Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_1/V16NO176.TXT

Text File | 1993-07-13 | 32KB | 742 lines

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 18:30:28
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #176
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 13 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 176

Today's Topics:
                   Book Computers/AI in Shuttle-SSF
                CHANGE IN DEFENSE DEPT. SPACE COMMANDS
                      Galileo Update - 02/11/93
             Getting people into Space Program! (5 msgs)
                         hardware on the moon
     Honorary Names (was: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger)
In defense of sick humour (was Re: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger)
                     Orbital Mechanics--Careers?
                  parachutes on Challenger? (2 msgs)
                    Privatization of space science
        Spaceships made of ice: some lighthearted speculation
                      Space Station funding cuts
                              SSTO news

    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: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 05:08:51 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Book Computers/AI in Shuttle-SSF
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] wrote:

: I had an idea that is in the future.. Maybe give astronauts a book
: computer, have an internal modem where it sends info to the main
: shuttle/Station computer so that all info that the astronaut wants or
: can give is put into the computer..Make the book/hand held a writable
: one where the astronauts can take notes. It might have to be able to
: handle space walks(?).. Make the Shuttle Computer a AI or a node for a
: earth bound AI..

We looked into "book computers" three years ago as an electronic
replacement for the Flight Data File (the books the astronauts use
in the Space Shuttle).  At that time, image display technology was
not up to the task, and it hasn't progressed in a major way since
then.  "Pen computers" are nifty toys, but they rely on forces and
motions which are difficult to control in microgravity.  Remember,
each time you push on a key, it pushes back just as hard.  The same
applies to pens.

Making a display which can handle EVA is no mean feat.  It has to deal
with vacuum, some serious temperature extremes, and the biggest glare
problem you've ever seen -- the naked Sun.  (And you thought
fluorescent lights reflecting off your PC screen caused problems!)  And
the controls would have to be accessible by gloved hands, and those
gloves really restrict fine finger motions.  When you add up power
supply (the Suit people get really upset if you try to run off of their
power connectors), disk drive (which has its own gyroscopic motion
problems), keyboard and display, you get a package which is awkward to
hold and control, and you don't have anyplace to "set it down" while
you work.  (We even thought about strapping it to the arm of the suit.)
An "internal modem" would have to have an extra communication
connection back to the Orbiter or Station, and we don't have the radio
equipment to handle that.

We'd also have to build a book computer which could withstand the
rigors of EVA training, especially the "swimming pool" -- the
Weightless Environment Training Facility (WETF).  It's not just 25 feet
of water; it's also the jolts and dings equipment takes when it's used
there.  And the WETF is kept at 94 degrees F, so cooling your
electronics becomes a problem.

For the EVA computer, instead of having a device external to the
suit, there was a scheme for making an "heads-up display" for the
Extravehicular Mobility Unit (suit), but I believe they ran out
of funds after building their Mac-based prototype.  (I tried it
out once in the lab in building 7.)

There are some efforts to use AI for a few Shuttle and Station tasks,
but basically AI is either more trouble than it's worth or too risky to
use in space-based applications.  Real AI is absolutely nothing like
the AI you see in books or movies.  (There's a non-politically correct
saying, that Artificial Intelligence is like artificial limbs: it's for
people who don't have enough of their own.)

In the long run, we absolutely have to solve these problems.  We simply
can't cart tons of paper and a portable print shop to the moon and
Mars.  (Laser printers won't work in space, by the way, since the
carbon particles they use are a safety hazard.)  I presented a paper on
Paperless Spacecraft at the AIAA a few years ago.  If there's a lot of
interest, I could dust it off and post it.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "Good ideas are common -- what's uncommon are people who'll
      work hard enough to bring them about." -- Ashleigh Brilliant

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 12:28:50 PST
From: Richard Buenneke <[e-mail]>
Subject: CHANGE IN DEFENSE DEPT. SPACE COMMANDS

I just got a copy of the space-related sections of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff study on service roles and missions. The Pentagon released the final
report this morning.

