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, 6 Jun 91 01:57:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 01:57:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #605 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 605 Today's Topics: Re: Fred vs. Exploration: head-to-head competition NASA Headline News for 05/17/91 (Forwarded) Re: Fred cut, AXAF and SIRTF funded Re: Existing investments and technology Re: Saturn V and the ALS Re: Terraforming Mars? Why not Venus? Fred vs. Exploration XXXIV Re: lifeboats....ACRV Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated 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: 18 May 91 07:59:14 GMT From: ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@decwrl.dec.com Subject: Re: Fred vs. Exploration: head-to-head competition In article <1991May17.162311.8055@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >Nick, one reason why I usually ignore your postings is that any debate >with you is full of these non-sequiturs and unannounced changes of topic. >The "funding" to which *you* were referring was the hypothetical $10G >peak Fred budget. I stand by my comments: no space project will ever >see that money if Fred dies. You don't ignore my postings, you fail to read them correctly. I was in fact referring to the _current_ saving of SIRTF and AXAF by the cutting of Fred in the Congressional committee. AXAF and SIRTF would have died this week were it not for the wise Committee choice to override the NASA leadership's priorities. Senate willing, space explorers will have former Fred money to work with in _this budget_. Furthermore, the "hypothetical" $10G is from an all-to-real projection by the GAO. Much more than SIRTF and AXAF would end up gutted. Further personal flames to /dev/null, please.... -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably knew it already. The more bewildered you are, the more successful the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 91 07:00:58 GMT From: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA Headline News for 05/17/91 (Forwarded) Headline News Internal Communications Branch (P-2) NASA Headquarters Friday, May 17, 1991 Audio Service: 202 / 755-1788 This is NASA Headline News for Friday, May 17, 1991 . . . NASA's senior management is presently engaged in consultations with key members of both the House and Senate to determine the best course of action to obtain support to reverse the proposal of House Appropriations subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies (Chairman Rep. Bob Traxler, D-Mich.) to terminate the space station program. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * At the Kennedy Space Center, preparations for the launch of Columbia on the STS-40 Spacelab Life Sciences mission are nearing completion. The countdown begins tomorrow, May 18, at 5:00 pm. The seven-member flight crew is scheduled to arrive Sunday at 1:30 pm. Launch is set for 8:00 am Wednesday, May 22. The current weather prediction for launch morning is excellent with no more than a 20 percent probability of violating any launch constraints at the open of the window. Weather improves to a less than 10 percent probability of launch constraint violation later Wednesday morning. KSC launch officials report there are no currently open issues. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Phillip and their royal party will visit the Johnson Space Center about 1:00 pm on STS-40 launch day, May 22, to attend a luncheon hosted by Houston Mayor Kathy Whitmire in the JSC Building 9-A Space Shuttle mockup area. The Queen will then view various exhibits in that facility and then tour Mission Control. She will enter the STS-40 flight control room (FCR 1) for a briefing on NASA mission operations by Flight Director Randy Stone and astronaut Jeff Hoffman. The Queen's party is expected to depart JSC at 3:00 and continue her tour of the Houston area. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Spacelab Life Sciences-1 Mission, STS-40, is a nine-day flight dedicated to life sciences research and NASA Select coverage of the mission will feature two special programs to be broadcast daily. "Today in Space," hosted by astronauts Bonnie Dunbar and Robert L. "Hoot" Gibson is scheduled for broadcast at 3:00 pm EDT, and a mission status briefing is scheduled for 4:00 pm EDT. These programs are in addition to other television events such as flight deck, middeck, and Payload Operations Control Center activities. Two- hour edited programs of each flight day's activities will be replayed for Hawaii and Alaska at 12 am. EDT on Spacenet 1, transponder 18. The look angle for the Spacenet transponder is 120 degrees West longitude, at a frequency of 4060.8 MHz. Here's the broadcast schedule for Public Affairs events on NASA Select TV. Note that all events and times may change without notice, and that all times listed are Eastern. Monday, 5/20/91 10:30 am Countdown status briefing with Eric Redding, KSC test director, and Ed Priselac, shuttle weather officer, from KSC. Tuesday, 5/21/91 9:00 am Countdown status briefing with Mike