Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.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 Mar 91 01:26:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 7 Mar 91 01:26:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #238 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 238 Today's Topics: German conference highlights doubts about ESA's manned space plans Toward 2001 - 04 Mar Re: New Shuttle computers Re: space news from Jan 7 AW&ST Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Mar 91 11:59:19 GMT From: mcsun!unido!mpirbn!p515dfi@uunet.uu.net (Daniel Fischer) Subject: German conference highlights doubts about ESA's manned space plans [ What follows are translated extracts from an article I wrote on a confe= rence that took place in Bonn on 5 March 1991. I tried to be fair to all parties that participated, but the result looks somewhat onesided. What could I do: the pro side simply didn't provide more arguments - I even reread all the speeches looking for more. So please flame *them*, not me! Readers in other European nations, particularly in France, might find it unbelievable or stubborn what the Germans are doing here, the British, though - who refused to take part in any of the ESA plans mentioned here - might support the critics mentioned hereafter. Opinions from the U.S. would be very welcome, too - with 'Fred' there's at least as much money at stake, not to speak of the Space Exploration Initiative (=:SEI). ] The government of the Federal Republic of Germany ist standing firm to the multi-billion-deutschmarks project package COLUMBUS/HERMES/ARIANE V solely for political and not scientific reasons: this has become clear once more at a major conference, "Raumfahrt kontrovers" (Spaceflight controversial) at the Friedrich-Ebert Foundation in Bonn, Germany. Supporters and critics alike do differ little in their assessment of German space activities prior to the 1987 The Hague decision by ESA to long for autonomy in manned spaceflight: noone denies anymore the successes of space science missions (HELIOS, ROSAT etc.) or the use of telecommunication, weather and earth observation satellites. Nor is there anyone who denies that manned spaceflight has been 'sold' to the German taxpayer with dubious arguments in the past. There had been studies predicting exponential growth in space profits, factories in space were said to be working in near future, and microgravity materials research had been heralded as the ultimate justification of manned spaceflight. Already in 1973 the German government had decided to join in U.S. missions, the Spacelab was built, and the results of the SL-1 and D-1 flights were then celebrated as scientific sensations. But ESA's former Director General R.Luest made it clear once more that "mediocre or trivial experients" had dominated these missions - and thus left the impression with many scientists in other fields that microgravity research is an extremely expensive nonsense. ESA's policy is not centered on microgravity, said Luest: as much as possible should be done unmanned, and man in space was needed only in a few areas, most notably maintenance of orbiting laboratories, platforms and satellites. But even the latter argument was countered by an outspoken critic of manned space= flight, E.Keppler: orbital repairs could only be of such a primitive kind that they could be handled by robots as well. The first HUBBLE revisit in late 1993 might prove him wrong - or not. There's no controversy, however, in another aspect of how one must NOT argue for manned spaceflight: the technical 'spin-off's' are meager. Luest called the hope for them "dangerous and dishonest", and Keppler cited a U.S. study that had checked 20000 alleged NASA spin-off's, finding only 14 genuine. He also cited SF writer A.C.Clarke with the concept that moving Mount Everest into the Sahara would be as spin-off-rich as manned spaceflight (and, implicit= ly, equally pointless). So what arguments are left in favor of manned spaceflight? The American vision of going to Mars was only supported by one of many scientists present: G. Neukum, a planetary geologist, is convinced that you will never understand a planet unless you walk on its surface. But he is far from supporting NASA's SEI: setting a timetable for a rush to Mars is dead wrong, he says, such a mission must be developed organically as part of a very well planned and for a long time coming unmanned exploration concept (by the way, Neukum also sees no point whatsoever for manned activities in *earth's* orbit). "The fun of spaceflight as such is justification enough", was the most bizarre argument heard at the conference: R.Lo of Berlin's Technical University believes in space tourism to the moon, once launch costs are down. ESA's position on the SEI, Luest reported, is very cautious - mainly because of lacking funds. Of the three components of the ESA package, the heavy-lift launcher ARIANE V is the least controversial, but still questions were asked about the need for such a launcher. While an ESA manager reiterated the agency's belief in ever heavier and more complex spacecraft, several scientists argued for just the opposite trend: while the politicians and the engineers were in favor of big orbital platforms with dozens of instruments and multiple tasks, the scientists were asking for small and *quick* 'dedicated missions' with unimpressively looking but highly capable satellites. This concept, of course, requires cheap small launchers like the PEGASUS, not the big ARIANE V. The COLUMBUS manned laboratory to be docked to FREEDOM and the ESA FREEFLYER, however, met much resistance. Their supporters can only hint at *possible* breakthroughs in microgravity and life sciences with long-term missions that would make the trying as such worthwile. The