Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_0/V15NO047.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 34KB

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 05:01:55
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #047
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 29 Jul 92       Volume 15 : Issue 047

Today's Topics:
                         Calendar and Zodiac
                     Calendar and Zodiak (4 msgs)
                           call for papers
                        Clinton Space Position
               Clinton Space Position- or Henry go home
                                Delta
                            ET's amd Radio
                        ETs and Radio (2 msgs)
      Russian/French Soyuz TM-15 mission launched to Mir station
            Wanted satellite tracking program for GPS sats
                            Whales (SETI)
                       What's it like at NASA.

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 92 20:10:48 GMT
From: "George F. McQuary" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calendar and Zodiac
Newsgroups: sci.space

The main question is will the seasons occur in other months of the year than
currently. The answer is no. The Gregorian year is defined as starting
exactly ten days after the winter solstice. The current system of leap days is
a forecast of how to maintain the constant of Dec 21, but would change if
necessary. (If a large enough metor hit the earth to change the current
forecasts, however, there would probably be larger problems to deal with than
resetting the calendar...) As long as the calendar is kept in sync with the
sun, the rhythm of the seasons will continue to occur at the same time in the
calendar.

There is no link between our calendar system and the position of the
sun in the zodiac, although there will be strong coincidence for the average
observer over the course of a lifetime.

It is true that astronomers use more accuate time systems than the Gregorian
calendar (use of atomic clocks has been mentioned), but they have transcended
the concept of "years" entirely. Calculations are normally done entirely in
"Julian Days", and then translated to the Gregorian Calendar with its
messy but more convient concept of years, etc. later. JD are so abstract you
can think of them as the metric system of time. (In fact, a new set of constants
for the Julian system was announced a few years ago, and astronomers are still
trying to figure them out.)

--
George F. McQuary
"He is mad, bad and dangerous to know." -Lady Caroline Lamb

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 19:47:36 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calendar and Zodiak
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (This one works) writes:
>
>Here is what I know about the precession of the equinox.  the rate of precession
>is 1/72 of a degree a year. This gives a rate of precession of 25920 years for
>a full turn.  This rate is not constant due to the imbalances in the Earth's
>mass distribution.  How this precession affects the seasons is thus:
>
>Today in the Northern Hemisphere's summer, the earth is at the apogee of its
>orbit around the sun.  As the precession continues on its merry way this will
>be the main parameter that will change. In 12,900 years the northern hemisphere
>will be in its summer when the Earth is at perigee. (I know these are the wrong
>terms, I just don't remember the right ones for sun centered orbits).
>
Aphelion and Perihelion.  We're going to need generic terms for nearest
& farthest points from the primary.  Perigee, periselenion, perihelion,
perijove, periarion (?)........betcha everyone just says apogee and
perigee in the end.

>This is why the calender will not change (I think) on the day of the year of the
>equinox. It is interesting to note that the change is about 1 degree per
>72 years.  This effects lattitude lines so maybe my first guess is incorrect.
>I remember reading that the great pyramid was at the tropic of cancer when it
>was built a few thousand years ago.
>
Whoops.  Precession does not affect the position of the tropics.  That's
nutation (I theenk) and it's much less then precession.  Moving the
Tropic of Cancer up to the Great Pyramid would mean increasing the tilt
of the axis by about 5 degrees: probably enough to make many parts of
the planet uninhabitable.  The lunatic fringe places the Pyramid on some
kind of Great Meridian, but meridians are where you say they are.

Just to try to keep this thread from wandering too much, I'll put up
a quick precis:  We have a query about the calendar and the
equinoxes/solstices.  Do the equinoxes and solstices drift thru the
calendar because of precession?  If the vernal equinox occurs on a day
known as March 21st now, will the calendar say March 21st at the equinox
in, say, 12900 years time, assuming corrections for the odd fraction of
a day at the end of a year are done properly?

I say yes, because the unit of calendar measurement is the day, and the
length of the day already has precession built in to it.

I thought of the copout answer "they didn't have March 2000 years ago"
in reply to the original poster (who noted that precession has gone
1/12th of its cycle in 2000 years).  Fact is Julius Caesar ordered up
his calendar in 45BC.


