Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 18:30:28 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #176 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sat, 13 Feb 93 Volume 16 : Issue 176 Today's Topics: Book Computers/AI in Shuttle-SSF CHANGE IN DEFENSE DEPT. SPACE COMMANDS Galileo Update - 02/11/93 Getting people into Space Program! (5 msgs) hardware on the moon Honorary Names (was: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger) In defense of sick humour (was Re: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger) Orbital Mechanics--Careers? parachutes on Challenger? (2 msgs) Privatization of space science Spaceships made of ice: some lighthearted speculation Space Station funding cuts SSTO news 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, 12 Feb 1993 05:08:51 GMT From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov Subject: Book Computers/AI in Shuttle-SSF Newsgroups: sci.space nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu wrote: : I had an idea that is in the future.. Maybe give astronauts a book : computer, have an internal modem where it sends info to the main : shuttle/Station computer so that all info that the astronaut wants or : can give is put into the computer..Make the book/hand held a writable : one where the astronauts can take notes. It might have to be able to : handle space walks(?).. Make the Shuttle Computer a AI or a node for a : earth bound AI.. We looked into "book computers" three years ago as an electronic replacement for the Flight Data File (the books the astronauts use in the Space Shuttle). At that time, image display technology was not up to the task, and it hasn't progressed in a major way since then. "Pen computers" are nifty toys, but they rely on forces and motions which are difficult to control in microgravity. Remember, each time you push on a key, it pushes back just as hard. The same applies to pens. Making a display which can handle EVA is no mean feat. It has to deal with vacuum, some serious temperature extremes, and the biggest glare problem you've ever seen -- the naked Sun. (And you thought fluorescent lights reflecting off your PC screen caused problems!) And the controls would have to be accessible by gloved hands, and those gloves really restrict fine finger motions. When you add up power supply (the Suit people get really upset if you try to run off of their power connectors), disk drive (which has its own gyroscopic motion problems), keyboard and display, you get a package which is awkward to hold and control, and you don't have anyplace to "set it down" while you work. (We even thought about strapping it to the arm of the suit.) An "internal modem" would have to have an extra communication connection back to the Orbiter or Station, and we don't have the radio equipment to handle that. We'd also have to build a book computer which could withstand the rigors of EVA training, especially the "swimming pool" -- the Weightless Environment Training Facility (WETF). It's not just 25 feet of water; it's also the jolts and dings equipment takes when it's used there. And the WETF is kept at 94 degrees F, so cooling your electronics becomes a problem. For the EVA computer, instead of having a device external to the suit, there was a scheme for making an "heads-up display" for the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (suit), but I believe they ran out of funds after building their Mac-based prototype. (I tried it out once in the lab in building 7.) There are some efforts to use AI for a few Shuttle and Station tasks, but basically AI is either more trouble than it's worth or too risky to use in space-based applications. Real AI is absolutely nothing like the AI you see in books or movies. (There's a non-politically correct saying, that Artificial Intelligence is like artificial limbs: it's for people who don't have enough of their own.) In the long run, we absolutely have to solve these problems. We simply can't cart tons of paper and a portable print shop to the moon and Mars. (Laser printers won't work in space, by the way, since the carbon particles they use are a safety hazard.) I presented a paper on Paperless Spacecraft at the AIAA a few years ago. If there's a lot of interest, I could dust it off and post it. -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (713) 483-4368 "Good ideas are common -- what's uncommon are people who'll work hard enough to bring them about." -- Ashleigh Brilliant ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 12:28:50 PST From: Richard Buenneke Subject: CHANGE IN DEFENSE DEPT. SPACE COMMANDS I just got a copy of the space-related sections of the Joint Chiefs of Staff study on service roles and missions. The Pentagon released the final report this morning. The study recommends the elimination of a unified U.S. Space Command, with the space mission assigned to U.S. Strategic Command. Under this proposal, the commander of Air Force Space Command would also serve as NORAD commander in Colorado Springs. AFSPACECOM also would operate all space systems under the comander-in-chief of Strategic Command (CINCSTRAT). "Small Army and Navy components" would be assigend to CINCSTRAT to ensure that space systems support all services' needs. Personnel from all services would be assigend to a Joint Space Planning Staff within STRATCOM. "Such an organization would ensure service-unique requirements for, and uses of, space were properly represented and that services and CINCs had trained personnel with the knowledge to fully exploit the capabilities of space systems." Requirements for space systems would continue to be submitted by CINCS, services and agencies to JCS's Joint Requirements Oversight Council for validation. Day-to-day requirements for operational space supprot would be submitted to CINCSTRAT. Under this plan, the Air Force would be responsoble for the development of future military space systems. The Air Force would serve as lead service for coordinating LANDSAT operations and working with NASA. All operational responsibilities for other systems -- including DSCS and FLTSATCOM -- would be transferred to the Air Force. This consolidation will save money and eliminate a "substantial" number of positions. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 1993 04:07 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Galileo Update - 02/11/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Forwarded from Neal Ausman, Galileo Mission Director GALILEO MISSION DIRECTOR STATUS REPORT POST-LAUNCH February 5 - 11, 1993 SPACECRAFT 1. On February 5, the EE-12B (Earth-Earth) prime sequence memory load was uplinked to the spacecraft without incident. This sequence covers spacecraft activities from February 8, 1993 to April 12, 1993. 2. On February 8, real-time commands were sent to modify the system fault protection such that if spacecraft safing executes, the Plasma Wave Subsystem (PWS) supplemental heater will be turned on. This change was necessitated by the increasing solar AU distances. 3. On February 8, a periodic RPM (Retro-Propulsion Module) 10-Newton thruster maintenance activity was performed; all 12 thrusters were "flushed" during the activity. Spacecraft activity throughout the period was normal. 4. On February 8, the spacecraft performed a 31.5 degree SITURN for the purpose of attitude maintenance. The Z thrusters were used during the activity. After the SITURN completed, the Near Infrared Mapping Spectrometer (NIMS) shield temperature increased to 51.8 degrees C which was 1.8 degrees C above the 3-210 non-operating limit. A waiver was generated and approved by the Project for a non-operating temperature limit to 55 degrees C. 5. On February 8, an Ultra-Stable Oscillator (USO) test was performed to verify the health status of the USO and to collect gravitational red shift experiment data; long term trend analysis is continuing. 6. On February 8, cruise science Memory Readouts (MROs) were performed for the Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrometer (EUV), Dust Detector (DDS), and Magnetometer (MAG) instruments. Preliminary analysis indicates the data was received properly. 7. During the period from February 10 through February 11, a navigation cycle was performed. This navigation cycle provided near-continuous acquisition of two-way doppler and ranging data during four consecutive passes of the spacecraft over DSS-43 (Canberra 70 meter antenna), DSS-63 (Madrid 70 meter antenna), DSS-14 (Goldstone 70 meter antenna), and then back to DSS-43. 8. On February 10, real-time commands were sent to turn the Ultraviolet Spectrometer (UVS) on to exercise its grating drive mechanism and the instrument remains on. The UVS high voltage was also commanded off to properly configure the instrument for the Earth-Jupiter cruise phase. 9. On February 10, real-time commands were sent to modify the System Fault Protection (SFP). Specifically, the Relay/JOI (Jupiter Orbit Insertion) System Fault Protection (SFP) was patched for use during non-critical spin-up activities. During commanding, radiation terminated due to bit verify errors. Remaining command radiation was resumed without incident. Analysis of this anomaly is in progress. 10. The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements have not exhibited significant change (greater than 25 DN) throughout this period. The AC measurement reads 19DN (4.3 volts). The DC measurement reads 146DN (17.2 volts). These measurements are consistent with the model developed by the AC/DC special anomaly team. 11. The Spacecraft status as of February 11, 1993, is as follows: a) System Power Margin - 70 watts b) Spin Configuration - Dual-Spin c) Spin Rate/Sensor - 3.15rpm/Star Scanner d) Spacecraft Attitude is approximately 16 degrees off-sun (leading) and 7 degrees off-earth (leading) e) Downlink telemetry rate/antenna- 1200bps(coded)/LGA-1 f) General Thermal Control - all temperatures within acceptable range g) RPM Tank Pressures - all within acceptable range h) Orbiter Science- Instruments powered on are the PWS, EUV, UVS, EPD, MAG, HIC, and DDS i) Probe/RRH - powered off, temperatures within acceptable range j) CMD Loss Timer Setting - 240 hours Time To Initiation - 212 hours UPLINK GENERATION/COMMAND REVIEW AND APPROVAL: 1. The LGA-2 (Low Gain Antenna #2) Swing Test sequence memory load was approved for generation by the Project on February 8, 1993. This sequence includes Low Gain Antenna (LGA)-2 deploy/retract activities on February 17, 1993, and wobble identification activities on February 25-26, 1993. TRAJECTORY As of noon Thursday, February 11, 1993, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory status was as follows: Distance from Earth 48,015,000 km (0.32 AU) Distance from Sun 192,745,800 km (1.29 AU) Heliocentric Speed 119,100 km per hour Distance from Jupiter 673,957,200 km Round Trip Light Time 5 minutes, 22 seconds SPECIAL TOPIC 1. As of February 11, 1993, a total of 65027 real-time commands have been transmitted to Galileo since Launch. Of these, 59952 were initiated in the sequence design process and 5075 initiated in the real-time command process. In the past week, 50 real time commands were transmitted: 50 were initiated in the sequence design process and none initiated in the real time command process. Major command activities included commands to uplink the EE-12B prime sequence memory load, modify system fault protection, turn the UVS instrument on, and turn the UVS high voltage off. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never yell "Movie!" in a /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | crowded fire station. |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 15:16:47 GMT From: Nick Haines Subject: Getting people into Space Program! Newsgroups: sci.space In article rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes: In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >The Russian Space Agency, for that much hard currency, would happily >build and launch three of them (one as a demo to prove they could do >it -- since the US wouldn't believe them otherwise -- one for operational >use, and one as an on-orbit spare), and throw in free maintenance and >resupply for the first five years. Here we go again. Wouldn't throw Americans out of work? Yes, it would, in the short term. But look at it from an international perspective. The former Soviet Union is on the brink of chaos. Four states (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan) have nuclear weapons on their soil. In Russia itself (hardly a stronghold of democracy just yet) the economy is weaker than ever; regions and cities are declaring autonomy; the whole country is becoming splintered. Why? Because they're critically short of hard currency and jobs. Scientists, engineers, and specialists (the very people who might get it back on its feet) are leaving in droves. People are starving to death in modern Russia; it is not far from a descent into anarchic feudalism. An anarchic feudalism with a very large nuclear arsenal. Don't you think that boosting the economy, giving jobs to these scientists and engineers, restabilising the government, _and_ buying a suite of international space stations, is worth $4bn? Compared to lining the pockets of NASA contractors (which is _all_ that $4bn would do over here; it won't buy you diddly). Think about the possible outcomes: (1) a new, large and rapidly growing trading partner (read: market for American goods), with obligations to the US for bailing it out; (2) a large assortment of poor and fiercely nationalist statelets (some Islamic fundamentalist, some Communist, some just plain anarchies), with lots of nuclear weapons and a grievance against the US (namely: the US outspent them, ending the cold war and plunging them into this situation -- and if you think this feeling doesn't exist in Russia you're very wrong). I'm not saying the US should `invest' in random shoddy tractor parts or something; I'm saying money should be spent on those things the Russians do _better_ and _cheaper_ than the US, and that the rewards will be _both_ a better space program _and_ a better international situation. Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 1993 00:02:29 -0500 From: Matthew DeLuca Subject: Getting people into Space Program! Newsgroups: sci.space In article hugh@huia.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Hugh Emberson) writes: >Why is just about everything the US millitary does/uses called Have or >Pave? >This has been puzzling me for a long time. It's designed to puzzle people...looks like it worked. :-) -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew Internet: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 93 05:39:34 GMT From: Hugh Emberson Subject: Getting people into Space Program! Newsgroups: sci.space >>>>> On 10 Feb 93 20:06:56 GMT, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) said: Allen> Actually, operating tempratures and total stresses are also Allen> pretty close. The main differences is in the turbopumps and Allen> those exist today. Peak stresses on SSTO may be higher but Have ^^^^ Allen> Region answered most of the open questions on that. That's why Allen> every agency and group which has looked at SSTO say it can be Allen> done. Why is just about everything the US millitary does/uses called Have or Pave? This has been puzzling me for a long time. Hugh -- Hugh Emberson -- CS Postgrad hugh@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 93 13:45:48 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Getting people into Space Program! Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >The question is, if only $4G is available, is it more important to keep a >small fraction of them employed, or to get a functional space station? Come now Henry, NASA spent over $8 billion designing a space station which couldn't have ever been built. It should be obvious that very few people actually care if a space station is ever built. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------123 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 13:50:39 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Getting people into Space Program! Newsgroups: sci.space In article hugh@huia.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Hugh Emberson) writes: >Why is just about everything the US millitary does/uses called Have or >Pave? I think it is part of the naming system. Every 'Pave' program I have ever worked on or had access to had something to do with radar. I don't know what 'Have' means (if anything). Perhaps Mary can give a better answer. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------123 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 04:46:21 GMT From: Josh Hopkins Subject: hardware on the moon Newsgroups: sci.space jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes: >In article shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >>Speaking of US hardware on the Moon, it all belongs to the >>Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum. And the Apollo 11 >>site has been designated a National Monument, belonging to the >>National Park Service. >This is interesting. When the Apollo 11 site was designated as a >National monument did they designate the lander or the lander and >the surrounding area? This is close to claiming juristiction on >the Moon surely. I seem to remember hearing that somewhere is a little government statement that explains that even though we planted a flag we did not intend that action to signify a claim to the territory. Henry, have you heard of this? On a further note it should be pointed out that this discussion should also include the Viking landing site since they face a similiar situation. One of the landers is (was?) an official weather station. -- Josh Hopkins jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu You only live once. But if you live it right, once is enough. In memoria, WDH ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 14:05:14 GMT From: Bob Combs Subject: Honorary Names (was: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle In regards to honorary names, the Air Force Satellite Control facility in Sunnyvale, Califorina [formerly Sunnyvale Air Force Station] was renamed Onizuka Air Force Base in honor of Ellison Onizuka. It is a small, but important Air Force command and control facility near Nasa Ames, which most of you will be familiar with. When you go in the main entrance, they have a nice display talking about Onizuka's life and they exibit some of his uniform items and other memorabilia. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 93 14:22:35 GMT From: Henry Troup Subject: In defense of sick humour (was Re: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle In article , irby@athena.cs.uga.edu writes: |>probably the worst setbacks ever for the space program and all these people |>could do was crack sick jokes. Sick humour is a defense mechanism. It means "if I were serious about this, I couldn't bear it". Not everyone reacts the same way. Although I remember the Apollo 1 Grisson Chaffee White fire, I don't remember any jokes about it. Probably because the accident itself was not televised live. Henry Troup - H.Troup@BNR.CA (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions onotology recapitulates ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 04:14:50 GMT From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov Subject: Orbital Mechanics--Careers? Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.research.careers,sci.space,soc.college.grad John O. Bell II (jbii@HDFS1.acd.com) wrote: : If you ever get the chance, take a very close look at the Aero Engineering : grad program at the U of Illinois... especially for concentration in the : field of Orbital/Celestial Mechanics. The university is getting gobs of : money poured into it, the dean (Prof. Solomon) is on a mission to make it : the top AAE grad school in the country, and if you're lucky and say your : prayers :-) you'll get to work with either Prof. J. E. Prussing or : Prof. B. A. Conway, both highly respected contributors to the field and : quite pleasurable to work with. I concur. I took my MS in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering at the University of Illinois/Champaign-Urbana. Dr. Prussing has done outstanding work in the field of hyperbolic cycloids for point-to-point, non-elliptical orbits in a gravity well. Dr. Conway s one of the best instructors I've ever had. UIUC is consistently ranked #3 in the country for engineering schools. (MIT is always #1, and Stanford and Berkeley vie for #2, depending on who's doing the survey.) And it's a state school, with reasonable tuition. (Not as reasonable as Univ. of Houston, but that's another story and another degree.) -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (713) 483-4368 BS: CS, UIUC '85; MS: AAE, UIUC '87; PhD: ME, UH '95(?) "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derilicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race." -- Calvin Coolidge ------------------------------ Date: 11 Feb 93 07:16:17 GMT From: Paul Campbell Subject: parachutes on Challenger? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb5.231836.23346@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >some training jets, the front seat has to go *first*. There is a >story, perhaps untrue (my memory isn't good enough to recall where I >heard it), of a pilot-instructor who got himself cut in half by >reaching up over a student to pull down his handle after the student >blacked out. The student got out. The instructor got a (posthumous) >medal. How could they tell if there's no one around who was concious at the time? Paul -- Paul Campbell UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul AppleLink: CAMPBELL.P "Finally after much thought he tied a dollar bill to the top of the tree, it seemed to fit - after all it was the premier capitalist holiday, besides after the 'fall' of communism a star didn't seem appropriate anymore ..." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 05:24:28 GMT From: "R. Lee Hawkins" Subject: parachutes on Challenger? Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>Why not a full-ejection-module like on the F-111 or B-1? > >Major weight penalty plus the same safety problems as ejection seats... >and in case you weren't aware of it, the F-111 system does not work very >well and the B-1 switched to ejection seats. > >>...isn't exactly retrofittable, but perhaps such a system would be useful >>on future vehichles... > >ESA looked into such a system for Hermes, but ended up with ejection seats. >The ESA astronauts didn't want *any* escape system, on the grounds that it >was only marginally useful and the weight was better spent on other things. > >The right solution for future vehicles is the one used today for airliners: >build them redundant and fail-safe so you don't *need* escape systems. Any >escape system is far inferior to being able to save the whole vehicle. I'm not sure the above is a very valid engineering or statistical comparison. Airliners fly thousands of flights each day while the Shuttle flys less than 12 per *year*. To build things that don't fail, you