Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_527.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 16KB

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/Yc:swvO00WBw43xk4l>;
          Sat, 11 May 91 02:29:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 11 May 91 02:29:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #527

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 527

Today's Topics:
                Re: Incentives
           Re: Uploading to alpha Centauri
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
           Re: Saturn V computers and RISC
         NASA Headline News for 05/08/91 (Forwarded)
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS

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 21:34:38 GMT
From: att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (/dev/null)
Subject: Re: Incentives

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark Ricci - CATS) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (/dev/null) writes:
> >It is a prize for the first one to get there.  There would be a lot
> >of prestige for the first one there ('free' PR), and it would
> >encourage a lot of private space exploration and move us into
> >a spacefaring nation!
>
> If there's that much prestige and potential, let the market be the one to
> reward them.
>
You know as well as I do that the market does NOT reward this kind of
investment instantly.  People will need a more immediate payoff to try
to do it.

The same kind of logic can be applied to cancel any government program.


> >Also, it only costs each person less than 50 cents.
>
> Oh?  Is that each taxpaying person or each person?

Okay, maybe it will be a dollar.  My point was, that compared to many
albatrosses, this is relatively cheap and will encourage innovation.

>
> >>
> >> I don't think we need to give the boneheads in Washington any new ideas
> >> on wasting money.  They already do enough damage.
> >
> >They have screwed up a lot in the past, but they have also done a lot
> >of good compared to many nations and comared to no nations but themselves.
> >
> >I don't know what your personal experiences are with this government but
> >who do they damage by 'wasting' money this way?
>
> Anyone who depends on this country having a sound economy, i.e., everyone
> who lives in this country.

It won't disrupt the economy.  Period.

>
> I'm not sure where you got the notion that money wasted by the federal
> government does not hurt the country, but it's a very wrong notion.
> --

It is not a waste of money.

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Society of Philosophers, Luminaries,           | Brent L. Irvine       |
| and Other Professional Thinking People.....   | Only my own ramblings |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 29 Apr 91 12:34:07 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!newcastle.ac.uk!turing![e-mail]  (William Hey)
Subject: Re: Uploading to alpha Centauri

RE Uplinking to Alpha Centauri,

It would open an interesting new chapter on Computer Viruses.  Yike!

Cheers,

Bill
-----------------------+-----------------------------+
|    William Hey          [e-mail]    |
|    Astrophysics : Newcastle University, England.   |
-----------------------+-----------------------------+

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

Date: 8 May 91 14:50:00 GMT
From: hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

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

>now there's an incredible argument: they f*cked up once so never
>listen to them again. I'm convinced-there will never be an effective
>winged spacecraft cause we tried once and failed. there will never
>be a cheap launcher cause we tried once and failed.

Let me try again with a less subtle arguement. The Shuttle failed
for a number of reasons (pick your favorite). These all tract back
to problems in the way systems like the Shuttle and ALS are developed.
If these systemic problems are not identified and resolved then there
is no reason to think that the next development project will be any
different.

Now, tell me just what problems have been identified? How have those
problems been fixed? If nothing has changed, why should ALS be any
different from the Shuttle?

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

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

Date: 9 May 91 01:08:15 GMT
From: dweasel![e-mail]  (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: Saturn V computers and RISC


    It was mentioned that some early computers used RISC
architectures, and that RISC architectures are now coming back. I am
curious exactly what operations are in some of the early ones, like
the Saturn V one and the PDP-8, and how present-day RISC systems
compare.

    It would be interesting to see exactly which operations they
find essential.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster: [e-mail]

Since this nodename is not widely known, you may have to try:

[e-mail]

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

Date: 8 May 91 21:56:31 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Headline News for 05/08/91 (Forwarded)


             Headline News
Internal Communications Branch (P-2) NASA Headquarters

  Wednesday, May 8, 1991    Audio Service: 202 / 755-1788

This is NASA Headline News for Wednesday, May 8, 1991 . . .

The Astronauts Memorial, honoring the 14 U.S. astronauts who
have given their lives in the exploration of space, will be unveiled
and dedicated tomorrow at the Kennedy Space Center.  The
dedication ceremony, which will be carried live on NASA Select TV,
begins at 11:00 am with opening remarks by Eugene Cernan,
commander of the final Apollo mission.  Florida Governor Lawton
Chiles, KSC Center Director Forrest McCartney, NASA Administrator
Richard Truly and Astronaut Memorial Foundation Chairman of the
Board, Alan Helman, will each give remarks.  Vice President Dan
Quayle will give the keynote address.  The Vice President's comments
will be followed by the presentation of the Memorial by Senator Jake
Garn and former Representative Bill Nelson.  The memorial is a 42 by
50 foot slab of mirror-finished granite with the names of the 14
astronauts cut through its surface.  It is sited on six acres of land
adjacent to a quiet lagoon near the Kennedy Spaceport USA Visitors
Center.

                   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The terminal countdown demonstration test for Columbia's upcoming
STS-40 Spacelab Life Sciences mission successfully concluded
yesterday at 11:00 am.  All seven crewmembers have now returned to
Johnson Space Center.  The flight readiness review for that mission
will be held next Monday and Tuesday at Kennedy.  The mission will
be a nine-day scientific research flight investigating the physiological
effects of microgravity.

Endeavour was towed early this morning from the Shuttle Landing
Facility to the transfer aisle in the Vehicle Assembly Building.  On
Friday, Endeavour will be moved to high bay #2 for removal of the
tailcone.