The study recommends the elimination of a unified U.S. Space Command, with
the space mission assigned to U.S. Strategic Command.

Under this proposal, the commander of Air Force Space Command would also
serve as NORAD commander in Colorado Springs. AFSPACECOM also would operate
all space systems under the comander-in-chief of Strategic Command
(CINCSTRAT). "Small Army and Navy components" would be assigend to
CINCSTRAT to ensure that space systems support all services' needs.
Personnel from all services would be assigend to a Joint Space Planning
Staff within STRATCOM. "Such an organization would ensure service-unique
requirements for, and uses of, space were properly represented and that
services and CINCs had trained personnel with the knowledge to fully
exploit the capabilities of space systems."

Requirements for space systems would continue to be submitted by CINCS,
services and agencies to JCS's Joint Requirements Oversight Council for
validation. Day-to-day requirements for operational space supprot would be
submitted to CINCSTRAT.

Under this plan, the Air Force would be responsoble for the development of
future military space systems. The Air Force would serve as lead service
for coordinating LANDSAT operations and working with NASA. All operational
responsibilities for other systems -- including DSCS and FLTSATCOM -- would
be transferred to the Air Force.

This consolidation will save money and eliminate a "substantial" number of
positions.

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

Date: 12 Feb 1993 04:07 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Update - 02/11/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from Neal Ausman, Galileo Mission Director

                                   GALILEO
                       MISSION DIRECTOR STATUS REPORT
                                POST-LAUNCH
                           February 5 - 11, 1993

SPACECRAFT

1.  On February 5, the EE-12B (Earth-Earth) prime sequence memory load was
uplinked to the spacecraft without incident.  This sequence covers spacecraft
activities from February 8, 1993 to April 12, 1993.

2.  On February 8, real-time commands were sent to modify the system fault
protection such that if spacecraft safing executes, the Plasma Wave Subsystem
(PWS) supplemental heater will be turned on.  This change was necessitated by
the increasing solar AU distances.

3.  On February 8, a periodic RPM (Retro-Propulsion Module) 10-Newton thruster
maintenance activity was performed; all 12 thrusters were "flushed" during the
activity.  Spacecraft activity throughout the period was normal.

4.  On February 8, the spacecraft performed a 31.5 degree SITURN for the
purpose of attitude maintenance.  The Z thrusters were used during the
activity.  After the SITURN completed, the Near Infrared Mapping Spectrometer
(NIMS) shield temperature increased to 51.8 degrees C which was 1.8 degrees C
above the 3-210 non-operating limit.  A waiver was generated and approved by
the Project for a non-operating temperature limit to 55 degrees C.

5.  On February 8, an Ultra-Stable Oscillator (USO) test was performed to
verify the health status of the USO and to collect gravitational red shift
experiment data; long term trend analysis is continuing.

6.  On February 8, cruise science Memory Readouts (MROs) were performed for
the Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrometer (EUV), Dust Detector (DDS), and
Magnetometer (MAG) instruments.  Preliminary analysis indicates the data
was received properly.

7.  During the period from February 10 through February 11, a navigation cycle
was performed.  This navigation cycle provided near-continuous acquisition of
two-way doppler and ranging data during four consecutive passes of the
spacecraft over DSS-43 (Canberra 70 meter antenna), DSS-63 (Madrid 70 meter
antenna), DSS-14 (Goldstone 70 meter antenna), and then back to DSS-43.

8.  On February 10, real-time commands were sent to turn the Ultraviolet
Spectrometer (UVS) on to exercise its grating drive mechanism and the
instrument remains on.  The UVS high voltage was also commanded off to
properly configure the instrument for the Earth-Jupiter cruise phase.

