Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_9/V16NO904.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-03 | 36KB | 833 lines

Space Digest                Thu, 22 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 904

Today's Topics:
                        cheap space computers
                         Clementine (3 msgs)
            Cookiesat (was Re: COOKIE CUUTTER PROBES (WA)
                                 DC-X
            DC-X Prophets and associated problems (2 msgs)
                  GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB)
                            Jupiter names
                                 M31
       Smallwood Memorial Spaceport (was: The 51 degree orbit)
                         The 51 degree orbit

    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: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 17:02:14 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: cheap space computers
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Linton) writes:
>|> So back to my crazy idea - imagine an EISA compatible spacefhcraft bus,
>|> so that any existing card could be just plugged in.
>|> As pat says, sure, you have to check it for enviro etc, and probably
>|> some won't work. But I believe most will.
>
>I think you're wrong. I think roughly NONE will. The space environment,
>especially ine LEO (where you clip the Van Allan belts occasionally, let alone in
>Jupiter orbit or Mercury orbit, is incredibly hostile to electronics...

It's not that bad, actually.  Note that quite a few off-the-shelf
electronic systems, including commercial laptop computers, have been
used quite successfully inside the shuttle cabin.  The cabin has some
shielding, but it's not that much.

If you're willing to assume short missions and an occasional failure,
the radiation environment is not that big a deal.  Of course, "short
missions" probably rules out anything beyond the Moon.

A much bigger practical problem is that the off-the-shelf hardware is
designed to be air-cooled.  Unless you're willing to follow the Russian
approach and pressurize the interior of your spacecraft -- which works,
but introduces major new failure modes -- you can't use EISA anything
on an unmanned spacecraft.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 15:59:00 GMT
From: Tim Harincar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clementine
Newsgroups: sci.space

Some questions about the science objectives of the mission:

How much of the surface is intended to be mapped? Poles included?

Do the 10m resloution spot images include any 'artificial' features
(ie Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, LM Ascent stage, S-IV stage impact sites)?

I think the impact sites would be interesting because you have an object
of known size, shape, mass, velocity and you can see what kind of dent
it made.

How about other artifacts - Apollo sites, Lunakhod sites, Surveyors, etc.
Apollo & Lunakhod sould be easy since the astronauts turned up so much
new soil with there boots & rovers, should be good contrast... Mostly,
these images would be cool PR, I don't know how much science value they'd
have.

BTW, according to _Robot Explorers_ by kenneth Gatland, the Lunar Orbiter's
cameras had resoultions of 487m (wide angle) and 60m (telephoto). According
to what Jordin Kare of LLNL posted, Clementine's cameras are ~100m and
about 10m resolutions - better in both cases. So the quality of data
should be pretty good.

--
tim harincar
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 17:12:37 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clementine
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Harincar) writes:
>How much of the surface is intended to be mapped? Poles included?

All of it, at the lower resolutions.  Bear in mind, though, that lighting
conditions at the poles are poor.

>Do the 10m resloution spot images include any 'artificial' features
>(ie Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, LM Ascent stage, S-IV stage impact sites)?

I don't remember whether the spacecraft pointing is precise enough to
let you pick and choose things to see at the 10m resolution.  I doubt
that you could see the impact crater from something as small as a
Ranger or a Lunar Orbiter.  I expect you could see an S-IVB crater,
but I'm not sure how precisely the impact points are known.

>How about other artifacts - Apollo sites, Lunakhod sites, Surveyors, etc.
>Apollo & Lunakhod sould be easy since the astronauts turned up so much
>new soil with there boots & rovers, should be good contrast...

There isn't that big a contrast between the surface layers and the
near-surface dust, and the astronauts didn't do *that* much digging.
If you imaged those sites at a low Sun angle, you could probably see
shadows from the bigger items; I seem to recall a Lunar Orbiter photo
showing the shadow of a Surveyor.  But even an LM descent stage isn't
going to be more than a bright point at 10m resolution.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 17:18:25 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clementine
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I am told that it's optics are inferior to the normal NASA optics in
>several ways:
>
>sensitivity to radiation is high (meaning radiation in the space
>environment will tend to degrade the images)

Ah, but does this mean that transient radiation effects will mess up the
images, or that radiation aging will give the instruments a short life?
I can well believe that the instrument lifetimes are well below NASA
standards, but so is the mission length -- Clementine doesn't have to
operate for ten years.

