Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_4/V16NO428.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Wed,  7 Apr 93 05:09:00
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #428
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed,  7 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 428

Today's Topics:
                   Blue Ribbon Panel Members Named
                         DC-X Rollout Report
                              Economics
                                 FAQs
                Gibbons Outlines SSF Redesign Guidance
                   Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93
                            nuclear waste
               Small Astronaut (was: Budget Astronaut)
                       Space Research Spin Off
            SSTO Senatorial (aide) breifing recollections.
       the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms ) (2 msgs)
               Washington Post Article on SSF Redesign

    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: 6 Apr 1993 16:02 EST
From: "David B. Mckissock" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Blue Ribbon Panel Members Named
Newsgroups: sci.space

The following press release was distributed April 1 by
NASA Headquarters.

Space Station Redesign Advisory Members Named

Along with Dr. Charles M. Vest, recently named by Vice President
Albert Gore to head the advisory committee on the redesign of the
Space Station, NASA has announced the names of representatives
from government and industry and academic experts from across the
country to participate in an independent review of the redesign
options being developed by NASA.

"I am extremely honored to have been selected to lead this
important review panel. America's future in science and
technology and as a world leader in space demands our utmost
attention and care," said Vest. "We have assembled a diverse
panel of experts that, I believe, will bring the appropriate
measures of insight, integrity and objectivity to this critical
task."

The advisory committee is charged with independently assessing
various redesign options of the space station presented by NASA's
redesign team, and proposing recommendations to improve
efficiency and effectiveness of the space station program. Space
station international partners also are being asked to
participate and will be named at a later date. The advisory
committee will submit its recommendations in June.

Advisory committee members named today include:

Dr. Charles Vest              Dr. Bobby Alford
President, MIT                Executive VP & Dean of Medicine
                              Baylor College of Medicine

Mr. Jay Chabrow               Dr. Paul Chu
President, JMR Associates     Director, Texas Center for
                              Superconductivity
                              University of Houston

Dr. Ed Crawley                Dr. John Fabian
Prof of Aero & Astro          President & CEO
MIT                           ANSER

Maj. Gen. James Fain          Dr. Edward Fort
Deputy Chief of Staff for     Chancellor
Requirements; Headquarters    North Carolina AT&T
USAF Materials Command        State University

Dr. Mary Good                 Mr. Frederick Hauck
Senior VP of Technology       President, International Technical
Allied Signal, Inc.           Underwriters

Dr. Lou Lanzerotti            Mr. William Lilly
Chair, Space Sciences         National Academy of Public
Board, National Research      Administration
Council

Mr. Duane McRuer              Dr. Brad Parkinson
President Systems Technology  Prof of Astro & Aero
                              Stanford University

Dr. Robert Seamans            Dr. Lee Silver
Former NASA Deputy Admin.     W.M. Keck Foundation Professor
                              for Resource Geology
                              California Institute of
                              Technology

Dr. Albert "Bud" Wheelon
Retired CEO
Hughes Aircraft

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

Date: Tue, 06 Apr 93 15:33:40 PDT
From: Richard Buenneke <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Rollout Report

McDonnell Douglas rolls out DC-X

        HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif. -- On a picture-perfect Southern
California day, McDonnell Douglas rolled out its DC-X rocket ship last
Saturday.  The company hopes this single-stage rocket technology
demonstrator will be the first step towards a single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO)
rocket ship.

        The white conical vehicle was scheduled to go to the White Sands
Missile Range in New Mexico this week.  Flight tests will start in
mid-June.

        Although there wasn't a cloud in the noonday sky, the forecast for
SSTO research remains cloudy.  The SDI Organization -- which paid $60
million for the DC-X -- can't itself afford to fund full development of a
follow-on vehicle.  To get the necessary hundreds of millions required for
a sub-orbital DC-XA, SDIO is passing a tin cup among its sister government
agencies.

        SDIO originally funded SSTO research as a way to cut the costs for
orbital deployments of space-based sensors and weapns.  However, recent
changes in SDI's political marching orders and budget cuts have made SSTO
less of a priority.  Today, the agency is more interested in using DC-X as
a step towards a low-cost, reusable sounding rocket.

