Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_7/V13_771.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-03 | 17KB

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/gcQNq8:00WBw48nE4u>;
          Wed,  3 Jul 91 05:48:56 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  3 Jul 91 05:48:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #771

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 771

Today's Topics:
              Ulysses Update - 06/14/91
               Re: NASA Budget
          Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
              Re: Fred's Operatic Death
              Re: Fred's Operatic Death
         Joust/Prospector/OSC launch failure
       On the Non-Anticipation of Automated Spacecraft

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]

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 20 Jun 91 05:33:11 GMT
From: agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!jato!kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Subject: Ulysses Update - 06/14/91
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

Crossposted by: Ron Baalke from NASAMAIL P board
(All NASAMAIL board P items are O.K. for unlimited distribution per JPL PIO,
unless the postings indicate otherwise)

Posted: Fri, Jun 14, 1991   7:18 PM EDT              Msg: BJJB-2954-1226
From:   DAINSWORTH
To:     P, PAO.LOOP,
        (C:USA,ADMD:TELEMAIL,PRMD:GSFC,O:GSFCMAIL,UN:L)
CC:     GYANOW
Subj:   Ulysses Special Report 6-14-91



                 ULYSSES SPECIAL MISSION STATUS
                          June 14, 1991

     The X-band telemetry link from the Ulysses spacecraft was
lost for approximately two hours on Friday, June 14, beginning at
7:58 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time.

     After loss of the downlink telemetry, the spacecraft went
into a safing mode, which automatically switched off all nine
science experiments.  The telemetry link was reestablished at
10:01 a.m. PDT.  No scientific data have been acquired since the
link was lost.

     The mission operations team plans to restablize the
spacecraft's thermal environment and begin turning the
spacecraft's science instruments back on early next week.

     Cause of the incident is being investigated.

                              #####
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 301-355        | "Imagination is more
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | important than knowledge"
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | Albert Einstein

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 20 Jun 91 00:14:53 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!isi.edu![e-mail]  (Craig E. Ward)
Organization: Information Sciences Institute, Univ. of So. California
Subject: Re: NASA Budget
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]


/* Sorry of the delay of this follow-up.  I actually have to do some real
work around here, from time-to-time ;-) */

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joe Cain) writes:
>...
>I am passing on the following from Les Meredith of AGU.
>******************************************************************
>1) Scientists should not support a bad project, like Space Station,
>just because they might skim 20%

This is a noble sentiment; however, "goodness" and "badness" are rarely
absolute in politics.  Engineering projects like Space Station also must
balance various goals and needs.  Just because the AGU may not like the
balance is no grounds for name calling.  Furthermore, the AGU doesn't
represent all "Scientists" so framing the statement like this is foolish.

>2) Science is not getting 20% of the NASA budget now (17%). If Space
>Station is in the budget it will probably be cut $500 million to 14%.
>Furthermore, at least 20% of the remaining space science budget until
>1999 has already had to be committed to Space Station instruments
>further eating into the funds for other space science.

I went back to my source on this one, Glenn Reynolds, and he stands by his
assertion.  The percentage going to space science is 20%.  Meredith could be
looking at just those space science projects preferred by the AGU, the rest
being "bad."

(Who is Glenn Reynolds and why should you listen to him?  He is the chair of
the National Space Society Legislative Committee.  Last year he helped get
The Launch Services Purchase and The Patents in Space Acts through Congress.
This year, he is in charge of Spacecause efforts to get the Omnibus Space
Commercialization Act through.  He is a law professor at the University of
Tennessee and an expert in space law.)

>3) Last year's budget agreement effectively gave NASA a cap. As a
>result, NASA will not significantly expand in the future. It's now a
>zero sum game. As the Space Station Budget grows, the Space Science
>budget will not grow but shrink. NASA is at a crossroads and
>scientists need to be heard.

This is not true.  The agreement is that any increases in domestic spending
programs will need to be matched decreases in other domestic programs.  This
gives a lot of room to maneuver.  This goes to the point I made earlier about
space supporters forming coalitions.  (An area completely ignored by
Meredith's statements.)

