Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_2/V13_238.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 19KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
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/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/4bpRo1O00WBwMKBU5U>;
          Thu,  7 Mar 91 01:26:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <UbpRnua00WBwAK=[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu,  7 Mar 91 01:26:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #238

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 238

Today's Topics:
  German conference highlights doubts about ESA's manned space plans
             Toward 2001 - 04 Mar
              Re: New Shuttle computers
           Re: space news from Jan 7 AW&ST

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Mar 91 11:59:19 GMT
From: mcsun!unido!mpirbn![e-mail]  (Daniel Fischer)
Subject: German conference highlights doubts about ESA's manned space plans


  [ What follows are translated extracts from an article I wrote on a confe=
    rence that took place in Bonn on 5 March 1991. I tried to be fair to all
    parties that participated, but the result looks somewhat onesided. What
    could I do: the pro side simply didn't provide more arguments - I even
    reread all the speeches looking for more. So please flame *them*, not me!
      Readers in other European nations, particularly in France, might find
    it unbelievable or stubborn what the Germans are doing here, the British,
    though - who refused to take part in any of the ESA plans mentioned here -
    might support the critics mentioned hereafter. Opinions from the U.S.
    would be very welcome, too - with 'Fred' there's at least as much money
    at stake, not to speak of the Space Exploration Initiative (=:SEI). ]

The government of the Federal Republic of Germany ist standing firm to the
multi-billion-deutschmarks project package COLUMBUS/HERMES/ARIANE V solely for
political and not scientific reasons: this has become clear once more at a
major conference, "Raumfahrt kontrovers" (Spaceflight controversial) at the
Friedrich-Ebert Foundation in Bonn, Germany. Supporters and critics alike do
differ little in their assessment of German space activities prior to the 1987
The Hague decision by ESA to long for autonomy in manned spaceflight: noone
denies anymore the successes of space science missions (HELIOS, ROSAT etc.)
or the use of telecommunication, weather and earth observation satellites. Nor
is there anyone who denies that manned spaceflight has been 'sold' to the
German taxpayer with dubious arguments in the past. There had been studies
predicting exponential growth in space profits, factories in space were said
to be working in near future, and microgravity materials research had been
heralded as the ultimate justification of manned spaceflight.

Already in 1973 the German government had decided to join in U.S. missions,
the Spacelab was built, and the results of the SL-1 and D-1 flights were then
celebrated as scientific sensations. But ESA's former Director General R.Luest
made it clear once more that "mediocre or trivial experients" had dominated
these missions - and thus left the impression with many scientists in other
fields that microgravity research is an extremely expensive nonsense. ESA's
policy is not centered on microgravity, said Luest: as much as possible should
be done unmanned, and man in space was needed only in a few areas, most
notably maintenance of orbiting laboratories, platforms and satellites. But
even the latter argument was countered by an outspoken critic of manned space=
flight, E.Keppler: orbital repairs could only be of such a primitive kind that
they could be handled by robots as well. The first HUBBLE revisit in late 1993
might prove him wrong - or not.

There's no controversy, however, in another aspect of how one must NOT argue
for manned spaceflight: the technical 'spin-off's' are meager. Luest called
the hope for them "dangerous and dishonest", and Keppler cited a U.S. study
that had checked 20000 alleged NASA spin-off's, finding only 14 genuine. He
also cited SF writer A.C.Clarke with the concept that moving Mount Everest
into the Sahara would be as spin-off-rich as manned spaceflight (and, implicit=
ly, equally pointless).

So what arguments are left in favor of manned spaceflight? The American vision
of going to Mars was only supported by one of many scientists present: G.
Neukum, a planetary geologist, is convinced that you will never understand a
planet unless you walk on its surface. But he is far from supporting NASA's
SEI: setting a timetable for a rush to Mars is dead wrong, he says, such a
mission must be developed organically as part of a very well planned and
for a long time coming unmanned exploration concept (by the way, Neukum also
sees no point whatsoever for manned activities in *earth's* orbit). "The fun
of spaceflight as such is justification enough", was the most bizarre argument
heard at the conference: R.Lo of Berlin's Technical University believes in
space tourism to the moon, once launch costs are down. ESA's position on the
SEI, Luest reported, is very cautious - mainly because of lacking funds.

Of the three components of the ESA package, the heavy-lift launcher ARIANE V
is the least controversial, but still questions were asked about the need for
such a launcher. While an ESA manager reiterated the agency's belief in
ever heavier and more complex spacecraft, several scientists argued for just
the opposite trend: while the politicians and the engineers were in favor of
big orbital platforms with dozens of instruments and multiple tasks, the
scientists were asking for small and *quick* 'dedicated missions' with
unimpressively looking but highly capable satellites. This concept, of course,
requires cheap small launchers like the PEGASUS, not the big ARIANE V.

