@cellar.uucp (Doug Davey) writes... > >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? > The original Titan SRMs had emergency thrust termination devices. They were large ports in the nose section that could be explosively openned. The propellant would continue to smolder but would no longer produce useful thrust. The Gemini ejection seats would have been used. The Titan IIIC was intended to be manrated (X-20 program) and the SRMs used in Titan IIIC/D/E variants had the cutoff device. For the Titan 34D, the cutoff devices were removed and replaced with an extra 1/2 segment of propellant. However, the only in flight SRM failure that I know of was the explosion caused by propellant delamination on a Titan 34D. I wonder if that would have been survivable, even with a Mercury/Apollo style LES. Gary Hughes hughes @star.dec.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #67 *******************