Date: Sat, 6 Mar 93 05:10:12 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #279 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sat, 6 Mar 93 Volume 16 : Issue 279 Today's Topics: Alternative space station power Aurora (rumors) Getting people into S Is Columbus sunk? Japan's space program Magellan Venus Globe Animation Mars Observer Update - 03/04/93 NASP (was Re: Canadian SS Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed (3 msgs) Scientists Foresee Strengthening El Nino Event Solar Panels Falling Off Son of NASP Spaceflight for under $1,000? Space Scientist SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) unnecceary violence (was: Nobody cares about Fred?) Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 14:57:04 GMT From: Brad Whitehurst Subject: Alternative space station power Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >ac.nz> >Organization: U of Toronto Zoology >Lines: 20 > >In article hugh@huia.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Hugh Emberson) writes: >>>... Point one conductor at the sun >>>(the other one is then in shadow) and run a thermocouple between the >>>conducting plates. [...] >> >>HS> I doubt it very much. Have you *looked* at thermocouple >>HS> efficiencies? They are, roughly speaking, terrible... >> >>Someone once told me about this solid state heat pump that worked >>using some quantum magic, "Peltier effect" I think. You pass a >>current through it and it moves heat from one side to the other. >>Does anyone know if you can run one of these things backwards? Stick >>something hot on one side and something cold on the other and get >>electricity out. > >Yes, you can, but "Peltier effect" is a fancy term for "thermocouple >run backwards", so we're not talking about anything new. >-- In fact, there are small commercial refrigerators for camping and boating (12 volt) using this effect. Also, someone makes "cold caps" using Peltier coolers for hot-running, high speed (over-speed?) Intel 486 CPUs, if I remember correctly. -- Brad Whitehurst | Aerospace Research Lab rbw3q@Virginia.EDU | We like it hot...and fast. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 93 14:58:42 GMT From: Dean Adams Subject: Aurora (rumors) Newsgroups: sci.space PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes: >>I was answering these guys who wrongly said that the noise was >>>not a problem. (J. Pharabod) >>Well, they were not wrong to say that. There is no reason to >>believe that noise is a problem when one of these aircraft is >>at an operational altitude. >But that was not what they said ! They said that the plane was going >so fast that it would be far away when the noise would reach the ground. >They did not say that it would be so high that nobody would hear it. That was someone replying to your erroneous posting about how "noise" was such a big problem, so the response was based on your context. It almost sounds like you now trying to use that as some sort of "evidence" ?? >>>If Aurora were 100,000 ft up over Los Angeles >> It would not be that high. More like half that, or maybe less. >Do you mean that, if Aurora were 100,000 ft up over Los Angeles, it >would be unable to reach safely Tonopah (or Groom Lake) and land there? Groom... I was saying that it would not likely be flying at 100K feet when over L.A. and we know for a fact that it wasn't anywhere close to that height during the "booms". IF for some reason "Aurora" was at 100 over L.A., it could certainly find a "safe" way to land. The point is that there would be no REASON for flying that high when coming in for a landing... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 14:51:52 GMT From: Brad Whitehurst Subject: Getting people into S Newsgroups: sci.space In article <14420.409.uupcb@the-matrix.com> roland.dobbins@the-matrix.com (Roland Dobbins) writes: ...[Repetitious repost]... >As I recall, that particular lifting body was called the HL-10, and it >was most certainly _not_ designed *not* to fly . . . . > >--- > . Orator V1.13 . [Windows Qwk Reader Unregistered Evaluation Copy] > Roland! (Or Somebody!) Your needle is stuck..stuck..stuck..stuck...... I hope these reposts are a software problem and not intentional, but PLEASE shut 'em off! -- Brad Whitehurst | Aerospace Research Lab rbw3q@Virginia.EDU | We like it hot...and fast. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 93 16:06:13 GMT From: Titch Subject: Is Columbus sunk? Newsgroups: sci.space David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes: > BH>What's the message here? If Clinton kills Fred, Columbus is sunk? > > I suspect that Columbus could be sent into a 51 degree orbit > in case of no America station being available. I read today that the ESA is definitely considering a cooperative venture with the Russians: Columbus could be heading for the Mir-2 spacestation. -Rich. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rich Browning (rjb12@bton.unix) * ASTRO SCOOP! ASTRONUT TO LAND ON SUN! Department of Computer Science * "I've got it all worked out," says Jim University of Brighton * Biggles, "I'm landing at night!". =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 23:20:55 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Japan's space program Newsgroups: sci.space In jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes: >mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >>In jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes: >>>Folks, If you don't know, don't speculate. Henry will explain eventually :-) >>Why not, as long as it is *plainly marked* as speculation rather than >>claims of knowledge? >If you don't know the answer and it's likely that someone else does, then >speculation rarely adds to the conversation. Given the way many people use >language and memory, it can easily detract from the conversation. Speculation >is great for brain storming and I've seen some great ideas come out of it. >However, this was a library question (i.e. there's a fairly simple, correct >answer available if you know where to look) so speculation just wastes >bandwidth and confuses people. Something clearly labelled as speculation "confuses people"? Only those who are confused by things like shoelaces, I would think. If someone says, "Perhaps it . . . " I generally assume that's sspeculation. So your only argument comes down to the old canard about "bandwidth". Oddly, more of that gets wasted by people complaining about wasting it than is generally wasted by the people accused of same. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 93 08:18:55 GMT From: David G Metzger Subject: Magellan Venus Globe Animation Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary In article <2MAR199305443621@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > ================================ > MAGELLAN VENUS GLOBE ANIMATION > March 1, 1993 > ================================ > > A Venus Globe animation has been released by the Magellan project, and >is available at the Ames Space Archives. The animation consists of 72 >frames derived from data from the Magellan CD-ROMs, and has been converted to >different formats so that it can be run on the IBM PC and Macintosh computers. [...] > ___ _____ ___ > /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov > | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | > ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | It's kind of fun to do >/___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | the impossible. >|_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | Walt Disney > Thanks so much for making this available. Viewers might want to try putting a dark filter over the left eye for a 3D image, thanks to the Pulfrich effect. The faster the rotation, the more pronounced the effect. A lens from a pair of sunglasses is often sufficient. I found that a blue filter worked well. -- Dave Metzger dgm@shell.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 1993 23:17 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Mars Observer Update - 03/04/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Forwarded from the Mars Observer Project MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT March 4, 1993 3:00 PM PST Flight sequence C7 B is active. The Flight Team reports that spacecraft subsystems and the instrument payload are performing nominally. The spacecraft is in Array Normal Spin in outer cruise configuration, with uplink and downlink via the High Gain Antenna; uplink at 125 bps, downlink at the 4 K Science and Engineering data rate. The Gamma Ray Spectrometer is taking calibration data. DSS-15 (Goldstone 34 meter antenna) has been unavailable for tracking for the last 2 scheduled passes due to pointing hardware problems. Current estimates for earliest availablity is 10:00 PM this evening. Flight Operations is working to extend scheduled DSS-45 (Canberra 34 meter antenna) coverage for purposes of gathering additional tracking data for Navigation and Spacecraft team maneuver development inputs. Navigation and Spacecraft teams continue final parameter development to update Flight Sequence C8 for performance of Trajectory Correction Maneuver 3, scheduled for March 18. The Maneuver Performance Data File meeting is scheduled for 9:00 AM Friday. The TCM-3 velocity change will be approximately one half meter per second, and will be performed utilizing the 22 Newton thrusters, rather than the larger 490 Newton units used for earlier corrections. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | It's kind of fun to do /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | the impossible. |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | Walt Disney ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 23:28:11 GMT From: Dave Michelson Subject: NASP (was Re: Canadian SS Newsgroups: sci.space In article shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: > > NASP, which is a single-stage-to-orbit airbreathing horizonal-takeoff > vehicle, is not a transport aircraft. It's probably dead. Physics > has apparently finally reared its ugly head and driven a stake through > the heart of the program. About time.... I'm amazed that the NASP was even funded. Back in 1978, the American Institute of Aeronautics (Technical Committee on Space Systems) concluded that: "One advanced Earth-to-orbit transportation concept employs a hypersonic airbreathing launch platform using supersonic combustion ramjet ("scramjet") propulsion combined with a rocket second stage which ascends to orbit. It has been shown that such concepts are not economically competitive with SSTO vehicles as space launchers unless the high costs of developing and operating large scramjet platforms can be defrayed substantially by sharing with various atmospheric cruise missions. Practical "commality" or multipurpose use has been historically rare, so some form of SSTO vehicle will remain the most promising approach to economical Earth-to- orbit transportation for some time to come." "Rapidly evolving vehicle concepts and technologies