The COLUMBUS manned laboratory to be docked to FREEDOM and the ESA FREEFLYER,
however, met much resistance. Their supporters can only hint at *possible*
breakthroughs in microgravity and life sciences with long-term missions that
would make the trying as such worthwile. The critics countered that there's
no need for these laboratories: material science needs quick return of the
samples and the chance to fly them again and again - going with small piggyback
payloads on Chinese rockets was more attractive. Even the strong pro-micro-g
faction inside the German Aerospace Research Establishment DLR made it clear
that they were not married with the COLUMBUS concept: they would accept any
means of flying their experiments with quick data return - and don't see any
basic link with manned spaceflight.

The HERMES space shuttle, finally, was hailed as Europe's road into space
autonomy, but then again, noone could answer the question why this objective
would be worth billions of deutschmarks. Also, it was claimed, Hermes was an
unavoidable step in the development of the Saenger spaceplane which is remar=
kably popular even among the critics of the ESA spaceflight plans. Here,
though, it was countered that Hermes doesn't have an engine of its own and
that it is exactly the engine that makes the Saenger plans so demanding. Also,
it would be wrong to argue in favor of Hermes mainly with it being seen as an
intermediate step towards an even more expensive task.

So why then does the German federal government stand so firmly behind the
The Hague decisions, despite the current financial crisis following German
unity and the Gulf war contributions? Only a stretching of the timeline and
some descoping (especially of Hermes) is being called for. Either between the
lines or directly all speakers at the conference confessed it: it is the
resolve of France, ESA's #1 source of money, to carry on with the projects,
paired with the fear of the Germans to fall behind when being too critical.
E.Riedl from the Dept. of Economy even invoked the scenario of Japan taking
Germany's place in ESA, should the latter drop out of the manned plans. In
addition, he argued with the 'prestige' Germany as a whole would gain from
its major contributions to the manned package - and he compared that directly
with last year's soccer world championship. The conference left one wondering
whether  t h i s   is the right base to make crucial and very expensive
decisions for the decades to come...
                                               Daniel Fischer,  Koenigswinter

[To appear in next week's issue of 'SKYWEEK' - the .l.e.5 readers that are also
 reading Usenet's sci.space might thus feel privileged to have this 'preprint']

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

Date: 2 Mar 91 19:43:34 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss![e-mail]  (Bev Freed)
Subject: Toward 2001 - 04 Mar


                            ***********
                            TOWARD 2001
                            ***********
                       Week of 4 March 1991
                 A Weekly Feature of SPACE CALENDAR
                   + = Domestic (USA) Earth event
                   * = Domestic (USA) space event
                   o = International Earth event
                   # = International space event
===================================================================
                        REPRINT INFORMATION
This information is reproduced by permission of the Space Age
Publishing Company.  All rights reserved.  Copyright February 25
1991.  Reproduction in any form without written permission violates
federal statute with penalty of up to $50,000.  SPACE CALENDAR is
edited and published on the Big `Space' Island of Hawaii.
====================================================================
                           * * * * * * *
# Ulysses Mission
Trans-Jovian Trajectory

The spacecraft remains in good working order, in routine operations
phase. Technicians recently made changes in the command subcarrier
channel to compensate for the doppler effect caused by Ulysses'
nearly 27 km/sec velocity.
                           * * * * * * *
+ NASP Contractor Team
Washington DC

Rockwell, Rocketdyne, McDonnell Douglas, Pratt & Whitney, and
General Dynamics are moving forward with work on the $5 billion
National AeroSpace Plane following signing of the formal teaming
agreement recently. The partners have been functioning under an
interim agreement since May 1990.
                           * * * * * * *
o Palapa Launch Competition
Jakarta, Indonesia

Arianespace is working overtime to get its first launch contract
from the government of Indonesia -- for the Palapa-B4 to be launched
in mid-1992. China Great Wall Industry Corp is also negotiating
actively for the contract.
                           * * * * * * *
+ WorldSpace
Washington DC

The newly-formed parent company of AfriSpace "is well on the way" to
delivering broadcast satellite service to the African-Arabian
region, said Noah Samara, president and CEO recently. The company
and its partners have signed a lease to install a satellite control
center at Kearneysville WV.
                           * * * * * * *
o Juno Mission
London / Moscow

Astronaut candidates Helen Sharman and Tim Mace are currently
training on four Soviet experiments that one of them will be
expected to perform when the flight to the Mir 1 space station lifts
off. Some former members of the Juno project are complaining because
no British experimentation will be done during the mission.
                           * * * * * * *
+ Subcommittee on Space
Washington DC

Rep Ralph Hall will head the subcommittee, following his election to
the position on 7 February. His first task will be a series of
authorization hearings through March to review NASA's $15.7 billion
budget request.
                           * * * * * * *
+ NASA Moffett Acquisition
Mountain View CA

If the DoD closes down Moffett Field and puts it on the auction
block, NASA is very interested in expanding the adjacent Ames
Research Center, administrator Truly said recently. The move could
salvage some of the 5,350 jobs at Moffett.
                           * * * * * * *
o Taiwan Shuttle Experiment
Taipei

A student team working at National Cheng Kung University expects
their research experiment to be ready for a Space Shuttle voyage in
1993. The Taiwanese government is funding the $100,000 project, as
yet unscheduled on the STS manifest.
                           * * * * * * *
+ Space Age Learning Tools
Nationwide USA