>Maybe this info will help, no guarantees, no flames. :-)
>
>Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville
>
>Revive the Saturn Five!
>


--
||))) If you build it                          )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))) They will cancel it   - Field of Dweebs. )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones ([e-mail]) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |

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

Date: 28 Jul 92 23:24:36 GMT
From: Brian Robert Kemper <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calendar and Zodiak
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Jones) writes:
>>
>>Today in the Northern Hemisphere's summer, the earth is at the apogee of its
>>orbit around the sun.  As the precession continues on its merry way this will
>>be the main parameter that will change. In 12,900 years the northern hemisphere
>>will be in its summer when the Earth is at perigee. (I know these are the wrong
>>terms, I just don't remember the right ones for sun centered orbits).
>>
>Aphelion and Perihelion.  We're going to need generic terms for nearest
>& farthest points from the primary.  Perigee, periselenion, perihelion,
>perijove, periarion (?)........betcha everyone just says apogee and
>perigee in the end.
>
The generic terms are apoapse and periapse.

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

Date: 28 Jul 92 23:53:49 GMT
From: John Stevenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calendar and Zodiak
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave
Jones) writes:
> Aphelion and Perihelion.  We're going to need generic terms for nearest
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> & farthest points from the primary.  Perigee, periselenion, perihelion,
> perijove, periarion (?)........betcha everyone just says apogee and
> perigee in the end.
>
periapsis and apoapsis, please  :-)

John Stevenson
[e-mail]

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

Date: 28 Jul 92 14:31:29 GMT
From: Steve Willner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calendar and Zodiak
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Adam R. Brody ) writes:
>   In another
> 2000 years, will spring star in February, or do we account for precession
> somehow in the calendar?

The short answer is that the calendar year is based on what is called
the "tropical year," i.e. the time from equinox to equinox.  So by
definition the equinox will always occur around March 21.

Something must be changing, of course.  What happens is that the
position of the equinox moves with respect to the background stars.
(The word "equinox" is used interchangeably for the position of the
Sun when it crosses the equator and for the time when this event
takes place.)  Around 2000 years ago, the equinox was on the boundary
between Aries and Pisces; the equinox is still sometimes called "the
first point of Aries."  Since then, the equinox has moved almost
entirely through Pisces and is about to cross into Aquarius.
(Perhaps you have heard the phrase "Age of Aquarius;" how many people
can tell you what it means?)  The date depends on how you define your
constellation boundaries (or "sign" boundaries, which are different),
but I seem to remember one calculation giving a few years after 2000.

The start of spring is actually a different question.  The
traditional start was on the "quarter day" in early February, but in
modern times the start has moved to the equinox.  The earlier
definition made June 21 "mid-summer day" (thus the title of one of
Shakespeare's plays), not the beginning of summer as now.

By the way, "zodiac" does not have a 'k' in it.  And you might have
gotten an even better answer to your question on sci.astro.
--
Steve Willner            Phone [phone]         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: [e-mail]
  member, League for Programming Freedom; contact [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Jul 92 21:19:10 GMT
From: "Michael J. Chinni " <[e-mail]>
Subject: call for papers
Newsgroups: sci.engr.mech,sci.materials,sci.aeronautics,sci.chem,sci.electronics,sci.physics,sci.research,sci.space

Abstract Due Date:            October 17, 1992
Notification Accepted/Rejected sent by:    October 24, 1992
Papers Due:                December 31, 1992

                       ANNOUNCEMENT AND CALL FOR PAPERS

           2ND ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON MILITARY & GOVERNMENT SIMULATION
          Supported by Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division

                        1993 Simulation Multiconference
                            March 29 - April 1, 1993
                               Arlington, Virginia

            Sponsored by The Society for Computer Simulation [SCS]

    Military & Government Simulation will feature technical sessions
dedicated to to applications from a wide array of technical disciplines within
the arena of military & government simulation. Technical papers, presentations
and proposals for tutorials, panels, workshop and other special formats are
solicited in (but not limited to) the following areas:

 - Ballistics and Propellant Simulation      - Credibility Assessment
 - C3I Simulation                            - Visualization & Virtual Reality
 - Lethality, Vulnerability & Survivability  - Decision Support Systems
 - Weapons Systems Simulation for Design     - Battlefield Communications
 - Non Real-Time Flight Dynamics Simulation  - Applications of Optimization and
 - Directed-Energy Weapons Simulation          Multi-Body Dynamics (MBD)

