Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_6/V13_605.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-06 | 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/scHQv4600WBw0fkk5V>;
          Thu,  6 Jun 91 01:57:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
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
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 18 May 91 07:59:14 GMT
From: ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Fred vs. Exploration: head-to-head competition

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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                [e-mail]
"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: [e-mail]  (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![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Fred cut, AXAF and SIRTF funded

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] 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      |
|   [e-mail]   |             -- Harel Barzilai                           |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 19 May 91 02:19:22 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Existing investments and technology

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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 <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 19 May 91 00:40:34 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 20 May 91 03:19:09 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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![e-mail]
Subject: Fred vs. Exploration XXXIV

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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                [e-mail]
"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![e-mail]
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/[e-mail]

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

Date: 21 May 91 18:10:57 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!think.com!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #605
*******************