Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_4/V11_469.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/YaN=Px200VcJA9HU4Q>;
          Thu, 31 May 1990 02:17:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <YaN=[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 31 May 1990 02:17:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #469

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 469

Today's Topics:
              Re: Endeavour Construction
               Re: HAWAII AND STAR WARS
                  Radiation
           Launch Advisory for 05/30/90 (Forwarded)
           Payload Status for 05/30/90 (Forwarded)
           Re: Hawaii and Launching rockets
                 info-request
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 May 90 05:31:36 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Re: Endeavour Construction

Henry, some additional comments...

>This month's issue of Spaceflight (one of the BIS publications) is
>one of the best ads yet for this excellent magazine. ..An interview
>with the Assistant Deputy Administrator of NASA, talking about nasty
>things like funding instability.  (He observes that Endeavour,
>unliket any other NASA project, is ahead schedule and under budget!
>He says the reason is very simple:  it was funded all at once, in a
>lump sum, so NASA knows where it stands financially for the entire
>project, and can confidently plan several years ahead.)

Besides getting the mult-year funding for Endeavour, NASA also has
tried something a little bit different with it.  Since NASA has not
requested a new, risky development program for the replacement
Shuttle orbiter, they and Rockwell agreed to a firm, fixed price
contract for the replacement vehicle.  However, it was written into
the contract that for every $1.00 saved from the firm, fixed price,
Rockwell would be able to keep 20 cents.  Needless to say, Rockwell
isreally pushing themselves to produce the vehicle under budget....
  This is a good example of some creative contractual negotiations
which really saved the government money.  I think it was a very good
idea, and I wish we could get a couple of other programs under the
same contractual terms.  Unfortunately, I've also seen a couple of
arguments from Congress folks and independent think-tank types this
was really a bad idea - since it reduced Congress's flexibility
to change yearly funding to meet budgets, and is giving Rockwell a
"windfall" profit.  (I think think such argument are hookum, since
Congress's ability to change yearly funding invariably costs money -
saving pennies this year while having to spend dollars over the next
10 years - and if Rockwell can really build a quality product under
cost and on schedule, then they should get paid extra for it.  Else,
what do we offer folks to do a better job?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wales Larrison                          "Space Technology Investor"



--- Opus-CBCS 1.12
 * Origin: Universal Electronics, Inc. (1:103/302.0)
--
uucp:     Wales Larrison
Internet: [e-mail]
BBS:      714 544-0934   2400/1200/300

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 90 00:57:28 GMT
From: usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster![e-mail]  (Andrew Taylor)
Subject: Re: HAWAII AND STAR WARS

In refernce to complaints about effect on endangered species of proposed
Hawaii spaceport:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>To reiterate what my coworker said, take a look at Cape Canaveral/Kennedy
>Space Center.  It's been the busiest space center in this country for
>thirty years, and it's also a prime example of how high technology and
>wildlife can coexist in peace.

A launching facility may have little effect on some species. KSC may well
have helped some endangered species by excluding their habitat from development.
However KSC undoubtedly had some environmental impact. I believe its
construction was one of the reasons for the extinction of the Dusky Seaside
Sparrow (a subspecies of the Seaside Sparrow).

Environmental impact of a development is very difficult to assess. I can
illustrate this an example on a smaller scale. One of only three breeding
colonies of little terns (small ground-nesting seabirds) in NSW was found
in Sydney next to a major industrial site. Amazingly despite the light and
noise from the refinery and additional disturbance from 4wd vehicles, joggers
and dogs the colony was still successfully fledging some young each year.
The refinery installed a lighing pole on its perimeter next to the colony.
This reduced the colony's breeding success to zero because it provided a
perch for a Kestrel to hunt from. The moral being that small modifications
to the environment can have unexpected drastic effects.

I'd guess from what little I know of the endangered species mention that they
could, if due care was taken, co-exist with a spaceport but very careful
consideration of the environmental impact is needed to ensure this development
does not add to the long list of Hawaiian extinctions.

------------------------------

Date: 30 May 90 17:51:15 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!nereid![e-mail]  (Harold Peter White)
Subject: Radiation

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Radiation
Summary: Earth's radiation belts
Expires:
Sender:
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Harold Peter White)
Followup-To:
Distribution: sci.space
Organization: Institute for Space and Terrestrial Science
Keywords: Van Allen belts

There was a discussion a while back talking about low Earth orbit (LEO) and
high Earth orbit (HEO). Do space agencies have `hard' facts to say `Lets
stay out of the radiation belts because ...' or have they stayed away
mostly because they don't really need to go there since its probably going
to be a trouble area? I've found references on this subject hard to find,
and those I do find contradictory. Any suggested refences?