        SDIO has already done 50 briefings to other government agencies,
said Col.  Simon "Pete" Worden, SDIO's deputy for technology.  But Worden
declined to say how much the agencies would have to pony up for the
program. "I didn't make colonel by telling my contractors how much money I
have available to spend," he quipped at a press conference at McDonnell
Douglas Astronautics headquarters.

        While SDIO has lowered its sights on the program's orbital
objective, agency officials hail the DC-X as an example of the "better,
faster, cheaper" approach to hardware development.  The agency believes
this philosophy can produce breakthroughs that "leapfrog" ahead of
evolutionary technology developments.

        Worden said the DC-X illustrates how a "build a little, test a
little" approach can produce results on time and within budget.  He said
the program -- which went from concept to hardware in around 18 months --
showed how today's engineers could move beyond the "miracles of our
parents' time."

        "The key is management," Worden said. "SDIO had a very light hand
on this project.  We had only one overworked major, Jess Sponable."

        Although the next phase may involve more agencies, Worden said
lean management and a sense of government-industry partnership will be
crucial. "It's essential we do not end up with a large management
structure where the price goes up exponentially."

        SDIO's approach also won praise from two California members of the
House Science, Space and Technology Committee. "This is the direction
we're going to have to go," said Rep.  George Brown, the committee's
Democratic chairman. "Programs that stretch aout 10 to 15 years aren't
sustainable....NASA hasn't learned it yet.  SDIO has."

        Rep.  Dana Rohrbacher, Brown's Republican colleague, went further.
Joking that "a shrimp is a fish designed by a NASA design team,"
Rohrbacher doubted that the program ever would have been completed if it
were left to the civil space agency.

        Rohrbacher, whose Orange County district includes McDonnell
Douglas, also criticized NASA-Air Force work on conventional, multi-staged
rockets as placing new casings around old missile technology. "Let's not
build fancy ammunition with capsules on top.  Let's build a spaceship!"

         Although Rohrbacher praised SDIO's sponsorship, he said the
private sector needs to take the lead in developing SSTO technology.

        McDonnell Douglas, which faces very uncertain prospects with its
C-17 transport and Space Station Freedom programs, were more cautious
about a large private secotro commitment. "On very large ventures,
companies put in seed money," said Charles Ordahl, McDonnell Douglas'
senior vice president for space systems. "You need strong government
investments."

        While the government and industry continue to differ on funding
for the DC-XA, they agree on continuing an incremental approach to
development.  Citing corporate history, they liken the process to Douglas
Aircraft's DC aircraft.  Just as two earlier aircraft paved the way for
the DC-3 transport, a gradual evolution in single-stage rocketry could
eventually lead to an orbital Delta Clipper (DC-1).

        Flight tests this summer at White Sands will "expand the envelope"
of performance, with successive tests increasing speed and altitude.  The
first tests will reach 600 feet and demonstrate hovering, verticle
take-off and landing.  The second series will send the unmanned DC-X up to
5,000 feet.  The third and final series will take the craft up to 20,000
feet.

        Maneuvers will become more complex on third phase.  The final
tests will include a "pitch-over" manever that rotates the vehicle back
into a bottom-down configuration for a soft, four-legged landing.

        The flight test series will be supervised by Charles "Pete"
Conrad, who performed similar maneuvers on the Apollo 12 moon landing.
Now a McDonnell Douglas vice president, Conrad paised the vehicles
aircraft-like approach to operations.  Features include automated
check-out and access panels for easy maintainance.

        If the program moves to the next stage, engine technology will
become a key consideration.  This engine would have more thrust than the
Pratt & Whitney RL10A-5 engines used on the DC-X.  Each motor uses liquid
hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants to generate up to 14,760 pounds of
thrust

        Based on the engine used in Centaur upper stages, the A-5 model
has a thrust champer designed for sea level operation and three-to-on
throttling capability.  It also is designed for repeat firings and rapid
turnaround.

        Worden said future single-stage rockets could employ
tri-propellant engine technology developed in the former Soviet Union.
The resulting engines could burn a dense hydrocarbon fuel at takeoff and
then switch to liquid hydrogen at higher altitudes.