A new video filmed on location at the NASA Johnson Space Center --
including footage from aboard STS 41 Discovery -- is available to
teachers nationwide. The 21 minute video, Space Basics, is
accompanied by an 8-page resource guide for teachers.
                           * * * * * * *
+ Lunar Footnote (Statistic)

6,654 Days since Moon last visited by humans.
                           * * * * * * *
o International Space Year 1992 (Quote)

      The most important policy objective of the ISY . . . is
  to instill a new Space Age frame of reference in the thoughts and
               actions of governments and individuals."
                  -- The late U S Senator Spark M Matsunaga, Hawaii
--------------------------------------------------------------------
                        ABOUT SPACE CALENDAR
Space Calendar provides a weekly preview of upcoming events in the
space industry.  It is published weekly by the SPACE AGE PUBLISHING
COMPANY from offices in Kailua-Kona Hawaii.  For a free sample of
the printed publication, use the address, telephone, or fax numbers
for the Hawaii office listed below.
SPACE AGE PUBLISHING COMPANY also publishes SPACE FAX DAILY from its
offices in Cupertino California.  For information about SPACE FAX
DAILY use the address, telephone, or fax numbers for the California
office listed below.
HAWAII OFFICE:  75-5751 Kuakini Highway, Suite 209, Kailua-Kona HI
96740; 808-326-2014, fax [phone].
CALIFORNIA OFFICE:  20431 Steven Creek Blvd, Cupertino CA 95054;
408-996-9210, fax [phone].
====================================================================


--- Opus-CBCS 1.14
 * Origin: NSS BBS - Ad Astra! [phone] *HST* (1:129/104.0)
--
Bev Freed - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!freed
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 6 Mar 91 19:12:26 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: New Shuttle computers


>From: [e-mail] (Steven King)
>Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
>Subject: Re: New Shuttle Computers
>Date: 6 Mar 91 06:30:34 GMT

>   While its encouraging that NASA is finally moving beyond core memory
> for the shuttle ( welcome to the 90's ), why use writeable memory for
> program storage? As their code is extremely stable, it shouldnt be any
> problem to put everything they use into masked roms without any great
> penalty in weight or size ( mask roms have much better density than
> static rams ) with it all non volatile, non writeable.

While there may be details I am not aware of, I can think of several
possible reasons:
 - The flight control algorithms are still being improved. If all the code
   were in ROM, the computers would have to be disassembled and the chips
   replaced fairly often. As a general rule, this does not help system
   reliability.
 - There may be several versions of the tape set, available for use in
   differing conditions.
 - As a general observation, freezing the software in ROM can be risky.
   The Soviets lost their first Phobos probe largely because a ROM that
   had been built into it had a test routine which posed a potential
   hazard to the spacecraft if ever activated. The Soviet engineers were
   aware of this risk at launch time, but were unable to justify the time
   and expense of taking the completed craft apart to replace the ROM.
   As luck would have it, the dangerous section was accidentally triggered,
   with the results we all know. Similarly, operational experience has
   shown that the code programmed into the backup ROMs on Magellan has
   the potential for entry into certain modes that would probably cause
   the loss of the spacecraft. As a result, the operators have extensively
   modified the code in writable memory, to make it as unlikely as possible
   that safing will result in fallback to ROM mode. ROMs can be handy as
   emergency backup, but are usually less so for normal operational code
   (ask any Commodore Plus Four owner. :-)
 - ROMs usually have slower access than RAMs. Even many commercial computers
   that keep much of the operating system in ROM have a parallel RAM which
   is loaded from the ROM shortly after powerup, and used for normal
   execution. This could be done in the Shuttle computers, but it sure
   wouldn't save any weight.

>   With the 230 lbs they saved they could put a couple hundred meg disk
> array on each CPU and...  Ooops! A technology must be atleast 10 years
> old before they trust it on the shuttle...

Experiments either have been conducted or will be in the near future involving
the use of optical disk drives in orbit.

Mass memory devices may eventually be very useful in space, but I don't see
any need to force them on computers that don't need them, given that a failure
of the computer system at the wrong time *would* cause much more to crash
than the disk. Disk drives are much less reliable than solid-state systems,
especially when subjected to vibration (of which there is *a lot*, at least
while the SRBs are firing).

>                                        ..!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!nowhere!sking
          John Roberts
          [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Mar 91 19:24:22 GMT
From: rex!wuarchive!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv![e-mail]  (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: space news from Jan 7 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Tidrick) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Masticola) writes:
>
>Our company doesn't build a product that I know of that doesn't have some
>kind of a filter over fan inlets. (OEM products excepted) When it gets cloged
>it can be removed, shaken out and replaced. If they haven't figured this out
>yet I have lost a lot of confidence in our space program.

Ah, but IBM does. Ever look at a PC? Air comes in through numerous holes,
where RF leaks out, and *exits* via the fan. Yuck!

Gary

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #238
*******************