critics countered that there's no need for these laboratories: material science needs quick return of the samples and the chance to fly them again and again - going with small piggyback payloads on Chinese rockets was more attractive. Even the strong pro-micro-g faction inside the German Aerospace Research Establishment DLR made it clear that they were not married with the COLUMBUS concept: they would accept any means of flying their experiments with quick data return - and don't see any basic link with manned spaceflight. The HERMES space shuttle, finally, was hailed as Europe's road into space autonomy, but then again, noone could answer the question why this objective would be worth billions of deutschmarks. Also, it was claimed, Hermes was an unavoidable step in the development of the Saenger spaceplane which is remar= kably popular even among the critics of the ESA spaceflight plans. Here, though, it was countered that Hermes doesn't have an engine of its own and that it is exactly the engine that makes the Saenger plans so demanding. Also, it would be wrong to argue in favor of Hermes mainly with it being seen as an intermediate step towards an even more expensive task. So why then does the German federal government stand so firmly behind the The Hague decisions, despite the current financial crisis following German unity and the Gulf war contributions? Only a stretching of the timeline and some descoping (especially of Hermes) is being called for. Either between the lines or directly all speakers at the conference confessed it: it is the resolve of France, ESA's #1 source of money, to carry on with the projects, paired with the fear of the Germans to fall behind when being too critical. E.Riedl from the Dept. of Economy even invoked the scenario of Japan taking Germany's place in ESA, should the latter drop out of the manned plans. In addition, he argued with the 'prestige' Germany as a whole would gain from its major contributions to the manned package - and he compared that directly with last year's soccer world championship. The conference left one wondering whether t h i s is the right base to make crucial and very expensive decisions for the decades to come... Daniel Fischer, Koenigswinter [To appear in next week's issue of 'SKYWEEK' - the .l.e.5 readers that are also reading Usenet's sci.space might thus feel privileged to have this 'preprint'] ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 91 19:43:34 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss!freed@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Bev Freed) Subject: Toward 2001 - 04 Mar *********** TOWARD 2001 *********** Week of 4 March 1991 A Weekly Feature of SPACE CALENDAR + = Domestic (USA) Earth event * = Domestic (USA) space event o = International Earth event # = International space event =================================================================== REPRINT INFORMATION This information is reproduced by permission of the Space Age Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Copyright February 25 1991. Reproduction in any form without written permission violates federal statute with penalty of up to $50,000. SPACE CALENDAR is edited and published on the Big `Space' Island of Hawaii. ==================================================================== * * * * * * * # Ulysses Mission Trans-Jovian Trajectory The spacecraft remains in good working order, in routine operations phase. Technicians recently made changes in the command subcarrier channel to compensate for the doppler effect caused by Ulysses' nearly 27 km/sec velocity. * * * * * * * + NASP Contractor Team Washington DC Rockwell, Rocketdyne, McDonnell Douglas, Pratt & Whitney, and General Dynamics are moving forward with work on the $5 billion National AeroSpace Plane following signing of the formal teaming agreement recently. The partners have been functioning under an interim agreement since May 1990. * * * * * * * o Palapa Launch Competition Jakarta, Indonesia Arianespace is working overtime to get its first launch contract from the government of Indonesia -- for the Palapa-B4 to be launched in mid-1992. China Great Wall Industry Corp is also negotiating actively for the contract. * * * * * * * + WorldSpace Washington DC The newly-formed parent company of AfriSpace "is well on the way" to delivering broadcast satellite service to the African-Arabian region, said Noah Samara, president and CEO recently. The company and its partners have signed a lease to install a satellite control center at Kearneysville WV. * * * * * * * o Juno Mission London / Moscow Astronaut candidates Helen Sharman and Tim Mace are currently training on four Soviet experiments that one of them will be expected to perform when the flight to the Mir 1 space station lifts off. Some former members of the Juno project are complaining because no British experimentation will be done during the mission. * * * * * * * + Subcommittee on Space Washington DC Rep Ralph Hall will head the subcommittee, following his election to the position on 7 February. His first task will be a series of authorization hearings through March to review NASA's $15.7 billion budget request. * * * * * * * + NASA Moffett Acquisition Mountain View CA If the DoD closes down Moffett Field and puts it on the auction block, NASA is very interested in expanding the adjacent Ames Research Center, administrator Truly said recently. The move could salvage some of the 5,350 jobs at Moffett. * * * * * * * o Taiwan Shuttle Experiment Taipei A student team working at National Cheng Kung University expects their research experiment to be ready for a Space Shuttle voyage in 1993. The Taiwanese government is funding the $100,000 project, as yet unscheduled on the STS manifest. * * * * * * * + Space Age Learning Tools Nationwide USA