>and the resolution is comparable to a Lunar Orbiter (as in the Lunar
>Orbiter from the 1960's).

Not true, unless you use a very broad definition of "comparable".
The surface resolution is a factor of several better, depending on
exactly which numbers you compare, and the multispectral capability
is likewise a considerable improvement.

>... I don't want to get our hopes too high that this will be the Lunar
>Orbiter that we have all waited 21 years for.

It definitely won't be, if only because the 21-year orbiter :-) would
definitely have a gamma-ray/neutron spectrometer, to resolve the vexing
question of frozen volatiles at the poles.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 21 Jul 1993 11:39 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cookiesat (was Re: COOKIE CUUTTER PROBES (WA)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Zvi Lev) writes:
>> So back to my crazy idea - imagine an EISA compatible spacefhcraft bus,
>> so that any existing card could be just plugged in.
>> As pat says, sure, you have to check it for enviro etc, and probably
>> some won't work. But I believe most will. Think what it would do
>> for space development if one knew that most of what is available for
>> desktop computers (hardware & software) can be plugged into your
>> sattelite if you just want to use it.
>
>The first time I met Dennis Wingo, he was giving a talk insisting that
>a lunar probe *must* have VME-bus computers, and strongly implying (at
>least) that anyone who would advocate any other kind was a complete
>idiot.
>
>Wasn't obvious to me, but I kept my mouth shut about it.
>
>That was many years ago, and I suspect it was before Dennis had built
>any spacegoing hardware himself.
>

Bill methinks your memory is slightly faulty. I said (and I wrote a
paper for IEEE SoutheastCon 89) Suggesting that you COULD you the VME
bus as a spacecraft computer bus. This was for Lunar Prospector and
the idea is exactly the same as you are speaking of here.

BEFORE I ever gave that talk, I had been involved in the design of
many computer systems and subsystems and was extending that into the
aerospace realm. I will not elaborate more as we have given far too many
free ideas to people that are going out and building commercial
small sats based upon our ideas.

>In some dream world where thousands of payloads are launched each year
>(do I see a light down that tunnel marked "DC-X?") maybe Zvi's vision
>will come true.  Lower launch costs might make possible large
>production runs of spacecraft buses and other components.  Perhaps the
>sky will be full of Oscars...
>

Also, Yea I know a lot more about building spaceflight hardware today than
in 1989 in Houston. You also remember that a Lieutenant from the Air Force
was there who stormed out of the room saying that you "can't use non
qualified hardware!" There are problems with standard hardware and there
are solutions to those problems but I ain't posting it here.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 17:29:14 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (stephen voss) writes:
>1)Could DC-1 replace the space shuttle for all manned surface to orbit
>needs at a much lower cost,if so how much lower

Probably, yes, although it would mean redesigning some of the bigger
payloads to go up in pieces, and establishing a small space station
to handle the longer-duration missions.

Just how much lower the cost could be is extremely difficult to give
realistic numbers for right now.  It's too early.  It *could* be a
couple of orders of magnitude lower, if you make all the optimistic
assumptions.  A factor of several is quite likely even if you're
moderately pessimistic.

>2)If DC-1 is going to be so much better than other programs then why
>does Mcdonnel Douglas need govt backing at all . Im sure private
>companies would be piling in to fund it...

The problem is, where's the market?  The optimistic predictions depend
vitally on opening up new markets, whose exact size cannot be predicted
very well.  The bulk of the existing market is government payloads, and
the government's reaction to a new private launcher is very hard to
predict.  The only predictable commercial market is comsats, which is
too small to justify a large-scale development project.

>3) Why should we be funding space programs at all when we have (fill in
>your favorite social cause) here at home

Why should your university be allowed to buy and operate computers when
we have <favorite social cause> that needs the money more?  Same answer:
the costs are not large by comparison with the funding needed to really
do something about <favorite social cause>, and it's a long-term investment
aimed at improving the future rather than the present.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 21 Jul 1993 15:35:28 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

Allen W. Sherzer ([e-mail]) wrote:

: Which claims are extravagent? Sure, it's moderately risky but it's
: not extravagent. If it won't work, we will know after investing less
: than the cost of a single Shuttle flight in the concept.

: This is the famous "a project has failed therefore all projects must
: fail" arguement. In the early 1900's you could have used this arguement
: to 'prove' that we would never have airplanes based on Langly's failures.