    Engineering personnel, Modelers, researchers, developers, and
experimentalists from industry, academia, DOD, DOE, and other government
installations are invited to contribute and participate in this conference.
Send three copies of original previously unpublished papers or abstracts to the
address below by October 17, 1992. Notification of acceptance or rejection will
be made by October 24, 1991.  Author kits should be received by accepted
authors by November 1, 1991.  Responsibility for all clearances associated with
full papers - which will be published in the conference proceedings - rests
with the author. The due date for camera-ready copy is December 31, 1992.

    Submit papers, abstracts, presentations and proposals for tutorials,
panels, workshops and other special formats to:
                               Michael J. Chinni
                                12 Windbeam Rd.
                              Riverdale, NJ 07457

    Include full names, affiliations, addresses and phone numbers (office
and home) for each participant. Attach, or copy business cards if available.
Indicate on the page that this is for the 1993 Simulation Multiconference -
Military & Government Simulation.  Participants are expected to register early,
at a reduced rate and to attend the conference at their own expense.

Anyone wishing further information can contact Mr. Chinni at the above address
or at: [phone]/(DSN)880-4140     <[e-mail]>

--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| User to skeleton sitting at cobweb and dust covered terminal:
|    "System been down long?"
| I'd change the world for the better

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

Date: 28 Jul 92 20:36:09 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton Space Position
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> >NASA has been saddled with more missions than it can successfully
>> >accomplish.
>> Translation:  we're going to kill some of the NASA programs, although
>> of course we're not going to tell you which ones.
>[ Several more "translations" deleted. ]
>
>...I would respectfully ask that those who neither pay the taxes
>nor vote in the elections kindly refrain from posting politcal analyses
>of political statements from the USAian election campaign...

Political analyses?  Heaven forbid.  I don't understand US politics well
enough to analyze them. :-)  I was merely translating some of the Clinton
position from campaignspeak (which is as international as graft, stupidity,
shortsightedness, and voter ignorance and apathy) into the sci.space
vernacular.  I wasn't making any attempt to read between the lines or infer
an overall position -- just pointing out what the statement's own words
clearly mean.  Do you really think any of my translations are wrong?

I would, in any case, defend my right to comment on issues that affect
all mankind, such as the fate of what is now our species' leading space
program.  The previous clear holder of that title has now been largely
destroyed by politics in *its* homeland.  Having lost our redundant
backup system :-), and with the US program clearly in deep trouble
already due to mismanagement, USAnian space politics are unfortunately
of considerable interest to all.

I would suggest, however, that this discussion and related ones belong
in talk.politics.space, and have redirected followups there.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 28 Jul 92 19:17:53 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Clinton Space Position- or Henry go home
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Doug Davey) writes:
> Henry, your technical postings are probably the best things in sci.space.*.
> However, I would respectfully ask that those who neither pay the taxes
> nor vote in the elections kindly refrain from posting politcal analyses
> of political statements from the USAian election campaign.  If you have a
> technical reason why something a candidate proposes is a good or bad idea,
> fine.  However, a cross border political analysis is rude at best.  Thanks.
> Stop Canadian Imperialism!  Yankee Go Home! :-)

>   Doug Davey        [e-mail]         bcr!iscp!ddavey


I Quite disagree.  Since the U.S. is at present in one of the preeminent
positions in space technology, whatever we do affects the entire world.  What
we choose to do, and wht we choose not to do helps set the tone for the entire
world.  This means that everybody to a certain extent is going to be affected
(in space related areas a well as others) by the up coming election.

As an affected party, Mr. Spencer certainly has the right to comment upon
the platforms proposed by the parties.

And if you don't like the above logic, then as an "expert" commentator in the
field, he has not only the right, but the duty to comment upon the platforms,
in order to help clarify what they mean for the rest of us who choose not to
take quite as much time deciphering the reading between the lines.

The fact that someone happens to live in another country neither adds nor
subtracts from the 'truth' of thier observations.

            John.

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:11:03 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Delta
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Hughes - VMS Development) writes:
>...not really. The S-I stage was built out of Redstone and Jupiter structural
>parts (i.e. tanks), but propulsion, guidance and components to tie all this
>together were all new.