9.  On February 10, real-time commands were sent to modify the System Fault
Protection (SFP).  Specifically, the Relay/JOI (Jupiter Orbit Insertion)
System Fault Protection (SFP) was patched for use during non-critical spin-up
activities.  During commanding, radiation terminated due to bit verify errors.
Remaining command radiation was resumed without incident.  Analysis of this
anomaly is in progress.

10. The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements have not exhibited significant change
(greater than 25 DN) throughout this period.  The AC measurement reads 19DN
(4.3 volts).  The DC measurement reads 146DN (17.2 volts).  These measurements
are consistent with the model developed by the AC/DC special anomaly team.

11. The Spacecraft status as of February 11, 1993, is as follows:

       a)  System Power Margin -  70 watts
       b)  Spin Configuration - Dual-Spin
       c)  Spin Rate/Sensor - 3.15rpm/Star Scanner
       d)  Spacecraft Attitude is approximately 16 degrees
           off-sun (leading) and 7 degrees off-earth (leading)
       e)  Downlink telemetry rate/antenna- 1200bps(coded)/LGA-1
       f)  General Thermal Control - all temperatures within
           acceptable range
       g)  RPM Tank Pressures - all within acceptable range
       h)  Orbiter Science- Instruments powered on are the PWS,
           EUV, UVS, EPD, MAG, HIC, and DDS
       i)  Probe/RRH - powered off, temperatures within
           acceptable range
       j)  CMD Loss Timer Setting - 240 hours
           Time To Initiation - 212 hours


UPLINK GENERATION/COMMAND REVIEW AND APPROVAL:

1.  The LGA-2 (Low Gain Antenna #2) Swing Test sequence memory load was
approved for generation by the Project on February 8, 1993.  This sequence
includes Low Gain Antenna (LGA)-2 deploy/retract activities on
February 17, 1993, and wobble identification activities on February 25-26,
1993.


TRAJECTORY

     As of noon Thursday, February 11, 1993, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory
status was as follows:

    Distance from Earth         48,015,000 km (0.32 AU)
    Distance from Sun           192,745,800 km (1.29 AU)
    Heliocentric Speed          119,100 km per hour
    Distance from Jupiter       673,957,200 km
    Round Trip Light Time       5 minutes, 22 seconds


SPECIAL TOPIC

1.  As of February 11, 1993, a total of 65027 real-time commands have been
transmitted to Galileo since Launch.  Of these, 59952 were initiated in the
sequence design process and 5075 initiated in the real-time command process.
In the past week, 50 real time commands were transmitted: 50 were initiated in
the sequence design process and none initiated in the real time command
process.  Major command activities included commands to uplink the EE-12B
prime sequence memory load, modify system fault protection, turn the UVS
instrument on, and turn the UVS high voltage off.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never yell "Movie!" in a
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | crowded fire station.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 15:16:47 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff Bytof) writes:

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
   >From: [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)

   >The Russian Space Agency, for that much hard currency, would happily
   >build and launch three of them (one as a demo to prove they could do
   >it -- since the US wouldn't believe them otherwise -- one for operational
   >use, and one as an on-orbit spare), and throw in free maintenance and
   >resupply for the first five years.

   Here we go again.  Wouldn't throw Americans out of work?

Yes, it would, in the short term. But look at it from an international
perspective. The former Soviet Union is on the brink of chaos. Four

states (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan) have nuclear weapons on
their soil. In Russia itself (hardly a stronghold of democracy just
yet) the economy is weaker than ever; regions and cities are declaring
autonomy; the whole country is becoming splintered. Why? Because
they're critically short of hard currency and jobs. Scientists,
engineers, and specialists (the very people who might get it back on
its feet) are leaving in droves. People are starving to death in
modern Russia; it is not far from a descent into anarchic feudalism.
An anarchic feudalism with a very large nuclear arsenal.

