Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_4/V15NO421.TXT

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

Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 05:00:04
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #421
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 14 Nov 92       Volume 15 : Issue 421

Today's Topics:
                          Addr: SPACWE FOOD
                    Collisions and P/Swift-Tuttle
                                Dante
                       Galileo Delta-DOR Passes
                      Galileo Update - 11/13/92
           N-1 giant Moon rocket photo in *AvLeak* (2 msgs)
                          oxygen atmospheres
             Request: Mars Observer information (2 msgs)
        Shuttle improvements (was about new shutte computers)
                         Shuttle replacement
                      Space Propulsion Research
        SUMMARY of 1st NASA TOWN MEETING -- Raleigh NC (long)

    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: 13 Nov 92 13:33:45 EST
From: "Kevin R. Cain" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Addr: SPACWE FOOD

FROM: KEVIN

Nigel Allen posted:

>Date: 12 Nov 92 23:13:28 GMT
>From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
>Subject: SPACE FOOD. How Food Processors Manufacture Space Food for NASA
>Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.food.cooking,alt.food,misc.misc
>
>Here is a press release from the National Food Processors Association.
>
>****   stuff deleted   ****
>
>The standard Shuttle menu supplies each crew member with three
>balanced meals, providing 2,800 kilocalories each day.  Diets are


WOW! No wonder they say that the shuttle glides like a brick. At 2,800
kilocalories a day per I'm not suprised!  :-)

As the saying goes, what's a order of magnitude among friends.


*******************************************************************************
*  KEVIN R. CAIN, APPLICATIONS SUPPORT  *    "HUMAN? IT'S A DELICIOUS,        *
*  FLORIDA A & M UNIVERSITY             *     NUTIRITIOUS SNACK THAT          *
*  TALLAHASSEE FL 32307                 *     TASTES JUST LIKE CHICKEN!"      *
*                                       *        - BATTY, FERN GULLY -        *
*  [e-mail]                 *                                     *
*******************************************************************************

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

Date: 13 Nov 92 02:30:46 GMT
From: Erik Max Francis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Collisions and P/Swift-Tuttle
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

[e-mail] (Jack Hudler) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> >be in its orbit, not whether that orbit crosses the Earth's path.
> >
> >Please let me re-iterate what I previously stated in a message: The chance
> >of being hit by some asteroid or comet as yet undiscovered, and yet large
> >enough to have global effects (i.e. end of civilization as we know it),
> >before 2126 is of order 10 times as high as the chance that P/ST will
> >strike Earth in that year.
>
> Of course... you could be wrong. :-)

Yeah, but if he isn't . . .

Besides, we've known that there's a fairly high risk that we'll be pelted
by a as-yet-undiscovered near-Earth asteroid for a while now . . .

Fairly high risk meaning weighing the low probability against the
possible outcome . . .

----------
Erik Max Francis   Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  Coming soon:  UNIVERSE _ | _
USmail:  1070 Oakmont Dr. #1 San Jose CA 95117  ICBM:  37 20 N  121 53 W _>|<_
UUCP:  ..!apple!uuwest!max   Usenet:  [e-mail]   464E4F5244   |

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

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:51:45 -0500
From: Samuel John Kass <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dante
Newsgroups: sci.space

On 13-Nov-92 in Re: Dante
user John [e-mail] writes:
>-From: [e-mail] (Lawrence Curcio)
>-Subject: Re: Mars Simulation in Antarctica
>-Date: 12 Nov 92 04:24:24 GMT
>-Organization: Doctoral student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie
Mellon, Pit
>tsburgh, PA
>
>-Is this rover the same robot we at CMU call, AMBLER? Big red sucker?
>-Legs arranged like eggbeaters?

I hadn't seen that post... no, Lawrence, our Ambler is different than
Dante.  The ambler is about 5x higher and looks more like a huge, red
ant on stilts.  It's main feature is that it can constantly lift it's
back feet off the ground, bring them around it's side to the front, and
put them down, then lift the new back feet off the ground, etc etc.
Dante moves like a bug, the Ambler moves like a tank (a tank with legs,
mind you.