: This IS something to be concerned about but unless you can come up with
: specific reasons, it shouldn't be veiwed as anything more than something
: to monitor.

The claim of "cheap, routine access to space" - which is the same
comment made about the shuttle before it became operational. The exact
numbers I'd have to look back into these news feeds, but I'm just trying
to post a gentle "reminder" to use caution in claiming things about the
operational details of the DC system before they are real. As for projects
failing, that is not my point at all.. the shuttle certainly is no failure,
and I hope the same is true of the DC. The "failure" comes in peopel'
perceptions of the system.. the shuttle didn't live up to ALL of the
inital claims, and so some label it a failure. The DC faces the exact
same problem. I don't know where the thread of "a project that has
failed dooms all others" comes from.. I certanly don't beleive it..

[re: man ratings]
: For spacecraft that is true, for aircraft it isn't near as hard. Nobody
: said it was trivial but it won't require unusual amounts of effort. Boeing
: builds airplanes in spite of the difficulty associated with certification
: and there isn't any reason spacecraft should be different.

: Note that to manrate a spacecraft you add tens of millions of $$ in cost per
: flight yet all that extra money doesn't improve the safety record one bit.
: Un-rated launchers are just as safe as the rated ones.

:     Allen

Aircraft have both a significantly less "dynamic" environment, and a
significantly larger base of experience to draw from. Someday in the near
future, spacecraft will indeed have little additional requirements over
aircraft, but right now they still do. The reason why is due to two things..
the "newness" of the technology, and the requirements placed upon such
things by NASA/FAA/Congress/DOD. Man-rating involved adding more redundancy
and safety into a system than is required for a non-manrated system. Few
people balk at the loss of one in thirty to fourty launches of a BDB
(from PAM or stage failures for instance) but lose one man-rated system
in 100 flights and people scream for blood. Look at what NASA was forced
into thanks to STS-51L. Layers upon layers of redundancy and management
oversight were added thanks to the Rogers Commission, many of which have
caused the project cost problems NASA's had. These layers of management
are now being pulled, and the systems streamlined to be more effiecient
and reliable, but the requirmnts still exist (as well they should).
Adding cost to a system usually comes in the terms of higher reliability
or backup ability for systems, and when you are planning on flying
people, I'd much rather see us lean on the side of too much caution
than not enough. To get the DC system an rated WILL take money and
time, and will not be a "trivial" task (as some (not nessesarily you
Allen) have claimed). Redesign of control systems I see as being the
first big hurdle. (You show me an astronaut who is wiling to fly inside
a closed can with no control other than the ground, and I'll be significantly
amazed. The shuttle theoretically could be operated this wa from launch to
landing, but is NOT in deferece to those willing to risk flying into space,
AND to improve the "saftey margin" of the vehicle.

Mike
--
Michael C. Jensen    [e-mail] [e-mail]
Valparaiso University - Electrical Engineering / NASA - Johnson Space Center
"I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
*** Windows NT -- from the people who brought you edlin.. ***
---The opinions expressed are my own.. not NASA's or VU's..---

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 17:44:14 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <22jno0$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:

>: This IS something to be concerned about but unless you can come up with
>: specific reasons, it shouldn't be veiwed as anything more than something
>: to monitor.

>The claim of "cheap, routine access to space" - which is the same
>comment made about the shuttle before it became operational.

Can you be more specific? Why are these claims outrageous? Dennis thinks
the engines won't work. I don't agree but that is the sort of arguement
you need to make.

You look only at the claims made by DC and Shuttle. I look at the technology,
design, and management and conclude it is likely doable. Shuttle had three
separate types of engines each burning a different type of fuel. Each had
their own plumming, fuel, and maintenance requirements. DC has one type of
engine each using fuel from a common source and sharing most of the tankage
and associated structure. Most of the Shuttle was custom designed and
designed for max performance, not low cost. DC is using off the shelf
components wherever possible and designing for low cost operations. Shuttle
was built under the MacManara style government procurement. DC is designed
with commercial procurement. Shuttle when from concept to vehicle in one
step. DC is taking the 'build a little, fly a little' approach so problems
are found and fixed early on.

The differences are many and profound. Sure we need to insure the claims
aren't overblown but at the same time, the claims being made ARE reasonable.
We almost certainly can build a spacecraft which meets the DC goals for
cost and availability. Saying we can't simply because another program
made the same claims without addressing the differences just doesn't make
sense.