Furthermore, the OMB gets to interpret the rules.  Noting that President Bush
threatened to veto any appropriations bill that lacked station funding, you
can figure that OMB will bend the rules as much as it can to increase funding
at NASA.

This is not a zero sum game.

>*****************************************************************
>...However, with the budget
>agreement that seems to be adhered to by both congress and the white
>house, money saved in DOD cannot be used to fund civilian activities.

This isn't wholly true.  See my statement above about who gets to interpret
the rules of the agreement.

>Now that the House has passed the budget authorizing the Space Station
>and cutting into Space Science, the action reverts to the Senate and
>the House/Senate conference committees.

And this is how we should proceed.  The Senate appropriations subcommittee
gets $81 billion dollars to spread around.  All space supporters should work
together to keep funding for the space station and to restore funds for the
space science projects.  (You lamented the waste in DOD, I tell you HUD is
likely just as bad, if not worse.)  It can be done; the better-than-expected
margin of victory on the House floor will be a big boost.

>The Space Station is not the whole manned
>space program as pointed out by Congressman Traxler and others,

The whining of a congressman about to lose big, and lose big he did.

>including the very succinct and intelligent comments of the Republican
>congressman from New York, Bill Green.

Bill Green has always been a foe of manned space.  He doesn't think people
have a place in space -- he doesn't want to go so you must not want to
either.

>...The AGU of course is not
>against manned space per se and does not agree that the loss of the
>Space Station would signify an end to the manned program.

This is actually what the House voted on, to have *any* manned program or
not, and is one of the reasons the margin of victory was so large.  This is
the way the Senate will look at the question also.  As another letter from
space scientists posted to this list noted, fighting the space station is
counter-productive.  If the AGU and others fight the station, the
Chapman-Lowery approach may just stand, i.e. gutting of the space science
funding would be the only result from the line Meredith wants to pursue.
Better if you let him charge windmills.
--
Craig E. Ward <[e-mail]>     Slogan:    "nemo me impune lacessit"
USPS:    USC/Information Sciences Institute
    4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1200
    Marina del Rey, CA 90292

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 20 Jun 91 00:38:18 GMT
From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa![e-mail]  (Charles Frank Radley)
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]



You say that aerospace companies prefer to be spoon fed instead
of risking their own money.
   The reason is simple, aerospace companies do not have anything
like the sums of money needed for large scale space devlopments.
    I have never seen anybody who actually HAS a lot of money
say that if NASA disappeared they would be willing to spend
their own private money on large scale space ventures.
  Please provide a list of examples if I am wrong.
:

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 19 Jun 91 14:56:07 GMT
From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!watyew![e-mail]  (James Davis Nicoll)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Subject: Re: Fred's Operatic Death
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <SHAFER.91Jun18115751@s
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>>>  'Do NASA employees post self-serving propaganda (also 'should NASA...')'
>>>  argument deleted.
>
>>I have the damned feeling I've seen this thread before. How did the
>>tiff that ended with Ms Shafer briefly leaving sci.space start?
>
>Wit Nick Szabo claiming that NASA employees should only post stuff that
>Nick thought was OK.  That is, it was OK for the informational stuff
>to appear, but if one disagreed with Nick .....
>
>I'm a lot calmer now that I don't read Nick's shit.  (Not nicer, just
>calmer.)

    Seems silly to concentrate on the job of a poster, rather than
the content of the post, but no doubt there are subtleties I'm missing.

                            James Nicoll

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 19 Jun 91 16:09:28 GMT
From: agate!bionet!news.arc.nasa.gov!skipper![e-mail]  (Mary Shafer)
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards AFB, CA
Subject: Re: Fred's Operatic Death
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

I wrote:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>>>  'Do NASA employees post self-serving propaganda (also 'should NASA...')'
>>>  argument deleted.
>
>>I have the damned feeling I've seen this thread before. How did the
>>tiff that ended with Ms Shafer briefly leaving sci.space start?
>
>Wit Nick Szabo claiming that NASA employees should only post stuff that
>Nick thought was OK.  That is, it was OK for the informational stuff
>to appear, but if one disagreed with Nick .....
>
>I'm a lot calmer now that I don't read Nick's shit.  (Not nicer, just
>calmer.)

