Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_523.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 18KB

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/wc:sEE200WBw03aE54>;
          Sat, 11 May 91 01:41:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 11 May 91 01:41:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #523

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 523

Today's Topics:
           Acronyms posting - do diffs seem useful?
      Saturn V DDT&E costs (was: SPACE Digest V13 #494)
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #485
              Re: Why the space station?
     Eight firms named George M. Low trophy finalists (Forwarded)
              Re: Why the space station?
        Re: Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?
             Re: Why the space station?y
              Astronaut Puppets
              Re: Why the space station?
             Re: Why the space station?y

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: 29 Apr 91 18:11:21 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!rpi!uupsi!nstn.ns.ca!clyde.concordia.ca!altitude!matrox!uvm-gen!kira!emily![e-mail]  (Garrett Wollman)
Subject: Acronyms posting - do diffs seem useful?

I'm thinking of makiung a posting of diffs for TLA UP, to start with
next month's edition.  Does anyone out there thing that this is a
really good idea?  By contrast, does anyone out there think that this
is a really bad idea or otherwise a waste of bandwidth?  [I've started
to keep the acronyms file under RCS just in case.]

-GAWollman
Garrett A. Wollman - [e-mail]

Disclaimer:  I'm not even sure this represents *my* opinion, never
mind UVM's, EMBA's, EMBA-CF's, or indeed anyone else's.

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

Date: 7 May 91 16:59:55 GMT
From: hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Saturn V DDT&E costs (was: SPACE Digest V13 #494)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>If anyone does know of more solid figures, please, post them. (Mary?)

According to a NASA presentation to the House Science Committee we spent
$13.81 billion on the stages, engines, and vehicle integration. An
additional 2.37 was spent for facilities for a total of $16.19B. This
estimate is in 1991 dollars.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer |        Allen's tactics are too tricky to deal with      |
|   [e-mail]   |             -- Harel Barzilai                           |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 9 May 91 04:57:19 GMT
From: ogicse!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv![e-mail]  (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #485

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (AMON) writes:
>
>Re: Tethers
>
>The analysis of tethers stating problems with angular momentum and saying
>it wouldn't work, TAANSTAFL, missed the point.
>
>The purpose of tether climbing is not that you gain anything for free, but
>that you borrow energy when climbing and return it, less entropies bill
>when you leave. You save on the fuel required to get to the higher orbit
>and fuel required for reentry, which translates into payload and lower
>per pound costs.
>
>If the payload UP exceeds the payload DOWN, there is a net loss which can
>also be made by using the tether to steal energy from the Earth's magnetic
>field. Charged tethers can act as either generators or motors depending on
>how you use them, and allow you to move up or down in orbit at will, albiet
>slowly.
>
>This is no more a violation of physical principles than the use of flywheels
>for spacecraft positioning in place of thrusters.

Surprise, I agree that tethers used this way in orbit would indeed work,
however, TAANSTAFL does still apply. There is always the requirement for
a net energy balance over the long term. Like the flywheels, desaturation
must be done periodically. If the net payloads UP exceed the net payloads
DOWN, then the tether will need to be periodically boosted back up into
it's proper orbit. Stealing energy from the Earth's magnetic field doesn't
really occur, what is stolen is orbital energy causing the tether's orbit
to decay. Such energy theft still requires the tether to be reboosted
periodically or it will decay and burn up in the atmosphere.

If net payloads DOWN exceed net payloads UP by more than entropy's
burden, then energy must be dissipated somehow or the tether's orbit
will increase. Using the tether as an electrical generator in this
case would allow the gravitational energy gained by the tether from
the decending payloads to be converted to electrical energy rather
than increased orbital energy. Now the problem becomes one of what
to do with the excess electrical energy. This is the kind of problem
we all like to have. :-)

Gary

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

Date: 9 May 91 04:28:37 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!life.ai.mit.edu![e-mail]  (Guest Account)
Subject: Re: Why the space station?


>well, yes, If you mean a few guys in clown suits running around on
>the surface >of whatever body doing fairly nonproductive (from the
>standpoint of geosciences) >things principly for the benefit of
>taxpayer sponsored tv shows. I suppose that >sort of "exploration" is
>best done by something besides titan IV's.  Basically >what I mean by
>exploration is discovering the story of the origin of planets of life,
>the nature of the mantle and accretion on other solar system bodies,
>how

>the earth was formed, how it works.  If you want to define science
>as non-exploration I suppose lots of people in NASA with degrees in PR
>have been payed very
>   well to make that distinction plausible.

Well, there's a limit to how certian knowledge can be when the knowledge of
a whole world is based on orbital survey maps and 5 kg. of rocks from
various places around the target planet (7, 8 sites max, as long as they're
close to where the robotic sample return mission touches down).

