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 ; Mon, 28 Jan 91 02:06:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4bcwpf200WBwI2-k5T@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 02:06:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #085 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 85 Today's Topics: Fred (was Re: Firm Fred Decisions) An Atlas Story (2 of 2) One Small Step for a Space Activist... (vol 2 no 1) Re: decimal to hexadecimal Salyut 7 elements Re: Science as Religion Re: What is cosmological constant? Re: Space Station Weights 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: 24 Jan 91 15:27:26 GMT From: eagle!news@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Ronald E. Graham) Subject: Fred (was Re: Firm Fred Decisions) By the way, if you folks in this group were calling Space Station Freedom "Fred" before, does that mean we have to call it "Ed" now? Just asking. RG ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jan 91 00:55:41 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Mark.Perew@ucsd.edu (Mark Perew) Subject: An Atlas Story (2 of 2) Another of our machines was used for range safety; it displayed present predicted impact point to the Range Safety Officer, the guy with his hand poised over the big red DESTRUCT button in case the bird veered toward a populated area. Anyway, a new set of equations came to the programming group (in the next set of offices to me), and they were screwy -- the impact point wouldn't calculate. Message to RW (via classified courier): there's a mistake! Answer back: do it anyway! So, some months later, comes the day of the test flight; the bird lifts off, goes up, up, and away -- and doesn't come down, it's in orbit! Wow, hot damn, and WE DID IT! (Even if we didn't know what we were doing.) And ours was a BIG payload (a thousand pounds??), not a measly little basketball like Sputnik or Werner von Braun's Redstone Arsenal satellite. An afterthought: I enjoyed working on the Atlas project; it was interesting and exciting and really pushing the frontiers of technology (and I was young and bushy-tailed). I tried not to think too much (because it bothered me) that what we were really doing was working on a weapon that would be the worst intrument of mass destruction that had ever been created (at the time). Being a real sci-fi addict (I still am), I saw this launch, with a real payload, as my own dawn of the space age -- a boon for mankind; surely we would have moon colony in a few years; I might even in my lifetime be able to take a trip to the moon! (Where in hell did the last thirty-odd years go?) *This* purpose of the machine that I was working on was soooo much more satisfying than merely as a weapon delivery system!! And as it turned out, this Ground Guidance Computer system did guide the launch of all of the Mercury and Gemini flights, but was not used for the Apollo program. I understand that the range safety system continued to be used for a few more years for many launches (yes, several birds were blown up by the RSO.) I was surprised (and disappointed) by the reaction of some of my colleagues to our unexpected satellite launch: Sure it's interesting, but what's the big deal? A job's a job, isn't it? Ah well.... Jim Hopkins, S220 Devon -- Mark Perew Internet: Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org Compuserve: >internet:Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 09:42:30 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: One Small Step for a Space Activist... (vol 2 no 1) One Small Step for a Space Activist... by Allen Sherzer & Tim Kyger Last December the Augustine Committee completed its assessment of the US space program and published its findings and recommendations. If and when the recommendations are implemented we will see a more robust and focused NASA. There is also a good chance that the recommendations will be carried out. The committee worked hand in hand with the Office of Management and Budget as well as the Space Council, and both bodies liked what they saw. In fact, many of the recommendations will find their way into next year's budget. Example: NASA, in its '92 budget request, asked for a new orbiter but in accordance with committee recommendations OMB turned down the request. Another good sign is the new House Science Committee. George Brown (D-CA), the new chair of the full committee, wasted no time examining the Augustine recommendations, holding hearings on January 3rd. Expect them to move vigorously on this issue and (as we reported last month) move beyond the Augustine recommendations to even bigger change. Some of the recommendations may cause problems for space activists: 1. New heavy Lift Vehicle (HLV). The Augustine committee advocated reduced reliance on the Shuttle and the construction of a new HLV. This could reduce costs and free up money for other projects. The current favorite (gets the most hype and has strong Senate support) is Shuttle-C or some variant. Shuttle C would work but may not be the best choice: other alternatives (Heavy Lift Delta and Titan V) may cost less than half as much to develop and operate. Activists will need to monitor this to insure that the design meets space development goals and not Congressional political goals. Whatever design is selected, we also need to insure that the resulting launcher is man rated (which is supported by the committee). 