        The mechanism for the teaming may already be in place.  Pratt has
a technology agreement with NPO Energomash, the design bureau responsible
for the tri-propellant and Energia cryogenic engines.

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

Date: Tue, 06 Apr 93 17:20:36 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Economics

>If all the ecomomists in the world were laid end to end . . .

>Punchline #1: they would all point in different directions.

>Punchline #2: they wouldn't reach a conclusion.

Punchline #3: it would be a good idea just to leave them there.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 2 Apr 93 15:50:07 GMT
From: Bev Freed <[e-mail]>
Subject: FAQs
Newsgroups: sci.space

I was wondering if the FAQ files could be posted quarterly rather than monthly.  Every 28-30 days, I get this bloated feeling.



--
Bev Freed - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!freed
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Apr 1993 15:36 EST
From: "David B. Mckissock" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gibbons Outlines SSF Redesign Guidance
Newsgroups: sci.space

NASA Headquarters distributed the following press
release today (4/6). I've typed it in verbatim, for you
folks to chew over. Many of the topics recently
discussed on sci.space are covered in this.

Gibbons Outlines Space Station Redesign Guidance

Dr. John H. Gibbons, Director, Office of Science and
Technology Policy, outlined to the members-designate of
the Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space
Station on April 3, three budget options as guidance to
the committee in their deliberations on the redesign of
the space station.

A low option of $5 billion, a mid-range option of $7
billion and a high option of $9 billion will be
considered by the committee. Each option would cover
the total expenditures for space station from fiscal
year 1994 through 1998 and would include funds for
development, operations, utilization, Shuttle
integration, facilities, research operations support,
transition cost and also must include adequate program
reserves to insure program implementation within the
available funds.

Over the next 5 years, $4 billion is reserved within
the NASA budget for the President's new technology
investment. As a result, station options above $7
billion must be accompanied by offsetting reductions in
the rest of the NASA budget.  For example, a space
station option of $9 billion would require $2 billion
in offsets from the NASA budget over the next 5 years.

Gibbons presented the information at an organizational
session of the advisory committee. Generally, the
members-designate focused upon administrative topics
and used the session to get acquainted. They also
received a legal and ethics briefing and an orientation
on the process the Station Redesign Team is following
to develop options for the advisory committee to
consider.

Gibbons also announced that the United States and its
international partners -- the Europeans, Japanese, and
Canadians -- have decided, after consultation, to give
"full consideration" to use of Russian assets in the
course of the space station redesign process.

To that end, the Russians will be asked to participate
in the redesign effort on an as-needed consulting
basis, so that the redesign team can make use of their
expertise in assessing the capabilities of MIR and the
possible use of MIR and other Russian capabilities and
systems. The U.S. and international partners hope to
benefit from the expertise of the Russian participants
in assessing Russian systems and technology. The
overall goal of the redesign effort is to develop
options for reducing station costs while preserving key
research and exploration capabilities. Careful
integration of Russian assets could be a key factor in
achieving that goal.

Gibbons reiterated that, "President Clinton is
committed to the redesigned space station and to making
every effort to preserve the science, the technology
and the jobs that the space station program represents.
However, he also is committed to a space station that
is well managed and one that does not consume the
national resources which should be used to invest in
the future of this industry and this nation."

NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin said the Russian
participation will be accomplished through the East-
West Space Science Center at the University of Maryland
under the leadership of Roald Sagdeev.

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

Date: 6 Apr 1993 15:44:53 -0400
From: Covert C Beach <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <1pcgaa$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>Now isn't that always the kicker.  It does seem stupid to  drop
>a mission like Magellan, because there isn't  70 million a year
>to keep up the mission.  You'd think  that ongoing science  could
>justify the money.  JPL gets accused of spending more then neccessary,
>probably some validity in that,  but NASA  does put money into some
>things  that really are Porcine.  Oh well.

I attended a colloquium at Goddard last fall where the head of the
operations section of NASA was talking about what future missions
were going to be funded.  I don't remember his name or title off hand
and I have discarded the colloquia announcement. In any case, he was
asked about that very matter: "Why can't we spend a few million more
to keep instruments that we already have in place going?"