>perceptions of the system.. the shuttle didn't live up to ALL of the
>inital claims, and so some label it a failure.

Aside from payload, and maybe a few other minor requirements, Shuttle
didn't live up to any of its claims. Calling it a failure is reasonable.

>[re: man ratings]

>Aircraft have both a significantly less "dynamic" environment,

I disagree. Many aircraft are subjected routinely to stresses greater
than a DC would experience. Not only are they subjected to greater stresses,
they endure those stresses for far more time.

Your putting the cart before the horse. FAA certifies aircraft based on
operational testing. Spacecraft are man rated largely based on paperwork.
There is no reason a DC couldn't be certified just like any airliner. Sure
it will be more dangerous than an airliner but so what? We will never get
the experience you are talking about with Shuttle, there simply isn't
enough money in the world.

>aircraft, but right now they still do. The reason why is due to two things..
>the "newness" of the technology,

What's the 'newness'? Most of the engine components are from flight
qualified hardware. The structures used for the tanks and aeroshell
are used today on aircraft. The only thing new is the application.

>and the requirements placed upon such
>things by NASA/FAA/Congress/DOD.

Which needs to change.

>Man-rating involved adding more redundancy
>and safety into a system than is required for a non-manrated system.

Which serves absolutely no useful purpose. Man rated launchers are no
safer than non-man rated ones.

BTW, DC has those built in already. Unlike the "man rated" shuttle, DC
offers fully intact abort througout its envelope. DC has engine out
capability throughout the flight. Shuttle has long periods of time
where a engine out will kill everybody.

If we can man rate Shuttle, man rating DC will be a snap.

>Adding cost to a system usually comes in the terms of higher reliability

And yet these added costs don't affect reliability. Why bother with
them? Sure, it covers somebody's ass, but what value does it add?

>Redesign of control systems I see as being the
>first big hurdle. (You show me an astronaut who is wiling to fly inside
>a closed can with no control other than the ground,

The orbital DC vehicles can be flown from the ground or the vehicle.

Of course, maybe we just don't fly astronauts in it and stick to transporting
ordinary people. I'll volunteer and I'm sure many others will as well.

   Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------14 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 21 Jul 1993 11:39:04 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <22fid4$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
>>It is possible to Take advantage of cheap soviet flights,
>>without sacrificing US capabilities.
>
>Thus even further raising the cost of things.  After all, if you also
>maintain that U.S. capability, where are the 'savings' coming from?
>If you are buying your actual operational capability from overseas,
>where is the incentive to maintain and develop your own capability?
>

Fred,  it costs us on average,  500 Million per shuttle
flight.  if we can pass these costs onto the soviets,  we
can then use the shuttle flights ofr other programmed
activities.  it's   called re-programming and juggling
money.   Lot's of Missions are stalled awaiting shuttle missions,
they are already authorized and funded,  you move those up
into the near term.

Don't   confuse cash flow expeniditure for savings.  the government
works on a multi year basis.


>>If we swap to a high inclination orbit,  it means  we can
>>swap some of the construction flights to the soviets,  while
>>flying other shuttle dependent missions, like SIRTF or
>>KH-12 repairs,  or LDEF 2-3 (Not that it's programmed).
>
>But this is a different argument.  First you have to get funding for
>those missions, otherwise your domestic hardware just sort of goes
>away.  Putting the whole bill for supporting that domestic capability
>on fewer programs makes those programs more expensive due to the fixed
>costs of maintaining your own capability.  Besides which, why wouldn't
>all those other things simply go with foreign hardware as well,
>killing the American launch industry?
>

Well,  if things are strictly going to be done on a cash cost
basis,  why aren't those programs being aimed at russian hardware now?
why don't we see missions bailing off the STS for protons as we
speak.  the use of russian hardware  or non use of russian
hardware does not mandate the activities of other programs.

in fact,  the use of STS for SSF construction and logistics,  would
most likely push  science missions onto russian hardware.
any slips and delays on SSF will have serious ripples into
the science manifest.  and they are much more able to move
onto other vehicles.

and you forget,  most of these missions are funded already.