2. Priorities. The committee divided civil space program activities into five goals of which two were 'mission oriented'. These mission goals where a Mission TO Planet Earth and a Mission FROM Planet Earth. The former is for environmental measurements and the latter is for human and robotic exploration of the solar system. The committee thought the Mission TO should be of higher priority than the Mission FROM. This means a lunar base and planetary science probes will take a back seat to the Earth Observation System (EOS) when funding decisions are made. Under current conditions EOS and Freedom will use all of NASA's space funds for the next 20 years. To accomplish our goals, therefore, we must either change this priority, move EOS (and Mission to Planet Earth) to another agency, or find another agency to conduct civil space exploration programs (like DoE). Legislative Roundup SSX Several months ago the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) awarded several proposals to investigate ideas for a Single Stage to Orbit spacecraft. This effort was motivated by the Space Ship Experimental (SSX) concept. Many excellent ideas have resulted. Details are classified but studied say that we can have a spacecraft with airliner like operations for $100/pound to LEO. Things to do: 1. There is a chance that development of this concept may be killed or moved to another agency. No matter how you feel about Star Wars, SDIO is the only agency of the government that has a real interest in reducing the cost to orbit so any change or move would add tremendous risk. A letter to your Representatives asking funding to continue INSIDE SDIO would help. Space Station Freedom NASA is almost done with the redesign mandated by Congress and endorsed by the Augustine Committee. Although not completed, it looks like NASA is about to conclude that there is nothing wrong with the current design and all that is needed is to make it smaller. Yes, the incredible shrinking station is about to get even smaller and even more expensive. All this was done despite many excellent proposals from some of the contractors which might have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. Don't expect this this to go over well in Congress. The same forces which mandated the redesign are still active. The station's design flaws are still there. Expect to see more funding cuts for Freedom next year, if not total cancellation. In other station news, Lenoir wants to abolish the Reston program office and move the program to Huntsville or Houston. Bad move. Reston was just getting into gear and starting to do good work moving Freedom along. They are the only group which knows what's going on as a whole and this move will be a setback. Things to do: 1. The biggest risk is that Freedom will be canceled with nothing to take its place. Congress must understand that a low cost and expandable space station CAN be built for what we are spending. To demonstrate this, write your Representative and tell them about low cost stations, such as External Tank based ideas, Commercially Developed Space Facility, LLNL inflatable stations, or any others you know of. Ask your Representative to support these concepts. New Agency for EOS At the end of last November, a letter was written by several Representatives to Richard Darman, Director of OMB. The letter asked Mr. Darman to put funding in the FY '92 budget for a successor to Landsat 6. Sources say the original letter had a paragraph calling for a new agency to run Landsat and EOS. This paragraph was deleted because of objections from some Representatives. A new agency for Landsat and EOS is critical to space activists. NASA for the next ten years will only have enough money to run two large space efforts. Right now they are Freedom and EOS; both will take 20 years and consume ALL available funding. This means that as long as EOS is inside NASA, it will be 20 years before we can even think about a lunar base or other efforts. Even unmanned planetary exploration will take a back seat. Rep. Brown (D-CA), the new head of the House Science Committee, is expected to review this issue this year, so there is hope if we can get past the opposition of other Congresscritters. Things to do: 1. Write Rep. Brown and ask him to look into a remote sensing agency to run Mission to Planet Earth. Tidbits George Brown wants to head the Space Subcommittee in addition to the whole Science Committee... Expect a version of the Omnibus Space Act to be submitted this session, Brown likes it and Walker is set to run with it... Brown is said to be very interested in working with space activists (we have a strong friend here). Allen Sherzer: (313) 769-4108 (work) (313) 973-0941 (home) aws@iti.org (net) Tim Kyger: (202) 225-2415 (work) (703) 548-1664 (home) ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 91 17:00:37 GMT From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu!dil@purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) Subject: Re: decimal to hexadecimal In article , ephillip@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Earl W Phillips) writes: > > Could someone give me a quick lesson ({r equation) on how > to conver{ decimal numbers to hexadecimal? Thanx in advance! The summary contains the best way. You can get such a beast at Target or K-Mart or any other cheapo discount store. -- Perry G. Ramsey Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences perryr@vm.cc.purdue.edu Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN USA dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu Why waste time learning when ignorance is instantaneous? -- Hobbes ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 91 00:18:23 GMT From: isis!scicom!wats@uunet.uu.net (Bruce Watson) Subject: Salyut 7 elements Salyut 7 27.0 4.2 0.0 3.6 1 13138U 82033 A 91 18.34644536 .00342313 62221-4 44165-3 0 7383 2 13138 51.5907 272.1956 0001998 156.4317 203.6618 16.06576007498826 ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jan 91 13:53:26 GMT From: usc!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!sun4!jwm@ucsd.edu (James W. Meritt) Subject: Re: Science as Religion In article <1991Jan23.074802.29141@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes: }In article <48353@apple.Apple.COM> ksand@Apple.COM (Kent Sandvik) writes: }>In article <1991Jan22.011337.646@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes: }>>>An open minded scientist may speculate that someone organized the universe. } }>We have this age-old mythological scene where people belive that }>everything has to be created, by someone else... . and for instance }>quantuum mechanics shows us how particles suddenly appear from nothing, }> .. . } }Huh??? What? Pray you tell, "WHAT PARTICLE is created 'from nothing', }quantum mechanics or not ???" Are you a Joe Newman follower? } }and .. describe "particle" if you do answer. See also "virtual particles" and "Hawkins radiation". }>It will take some time before the acceptance of an idea such as a }>self-contained universe will be more widespread. } }Seeing as how energy is conserved and we are in a low energy density }dimensional state (limited information in a high order universe), I }would say you may not have a good working model (concept) of the total }physical universe let alone what ever the whole of REALITY is. Oh, really? Why not read up on vacuum energy? The Joural of British Interplanetary Society had a very interesting article on how it may be used forInterstellar flight. A unquantified "energy is conserved" is wrong. Ask, for instance, Japan. }> == self contained == } }I thought studies show our physical (3D) universe is "open". I think }that means it could have disconnected islands. It depends on how }you conceptual the metric. Did the metric pre-exist (was it defined }in the conditions prior to) the Big Bang? Within this last week I read they were still looking, and the article was within the context of the "cold dark matter" tests. You have better information? BTW: Yep, I know about the bubble universes... Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily represent those opinions of this or any other organization. The facts, however, simply are and do not "belong" to anyone. jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu or jwm@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu or meritt%aplvm.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jan 91 17:59:53 GMT From: brazil.psych.purdue.edu!zhou@j.cc.purdue.edu (Albert Zhou) Subject: Re: What is cosmological constant? In article <5113@disk.UUCP> joefish@disk.UUCP (joefish) writes: > When Einstein introduced it, it was assumed that our galaxy >represented the entire universe, and to be stable, a finite universe ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This might not be exactly the case, although Einstein did try to build a model of a stable universe. When the notion that the universe is expanding became popular, Einstein finally gave up his model. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 91 06:16:07 GMT From: pilchuck!amc-gw!sumax!polari!crad@uunet.uu.net (Charles Radley) Subject: Re: Space Station Weights Reference:- From: aws@ITI.ORG (Allen W. Sherzer) Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow Date: 21 Jan 91 21:17:04 GMT Subject: Re: Space Station Weights In article <3196@polari.UUCP> Charles Radley writes: |There is no point in reproducing all the material here. I was |interested to note that many of the points I had expressed in |sci.space are independently raised in the NASA Critique. + ...and are adequately dismissed in the LLNL reply. You are being dogmatic. Some of the NASA answers I agreed with, and some of the LLNL rebuttals were good too. I was particularly impressed by LLNL actually referencing NASA's own studies in some of their rebut als, giving the NASA critique the apparance of being unaware of its own research results. If congress appropriated more money it would be interesting to continue the study. I have said in response to your posts that there are interesting aspects to LLNL's approach, and so does the NASA Critique. There simply is no money in the NASA budget to study it. And the budget continues to shrink. + BTW, since you + saw the critique, can you tell me who wrote it and where they are + from? No idea. Irrelevant anyway, they got no money to continue any evaluation, unless you can persuade somebody to do it after hours. But then it would not have the authority of NASA..... +So what. If the approach is good then the politics of the people + advocating it are not relevant! Then why does LLNL waste valuable time with that stuff ? NASA's charter is technical, not political. +You have yet to post any compelling + technical reason why their approach won't work. I thought we had covered that. It could probably be made to work, but the costs require further study. The vu-graphs show no weight or cost allocations for science. LNNL replies that will be handled ad hoc after the fact. To which the only possible answer is we shall see. Freedom was expensive & heavy because it included a large up front science capability. Reference the JEM external & internal equipment budgets I previously posted. + This from the person who said using a Soyuz was not acceptable? Soyuz is not a launch vehicle and is unsuitable as a Freedom ACRV. The problems about soviet participation are legal and political, not fiscal. Crew transportation remains unaccounted for, the LLNL vu-graphs presented no cost or weight data for that big ticket item. The only reference is in the Lunar Base Mass Budget Summary which shows a return-to-earth module of 8.3 tons, but no description, (well ok, it shows up in a pretty 2001 type color painting with no dimensions or specifications, and no labels so I am not really sure what I am looking at) . Have they put any of this stuff on a CAD package ? Does it have docking port ? How many crew and passengers ? What is its endurance ? Your space activist newsletter also mentions External Tank and LLNL in the same paragraph. Why ? Which is better ? I called External Tank corp and they have minimal technical data, no mass budgets. If you compare ET with the JEM & Freedom (or even LLNL ) weights it looks like several shuttles are needed to outfit a single tank. Major design changes seem needed to the tank, adding a door presumably requires complete structural redesign adding weight / cost. ET seems oversold. How can you advocate to our lawmakers that we should fund such a system ? Your efforts are on the verge of permanently grounding the manned space program. Already PMC for Freedom is gone, which was its principle purpose. It is also ironic to note the apparent cancellation of the FTS. FTS was the brainchild of a previous Congress who were worried that US was losing its robotics edge to Canada. Cancellation of FTS means that the only robots on Freedom are Canadian and Japanese. This is a perfect illustration that it is the CONGRESS, advised by such as you, whose on-again off-again mood swings are bleeding the program, yet all you do is blame NASA...... One of the benefits of international participation in Space is that unlike the USA, most nations approve multi-year funding for hi-tech programs, instead of the bizarre anuual blood-letting we have in the USA. Which is something the LLNL do not understand. They are used to the bottomless coffrs of the DOD world, civilian space is a differnt ballgame. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #085 *******************