H. Peter White            * There's no proof that life was meant *
[e-mail]    *         to be serious              *

------------------------------

Date: 30 May 90 17:49:33 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Launch Advisory for 05/30/90 (Forwarded)

Jim Cast                                          May 30, 1990
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
(Phone:  [phone])

Michael Braukus
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
(Phone:  [phone])

George H. Diller
Kennedy Space Center, Fla.
(Phone:  [phone])


ROSAT LAUNCH ADVISORY

     NASA will proceed with the scheduled June 1 launch of the
Roentgen Satellite (ROSAT) aboard a Delta II launch vehicle from
Complex 17, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla.  The launch
window for Delta/ROSAT opens at 5:35 p.m. EDT and extends for 1
hour.

     The prelaunch news conference will be held as planned on
Thursday, May 31 at 1 p.m. EDT at the KSC News Center.

------------------------------

Date: 30 May 90 17:50:14 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 05/30/90 (Forwarded)


    Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 05-30-90.


    - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at Pad-A) -

    Launch countdown and scrub/turnaround support continue
    today.


    - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) -

    CITE MUE and S/W verifications continue to support CITE
    testing.  MVAK VAS training continues.  Closeouts of level
    III/II and preps are in work to support move to CITE on 31
    May.


    - STS-41 Ulysses (at ESA 60) -

    CITE MUE installation continues.


    - STS-42 IML-1 (at O&C) -

    Module pyrell foam replacement, floor staging, and rack
    staging continue.


    - STS-45 Atlas-1 (at O&C) -

    Orthogrid installations will continue today.


    - STS-46 TSS-1 (at O&C) -

    The coldplate hoist beam assembly will be proofloaded today.


    - STS-47 Spacelab-J (at O&C) -

    Rack frames will be unloaded today.


    - STS- 55 SL-D2 (at O&C) -

    No work is scheduled for today.


    - STS-LON-3 HST M&R (at O&C) -

    No work is scheduled for today.

------------------------------

Date: 30 May 90 21:54:26 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (David Conrad)
Subject: Re: Hawaii and Launching rockets

Perhaps it wasn't apparent, but I am not an 'eco-terrorist', and in
fact would support a launch facility in the state of Hawaii (just not
on the big island).  I simply get annoyed when someone tries to
dismiss out of hand a subject which I feel is worthy of some
discussion

From article <[e-mail].>, by [e-mail] (Joseph C. Pistritto):
>> >From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Daniel McGurl):
>> > In article <1050400017@cdp> [e-mail] writes:
>> > Great!  I tell you what, I'll take the aluminum and HCL dispersed over
>> > the ocean,
>> Oh, please.  Weather patterns can blow from Ka Lae towards the Puna
>> district of Hawaii where a good number of people live or towards the
>> resort town of Kailua-Kona where a good number of other people live.
> Let's get some data here.  Weather patterns around Kennedy can blow in
> all sorts of directions, but there are some pretty hard statistics
> behind the environmental assessments done there.

My point was the aluminum and HCL do not necessarily go out to ocean
as the previous poster had supposed.  And yes, as some other poster
indicated, the trade winds blow from east to west, but the existance
of a couple of 13,000 ft mountains I assume have some effect on wind
patterns (but I'm not a meteorologist, so I could be wrong).

With that said, I feel the whole issue of the amount of aluminum and
HCL generated by the launches is an attempt to drum up popular support
against the spaceport on emotional grounds.  I would imagine the big
island has enough other crap in the air from Kilauea to make the added
amount of chemicals from any launch facility to be insignificant
health wise.  But I feel the idea of a launch facility on the big
island to be a bad idea for other reasons.

>> I guess you believe star wars will work and it will reduce the
>> likelihood of 'nuclear warheads exploding on your doorstep'.  Sad.
> Uh, this argument doesn't seem to make any sense here.  Where precisely
> are these nuclear weapons coming from, Russia, or are they part of the
> 'Star Wars' system you are referring to?  If from Russia, then I'll
> clue all you Hawaiians in, you're already a high value target out
> there.  (Ever hear of Pearl Harbor?, notice the Navy is still nearby?)
> Hawaii is still quite strategic, even without Star Wars nearby.