have to understand all the failure modes, both expected and unexpected (remember the Comet? The DC-10 engines?), and this unfortunately seems to require a few crashes now and then and some of deaths. Airliners still crash and kill people. Also, the shuttle is just a *wee* bit more complicated than a DC-10 or 747. Face it: due to the small number of flights/year and the continual changes and upgrades to the shuttle, every flight is a test flight. Passengers aren't *allowed* in a new airliner until an extensive testing program has been completed, and designers/manufacturers feel reasonably certain that they are safe. This will never be the case with the shuttle (or any other low-mission-rate vehicle), so (at least to me) parachutes and a *survivable* escape system seem the right thing to do. Lastly, look at the huge impact a space-related disaster has on the nation vs. the impact of a large air disaster. If you mention the Challenger explosion, almost anyone you talk to will know about it. If you mention the Delta crash in 1985 that killed 133 (or any other air disaster over a year old), most people won't even know what you are talking about. The Delta crash was obviously the worst *human* disater of the two in terms of lives lost, but Challenger was obviously much more damaging to the nation. My feeling is that if seven people hadn't died that day, Challenger would have been a lot less damaging. --Lee ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 93 00:33:48 GMT From: Craig Meyer <01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu> Subject: Privatization of space science Newsgroups: sci.space What would happen if a prospective space-services company were to approach the governments of the world an offer to bring back a bucket of Mars dirt, along with other samples and measurements, to the highest bidder? Would agencies like NASA and ESA oppose such private-run operations? Or would they be happy to buy the product--if the offered price were less than they could match? Is there entrepreneurial potential in such projects? CM -- Craig Meyer 01CRMEYER@LEO.BSUVC.BSU.EDU Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humaities. Muncie, IN 47306 317-285-7433 Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not necessarily shared by the Indiana Academy. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 01:13:40 GMT From: Daniel Burstein Subject: Spaceships made of ice: some lighthearted speculation Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.materials a threader (?) has questioned the viability of ice (as in frozen water) being used as structural material for spaceships. some other folk described the use of wood-fiber reinforced (and insulated) ice being used for naval (i.e. ocean going) ships, for runways, etc. I'd just like to point out that this was a major feature in a story by (the late) Isaac Asimov titled "the Martian Way." Basically, a group of humans stationed on Mars, worried that Earth will cut off their water supply, fly out to the asteroid belt, find a half-kilometer or so ice-based asteroid, insert a few rocket engines, and fly it back. (some scientific errors which actually don't detract from the story: the martian atmosphere is not anywhere near breathable, the asteroids aren't made of mile sized batches of ice, etc., but it's a pretty good story anyway). dannyb@panix.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 13:52:00 From: Subject: Space Station funding cuts Jeff Bytof writes: >I just heard on the radio that the Space Station and the Supercollider >are up for discussion by Clinton officials. The broadcast gave >little in the way of details. The report mentioned the "30 billion >dollar pricetag" for the space station. Curiously, Clinton's job >stimulus package is pegged at $31 billion... National Public Radio announced this morning that the Clinton administration was proposing cutting funding of the Space Station by 40%. Rick Kitchen kitchenrn@ssd0.laafb.af.mil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 05:17:43 GMT From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov Subject: SSTO news Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space Rich Kolker (rkolker@sccsi.com) wrote: : MacDAC is renting the White Sands range and a static test stand at : it from NASA. That is NASA's only connection (at this point) to DC. "NASA's only connection" and we're causing a schedule slip! Boy, am I embarrassed! : By the way, the Whiute Sands Space Harbor is operated by the : Johnson Space Center. I'll keep my eye on the JSC Senior Staff Activity Report. They usually discuss the big things going on at White Sands, but only in a "Hey, look what we done!" manner. -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (713) 483-4368 "We want to abolish the 'not invented here' syndrome which breeds insularity and fails to seize the good ideas within and outside of NASA." -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 21:30:21 EST From: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU  To: bb-sci-space@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space From: "Richard A. Schumacher" Subject: Re: SSTO news Message-Id: Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA References: <1993Feb10.191639.3827@iti.org> <1993Feb11.000454.27083@nuchat.sccsi.com> <1993Feb11.235525.18730@nuchat.sccsi.com> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 05:15:41 GMT X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and not necessarily those of CONVEX. Status: R Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU >>>Flying testing has been pushed back to may since NASA couldn't get >>>the test stand ready for them until April for static tests. Mislaid the paperwork, I suppose. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 176 ------------------------------