Nick has informed me that public employees "slandering [him] on the
net are cruising for a bruising."

Even after reading this several times I don't believe that it is slander,
but if indeed it is, I retract it and apologize for any injury that may
have occurred to Nick, his amour propre, and his Net reputation from my
posting.
--
Mary Shafer  [e-mail]  ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
           NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
                     Of course I don't speak for NASA
            "Turn to kill, not to engage."  CDR Willie Driscoll

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 18 Jun 91 20:32:51 GMT
From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink![e-mail]  (Bruce Dunn)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Subject: Joust/Prospector/OSC launch failure
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]


     From a UPI news report:

When:  Tuesday June 18

What:  "Prospector" rocket marked by Orbital Sciences Corporation.  Rocket is
46 feet long (?including payload) and is launched from a rail.  Rocket is a
27,000 lb Thiokol Castor 4A (normally used as a booster for Delta rockets),
modified with a different nozzle and with guidance equipment

How:  The vehicle took off, but after about 13 seconds debris of some sort
could be seen falling from the rear of the rocket.  The vehicle then tumbled
and the range safety officer blew it up.

Payload:  "Joust-1" containing 10 materials processing experiments.  Intended
for a sub-orbital hop giving 13 minutes of weightlessness.  The payload
separated from the rocket when it was destroyed but at the time of the report
it was not clear whether it survived without damage.

Payload implications:  the launch was carried by the Consortium for Materials
Development in Space by arrangement with NASA's Office of Commercial programs.
A $200,000 fee was paid to insure the launch using NASA money.  Presumably a
refly will be scheduled.

Orbital Science Implications: Prospector rockets will be grounded until it is
clear what happened.  Orbital says "we are confident that our team will quickly
identify today's problem and that we will continue to supply reliable launch
services to our customers".
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   [e-mail]

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 20 Jun 91 00:27:41 GMT
From: tristan![e-mail]  (Loren Petrich)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Subject: On the Non-Anticipation of Automated Spacecraft
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]


    In a recent posting on historical precedents for different
types of space ventures, I mentioned the curious non-anticipation of
automated spacecraft in practically all descriptions of spaceflight
before it actually happened. I suggested that Arthur C. Clarke's
proposal of radio relays in synchronous orbit was a counterexample,
but someone e-mailed me that even his proposal featured people coming
up and replacing the tubes in the electronics. I confess I haven't
read his article -- just mentions of it by ACC himself and others, and
there wasn't any mention of what maintenance would be needed. It's
evident that ACC had not anticipated solid-state electronic
components, which do not burn out. The only maintenance problem that
remains for most satellites is the question of maneuvering propellant.

    Interestingly, the Shuttle was advertised as a platform for
doing maintenance on satellites, and some Shuttle missions have scored
success there, but the Shuttle itself has been too expensive and
cumbersome to allow maintenance on a regular basis. However, the
Soviets have repeatedly resupplied their space stations; they have a
crewless Soyuz called Progress for that very purpose.

    There is one feature of the non-anticipation of automated
spacecraft that I had neglected to comment on. Even the spacecraft
that carry astronauts are heavily automated; for most of the flight in
every mission I know of, the astronauts are simply passengers. I get
the impression that astronauts' control over the motion of a
spacecraft has consisted mostly of reorienting it and small delta-vee
maneuvers like docking; and even those sorts of maneuvers are fed
through a control system. This level of automation has been necessary
because one needs very precise delta-vees and directions to get to
where one wants to go, though fortunately, the necessary maneuvers are
rather straightforward to work out by computer.


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

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

[e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #771
*******************