On 13-Nov-92 in Re: Dante
user John [e-mail] writes:
>It's very, *very* purple - I saw it on display at the rover exposition in
>Washington, D.C. a few months ago. (Is the color functional?)

From what I remember in talking to the people down at the Planetary
Robotics lab here, the color was chosen for style.  It is REEEALY
purple.  I mean, purple, okay, but wow, CMU isn't known for going
halfway :).

    --Sam

-- Disclaimer:  Everything is true. - [e-mail]               --
-- A Math/CS major at Carnegie Mellon University --  Beward the fnords.  --

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

Date: 13 Nov 1992 17:06:48 GMT
From: Steve Derry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Delta-DOR Passes
Newsgroups: sci.space

I've seen quite a few references to delta-DOR passes in the Galileo status
reports posted recently.  These appear to be some sort of precision
navigation technique being used to prepare for the Earth 2 flyby.

Does anybody have any details about what these are and how they work?

Thanks!

--
Steve Derry
NASA LaRC
<[e-mail]>

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

Date: 14 Nov 92 01:01:24 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Update - 11/13/92
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from Neal Ausman, Galileo Mission Director

                                  GALILEO
                      MISSION DIRECTOR STATUS REPORT
                                POST-LAUNCH
                          November 6 - 12, 1992

SPACECRAFT

1.  On November 6, real-time commands were sent to turn the Ultraviolet
Spectrometer (UVS) instrument off in response to the anomalous state of the
instrument observed when the telemetry rate was configured to Low Rate Science
(LRS).  Possible causes of this anomaly include the TCC-244 read disturb
problem.  The UVS team is continuing its investigation of the anomaly and the
implementation of a recovery plan.

2.  On November 6, delta Differenced One-Way Range (DOR) passes were performed
over DSS-14/63 (Goldstone/Madrid) and DSS-14/43 (Goldstone/Canberra).  Initial
results indicate both of the delta DOR passes were successfully performed.

3.  On November 6, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer
for both strings of the Command and Data Subsystem (CDS) computer to 264 hours,
its planned value for this mission phase.

4.  On November 6, the Plasma Wave (PWS) and Plasma Detector (PLS) instruments
were turned on.  Spacecraft telemetry indicates the PWS search coil is
operating normally, even after the severe cold temperature environment it went
through during the High Gain Antenna (HGA) warming turn/cooling turn campaign.
Additionally, the Energetic Particle Detector (EPD) memory was loaded and
checked by memory readouts, along with configuration changes to the
magnetometer sensor.

5.  On November 7, the radio science gravity wave experiment system test began
and will continue through November 13.  This system test is in preparation for
a joint experiment with Ulysses and Mars Observer in March/April 1993.

6.  On November 8, a delta Differenced One-Way Range (DOR) pass was performed
over DSS-14/63 and preliminary indications are that it was successfully
performed.

7.  On November 9, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to
264 hours, its planned value for this mission phase.

8.  On November 11, a routine sun vector update was performed.  This sun
vector is valid through November 25.

9.  On November 12, the Energetic Particle Detector (EPD) motor was turned on
and the instrument stepped to Sector 0 which is the predicted least
contamination position in preparation for the execution of TCM-16 (Trajectory
Correction Maneuver #16).

10. On November 12, the Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-16) memory load
was uplinked to the spacecraft without incident.

11. On November 12, Delayed Action Commands (DACs) were sent to turn the
Photometric Calibration Target (PCT) off/on and off again for the purpose of
Retro-Propulsion Module (RPM) tank pressure/temperature management.

12. The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements exhibited some change.  The AC
measurement has ranged from 16DN to 17DN and now reads 17 DN (3.9 volts).
The DC measurement has ranged from 131 DN (15.3 volts) to 140 DN (16.4 volts)
and now reads 139 DN (16.3 volts).These measurement variations are consistent
with the model developed by the AC/DC special anomaly team.