Indeed, the main reason it used existing tankage was that its first
stage was originally funded as a ground demonstrator, not as part of an
operational launcher.  Funding was tight, and it looked like building
suitably-sized tanks would need enough new technology to cause budget
overruns.  So, as long as it wasn't meant to fly, why not just bundle
off-the-shelf tanks together?

When it started to look good enough that people started talking about
flying it, the bundled tankage was retained partly because the design
was already well advanced, and partly because there was some talk of
having to dismantle it for air transportation to a remote launch site.

Actually, Gary has overlooked some other heritage from other launchers --
the engines, for example, were further developments of the ones already
flying on the Thor and Jupiter -- but he's correct in saying that the
Saturn I/IB was a new launcher using some existing components, not just
a cluster of existing stages.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 28 Jul 92 20:51:42 GMT
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: ET's amd Radio
Newsgroups: sci.space

Ooh. Is it really time for this flame war to erupt!
Let me get it off to a formal start with the magic words:


    The Drake Equation.


|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
|[e-mail]|Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

Date: 28 Jul 92 19:50:25 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: ETs and Radio
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (russell wallace) writes:
>Given that for evolution of life to start, a simple living organism must
>come together from amino acids etc. by accident; and that for any
>complex structure to fall together by accident is extremely improbable...

Try applying the same argument to crystals, or even atoms.  These things
may come together by accident, but they're found together because that's
the more stable state for them to be in.  Sure, it's improbable for complex
structures to come together all at once, but it doesn't happen that way --
complex stable structures evolve from simpler ones.  A crystal doesn't
form out of its component subatomic particles all at once.

There are still fuzzy spots in our understanding of the evolution of life,
but they're shrinking steadily.  Nothing that is *understood* about the
way it happened looks particularly unlikely.  The biggest question mark
at the moment is not the development of self-reproducing, evolving
molecules, but the development of the cell (which drastically speeds
up evolution, because then molecules not involved in producing better
machinery don't benefit from it).

We suspect the presence of extraterrestrial life, and extraterrestrial
intelligence, because nobody has come up with a compelling explanation
of why it is vanishingly unlikely.  Given the number of stars out there,
anything less is just quibbling over how frequently it occurs.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 28 Jul 92 21:39:26 GMT
From: SCOTT I CHASE <[e-mail]>
Subject: ETs and Radio
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (russell wallace) writes...
>Given that for evolution of life to start, a simple living organism must
>come together from amino acids etc. by accident; and that for any
>complex structure to fall together by accident is extremely improbable;
>then it looks pretty much like the odds against life appearing on any
>one planet could easily be more than 10^1000 to 1 against, and the
>number of planets in the visible universe is only about 10^22.

It seems patently obvious to me that all of this back-of-the-envelope
estimation is just a waste of time.  None of us know any real probabilities
for any of the events necessary for life - starting with how many planets
there are down to the probability of chemical evolution.  But one thing
is for sure - it's such an exciting possibility that it's worth looking
for someone out there just in case.

-Scott

--------------------
Scott I. Chase            "The question seems to be of such a character
[e-mail]        that if I should come to life after my death
                and some mathematician were to tell me that it
                had been definitely settled, I think I would
                immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:58:41 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Russian/French Soyuz TM-15 mission launched to Mir station
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>Alexander Viktorenko and Alexander Kaleri, who are in their 5th month in
>>space (since Mar. 17th).
>
>What are the physical effects, if any, of being in space for so long?
>Are the men able to function normally upon return to Earth, or
>can they not handle the increase in gravity?

Five months is no big deal.  Cosmonauts have been up for over a year.
There are some problems on return, but they appear to be controllable.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 28 Jul 92 16:54:04 GMT
From: Rick Emerson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted satellite tracking program for GPS sats
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Mike McCants) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Pattinson) writes:
> >Can anybody please tell me where I can get a satellite tracking program
> >suitable for use with GPS satellites.
>
> I'm sure I can fix up a program to do what you want - no charge.
>
> >Please don't e-mail me - incoming messages are broke!
>
> My user name on Celestial is Mike McCants.
> My email address is [e-mail].