Don't you think that boosting the economy, giving jobs to these
scientists and engineers, restabilising the government, _and_ buying a
suite of international space stations, is worth $4bn? Compared to
lining the pockets of NASA contractors (which is _all_ that $4bn would
do over here; it won't buy you diddly). Think about the possible
outcomes:

(1) a new, large and rapidly growing trading partner (read: market for
American goods), with obligations to the US for bailing it out;

(2) a large assortment of poor and fiercely nationalist statelets
(some Islamic fundamentalist, some Communist, some just plain
anarchies), with lots of nuclear weapons and a grievance against the
US (namely: the US outspent them, ending the cold war and plunging
them into this situation -- and if you think this feeling doesn't
exist in Russia you're very wrong).

I'm not saying the US should `invest' in random shoddy tractor parts
or something; I'm saying money should be spent on those things the
Russians do _better_ and _cheaper_ than the US, and that the rewards
will be _both_ a better space program _and_ a better international
situation.

Nick Haines [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Feb 1993 00:02:29 -0500
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Hugh Emberson) writes:

>Why is just about everything the US millitary does/uses called Have or
>Pave?

>This has been puzzling me for a long time.

It's designed to puzzle people...looks like it worked. :-)
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Feb 93 05:39:34 GMT
From: Hugh Emberson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>>>> On 10 Feb 93 20:06:56 GMT, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) said:

Allen> Actually, operating tempratures and total stresses are also
Allen> pretty close.  The main differences is in the turbopumps and
Allen> those exist today. Peak stresses on SSTO may be higher but Have
                                                                  ^^^^
Allen> Region answered most of the open questions on that. That's why
Allen> every agency and group which has looked at SSTO say it can be
Allen> done.

Why is just about everything the US millitary does/uses called Have or
Pave?

This has been puzzling me for a long time.

Hugh
--
Hugh Emberson -- CS Postgrad
[e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Feb 93 13:45:48 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>The question is, if only $4G is available, is it more important to keep a
>small fraction of them employed, or to get a functional space station?

Come now Henry, NASA spent over $8 billion designing a space station
which couldn't have ever been built. It should be obvious that very
few people actually care if a space station is ever built.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------123 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 13:50:39 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Hugh Emberson) writes:

>Why is just about everything the US millitary does/uses called Have or
>Pave?

I think it is part of the naming system. Every 'Pave' program I have
ever worked on or had access to had something to do with radar. I don't
know what 'Have' means (if anything). Perhaps Mary can give a better answer.

   Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------123 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 04:46:21 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: hardware on the moon
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Joseph Askew) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:

>>Speaking of US hardware on the Moon, it all belongs to the
>>Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum.  And the Apollo 11
>>site has been designated a National Monument, belonging to the
>>National Park Service.

>This is interesting. When the Apollo 11 site was designated as a
>National monument did they designate the lander or the lander and
>the surrounding area? This is close to claiming juristiction on
>the Moon surely.

I seem to remember hearing that somewhere is a little government statement that
explains that even though we planted a flag we did not intend that action to
signify a claim to the territory.  Henry, have you heard of this?  On a further
note it should be pointed out that this discussion should also include the
Viking landing site since they face a similiar situation.  One of the landers
is (was?) an official weather station.
--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]

    You only live once.  But if you live it right, once is enough.
            In memoria, WDH

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

Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 14:05:14 GMT
From: Bob Combs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Honorary Names (was: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In regards to honorary names, the Air Force Satellite Control
facility in Sunnyvale, Califorina [formerly Sunnyvale Air Force
Station] was renamed Onizuka Air Force Base in honor of
Ellison Onizuka.

It is a small, but important Air Force command and control
facility near Nasa Ames, which most of you will be familiar
with.  When you go in the main entrance, they have a nice
display talking about Onizuka's life and they exibit some
of his uniform items and other memorabilia.

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

Date: 12 Feb 93 14:22:35 GMT
From: Henry Troup <[e-mail]>
Subject: In defense of sick humour (was Re: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
|>probably the worst setbacks ever for the space program and all these people
|>could do was crack sick jokes.