His responce was that there are only so many $ available to him and
the lead time on an instrument like a COBE, Magellan, Hubble, etc
is 5-10 years minumum.  If he spent all that could be spent on using
current instruments in the current budget enviroment he would have
very little to nothing for future projects.  If he did that, sure
in the short run the science would be wonderful and he would be popular,
however starting a few years after he had retired he would become
one of the greatest villans ever seen in the space community for not
funding the early stages of the next generation of instruments.  Just
as he had benefited from his predicessor's funding choices, he owed it
to whoever his sucessor would eventually be to keep developing new
missions, even at the expense of cutting off some instruments before
the last drop of possible science has been wrung out of them.


--
Covert C Beach
[e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Apr 93 17:22:24 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: nuclear waste
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Reiken) writes:

>    Ok, so how about the creation of oil producing bacteria?  I figure
> that if you can make them to eat it up then you can make them to shit it.
> Any comments?

They exist.  Even photosynthetic varieties.  Not economical at this
time, though.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Apr 93 07:21:10 GMT
From: Joseph Askew <[e-mail]>
Subject: Small Astronaut (was: Budget Astronaut)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1pfkf5$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>Only one problem with sending a corp of Small astronauts.
>THey may want to start a galactic empire:-)   Napoleon
>complex you know.  Genghis Khan was a little guy too.  I'd bet
>Julius caesar never broke 5'1".

I think you would lose your money. Julius was actually rather tall
for a Roman. He did go on record as favouring small soldiers though.
Thought they were tougher and had more guts. He was probably right
if you think about it. As for Napoleon remember that the French
avergae was just about 5 feet and that height is relative! Did he
really have a complex?

ObSpace :  We have all seen the burning candle from High School that goes
out and relights. If there is a large hot body placed in space but in an
atmosphere, exactly how does it heat the surroundings? Diffusion only?

Joseph Askew

--
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades,
[e-mail]  Remote in thorny deserts, fell the grief.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  North of our tents, the sky must end somwhere,
Actually, I rather like Brenda  Beyond the pale, the River murmurs on.

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

Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 19:35:43 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Research Spin Off
Newsgroups: sci.space

On 6 Apr 1993 14:06:57 -0400, [e-mail] (Pat) said:

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

>successful we were.  (Mind you, the Avro Arrow and the X-15 were both
>fly-by-wire aircraft much earlier, but analog.)
>

Pat> Gee, I thought the X-15 was Cable controlled.  Didn't one of them
Pat> have a total electrical failure in flight?  Was there machanical
Pat> backup systems?

All reaction-controlled aircraft are fly-by-wire, at least the RCS part
is.  On the X-15 the aerodynamic control surfaces (elevator, rudder, etc)
were conventionally controlled (pushrods and cables) but the RCS jets
were fly-by-wire.

|The NASA habit of acquiring second-hand military aircraft and using
|them for testbeds can make things kind of confusing.  On the other
|hand, all those second-hand Navy planes give our test pilots a chance
|to fold the wings--something most pilots at Edwards Air Force Base
|can't do.

Pat> What do you mean?  Overstress the wings, and they fail at teh
Pat> joints?

Navy aircraft have folding or sweeping wings, in order to save space
on the hangar deck.  The F-14 wings sweep, all the rest fold the
wingtips up at a joint.

Air Force planes don't have folding wings, since the Air Force has
lots of room.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

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

Date: 6 Apr 93 20:55:12 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: SSTO Senatorial (aide) breifing recollections.
Newsgroups: sci.space

The following are my thoughts on a meeting that I, Hugh Kelso, and Bob Lilly
had with an aide of Sen. Patty Murrays.  We were there to discuss SSTO, and
commercial space.  This is how it went...



After receiving a packet containing a presentation on the benifits of SSTO,
I called and tried to schedule a meeting with our local Senator (D) Patty
Murray, Washington State.  I started asking for an hour, and when I heard
the gasp on the end of the phone, I quickly backed off to 1/2 an hour.
Later in that conversation, I learned that a standard appointment is 15 minutes.