I have Paul Traufler's TrakSat which does a very good job of displaying data
in a number of ways (graphics and tabular o/p) for PC's.  Address *email*
requests to [e-mail].  NOTE: ssg.com is *not* ftp capable.

 | Richard B. Emerson     | Reply to [e-mail]                           |
 | System Support Group   |-------------------------------------------------+
 | Post Office Box 180    |   "Choose to chance the rapids                  |
 | Lansdale, PA 19446 USA |    And dare to dance the tide." -- Garth Brooks |

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:39:16 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Whales (SETI)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (russell wallace) writes:

>A better explanation might be that the whalers trained the killer whales
>to do this, in the same way that humans can train dogs to help them hunt
>on land. Killer whales can certainly be trained to do the sort of things
>that dogs can be trained to do.

Oh?  We may not have translations of whatever records or lore whales
keep, but we certainly have plenty of diaries and records of whaling
expeditions.  I assume you can produce extracts that show whalers
training killer whales the same way we train dogs?  No?  Then your
"better explanation" sounds like the neo-nazi propaganda that explains
away the gas chambers in the Nazi concentration camps as delousing stations,
not places for killing Jews.




















>--
>"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
>Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
>[e-mail]

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

Date: 28 Jul 92 18:47:08 GMT
From: "Eugene N. Miya" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What's it like at NASA.
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (julie england) writes:
>I've noticed that many people who work, or have worked, for NASA have
>been posting.  I've already asked this question directly to someone in
>another post, but I was wondering if those of you who have worked for
>NASA could tell those of us who are interested what it is like to work
>for NASA?

NASA is a mixed blessing.  Probably like working anywhere.  You will find
aspects you will really like as well as dislike.  For me the balance sheet is
slightly in the positives.  I detailed some of these things a few years
back in sci.space when not many NASA Centers were on the net (Ames was the
first for a variety of reasons).

Beats designing thermonuclear warheads or smart weapons.

>What sort of degree are you expected to have to do the
>kinds of things that are assumed (or that you enjoy?)?

The first big salary step is just to have a college degree at all.
This is regardless of whether you are a civil servant or a contractor.
They'd like to have PhD.  The managers like to count the number of PhDs
they have (no joke, I have seen this at every Center).  BUT, you can survive
w/o one (getting much harder, R.T. Jones, the man who thought of the
swept back wing has no college degree at all, but he's brilliant).
The managers mean well for you to finish at least one degree.
Practical or empirical over theoretical.

You will find exceptions (I've not finished a PhD, but getting pressure to
do so, I just funded a student whom just finish UC Berkeley with a
dissertation-of-the-year award).  This also goes with other National labs
like Livermore (LLNL, my ex-officemate retired as a Distinguished Laboratory
Fellow with only a Physics BS) and Los Alamos (LANL), etc.

If you are looking for things on your resume, patents, inventions,
awards and prizes are some what more useful in distinguishing yourself.
Invent something and patent it.

>Do you have to have a Ph.D., and if so, what area is best suited?

The physical sciences are best.  Why?  The Agency is run by physicists.

Limited numbers of other fields like chemists, biologists, MDs, geologists,
etc.  We are having problems with CS PhDs.  More on this later.

>I guess I am asking whether it is necessary to have a Ph.D.  Is an MS or MA
>sufficient?

Oh, these are fine.  Just be smart.

>I know that no one can predict the future demand for
>specialists in any particular area, so I apologize for my general
>questions.  But I've always had a dream since I was a kid of working
>for NASA, or some aspect of the space program.  What's involved in
>doing this kind of work?

Oh, I had that as well.

What is involved is some luck, some timing, certainly some amount of the
right kind of knowledge in the right place.

Place: NASA and its contractors are located in certain areas of the country
from when land was cheap and swampy.  The closer you are the better chance
you have (fewer moving costs).  It's important to understand the role of
each Center and contractor:  See Leech's FAQ in sci.space for a description
of each center's role (I was fortunate to grow up in the Aerospace industry
of Southern CA and also to later move to Silicon Valley).  You will see
a collection of places in the South.  You cannot expect to telecommute.
The better you understand, the better you will do.

NASA is about SOME RISK.  People die the course of working for this Agency.
I don't mean driving to work.  Planes and spacecraft crash, tests fail, etc.
Even some of the computers have risk.