And saying that that level of exploration allows sweeping characterizations
to be made about the origin of the solar system would be sheer unadulterated
bull. Most models of the origin have not changed drastically since the start
of the space age.

This may change soon.

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

Date: 8 May 91 00:23:21 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Eight firms named George M. Low trophy finalists (Forwarded)

Dwayne C. Brown
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                         May 7, 1991
(Phone:  [phone])


RELEASE:  91-70

EIGHT FIRMS NAMED GEORGE M. LOW TROPHY FINALISTS

    Eight finalists have been chosen for the 1991 George M. Low
Trophy -- NASA's Quality and Excellence Award.  The finalists are:

    *  EG&G Florida, Inc., Kennedy Space Center, Fla.

    *  Grumman Technical Services Division, Titusville, Fla.

    *  Honeywell Inc., Space and Strategic Systems Operations,
             Clearwater, Fla.

    *  Computer Sciences Corp., Applied Technology Division, Houston

    *  Cray Research, Inc., Manufacturing Division, Chippewa Falls, Wisc.

    *  Thiokol Corp., Space Operations, Brigham City, Utah.

    *  TRW Space and Technology Group, Redondo Beach, Calif.

    *  Unisys Space Systems Division, Houston

    The award recognizes both NASA's prime contractors,
subcontractors and suppliers for outstanding achievements in
quality and productivity improvement and total quality management
(TQM).  Key goals of the award are to internalize quality and
productivity practices and TQM processes throughout NASA and the
agency's contractors and to transfer performance improvement
methods of the award recipients to others.

    George A. Rodney, NASA Associate Administrator for the Office
of Safety and Mission Quality, announced the finalists after a 6-
month application and review process.  The award process now
advances to the third phase in which validation teams visit
finalists' facilities to verify performance achievements and
process attainments.

    Following the review and recommendations of the Low Trophy
Evaluation Committee, NASA's TQM Steering Committee, composed of
Center Directors and Headquarters Associate Administrators, will
make the final selection of the the award recipient(s).

    NASA Administrator Richard H. Truly will announce the award
recipient(s) at the eighth annual NASA/contractor conference on
Nov. 6, 1991.  There is no limit to the number of awards which can
be given among the finalists.

     "The award applications are more numerous and getting better
each year, making the job of the committee very difficult.  Awards
are made in two categories, large and small business.  There are
no small business finalists this year," said Rodney.

    Truly announced last October that the NASA Excellence Award
be renamed the George M. Low Trophy to honor one of America's
outstanding space pioneers.  "George M. Low represented quality
and excellence like few others and if NASA is synonymous with
excellence, George Low is synonymous with NASA", said Truly.

    The award is administered for NASA by the American Society
for Quality Control, Milwaukee, Wisc., a professional association
and a worldwide leader in development, promotion and application
of quality and quality-related technologies.

    The recipients of the 1990 George M. Low Trophy, NASA's
Quality and Excellence Award, were Rockwell Space Systems
Division, Downey, Calif., and Marotta Scientific Controls, Inc.,
Montville, N.J.  Marotta was the first recipient of the trophy in
the newly established small business category.

    Previous recipients of the award have been Lockheed
Engineering and Sciences Co., Houston; Rocketdyne Division,
Rockwell International Corp., Canoga Park, Calif.;  Martin
Marietta Manned Space Systems Co., New Orleans; and IBM's Systems
Integration Division, Houston.

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

Date: 8 May 91 12:38:05 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!mintaka!think.com!rpi!crdgw1!gecrdvm1![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Why the space station?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) says:
>
>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>
>>Why not put together a small (!) team of experts (technical personnel,
>>not bureaucrats) from the various NASA centers (and perhaps other
>>labs, companies, and universities, as well) to design a space station
>>with clear goals in mind (orbital support of lunar/planetary exploration)
>>-- with the only constraints being engineering, cost, and time?
>
>Well, for microgravity work this has already been done. Space Industries
>Industrial space Facility would suite most needs for a small fraction of
>the cost of Freedom. It almost got funded a few years ago but NASA managed
>to kill it.
>
>  Allen
Gee, isn't this what got us into the Freedom mess, (not to mention the
shuttle)?  One person's clear cut goal is not the same as another's:
Brian is thinking exploration waystation, and Allen mentions, if not
endorses, microgravity work.  Congress says, gee I can get both their
votes if I say sure it'll be both!
>

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

Date: 8 May 91 05:50:32 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!ptimtc!rdmei!icspub!astemgw!kuis!rins![e-mail]  (will)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lloyd E Vancil) writes:
>acomplishments. It would be safer for the race, if we didn't stay on this
>little planet.
>

    Ok, fine.  Now, who makes the decision, on who stays and who goes?  It
    can't be the political partys, because then space will be screwed up. I
    mean imagine some congressman meeting an alien, he would get the whole
    human race exterminated just by his stupidity.  It can't be the military
    those guys are nuts, they would probably bomb the earth with meteors
    to help their particular country.  So, who's left, the common people of
    the world.  Are you nuts, they probably don't even have the intelligence
    to know where space is.  So, I guess that leaves only the scientist to
    decide.