(Note: I'm not Hawaiian (and I don't play one on TV), I just used to
live there and my parents live in Kailua-Kona)

Let me clue you in: the big island of Hawaii is probably one of the
safest places to be in the United States in the event of a nuclear
war.  Oahu (where Pearl Harbor, Hickam AFB, Wheeler AFB, Bellows AFS,
Kaneohe MCAS, etc are located) is a couple of hundred miles to the
east and unless the trade winds shift, the big island shouldn't
receive much of the fallout.  The only targets on the big island would
be Hilo (General Lyman air field and the largest city on the island)
and Kailua-Kona if the airport there is expanded enough to be suitable
as an airbase and they would probably only be hit in a full spasmodic
exchange.  The one military base on the island that I know of (Pohukoa
(sp?)) is an army training base and has (I assume) little or no
strategic importance.

Also, I don't see how a star wars launch facility would add to the
island's strategic importance, since the facility is supposed to
launch space based interceptors which I assume are supposed to be in
space when the war starts.

But that wasn't my point.  I was trying to point out that star wars
even if by some miracle it works (at some point in the undefined
future) wouldn't keep 'nuclear weapons from exploding on your
doorstep' (unless, of course, your doorstep happens to be an ICBM
silo).

> Hawaii has unique characteristics that make it especially suitable for
> space launches, among them, that it is surrounded by water, so launches
> in a variety of directions can be made within range safety constraints,
> and proximity to the equator, (compared with other possible US launch sites).

The big island of Hawaii is also among the most geologically active
locations on earth.  Kilauea has been erupting for 7 years now and its
lava flows have destroyed several communities and earthquakes are not
uncommon.  Additionally, the winds in Ka'u are quite strong and
constant (there are wind power generators there) and clouds and rain
usually build up on the side of Mauna Loa that Ka'u is located.  The
big island has other problems as a launch facility: the only deep
water ports on the island are about 100 miles away on roads that
aren't currently capable of supporting the type of transports
necessary for shipping rockets like we are talking about and most
locals on the island are in significant opposition to additional
development of military factilities (actually additional development
period).  On a more personal side, the Ka'u area is very pretty and
has some fantastic diving.  If Ka Lae is used as a spaceport (in
particular a star wars oriented spaceport), it is likely that the area
would be destroyed and/or civilians would be restricted from the area.

I always thought the island of Kahoolawe would be a much better choice
as a launch facility: it has no people or endangered species on it, it
has fairly constant good weather since the mountains on the island
aren't high enough to cause local weather and it is useless for almost
any other purpose since the military has used it as a target since
WWII, so almost no one will complain when it is paved over for launch
fields.  Also, since the government already 'owns' the island and no
one lives there, the government wouldn't have to pay off the people
who are displaced by the construction.  Even security would be easier
since the island is only reachable by a 3 hour (or so) boat ride.

But I suppose all this is beside the point, since the DOD has decided
it wants an SDI launch facility on the big island.  It appears the
only recourse people on the big island have to stop the development is
to use environmental concerns (which may or may not exist, in politics
is doesn't seem to matter).

-drc

------------------------------

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 30 May 90 10:44:23 EDT
Resent-From: Harold Pritchett <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: Space discussion group <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 May 90 14:14:41 +0200
From: [e-mail]
Subject: info-request
X-Envelope-To: [e-mail]



----------------------------Original message----------------------------
This message was  originally submitted by [e-mail]  to the SPACE
list  at FINHUTC.  If  you simply  forward  it back  to the  list,  it will  be
distributed with the paragraph you are now reading being automatically removed.
If you  edit the  contributions you  receive into  a digest,  you will  need to
remove this  paragraph before mailing the  result to the list.  Finally, if you
need more information from the author of this message, you should be able to do
so by simply replying to this note.

----------------- Message requiring your approval (14 lines) ------------------

I have been reading SPACE for some time now [with great interest I must add]
and have a request.
Is there anyone who can give me some info about NASA and/or ESA.
In perticularly contact adresses to which I can write for further info.
Any info will be greatly appreciated.

_____________________________________________________________________________
|  Rene "FLOYD" Ketelaars        |   "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE"                |
|  [e-mail]       |                      highlander          |
|________________________________|__________________________________________|

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V11 #469
*******************