NASA is NOT a "science research" agency.  That is the "ROLE" of the NSF.
Or better DARPA.  We have three RESEARCH Centers, but there is an
emphasis in "Applied Research."  Not basic.  A few theoreticians survive
at NASA, but very few: from theoretical chemist to things like complex
number theory.  NASA is an agency involving flight.
NASA is a mission-oriented agency.  It is best described as a systems
integration institution.  This is a known source of identifiable problems:
when a Mission ends, it ends.  If it gets some research done, all the better.

The NASA pecking order by missions are: Space Shuttle first (man-rated
flight projects) followed by Space Station (also man rated), measured
in the $10G range.  This is now followed by un-manned "Deep Space" projects,
($1G), then Earth orbital programs, then aeronautics and infrastructure
programs (like computers, communication nets, etc.).

NASA is high visibility: this had both advantages and disadvantages.
The rich and famous come by here for no reason other than to
associate: Bush, Quayle 8^), Patrick Stewart, Paul Newman [when I was at JPL],
Prince Charles, Jacques Cousteau (actually the latter uses space
imagery).  These are bothers.  Part of the government.  Lots of empire
building for its own sake.

As a government Agency, NASA is without question, one of the better agencies.
It is a civilian rather than military high tech agency.  It is not a
Cabinet post, but reports directly to the White House.  So it can speak
openly about most things (civil and military contracts excluded).
It is still regarded with high confidence with the public at large.

The right kind of knowledge: if you are a person with the right point
of view (long story) and work your way thru the bureacucracy, you will fit in.
You can have a PhD, be highly brilliant, etc. and you might still not make
it here.  NASA has a peculiar working climate, a specific type of competition.
I have seen PhDs fail to cut it here (many), so the degree is not assurance
of survival.

Disadvantages: salary and cost of living side toward the negatives.

Advantages: some "freedom" typically project dependent.  Always
mission-oriented.

>I apologize for my naivete.

None needed.  This is the Usenet.

This is one of the reasons why I stopped trying to attract people specifically
to NASA.  People will come anyway.

NASA is in some ways far too mission oriented.  For stellar parts of
the Agency, there are many more problem parts.  In particular, our
internal infrastructure has not had the financial support it deserves.
NASA usually engages in "very safe" projects.  Its problems stem from the
early history when it was pieced together from many different other agencies.

The frame work of those agencies has stayed fairly intact (NACA, ARPA, USAF,
etc.)  Another problem is just simply the conservativism engendered by
scientific research (academia) (you tweak the variables in your
field of expertise and your other opinions stay entrenched).

If you are a CS PhD, it's not as simple as one might think.  The agency
climate is just beginning to warm up to computers.  I know.  I was
actively assigned to attract (several dozen people if not more, can possibly
point their jobs to early RAHfRH posts), to watch the Net, to consider
security, etc.  If you can find a nice good slot, more power to you.

Bureaucracy: oh yes is your contractor an Equal Opportunity Employer,
do they discriminate, etc.?  The boiler plate on the procurement system
is unreal.  But that our legacy comes from von Braun ("Ver der missiles
come dun I know nicht vhere" [Tom Lehrer]).

My observations have included 5 years as a contractor (Ball Aerospace Corp
and Caltech at JPL) and 10 years as a silly servant.  I have visited every
NASA Center save one (and I have no intention of visiting that one) including
duty at NASA HQ (the past life).
I was one of the people assigned to a developing computer science program
plan in the late 70s and early 80s. (I also worked at Rockwell on the B-1
in high school as a draftsman and had numerous relatives at Hughes AC as
well I have also worked in parts of the computer industry [summers]).
I have also been given the chance to visit various other National Labs
and Agencies (classified and unclassified) to see how they did things
(+s and -s) (I refuse to hold a clearance, but respect non-disclosure).

Enough?

Oh, I should disclaim that the aforementioned opinions and observations
are mine and not to be taken as an Agency statement or policy.
(Another part of the NASA bureaucracy due to recent net incidents.)
One time X-post to sci.space, followups to s.r.c.

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, [e-mail]
  Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Second Favorite email message: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 3 days
A Ref: Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, vol. 1, G. Polya

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 047
------------------------------