Sick humour is a defense mechanism.  It means "if I were serious about
this, I couldn't bear it".  Not everyone reacts the same way.

Although I remember the Apollo 1 Grisson Chaffee White fire, I don't
remember any jokes about it.  Probably because the accident itself was
not televised live.

Henry Troup - [e-mail] (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
                onotology recapitulates

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 04:14:50 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Orbital Mechanics--Careers?
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.research.careers,sci.space,soc.college.grad

John O. Bell II ([e-mail]) wrote:

: If you ever get the chance, take a very close look at the Aero Engineering
: grad program at the U of Illinois... especially for concentration in the
: field of Orbital/Celestial Mechanics. The university is getting gobs of
: money poured into it, the dean (Prof. Solomon) is on a mission to make it
: the top AAE grad school in the country, and if you're lucky and say your
: prayers :-) you'll get to work with either Prof. J. E. Prussing or
: Prof. B. A. Conway, both highly respected contributors to the field and
: quite pleasurable to work with.

I concur.  I took my MS in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering
at the University of Illinois/Champaign-Urbana.  Dr. Prussing has done
outstanding work in the field of hyperbolic cycloids for point-to-point,
non-elliptical orbits in a gravity well.  Dr. Conway s one of the best
instructors I've ever had.

UIUC is consistently ranked #3 in the country for engineering schools.
(MIT is always #1, and Stanford and Berkeley vie for #2, depending on
who's doing the survey.)  And it's a state school, with reasonable
tuition.  (Not as reasonable as Univ. of Houston, but that's another
story and another degree.)

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]
      BS: CS, UIUC '85; MS: AAE, UIUC '87; PhD: ME, UH '95(?)

     "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence.
      Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men
      with talent.  Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a
      proverb.  Education will not; the world is full of educated
      derilicts.  Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
      The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the
      problems of the human race."  -- Calvin Coolidge

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

Date: 11 Feb 93 07:16:17 GMT
From: Paul Campbell <taniwha!paul>
Subject: parachutes on Challenger?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>some training jets, the front seat has to go *first*.  There is a
>story, perhaps untrue (my memory isn't good enough to recall where I
>heard it), of a pilot-instructor who got himself cut in half by
>reaching up over a student to pull down his handle after the student
>blacked out.  The student got out.  The instructor got a (posthumous)
>medal.

How could they tell if there's no one around who was concious at the time?

    Paul


--
Paul Campbell    UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul     AppleLink: CAMPBELL.P
"Finally after much thought he tied a dollar bill to the top of the tree, it
seemed to fit - after all it was the premier capitalist holiday, besides after
the 'fall' of communism a star didn't seem appropriate anymore ..."

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 05:24:28 GMT
From: "R. Lee Hawkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: parachutes on Challenger?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>Why not a full-ejection-module like on the F-111 or B-1?
>
>Major weight penalty plus the same safety problems as ejection seats...
>and in case you weren't aware of it, the F-111 system does not work very
>well and the B-1 switched to ejection seats.
>
>>...isn't exactly retrofittable, but perhaps such a system would be useful
>>on future vehichles...
>
>ESA looked into such a system for Hermes, but ended up with ejection seats.
>The ESA astronauts didn't want *any* escape system, on the grounds that it
>was only marginally useful and the weight was better spent on other things.
>
>The right solution for future vehicles is the one used today for airliners:
>build them redundant and fail-safe so you don't *need* escape systems.  Any
>escape system is far inferior to being able to save the whole vehicle.