13. The Spacecraft status as of November 12, 1992, is as follows:

      a)  System Power Margin -  72 watts
      b)  Spin Configuration - Dual-Spin
      c)  Spin Rate/Sensor - 3.15 rpm/Star Scanner
      d)  Spacecraft Attitude is approximately 7 degree
          off-sun (lagging) and 8 degrees off-earth (lagging)
      e)  Downlink telemetry rate/antenna-7.68kbps (coded)/LGA-1
      f)  General Thermal Control - all temperatures within
          acceptable range
      g)  RPM Tank Pressures - all within acceptable range
      h)  Orbiter Science- PWS, PLS, EPD, MAG, HIC and DDS are
          powered on
      i)  Probe/RRH - powered off, temperatures within
          acceptable range
      j)  CMD Loss Timer Setting - 186 hours
          Time To Initiation - 260 hours


UPLINK GENERATION/COMMAND REVIEW AND APPROVAL:

1.  The Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-16) design package was approved
by the Project on November 9, 1992.  Also, the TCM-16 maneuver was approved
for transmission by the Project on November 12, 1992.  TCM-16 is a one
portion maneuver scheduled to execute on November 13 consisting of one lateral
segment.  The estimated total delta velocity for TCM-16 is .89 m/s.


GDS (Ground Data Systems):

1.  A Telemetry Test was conducted with SPC-60 (Madrid Signal Processing
Center) on Tuesday, November 10 to isolate intermittent communication related
data losses being observed during flight support and to demonstrate performance
in the configuration to be used for Earth 2 high rate support.   A
configuration was achieved which provided three hours of error-free
performance at the 28.8 kbps telemetry rate to be used for the Probe MST
(MCCC Telemetry Subsystem) and AFST.  Prior to that period, there were data
loss problems and it is not clear what action at the station corrected the
problems (analysis of all logs and data is in progress).  In addition, data
lock could not be maintained with the Type B TPA (Telemetry Processing
Assembly) at rates above 80.64 kbps.  This same problem has been observed at
the other SPCs with Type B telemetry strings.  This may reflect a performance
degradation introduced with the TPA B Op D software put on-line several months
ago and may be corrected by disabling recording of data at the TPA.  Type A
TPAs do not exhibit this problem and will be prime for Earth 2 support.
Additional testing is being planned with SPC-60 early next week to demonstrate
the configurations that will be used for high rate Earth 2 flight support
including 28.8 kbps used for the Probe MST/AFST and 134.4 kbps used for high
rate science.

TRAJECTORY

     As of noon Thursday, November 12, 1992, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory
status was as follows:

    Distance from Earth         20,040,300 km (.13 AU)
    Distance from Sun           167,289,500 km (1.12 AU)
    Heliocentric Speed          115,500 km per hour
    Distance from Jupiter       926,895,300 km
    Round Trip Light Time       2 minutes, 18 seconds


SPECIAL TOPIC

1.  As of November 12, 1992, a total of 8649 real-time commands have been
transmitted to Galileo since Launch.  Of these, 3660  were initiated in the
sequence design process and 4989 initiated in the real-time command process.
In the past week, 13 real time commands were transmitted: 1 was initiated in
the sequence design process and 12 initiated in the real time command process.
In addition, 5911 mini-sequence commands have been transmitted since
March 1991; 3753 were pre-planned and 2158 were not. In the past week, no
mini-sequence commands were transmitted.  Major command activities this week
included commands to turn the UVS instrument off, reset the command loss timer,
uplink TCM-16 memory load, and reconfigure the PCT heater.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Give people a second
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | chance, but not a third.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 08:35:33 GMT
From: Hartmut Frommert <[e-mail]>
Subject: N-1 giant Moon rocket photo in *AvLeak*
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>The new 9 November issue of *Aviation Week* just hit my mailbox.  On
>page 65 is a nice photograph of the Soviet N-1 rocket on its pad with
>service tower.   The N-1 was the "Soviet Saturn V," the BIG rocket
>whose failure doomed their manned lunar landing program.