We got the standard bozo treatment.  That is, we were called back by an aide,
who scheduled a meeting with us, in order to determine that we were not
bozos, and to familiarize himself with the material, and to screen it, to
make sure that it was appropriate to take the senators time with that material.

Well, I got allocated 1/2 hour with Sen. Murrays aide, and we ended up talking
to him for 45 minutes, with us ending the meeting, and him still listening.
We covered a lot of ground, and only a little tiny bit was DCX specific.
Most of it was a single stage reusable vehicle primer.  There was another
woman there who took copius quantities of notes on EVERY topic that
we brought up.

But, with Murray being new, we wanted to entrench ourselves as non-corporate
aligned (I.E. not speaking for boeing) local citizens interentested in space.
So, we spent a lot of time covering the benifits of lower cost access to
LEO.  Solar power satellites are a big focus here, so we hit them as becoming
feasible with lower cost access, and we hit the environmental stand on that.
We hit the tourism angle, and I left a copy of the patric Collins Tourism
paper, with side notes being that everyone who goes into space, and sees the
atmosphere becomes more of an environmentalist, esp. after SEEING the smog
over L.A.  We hit on the benifits of studying bone decalcification (which is
more pronounced in space, and said that that had POTENTIAL to lead to
understanding of, and MAYBE a cure for osteoporosis.  We hit the education
whereby kids get enthused by space, but as they get older and find out that
they havent a hop in hell of actually getting there, they go on to other
fields, with low cost to orbit, the chances they might get there someday
would provide greater incentive to hit the harder classes needed.

We hit a little of the get nasa out of the operational launch vehicle business
angle.  We hit the lower cost of satellite launches, gps navigation, personal
communicators, tellecommunications, new services, etc...  Jobs provided
in those sectors.

Jobs provided building the thing, balance of trade improvement, etc..
We mentioned that skypix would benifit from lower launch costs.

We left the paper on what technologies needed to be invested in in order
to make this even easier to do.  And he asked questions on this point.

We ended by telling her that we wanted her to be aware that efforts are
proceeding in this area, and that we want to make sure that the
results from these efforts are not lost (much like condor, or majellan),
and most importantly, we asked that she help fund further efforts along
the lines of lowering the cost to LEO.

In the middle we also gave a little speal about the Lunar Resource Data
Purchase act, and the guy filed it separately, he was VERY interested in it.
He asked some questions about it, and seemed like he wanted to jump on it,
and contact some of the people involved with it, so something may actually
happen immediatly there.

The last two things we did were to make sure that they knew that we
knew a lot of people in the space arena here in town, and that they
could feel free to call us any time with questions, and if we didn't know
the answers, that we would see to it that they questions got to people who
really did know the answers.

Then finally, we asked for an appointment with the senator herself.  He
said that we would get on the list, and he also said that knowing her, this
would be something that she would be very interested in, although they
do have a time problem getting her scheduled, since she is only in the
state 1 week out of 6 these days.

All in all we felt like we did a pretty good job.

            John.

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

Date: 6 Apr 93 07:12:09 GMT
From: Joseph Askew <[e-mail]>
Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1pfiuh$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>If the japanese are really going for Nukes, why not go with better
>technology then we have.  AS opposed to BWR/PWRs  have they really
>considered some of the 3rd generation Inherently safe designs.

The Japanese are still on the learning curve as far as nuclear power goes.
This means that unlike the Germans (who do great things all by themselves)
the Japanese tie up with foreign companies. The major one is Mitsubishi
(who else) who have a sharing agreement with GE I think. No chance of a
new design.

>Sodium has lots of chemical problems but it really solves design
>difficulties.  Or the inherently safe types.

Sodium has *lots* of chemical problems. Like it eats stainless steel. Very
slowly but it gets there in the end. Not what I call a desired property.
As for design difficulties, what does sodium do there? It is a bitch and
it is only its chemical properties (flwed though they are) that means it
gets used. Two loops? That's not a design problem? Isolation from air and
water? That doesn't cause design problems? In comparison BWR's a dream rides!

>PWR's work real good,  but they need lots of steel,  and they are highly
>complex systems.  Simplicity is a virtue.