point to the feasibility of fully reusable Earth-to-orbit vehicles, including single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) transports, by the early 1990's. Such vehicles could reduce Earth-to-orbit transportation costs below those of the present shuttle by factors of 50 or more, to below $5 per kilogram in orbit. The key technologies are high-pressure and dual-fuel propulsion, low-mass cold and hot vehicle structures, reusable thermal protection systems, and new areodynamic concepts. These growing technologies should be supported assiduously." On pages 63--66, the authors describe a "Class 4 ballistic SSTO" that looks *very* much like the proposed Delta Clipper... The report is a relatively slim volume (91 pages) but does a good job of putting the current situation in context.... Highly recommended. R. Salkeld, D.W. Patterson, and J. Grey, Eds. "Space Transportation Systems 1980-2000." New York: AIAA, 1978. (AIAA Aerospace Assessment Series, volume I.) (TL 795.5 S63) My question to the net: Where does the classification "Class 4 ballistic SSTO" come from in connection with DC type SSTO's, i.e., what are class 1, 2, and 3 ballistic SSTO's? --- Dave Michelson University of British Columbia davem@ee.ubc.ca Antenna Laboratory ------------------------------ From: Ian Taylor Subject: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed Newsgroups: sci.space Message-Id: <1993Mar5.091532.2968@rcvie.co.at> Keywords: Freedom Cut Organization: Alcatel Austria Informatik R&D, Vienna, Austria References: <1lvpte$eus@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 09:15:32 GMT Lines: 33 Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In article <1lvpte$eus@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes: >A source that I consider reliable inside NASA HQ has stated >that Freedom is indeed dead. However, NASA Administrator >Goldin will personally lead a (well funded) look at new >concepts for building a station that will better address percieved >needs, so a new station is hoped to rapidly follow Freedoms demise. Long live Freedom. My dream scenario: 1. Work with the Russians to build Mir II. Bolt on the european and japanese modules as they are still funded. The Russians have enormous technical resources and people, use them! 2. Start work immediatedly on converting Freedom technology to Moon/Mars base infrastructure again based on cooperation with Europe/Russia/Japan. 3. Any remaining bucks can be effectively used for Discovery/DC-1 development. Go for it Daniel! I'm ready, hire me +-- I -------- fax +43 1 391452 --------------------- voice +43 1 391621 169 --+ | T a y l o r Alcatel Austria Research, Ruthnergasse 1, Vienna A-1210 Austria | +-- n ---- ian@rcvie.co.at --- PSI%023226191002::SE_TAYLOR --- 20731::ian -----+ The keyboard is mightier than the pen. infrastructure based on cooperations 1 Work with the Russians to build Mir II ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 14:28:18 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed Newsgroups: sci.space In article <4MAR199316354412@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >>Dennis, batteries are not in and of themselves able to cause single fault >>failures. It depends on the system they are connected to. >Tell that to the many satellites that have failed due to battery problems. Don't change the subject Dennis. You asserted that batteries form a single point failure for ALL spacecraft. You then attempt to prove the statement by providing an example of a place where the battery WASN'T the source of a single point failure (dispite catastrophic failure). This is what is called a contradiction. >IUS is one of the super expensive programs that you love to complain about I don't recall ever complaining about IUS. You still don't get it. I don't mind expensive one bit provided the funds are efficiently spent. For example, I recently bought the most expensive CPU board for a system I am developing. I did it because the increased performance would yeild results better enough to justify the additional cost. But even thou I bought the most expensive board, I still spent some time shopping around to get the best price for my customer. >I would not have done that, looking at the statistical >data that show that most missions would have made it. Depends. Let's see, assuming Shuttle lifts two satellites both with IUS and let's say each satellite costs $100M. Let's also say the failure rate without redundant electronics is 1% and .5% with redundant electronics. That means we are spending about $400M to get the satellite up. So if I can provide redundant electronics for under $2 million a copy it is a good idea. >I don't even call you stupid, just unwilling to look at any view >other than your own. Your projecting again Dennis. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------102 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 93 15:40:58 GMT From: "Dr. Norman J. LaFave" Subject: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar5.151514.5534@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Keith Mancus 283-4283, mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov writes: > The work *was* done by McDonnell Douglas, but it is not part of > or funded by WP2. The plume loading study was done under the Applications > Analysis Support Contract (AASC), which supports MOD and various divisions > of the Engineering Directorate. > There are a lot of contracts and contractors out there, and it is > mistake to assume that all this work is done under the Work Packages. Indeed, one of my tasks is plume modelling and analysis and I neither work for a WP or MacDac. I work for the ESC contract (Engineering Support). Norman Dr. Norman J. LaFave Senior Engineer Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro Hunter Thompson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1993 21:58:14 GMT From: Chris Landsea Subject: Scientists Foresee Strengthening El Nino Event Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.geo.meteorology fisher@ncselxsi.uucp (Chuck Fisher) writes: > For at least the last decade the popular news >media has linked heavy rainfall in the Western states and California in >particular to El Nino events. This year has seen a much higher >precipitation level than for the past seven years and somewhat >reminiscent of the '82-'83 season which was "blamed on" an El Nino >which was present during that period. Are there any generally accepted >models which forecast precipitation changes based on El Nino events? > Need to toss in my two cents about the "End o' California Drought" and its *supposed* association with the weak enhancement of the El Nino conditions. First off, the current El Nino thing going on (I hesitate to call it an "event") is much weaker than what occurred during the winters of '86-87 or '91-92 no matter what one wishes to define an El Nino with be it Nino 3 Sea Surface Temperatures (SST), Southern Oscillation (SOI), outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR) over the dateline, surface westerly anomalies in the wind. If you wish to check this out for yourself, please look a the latest *Climate Diagnostics Bulletin* from NOAA's Climate Analysis Center - it's free too. Secondly, even when a "significant" El Nino is occurring, there is no *consistent* teleconnection to Western U.S./California rainfall. Please check out Ropelewski and Halpert, *Mon.Wea.Rev*, 1987. What *typically* (and keep in mind that each El Nino has its individual characteristics) is that the anomalous convection in the equatorial Central Pacific kicks off (excites) downstream waves in the midlatitudes that have an anomalous mid-tropospheric low in the North Pacific and an anomalous ridge along the U.S./Canada west coast. (See early work by White and Clark, 1975, *J. Atmos. Sci.* and Namias, 1978, *Mon.Wea.Rev.*) With this ridge along the west coast, one expects warmer than normal surface temperatures, but the precipitation is more difficult to anticipate. This is because of the complicating presence of where the southerly branch of the jet stream sets up. (Whenever a strong ridge in the westerlies is present one often has a split flow in the westerlies occur with a southerly branch of westerlies "beneath", or to the south of, the ridge.) If this southerly jet sets up over California, they get wetter than normal (as it apparently has this winter). However, sometimes the jet sets up over northern Mexico - keeping the U.S. West dry. Note that in all the news about a wet California and southwest, the Northwest states (Washington, northern Oregon, northern Idaho, Montana, and the Dakotas) have had a dry December and January. So I guess the best way to sum El Nino/California teleconnection up is that: El Nino >>> Wet California (as in '82-83, '92-93) El Nino >>> Normal California (as in '69-70, '72-73) El Nino >>> Dry California (as in '76-77, '86-87, '91-92) (And, again, I hesitate to call '92-93 winter a full-fledged El Nino). (Data for above from the latest *Weekly Climate Bulletin*, also from NOAA's CAC - also a free publication). I hope this may help. (This is not a flame either, just my perhaps incorrect view of the wonderful world of meteorology.) Chris ***************************************************************************** Chris Landsea Voice: (303) 491-8605 Department of Atmospheric Science Fax: (303) 491-8449 Colorado State University Internet: landsea@typhoon.atmos. Fort Collins, CO 80523 colostate.edu ***************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 93 15:15:14 GMT From: Keith Mancus 283-4283 Subject: Solar Panels Falling Off Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1n78r4$5qp@agate.berkeley.edu>, gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes: > dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock) writes: >>1. MDAC is not building the solar panels, that is a WP-4 job > I didn't say they were building them. I know, in fact, that they are not, > and have known so since before I started dealing with my MacDac sources. > It was my impression that the MacDac group working on panel loading > was part of the WP-2 funding even if the work was technically associated > with the solar arrays package. Please, if someone has the detailed > WP breakdowns and can clarify this, let me (us) know... The work *was* done by McDonnell Douglas, but it is not part of or funded by WP2. The plume loading study was done under the Applications Analysis Support Contract (AASC), which supports MOD and various divisions of the Engineering Directorate. There are a lot of contracts and contractors out there, and it is mistake to assume that all this work is done under the Work Packages. -- | Keith Mancus | | N5WVR | | There are no stupid questions. However, MS-DOS is a good example of a | | stupid answer. -Skip Egdorf | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 13:45:41 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Son of NASP Newsgroups: sci.space In article shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >NASP, which is a single-stage-to-orbit airbreathing horizonal-takeoff >vehicle, is not a transport aircraft. It's probably dead. However, the Son of NASP seems to be in the works. This will be a very reduced scale effort and will focus on building and flying several prototypes rather than just one. It looks like DC-X had an influence on them. >Physics has apparently finally reared its ugly head and driven a stake through >the heart of the program. About time.... I agree they whern't likely to do much in hypersonics as such but from the materials point of view it was a successful program. BTW, large parts of the total NASP spending came from the contractors and not the government. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------102 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 93 04:23:44 GMT From: Russell Mcmahon Subject: Spaceflight for under $1,000? Newsgroups: sci.space I would be immensely interested in a paper on the use of Pegasus for manned launch. My conclusions were based very much on "back of an envelope" figuring. It sounds like you have used a much bigger envelope (grin). What is your involvement in this area ? Any comment on the very small satellite area which I mentioned ? ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 1993 11:49 EDT From: Pat Loyselle Subject: Space Scientist Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.research.careers Well I don't think it's that important if you have a Ph.D. or not. I've got one in Physical Chemistry but I don't think that had anything to do with getting my job. I think it's more important to get involved in an area that you like, are good at, and is of some interest to NASA. Don't get yourself into too narrow of a slot because projects change, and come and go. If you can, try to get involved in some research project associated with NASA, work with (for) a professor who has a grant with NASA that way your name and abilities become known to people at NASA and might help you get a job there down the road. If nothing else it's good experience and a lot of fun. Good luck, Pat ---------- Patricia Loyselle seloy@mars.lerc.nasa.gov NASA Lewis Research Center (216) 433-2180 Cleveland, Ohio 44135 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 14:07:13 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar4.031557.7163@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >If only this were true. Congress has a standing policy of not approving >multi-year budgets. It's not a policy but Appropriations has been very unwilling to provide multi-year appropriaitons for NASA today (unlike Apollo when it was routine). >They refuse to obligate future Congresses to specific expenditures. Only partly. A large part of the reason is that Congress believes that NASA doesn't spend money very wisely and needs the extra supervision. >NASA does not have the legal power to do this on their own. No, but the Administrator can re-program fairly large sums of money on his own. Even within an area there is a lot of freedom for the administrator. Freedom, for example, is usually only one or two line items. There may also be restricitons or requirements on in the bill for station spending but the vast majority of the funds are there to be spent as the administrator sees fit (as long as it is for station work). There are also a lot of 'slush funds' controlled by center managers. Some estimates say that up to 30% of money spent on Freedom are diverted by center managers to fund their non-station related pet projects. So the money is there and NASA can spend it with a lot more freedom than you think. >This has had major impacts on all long term NASA programs because year >to year funding has been a political football. An assessment of the space station effort done at a high level of NASA has shown that Freedom can be built on schedule for $2B per year *IF* all the money where spent on Freedom. Now this is what they have been getting from Congress for the past few years and are likely to get for the next few years. If the money where spent wisely we would have a station. Can't blame congress for this. >has granted NASA some discretionary money, but funds for major programs >are detailed in authorization bills and can't legally be diverted to >other projects. NASA Authorization bills tend to authorize everything. Also, since they pass after the appropriation bills the appropriation is the defacto authorization. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------102 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 14:35:19 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: unnecceary violence (was: Nobody cares about Fred?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1n5klrINNoj3@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: >>Exactly where in NASA's charter is the part about serving as a >>welfare agency for engineers and MIS managers? >>that page. >Go work the numbers. So what are you supposed to do with these people, have >them flip burgers? Every night I drop to my knees and thank God that you are alive today instead of in the days of Henry Ford. I can hear you say: "I'm sorry Mr. Ford, but you can't be allowed to build your auto factory. You would displace too many buggy whip makers and we can't have that". My solution would be to have them work in a larger self sustaining space economy. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------102 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 279 ------------------------------