Can someone make it a .GIF and upload on a ftp server ?
--
 Hartmut Frommert                 <[e-mail]>
 Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
                                           -- Eat whale killers, not whales --

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

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 09:02:40 GMT
From: Hartmut Frommert <[e-mail]>
Subject: N-1 giant Moon rocket photo in *AvLeak*
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>The new 9 November issue of *Aviation Week* just hit my mailbox.  On
>page 65 is a nice photograph of the Soviet N-1 rocket on its pad with
>service tower.   The N-1 was the "Soviet Saturn V," the BIG rocket
>whose failure doomed their manned lunar landing program.

Could someone, please, make a .GIF and post on a ftp-server ?
--
 Hartmut Frommert                 <[e-mail]>
 Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
                                           -- Eat whale killers, not whales --

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

Date: 13 Nov 92 08:39:45 GMT
From: Dave Rickel <[e-mail]>
Subject: oxygen atmospheres
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
|> Actually, no, most shuttle missions do not do EVAs at all.  There are three
|> reasons for wanting to use Earth-normal air when you can:
...

Additional reasons--more comfortable for the occupants (the Apollo astronauts
had problems with the low humidity of their atmosphere, the Skylab astronauts
had problem hearing--they had to talk louder than usual).


david rickel
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 10:57:16 GMT
From: Veit Zimmermann <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request: Mars Observer information
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hi Everybody

I'm looking for Information about the Mars Observer mission (See sub).
I know that Ron does a very good coverage on the advances of the mission
(thank's Ron), But I need generell Information about Experiments and
flight trajectory. I have to make a small lecture at Berlin University.
So ANY, really ANY Information is of interest for me.
If anybody is interrested, I could do a summary.

Thanks

        [e-mail]

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

Date: 14 Nov 92 00:28:39 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request: Mars Observer information
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Veit Zimmermann) writes...
>
>I'm looking for Information about the Mars Observer mission (See sub).
>I know that Ron does a very good coverage on the advances of the mission
>(thank's Ron), But I need generell Information about Experiments and
>flight trajectory. I have to make a small lecture at Berlin University.
>So ANY, really ANY Information is of interest for me.
>If anybody is interrested, I could do a summary.

I've posted the Mars Observer press kit to this newsgroup, and you can
grab it from the pub/SPACE/MARS.OBSERVER directory at ames.arc.nasa.gov

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Give people a second
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | chance, but not a third.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: 13 Nov 92 05:40:52 GMT
From: Miroslaw Kuc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle improvements (was about new shutte computers)
Newsgroups: sci.space

With all the changes to the shuttle computers and other components,
is it easier/cheaper to maintain the shuttle?
Thanks!
Miro

--
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Nov 92 18:51:56 GMT
From: "Michael V. Kent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

The 09 Nov issue of Space News has as its lead story an article on a replace-
ment for the Space Shuttle.  Since this loosely ties into a current thread on
sci.space, I thought I'd post a summary.  I have also included my own thoughts
on the matter.  You are welcome to disagree.

After Shuttle, Then What?
by Liz Tucci

The budget crunch is hitting the highest levels of NASA, and the agency
hasn't the funds to fly all of the missions it would like.  Currently, the
largest budget items are for infrastructure [Shuttle, Space Station Freedom,
TDRS, etc], but NASA administrator Dan Goldin would like to place a greater
emphasis on science and exploration.  The only way to do this with a flat
budget is to reduce infrastructure costs.

NASA will not set a date to end Shuttle missions until a replacement system
is online, but current thinking is that the Shuttle will fly through 2005.
The flight rate will remain at about 8 flights per year, maybe slightly
lower.  However with a reduced flight rate the per mission cost goes up.  A
Rockwell consultant stated that the orbiters will likely last far beyond
their design lifetime of 100 flights each.

There are currently two major ideas for the replacement.

1) a rocket-powered crew carrier

This vehicle would be an outgrowth of whatever replaces NLS.  A 4 to 6 man
crew carrier would be launched by an NLS-family liquid-fueled booster with
an STME engine.