Leinbach, KSC test director, from KSC. 9:45 am Spacelab Life Sciences-1 overview briefing with Dr. Arnauld Nicogossian, NASA life science director, Dr. Ron White, NASA SLS program scientist, and others, from KSC. 11:00 am Pre-launch press conference with Dr. Lennard Fisk, NASA science and applications administrator, Robert Crippen, NASA shuttle director, James Harrington, STS-40 launch director, Cpt. Mike Adams, USAF weather officer, from KSC. 5:00 pm Continuous coverage of countdown process for STS-40 mission begins. Wednesday, 5/22/91 8:00 am Scheduled launch of Columbia for STS-40 mission. This report is filed daily at noon, Monday through Friday. It is a service of NASA's Office of Public Affairs. The contact is Charles Redmond, 202/453- 8425 or CREDMOND on NASAmail. NASA Select TV is carried on GE Satcom F2R, transponder 13, C-Band, 72 degrees West Longitude, transponder frequency is 3960 megaHertz, audio is offset 6.8 MHz, polarization is vertical. ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 91 18:17:02 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!ox.com!hela!aws@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Fred cut, AXAF and SIRTF funded In article <1991May18.070054.19404@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >>1. Freedom was killed because it was so poorly managed. Congress still >> wants a permanent human presence in space. Expect to see 'son of >> Freedom' sometime soon. >I disagree. Congress found the price of permanent human presence >in space too high. You are in for a rude suprise next year. They appropriated $100M to look at alternatives. Congress wants very much to fund a space station it's just that Freedom wasn't working out. Current front runner is the design recently proposed by External Tank Corporation. They have a good expandable approach and have been lobbying the Appropriations people. In fact, it could well be that this proposal played a role is killing Freedom. >>2. More important, next year they will be looking at another project >> to kill so money can be shipped to HUD. >The cut did _not_ go to HUD. This is utter myth. Granted. I was refering to HUD as meaning 'everybody else'. But the point still remains. Next year they will be looking for more places to cut. NASA funding isn't going to get any bigger (internal bickering is a major cause of this IMHO). The people on that subcommittee want to fund HUD. That's why they are there. You will also see compression from inside NASA. Next year we will start to see EOS ramp up. Something will need to be cut back to fund it and programs you like are prime canidates (rest assured EOS will get what it wants). The year after that NLDP starts up and it will be more popular than your favorite projects as well. Your not looking at the whole picture. You laugh when Freedom is run over by a train blissfully unaware that you are standing on the same tracks. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | Allen's tactics are too tricky to deal with | | aws@iti.org | -- Harel Barzilai | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 91 02:19:22 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Existing investments and technology In article <1991May19.015418.21399@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >a modified, say, MX missile would be quite able to launch a payload to >orbit, but it would not be an especially good launch vehicle. However, pieces of it may still be useful components of a launcher. For example, OSC's Taurus is a wingless Pegasus atop an MX first stage. Especially for small launchers, which specialize in cost/launch rather than cost/kilogram, using off-the-shelf missile parts can look better than custom-building launcher parts. In article rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell) writes: >... either Northrup or Lockheed, has >proposed scrapping a number of their long range missiles and using >them as launch vehicles. Some of the people involved in the light >launch vehicle business would rather this didn't happen because of >economic stresses). Lockheed has proposed turning retired Polaris/Poseidon missiles into launch hardware. The reason why others are objecting is not "economic stresses" but the idea of Lockheed getting these missiles at scrap-metal prices while everybody else has to buy (e.g.) solid motors at full price. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 91 00:40:34 GMT From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu (Paul Dietz) Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS In article <1991May18.234147.11213@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >Freedom. However, Japan and the ESA take the agreement VERY seriously. >If (or no that we have) dumped Freedom, will we be able to get these >foreign space agencies to trust us again (say for an international >Mars mission, etc.) ? I hope not. A mission so mammoth that it requires international participation is sure to be a boondoggle. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 91 03:19:09 GMT From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) Subject: Re: Terraforming Mars? Why not Venus? In article <1991May18.230333.24022@milton.u.washington.edu> wiml@milton.u.washington.edu (William Lewis) writes: > What would [bacteria] chomp [sulfur] into? > ...there's still going to be sulfur somewhere, >and you have to do SOMETHING with it. I assume that most heavy compounds >that might settle to the surface would break down eventually in the >heat, pressure and miscellaneous chemicals. > While I am not a geologist, I seem to remember that sulfur is not an uncommon component of rocks here on Earth. Venus is assumed to have about the same ammount of sulfur as the Earth, (having formed from roughly the same material and being roughly the same size.) As I understand it, the problem on Venus is that most of the sulfur is in the form of gasses. Frank Crary UC Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 91 06:26:46 GMT From: ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@uunet.uu.net Subject: Fred vs. Exploration XXXIV In article <1991May20.043905.11046@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >>[I write] I'm doing simple arithmetic. >> >Well, you seem to be assuming that Freedom would have recieved its full >requested budget for the rest of the program's life. Here are the 3 likely alternatives: (1) Freedom receives full funding, at the expense of other NASA programs like SIRTF, AXAF, CRAF, etc. $120G is taken away and hundreds of valuable space programs (> 100 * < $1.2G) go down the tubes. (2) Freedom funding is cut partially and the program drags out. This is indeed the most probable scenario, It does _not_ reduce costs, if anything it increases them. Over a longer, more agonizing time period, $120G is taken away and hundreds of valuable space programs go down the tubes. (3) Freedom is cut to zero now. SIRTF, AXAF, and CRAF are saved this year. If we get lucky NASA leadership wises up and produces hundreds of new programs needed by space explorers to make up the budget difference. (3) is the only outcome that gives us a reasonable expectation that SIRTF, AXAF and CRAF will ever get off the ground. It also gives us the hope -- perhaps it is a dream, but if we give up so easily we might as well all live in caves -- that those hundreds of more valuable programs will also fly. Number (3) in fact came about -- at least in Congressional Committee. SIRTF and AXAF and CRAF were funded. Fred was cut to zero now. Thus my joy, and the joy of scientists everywhere, as witnessed by the American Physical Society report I posted. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably knew it already. The more bewildered you are, the more successful the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 91 06:32:04 GMT From: aio!vf.jsc.nasa.gov!gerlach@eos.arc.nasa.gov Subject: Re: lifeboats....ACRV -- Henery Spencer or is it Spencer Henery. I couldn't remember at the time I was posting this. He is partialy correct. A spring would work in translating away from the Space Station. However, even more clever is just releasing the docking lock/latches and letting the release of the 14.7 PSI atmosphere push the vehicle away. This works really great if the station is not out of control and you don't have to worry about station restrike. For Net knowledge sake. I work in the Orbiter and GFE Projects Flight Data and Evaluation office as a Mission Evaluation Room Manager. However, I can soak my father, Ronald H. Gerlach/Project Manager - Assured Crew Return Vehicle, for any specific information. I know the ACRV project office is more than happy to send out any information to clear up allot of missconceptions out there concerning there project!! So fire away!! $ .. Where does the sidewalk end_____? $ .... David A. Gerlach CFI-IMEI/NASA-JSC/GERLACH@VF.JSC.NASA.GOV ------------------------------ Date: 21 May 91 18:10:57 GMT From: agate!spool.mu.edu!think.com!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated In article <1991May20.044856.13074@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >... might a sci.space.news, for factual postings >only (e.g. the flare warnings, shuttle and interplanetary probe status >reports, etc.) be a good idea? Historically, this is more or less what sci.space.shuttle started out to be (under an older name). It was primarily for status reports from one well-placed contributor. The distinction between it and sci.space has always been rather fuzzy otherwise. One could get much the same effect, actually by doing three things: 1. Choose the subgroup name very carefully ("news" is not good; something like "reports" or "updates" might be better). 2. Convince the update posters to post there rather than, or in addition to, sci.space. (Some will be reluctant to post *only* to another group because sci.space is gatewayed to many places that a new group wouldn't automatically go.) I'd have no objection to cross- posting my AW&ST summaries there, for example. 3. Convince the update posters to include "Followup-To: sci.space" in their headers, which will help keep the followup discussions out of the updates group. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #605 *******************