I'm not sure the above is a very valid engineering or statistical comparison.
Airliners fly thousands of flights each day while the Shuttle flys less
than 12 per *year*.  To build things that don't fail, you have to
understand all the failure modes, both expected and unexpected (remember
the Comet?  The DC-10 engines?), and this unfortunately seems to require
a few crashes now and then and some of deaths.  Airliners still crash
and kill people.  Also, the shuttle is just a *wee* bit more complicated
than a DC-10 or 747.  Face it: due to the small number of flights/year
and the continual changes and upgrades to the shuttle, every flight is a
test flight.  Passengers aren't *allowed* in a new airliner until an
extensive testing program has been completed, and
designers/manufacturers feel reasonably certain that they are safe.
This will never be the case with the shuttle (or any other
low-mission-rate vehicle), so (at least to me) parachutes and a
*survivable* escape system seem the right thing to do.  Lastly, look at
the huge impact a space-related disaster has on the nation vs. the
impact of a large air disaster.  If you mention the Challenger
explosion, almost anyone you talk to will know about it.  If you mention
the Delta crash in 1985 that killed 133 (or any other air disaster
over a year old), most people won't even know what you are talking
about.  The Delta crash was obviously the worst *human* disater of the
two in terms of lives lost, but Challenger was obviously much more
damaging to the nation.  My feeling is that if seven people hadn't died
that day, Challenger would have been a lot less damaging.
--Lee

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

Date: 12 Feb 93 00:33:48 GMT
From: Craig Meyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Privatization of space science
Newsgroups: sci.space

What would happen if a prospective space-services company were to approach the
governments of the world an offer to bring back a bucket of Mars dirt, along
with other samples and measurements, to the highest bidder?

Would agencies like NASA and ESA oppose such private-run operations?  Or would
they be happy to buy the product--if the offered price were less than they
could match?

Is there entrepreneurial potential in such projects?

CM

--
       Craig Meyer                 [e-mail]
       Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humaities.
       Muncie, IN  47306                          317-285-7433

       Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not necessarily
       shared by the Indiana Academy.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 01:13:40 GMT
From: Daniel Burstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Spaceships made of ice: some lighthearted speculation
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.materials

a threader (?) has questioned the viability of ice (as in frozen water)
being used as structural material for spaceships.  some other folk
described the use of wood-fiber reinforced (and insulated) ice being used
for naval (i.e. ocean going) ships, for runways, etc.

I'd just like to point out that this was a major feature in a story by
(the late) Isaac Asimov titled "the Martian Way."  Basically, a group of
humans stationed on Mars, worried that Earth will cut off their water
supply, fly out to the asteroid belt, find a half-kilometer or so
ice-based asteroid, insert a few rocket engines, and fly it back.

(some scientific errors which actually don't detract from the story: the
martian atmosphere is not anywhere near breathable, the asteroids aren't
made of mile sized batches of ice, etc., but it's a pretty good story anyway).

[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 13:52:00
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Station funding cuts

Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]> writes:
>I just heard on the radio that the Space Station and the Supercollider
>are up for discussion by Clinton officials.  The broadcast gave
>little in the way of details.  The report mentioned the "30 billion
>dollar pricetag" for the space station.  Curiously, Clinton's job
>stimulus package is pegged at $31 billion...

National Public Radio announced this morning that the Clinton administration
was proposing cutting funding of the Space Station by 40%.

Rick Kitchen
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 05:17:43 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: SSTO news
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

Rich Kolker ([e-mail]) wrote:

: MacDAC is renting the White Sands range and a static test stand at
: it from NASA.  That is NASA's only connection (at this point) to DC.

"NASA's only connection" and we're causing a schedule slip!  Boy, am I
embarrassed!

: By the way, the Whiute Sands Space Harbor is operated by the
: Johnson Space Center.

I'll keep my eye on the JSC Senior Staff Activity Report.  They usually
discuss the big things going on at White Sands, but only in a "Hey,
look what we done!" manner.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "We want to abolish the 'not invented here' syndrome
      which breeds insularity and fails to seize the good ideas within
      and outside of NASA."
    -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 21:30:21 EST
From: [e-mail]


To: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SSTO news
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 05:15:41 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.
Status: R
Sender: [e-mail]

>>>Flying testing has been pushed back to may since NASA couldn't get
>>>the test stand ready for them until April for static tests.

Mislaid the paperwork, I suppose.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 176
------------------------------