2) HL-20

The HL-20 mini-shuttle may be a viable replacement for STS.  NASA is con-
sidering using a Skunkworks style management approach to develop HL-20.
The estimated cost is $3G - $4G, about 40% less than with a conventional
style management.

Neither approach would allow for the lofting of satellites [to be done with
expendable rockets] or for microgravity experiments [to be done on SSF].

-----

My own thoughts:

I'm glad to see this issue to get attention in the higher levels of manage-
ment at NASA.  It is good to get out of the thinking that the Shuttle is
forever.  However, in the current budget climate, I just don't see NASA
having the money do pursue these ideas until after SSF has reached the
Permanently Manned Configuration (PMC).  SSF and EOS are probably all of
the development money NASA will get from Congress, and these need to take
priority over a Shuttle "replacement."

The Shuttle is a very versatile, albeit expensive, system.  It can launch
satellites, retrieve them, ferry a crew and experiments to a space station,
serve as a space station, serve as an orbital repair facility, and serve
as a technology testbed.  In order to replace it you need to replace all
of these functions with newer (hopefully better and less expensive) systems.

Since designing a new vehicle to perform all of these functions will create
a vehicle with nearly the same qualities as the Shuttle, this path should
be avoided as unlikely to reduce costs enough to justify its development
cost.  Gains can be more cheaply made by improving the current system
instead of building a new one.  However, each individual function can be
performed at reduced cost, and newer systems should be designed to do just
that.  When all of the fuctions of the Shuttle have been off-loaded from
it to other systems, the Shuttle will have been replaced.  But not until then.

The HL-20 is a crew and experiment transfer vehicle.  It will get its lower
cost in part because it will be specialized for that task.  It will not be
able to perform the other Shuttle objectives, so it will not replace the
entire Shuttle.  For example, a crew transfer vehicle needs a destination
to transfer a crew to, so its development must not precede SSF.  The
Shuttle, on the other hand, can function as both the transfer vehicle and
the destination (with Spacelab).

To replace the Shuttle requires many systems, but NASA's budget is unlikely
to be large enough to permit simultaneous development of all of these
systems.  The most sensible approach is to continue to fly the Shuttle to
meet current needs while designing new systems to replace the functions the
Shuttle performs the most poorly.  I would say that what the Shuttle is
poorest at is launching satellites.  Comsats can be launched more cheaply
and with a shorter lead time on expendibles, and since STS-51L, that has
been the status quo.  Currently there is an effort to move all satellite
deployment to ELVs.  This effort is past due and should proceed immediately.

The next step is to replace Spacelab with a permanent and more capable
facility.  This is, of course, SSF.  There are a few Spacelab flights that
may not be compatible with SSF (e.g. ATLAS), but most of these will benefit
the sooner we can get SSF operational.  Once SSF is operational, a transfer
vehicle is needed to ferry crews and equipment to it.  This is where the
HL-20 and Delta Clipper come in.  Ideally they should come online about
2001, but due to development constraints the Shuttle will probably be used
for initial crew transfer.

Even with SSF and HL-20 operational, the Shuttle is still needed for satellite
retrieval and repair missions and for technology development missions (e.g.
Tethered Satellite System).  I know of no systems on the drawing boards to
adequately meet these needs, so the Shuttle may indeed survive until 2010.
Perhaps a Delta Clipper and an Orbital Maneuvering System parked at SSF
can perform most of these missions.  At any rate, the Shuttle flight rate
will be low by this time, and it will be effectively, even if not completely,
replaced.

If you made it this far, congratulations.  I would appreciate feedback on
this, since this "plan" requires the setting of priorities.

Mike

--
Michael Kent                                   [e-mail]
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Tute Screwed Aero Class of '92                              Apple II Forever !!