    Most likly this is going to get me in trouble again.  Oh well.

                            Will....

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

Date: 9 May 91 03:18:02 GMT
From: stanford.edu!agate!headcrash.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Why the space station?y

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>They docking method planned for the space station and the orbiter is not a
>"slam-em together scheme."  It involves using the shuttles RMS arm to pull the
>shuttle in gently.

I was talking about the difficulties of manuvering into close proximity to the
station (or any large, open structure). While the RMS will do fine for the
final docking, that arm is only 15 meters long.  Alot of effort may be
needed to get within 15 meters of the dacking adaptor without hitting the
trussd, solar pannels or heat radiators. This is a particular problem is
there is a docking failure. For example, due to a damaged radar beacon
the Progress M7 resupply craft almost rammed the Mir space station. A
ground controlled noticed in time, and aborted the docking. As the
Progress passed the station (after failing to dock) it nearly hit a solar
pannel. I feel this sort of accident is a much greater risk for Freedom,
with so many things sticking out in so many directions.

                    Frank Crary
                    UC Berkeley

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

Date: 6 May 91 15:02:52 GMT
From: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu![e-mail]  (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Subject: Astronaut Puppets

A year ago I did a posting about my search for the 'moonwalk' puppets
used during the apollo program. I have found them and I am trying to get
the owner to sell me one. It's seems that there are only 4 to 6 of them
left in one piece. I would like to thank everyone that gave me tib-bits
of information and those who remembered what I was talking about ( the networks
told me I was crazy) when I ask them for info....Thanks again to all of you
who gave me some leads....

Tim

--
Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not HHMI's or Baylor College of Medicine
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And we stand and watch the gods and idols fall, as the blameless ones go
 blindfold to the wall"                                  Robin Trower....

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

Date: 9 May 91 02:59:39 GMT
From: unmvax!uokmax![e-mail]  (Robert W Murphree)
Subject: Re: Why the space station?

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert W Murphree) writes:
>>...  I see no signs that the
>>exploration of the solar system is really limited by the lack of an
>>orbital base.  There is an IMMENSE amount of science that can be done
>>with present technology...

>You are assuming that "science" and "exploration" are synonymous; care to
>explain this?

well, yes, If you mean a few guys in clown suits running around on the surface
of whatever body doing fairly nonproductive (from the standpoint of geosciences)
things principly for the benefit of taxpayer sponsored tv shows. I suppose that
sort of "exploration" is best done by something besides titan IV's.  Basically
what I mean by exploration is discovering the story of the origin of planets of
life, the nature of the mantle and accretion on other solar system bodies, how
the earth was formed, how it works.  If you want to define science as non-exploration I suppose lots of people in NASA with degrees in PR have been payed very
well to make that distinction plausible.

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

Date: 9 May 91 03:44:35 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Why the space station?y

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:

>I was talking about the difficulties of manuvering into close proximity to the
>station (or any large, open structure). While the RMS will do fine for the
>final docking, that arm is only 15 meters long.  Alot of effort may be
>needed to get within 15 meters of the dacking adaptor without hitting the
>trussd, solar pannels or heat radiators. This is a particular problem is
>there is a docking failure. For example, due to a damaged radar beacon
>the Progress M7 resupply craft almost rammed the Mir space station. A
>ground controlled noticed in time, and aborted the docking. As the
>Progress passed the station (after failing to dock) it nearly hit a solar
>pannel. I feel this sort of accident is a much greater risk for Freedom,
>with so many things sticking out in so many directions.

The risks may be somewhat greater, with the extra 'junk' in the are, but keep
in mind that the Shuttle should be able to do a far better job of docking
(granted, it's never been tried) than a Soviet unmanned spacecraft.  With
human operators on the scene, a situation similar to the Progress incident
could never arise; the crew in the station, the crew on the orbiter, and
the ground controllers could all catch the situation in time and do something
about it...one of the advantages to man in space.

Also, I wouldn't put a lot of trust in Soviet docking abilities; they've been
notoriously deficient in this area for thirty years.

--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Office of Information Technology      P.O. box."  - Zebadiah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]    _The Number of the Beast_

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #523
*******************