With four orbiters presently at Kennedy, current modifications to
upgrade the Orbiter Modification and Refurbishment Facility
to full Orbiter Processing Facility status  are particularly timely.  The
modifications will allow technicians to perform power-up testing on the
vehicle while it is inside the OMRF.  The facilities upgrade work is
expected to be completed this September.

                   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Today in Orlando, Florida, 19 NASA individuals will serve as
judges at the International Science Fair.  Kennedy Space Center
staff are providing most of the volunteer judges with two also serving
from the Headquarters Education Division.  These judges will be
selecting ten awards and fifteen honorable mentions in the aerospace
categories.

                   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Stennis Space Center Director Roy Estess released economic data
yesterday which showed the impact on the surrounding
community.  The economic impact of Stennis in 1990 for a 50-mile
radius from the center was $293 million.  The total regional impact
was $407 million on the combined economies of Mississippi's Gulf
Coast region and Louisiana's Delta region.  In addition to its NASA
mission, Stennis also serves as site and facilities manager for 18
different federal and state agencies and 8 contractor companies.  Most
of the 4,500-member combined work force live and contribute to three
Mississippi counties (Hancock, Harrison, and Pearl River) and one
Louisiana parish (St. Tammany).  Local construction at the center is
also contributing $70 million and will employ about 200 workers
during the next two years.  The Stennis report also forecasts a growth
of from 800 to 900 additional permanent jobs beginning mid-
decade as the new test facilities begin to come on line.

                   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The STS-39 postflight crew press conference will be held next
Friday, May 17, at 2:30 pm EDT.  The crew will describe their recent
Department of Defense flight and show film highlights of their mission
activities.


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.

Wednesday
    1:15 pm    Magellan-at-Venus status report from Jet Propulsion
          Laboratory. LIVE

    2:00 pm    Playback of Senate Subcommittee on VA, HUD and
          Independent Agencies hearing on Space Station Freedom
          funding.  This playback will repeat at 6:15 pm.

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: 10 May 91 18:05:04 GMT
From: iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (/dev/null) writes:

>> Nope. NLDP (which is not ALS but it is the new launcher program) is
>> a ten+ year program and will cost ten to fifteen billion...

>And if it works, the savings in launches will more than pay itself off
>quickly!

Nope. Operational costs of both vehicles is about the same. When you
factor in the cost of money saved in development the Zenith Star price
looks even better.

And if it doesn't work, we will be ten years older and have gotten
nowhere.

>> In that case, nothing has changed so we shouldn't waste the money.

>Just because something gets political to get funded doesn't mean it won't work.

So what? Would you buy the $10 billion political one which works or the
$500 million non-political one which works?

As a taxpayer I don't like the idea of seeing $9.5 billion of my money
wasted like that. Why doesn't it bother you?

>Look at the military hardware that has been 'pork-barreled' ove the last
>40 years!  It won a war with very little casualties on our side!

Again, so what? Why do you insist on spending billions for what we
could have for millions? Do you run your own finances that way?

>>That means if it
>> actually costs a billion they eat the difference. Unlike the NLDP
>> contractors, McDonnell and Martin are willing to put their money
>> where their mouths are.

>The 'eating the difference' could kill the companies that are
>already struggling under a heavy debt-load of a decade of 'fixed
>price' contracts.

First of all, we havn't seen anywhere near a 'decade of fixed price
contracts'. Second of all, these contractors are doomed anyway. If
we follow your program of shoveling money at them no matter what
they they will never improve.

Projects like this are done on fixed price all the time. They
are by no means impossible.

>I don't think that would serve anyone any good.

Except of course, the taxpayers.

>Fixed price here is a poor choice.

Um, fixed price is the way both contractors insisted on doing it.
Their preference was just a gurantee to buy services.

What is it you know about launcher design which McDonnell Douglas
doesn't?

>> to dvelop, what do we have to lose?

>A lot  of money...

Nope. We buy one for half a billion. If it works, great. If it doesn't
then the cost of NLDP goes up by 5%. Sounds like an excellent risk
reduction idea to me.

>Essentially subsidize them - "Hey government, create a market because one
>does not exist as of yet...'

Sorry but that is not a subsidy.

>> Again, in that case nothing has changed. How can you expect problems
>> to be solved when they won't admit there are problems?

>They don't have to.  They just have to internally find out the 'weaknesses'
>of the shuttle and not do them again.

OK. How do I, Joe Taxpayer, know that this internal review happened? I
suppose I might see less reliance on the Shuttle. We might see NASA
halt requests for more orbiters. We might see more emphasis on commercial
acquisition within NASA. Well, so far we see none of that.

>> Again, wrong answer. Pegasus, AMROCK, SSI, Commercial Atlas...
>> (others left as an exercise for you; can you name others?).

>I know Pegasus was a government sponsored program,

Nope. They have the government as a customer but not a sponsor.

>SSI is reselling Russian-Developed Launchers,

That is a very very small part of what they do. They do lots
and lots of the sort of R&D which NASA SHOULD be doing but isn't.

>Commercial
>Atlas was government prodding its contractor to do commercial launchings.

Nope. NASA did whatever they could to keep them OUT of the commercial
market. GD has invested over half a billion on Commercial Atlas.

>I don't think you understood his point:  None of these examples
>would have been feasible without NASA bucks (in 1958 or whenever).

Some would some wouldn't. I strongly support NASA as a research
organization. Our problems started when we gave it an operational
role. Now we must remove that role.

  Allen

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

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #527
*******************