A new video filmed on location at the NASA Johnson Space Center -- including footage from aboard STS 41 Discovery -- is available to teachers nationwide. The 21 minute video, Space Basics, is accompanied by an 8-page resource guide for teachers. * * * * * * * + Lunar Footnote (Statistic) 6,654 Days since Moon last visited by humans. * * * * * * * o International Space Year 1992 (Quote) The most important policy objective of the ISY . . . is to instill a new Space Age frame of reference in the thoughts and actions of governments and individuals." -- The late U S Senator Spark M Matsunaga, Hawaii -------------------------------------------------------------------- ABOUT SPACE CALENDAR Space Calendar provides a weekly preview of upcoming events in the space industry. It is published weekly by the SPACE AGE PUBLISHING COMPANY from offices in Kailua-Kona Hawaii. For a free sample of the printed publication, use the address, telephone, or fax numbers for the Hawaii office listed below. SPACE AGE PUBLISHING COMPANY also publishes SPACE FAX DAILY from its offices in Cupertino California. For information about SPACE FAX DAILY use the address, telephone, or fax numbers for the California office listed below. HAWAII OFFICE: 75-5751 Kuakini Highway, Suite 209, Kailua-Kona HI 96740; 808-326-2014, fax 808-326-1825. CALIFORNIA OFFICE: 20431 Steven Creek Blvd, Cupertino CA 95054; 408-996-9210, fax 408-996-2125. ==================================================================== --- Opus-CBCS 1.14 * Origin: NSS BBS - Ad Astra! (412)366-5208 *HST* (1:129/104.0) -- Bev Freed - via FidoNet node 1:129/104 UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!freed INTERNET: freed@nss.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 91 19:12:26 EST From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Re: New Shuttle computers >From: sking@nowhere.uucp (Steven King) >Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle >Subject: Re: New Shuttle Computers >Date: 6 Mar 91 06:30:34 GMT > While its encouraging that NASA is finally moving beyond core memory > for the shuttle ( welcome to the 90's ), why use writeable memory for > program storage? As their code is extremely stable, it shouldnt be any > problem to put everything they use into masked roms without any great > penalty in weight or size ( mask roms have much better density than > static rams ) with it all non volatile, non writeable. While there may be details I am not aware of, I can think of several possible reasons: - The flight control algorithms are still being improved. If all the code were in ROM, the computers would have to be disassembled and the chips replaced fairly often. As a general rule, this does not help system reliability. - There may be several versions of the tape set, available for use in differing conditions. - As a general observation, freezing the software in ROM can be risky. The Soviets lost their first Phobos probe largely because a ROM that had been built into it had a test routine which posed a potential hazard to the spacecraft if ever activated. The Soviet engineers were aware of this risk at launch time, but were unable to justify the time and expense of taking the completed craft apart to replace the ROM. As luck would have it, the dangerous section was accidentally triggered, with the results we all know. Similarly, operational experience has shown that the code programmed into the backup ROMs on Magellan has the potential for entry into certain modes that would probably cause the loss of the spacecraft. As a result, the operators have extensively modified the code in writable memory, to make it as unlikely as possible that safing will result in fallback to ROM mode. ROMs can be handy as emergency backup, but are usually less so for normal operational code (ask any Commodore Plus Four owner. :-) - ROMs usually have slower access than RAMs. Even many commercial computers that keep much of the operating system in ROM have a parallel RAM which is loaded from the ROM shortly after powerup, and used for normal execution. This could be done in the Shuttle computers, but it sure wouldn't save any weight. > With the 230 lbs they saved they could put a couple hundred meg disk > array on each CPU and... Ooops! A technology must be atleast 10 years > old before they trust it on the shuttle... Experiments either have been conducted or will be in the near future involving the use of optical disk drives in orbit. Mass memory devices may eventually be very useful in space, but I don't see any need to force them on computers that don't need them, given that a failure of the computer system at the wrong time *would* cause much more to crash than the disk. Disk drives are much less reliable than solid-state systems, especially when subjected to vibration (of which there is *a lot*, at least while the SRBs are firing). > ..!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!nowhere!sking John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 91 19:24:22 GMT From: rex!wuarchive!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary@g.ms.uky.edu (Gary Coffman) Subject: Re: space news from Jan 7 AW&ST In article <10519@pogo.WV.TEK.COM> bobt@pogo.WV.TEK.COM (Bob Tidrick) writes: >In article masticol@athos.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) writes: > >Our company doesn't build a product that I know of that doesn't have some >kind of a filter over fan inlets. (OEM products excepted) When it gets cloged >it can be removed, shaken out and replaced. If they haven't figured this out >yet I have lost a lot of confidence in our space program. Ah, but IBM does. Ever look at a PC? Air comes in through numerous holes, where RF leaks out, and *exits* via the fan. Yuck! Gary ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #238 *******************