Don't get none of that in a Liquid Sodium Breeder! More steel, more complexity.

Joseph Askew

--
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades,
[e-mail]  Remote in thorny deserts, fell the grief.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  North of our tents, the sky must end somwhere,
Actually, I rather like Brenda  Beyond the pale, the River murmurs on.

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

Date: 6 Apr 93 07:17:19 GMT
From: Joseph Askew <[e-mail]>
Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1pfj8k$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>It isn't feasible for Japan to try to stockpile the amount of oil they
>>would need to run their industries if they did no use nuclear power.

>Of course,  Given they export 50 % of the GNP,  What do they do.

Well they don't export anywhere near 50% of their GNP. Mexico's perhaps
but not their own. They actually export around the 9-10% mark. Similar
to most developed countries actually. Australia exports a larger share
of GNP as does the United States (14% I think off hand. Always likely to
be out by a factor of 12 or more though) This would be immediately obvious
if you thought about it.

>Anything serious enough to disrupt the sea lanes for oil will
>also hose their export routes.

It is their import routes that count. They can do without exports but
they couldn't live without imports for any longer than six months if that.

>Given they import everything,  oil is just one more critical commodity.

Too true! But one that is unstable and hence a source of serious worry.

Joseph Askew

--
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades,
[e-mail]  Remote in thorny deserts, fell the grief.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  North of our tents, the sky must end somwhere,
Actually, I rather like Brenda  Beyond the pale, the River murmurs on.

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

Date: 6 Apr 1993 15:58 EST
From: "David B. Mckissock" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Washington Post Article on SSF Redesign
Newsgroups: sci.space

"Space Station Redesign Leader Says Cost Goal May Be
Impossible"

Today (4/6) the Washington Post ran an article with the
headline shown above. The article starts with "A leader
of the NASA team in charge of redesigning the planned
space station said yesterday the job is tough and may
be impossible." O'Connor is quoted saying whether it is
possible to cut costs that much and still provide for
meaningful research "is a real question for me."
O'Connor said "everything is fair game," including
"dropping or curtailing existing contracts with the
aerospace industry, chopping management of the space
station program at some NASA facilities around the
country, working closely with the Russian space station
Mir, and using unmanned Titan rockets to supplement the
manned space shuttle fleet."

O'Connor says his team has reviewed 30 design options
so far, and they are sorting the serious candidates
into three categories based on cost.

The Post says O'Connor described the design derived
from the current SSF as a high cost option (I believe
Kathy Sawyer, the Post writer, got confused here. I
listened in on part of O'Connor's briefing to the press
on Monday, and in one part of the briefing O'Connor
talked about how the White House wants three options,
sorted by cost [low, medium, and high]. In another part
of the briefing, he discussed the three teams he has
formed to look at three options [SSF derivative @ LaRC,
modular buildup with Bus-1 @ MSFC, and Single Launch
Core ["wingless Orbiter"] @ JSC. Later, in response to
a reporters question, I thought I heard O'Connor say
the option based on a SSF redesign was a "moderate"
cost option, in between low & high cost options. Not
the "high cost" option as Sawyer wrote).

The article goes on to describe the other two options
as "one features modules that could gradually be fitted
together in orbit, similar to the Russian Mir. The
other is a core facility that could be deposited in
orbit in a single launch, like Skylab. That option
would use existing hardware from the space shuttle -
the fuselage, for example, in its basic structure."

The last sentence in the article contradicts the title
& the first paragraph. The sentence reads "He
[O'Connor] said a streamlined version of the planned
space station Freedom is still possible within the
administration's budget guidelines."

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


From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: nuclear waste
Date: 6 Apr 1993 15:17:07 -0400
Organization: The Dorsai Grey Captains
Lines: 15
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: oit.gatech.edu
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Reiken) writes:

>    Ok, so how about the creation of oil producing bacteria?  I figure
>that if you can make them to eat it up then you can make them to shit it.
>Any comments?

Sure.  Why keep using oil?  A hydrogen/electric economy would likely be
cleaner and more efficient in the long run.  The laws of supply and demand
should get the transition underway before we reach a critical stage of
shortage.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 428
------------------------------