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

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 06:50:30 PST
From: Jim Bowery <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Propulsion Research
Newsgroups: sci.space

William Fabanich <[e-mail]> writes:

> What universities are best knownfor their research into space propulsion
>  research ? How about a list, a ranking, and/or general opinions ? Whatever y
>  might feel answers this question best.
>
>                          Thanx,
>                             Bill Fabanich
>                             [e-mail]

If they are "well known" at present, they are probably your enemies.

--
INTERNET:  [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA [phone]

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

Date: 13 Nov 92 16:03:20 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: SUMMARY of 1st NASA TOWN MEETING -- Raleigh NC (long)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Jon Leech & I were among the 700 people at the 1st NASA Town Meeting, held on
Monday afternoon 2-6:30 pm in nearby Raleigh.  After an introductory spiel by an
administrator of the host North Carolina State U, Goldin outlined the rationale
for the meetings:

  Town Meetings are the latest phase of NASA's self-examination that began
  a while ago.  Blue & Red teams within NASA defined program cost savings
  (identified 17% cost savings by rescoping programs such as AXAF, Cassini,
  etc.)  Time to publicize progress NASA has made on this, and on its post-
  Cold War mission.  NASA should be *the* source of high technology in the
  US, and a stimulus to US industry and education.
  NASA budget gap between program costs and funding was increasing alarmingly.
  Budget not going to increase much if at all, so *the best* fiscal discipline
  is required.  Congress must be given believable figures that do not run over
  if they are to support NASA programs.
  NASA's goal is to be *the best* administration in government.
  Need to increase minority and women hires. [Shocking plot in the info packet.]
  In the space program, NASA's primary concern is to improve Shuttle reliability
  and safety.  Freedom is the next major project ... fabrication is imminent.
  Need to understand how humans tolerate space before we set off for Mars.
  Mission to Planet Earth to study environmental change.
  [No mention of the Moon, or SEI.  Alluded to Pluto Direct.]

Next we watched a NASA video. This highlighted NASA's past accomplishments and,
Goldin explained, was intended to remind NASA employees of their past. It was as
expected.  A pad photo of Challenger on the screen for 1/2 sec, preceded by
ominous music and many references to ``Congress''.  This was immediately replaced
by an up-beat score as that embarassing episode faded into distant history.
Various NASA civil servants  then articulated their enthusiasm for the agency.
[Most ridiculous was a woman, labeled Congressional Liaison, who stated the she
car-pooled with USDA people and wondered if they felt the same sense of mission
that she does when they slap a USDA sticker on meat!]  Video culminated in the
usual idiocy that NASA's goal is ``to journey to the stars!''

Goldin then fielded questions from the audience for about 45 mins.
Questions, among others, on
    Shuttle's damage to other NASA programs -- acknowledged, but never again.
        because NASA is working to get *the best* cost control in government.
    Heavy lift options on assembling SSF -- have'nt completed internal
        review to establish if the development costs can be justified by
        the available payloads.  Energiya is *not* an option, because it
        is felt that too much development would have to be done with the CIS.
        NASA will be flying a cosmonaut on STS-60 [whose commander was the
        astronaut representative at the Town Meeting.]  Outstanding issues
        on Shuttle safety remain turbo-pumps and the engine bells.  NASA
        is committed to flying Shuttle only for missions that require
        humans, no more than 8 times/yr.  Will start doing this once all
        the Shuttle-specific payloads are dealt with, in 18 months or so.
    What about SSTO?  -- too many launch vehicle programs in the works.  Some
        must be cancelled.  All look favorable when first proposed, but
        less so as they are costed out.  Doubts the relevance of the
        sub-scale DC-X test flight to the overall program.  SSTO relies
        heavily on poorly understood composites, some derived from NASP.
    How do you reconcile NASA's statements of support for SEI with its deletion
        by Congress every time that it appears in the budget? -- NASA must
        demonstrate cost control, and that it can deliver on time.  Low-cost
        missions like NEAR & MESUR will show Congress that NASA can be
        trusted, then we will have better success with SEI.
    How to make NASA's support for basic science research less ``faddish''?
        -- have appointed another bureaucrat to coordinate science support.
        Also, Len Fisk as Chief Scientist will be tasked with selling
        Missions to Planet Earth & from Planet Earth to industry, scientists,
        and the public.

Questions from elementary school teachers asking for more visual aids so that
they can pacify the uncontrollable children in their charge with videos.
Statements of support for NASA.  Award for most inane/naive question IMO goes
to the director of the NC State U Mars Center [builds plywood mock-ups of NASA
vaporware for shopping malls, among other activities].  He noted that his
program churned out many fine undergraduate students who learned all these
vital Mars exploration skills, but who couldn't get jobs in NASA upon
graduation.  [Too bad NC's furniture industry is not doing too well.]  Goldin
replied by mentioning NASA's Project Exodus.  No, this is not NASA's response
to P-Swift/Tuttle's return in the 22nd century.  It is their package to induce
ossified NASA employees to take early retirement.

Goldin then raced off to address business leaders.  [He had earlier visited an
elementary school to inspire the kids, with minority astronaut in tow.]
During the break a video wall rehashed Apollo and depicted unfunded missions
to Mars as if they were imminent.  We looked at a meter-long plastic model of
Freedom, which included a non-Soyuz ACRV, the new ``mini''-modules, and 3
solar panels.  [The following afternoon I visited mockups of the Lab and
Habitation modules that were parked for several days at a local science
museum in Durham.  Constructed at Marshall, these are full length but
sub-diameter.  They were manned by a fellow from Marshall, who incidently
works in the NASA department charged with building plywood mock-ups -- NC
State Mars Center take note!  He was able to conduct 3 simultaneous
conversations at 3 different levels of technical sophistication.  It's worth a
visit with your kids.  The vans will travel with the Town Meeting.  There's
also something called the Laser Van which has hands-on science demos for
elementary schools.]

The information packet had copies of the viewgraphs from Goldin's opening
comments, and biographies of the panel members.  One of the viewgraphs, labeled
``NASA Buget Gap'' showed the growing deviation with time between NASA's
program commitments and (an optimistically increasing) funding profile.
Neither axis was labeled and the vertical (cost) axis was broken, so the plot
was almost devoid of content!  There was also a pie chart that showed what
fractions of the 1962 and 1992 budgets went to NASA.  I found this graphic
misleading because the level of entitlements in the 1962 budget was much
lower.  If you account for these, NASA's share today of what remains is 6.5%

While we were standing around, a woman armed with a tape recorder introduced
herself as a NASA employee, and asked if we were satisfied with Goldin's
responses to our questions. She also solicited our general views on NASA,
which took some time.  The NASA HQ'ers in the audience were untagged but
conspicuous Washington suits.  While we were talking, several drifted within
earshot.  They seemed to float around the hall, easedropping.  Very strange.

After the break, the audience thinned out appreciably, and the 2nd-stringers
appeared on stage: Senior HQ managers for many programs, the chief of staff, and
Chief Scientist Fisk. Each manager briefly outlined reforms in his/her division,
then fielded the vague audience questions.  I found the comments by the chief
of staff most illuminating.  She noted that they had been able to reform the
Grants office so that the average time to award industrial and academic
contracts had dropped from 100+ days to 8.  We left after a half hour.

Overall, I was fairly impressed.  I had not expected Goldin to attend & it was
useful to spend a few minutes asking him technical questions. I hope he survives
the change of Administration. That aspect of the format was much more successful
than the Paine Commission hearing that I attended in '86.  NASA also solicited
write-in questions that they promised to answer [Netters, here's your chance!!]
The feel of the meeting often veered abruptly from that of an arcane
budgetary/technical seminar to that of a religious revival.  The 2nd stringer
component was less successful.  No-one in the audience appeared to have a
focussed question to any of the senior managers.

Although you can pre-register, there didn't appear to be a need. Several of
our group registered on-site and got the same info package.  They had tables
of soft drinks, and about a dozen cookies.
---
Gerald Cecil [e-mail]  919-962-7169
Physics & Astronomy, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 421
------------------------------