>>Besides,  given the high probablity of a SHuttle Loss and
>>Fleet shut-down,  would you not want to be able to continue
>>Logistics flights from somewhere?
>
>Yes, but the last time I checked Russia didn't have the only
>alternative launch sites on the planet.
>

So do you think  construction could take place off of Ariane 4?

or that Ariane  has the reserve capacity to run logistics for SSF?

Please cite your alternative launch complex.


>>If we take Hurricane LeRoY,  and it seriously screws up
>>KSC for a couple months,  it would be very useful to have
>>an alternate launch site open.
>

Please name some alternate launch sites other then KSC.


>>A high Inclination orbit, does not require  we actually
>>buy any russian flight services.  it merely makes it possible.
>
>And adds a minimum of $400 million in extra costs.
>

Are you seriously worried about  half a billion dollars  in DDTE
on a $ 80 Billion dollar  station project?  You must be joking.

Besides,  you seem to be advocating capital costs in enhancing KSC

or  other launch complexes.  you suggest that very thing
just  a few paragraphs later.


>>|>2)  Improved Earth Observation Missions.
>
>>What can I say.  THis is the one I hear a lot about.  51 degrees,
>>just about doubles the earth observations science.
>
>But does it double it in a way we care about?  I don't think we can
>just measure the percentage of the Earth's surface we can see at each
>inclination and claim 'double the science'.
>

I have no idea on this one.  Does anyone from planetary sciences know better?


>>>>3)  Improved Logistics Flow missions.
>
>>KSC can only process N flights per year.  Vandenburg does not
>>launch  to 28 degrees.   Let's  say SSF desperately needs a
>>smoke shifter,  a rapid launch from Pletkesk (sp)  or baikonur
>>is possible.  It certainly is not from KSC.  I doubt KSC could push
>>a critical launch through in less then 30 days.
>
>But do you have a requirement for that kind of logistics flow?  If so,
>is it better to make your own capability or spend extra money to
>launch to a high-inclination orbit, thereby making things more
>difficult for yourself so that launches from elsewhere are feasible?
>

well,  let's  look at Skylab.  moments after launch  they discovered
they needed  one solar array  and some thermal barriers.

luckily they were able to package that onto  the SKylab I  flight.

or look at the Mir.  Just a few months ago, they lost a handle,
and they are stuck waiting for a progress flight to bring it up.
now if this was a more critical item,  it could get very uncomfortable
waiting for the re-supply mission.

well  as for wether it's better done  by imrpoving us capacity,
please tell me how we avoid a single point catastrophe at KSC
and are you volunteering to Build another SPaceport in the US?
and wouldn't said new spaceport be at a higher Inclination?


>>If you are going to do some serious materials processing in Orbit,
>>you want to get re-supply missions  often.  That means either some
>>real big improvements at KSC and risk of single point failure,  or
>>the option to do launches out of several space-ports.
>
>Sounds more like an argument for more American capability rather than
>an argument for a high-inclination orbit, per se.
>

Please venture how much money these improvements would cost.


>
>>You learn more about working to solve hard problems then easy problems.
>>High Inclination  acts as a driver towards STS getting the AL-LI
>>ET  and the ASRM,  really not bad ideas in my book.
>>High Inclination, means they work  on radiation resistant systems.
>>a interesting engineering problem.
>
>Doing something the hard way for no other reason than that it *is* the
>hard way is just plain silly, Pat.  I'm also unconvinced about the
>utility of pouring money into Shuttle just so that we can do things
>the hard way.  You seem to be running your logic backwards here.  If
>those things are good ideas, inventing a program so as to deliberately
>justify them is unnecessary.  If they are otherwise not sufficiently
>good ideas, it seems rather stupid (as well as dishonest) to 'bend'
>the program in such a way as to try to create justification for them.
>

My neighbor has on old saying.
the hard way is the easy way"  You are just playing logic games.
NASA at this point in time developes nothing without a mission
to support it.  ASRM and AL-LI tanks  need a mission.  that is the
nature of the agency.
a
look at all the science platforms.  they were used to justify
shuttle,  the shuttle got built on the basis that it would
support hundreds of science activities.


>
>>>>5)  Apparently ACRV return is simplified( This is what i was told,
>>>>    I can't see an intuitive reason why this is).
>

Still a good reason for a high inclination orbit.


>
>No, it's a problem with 'horizon'.  We see a lot of that from folks
>advocating the use of Russian hardware, too.
>

Horizon is a difficult guess.  it's  a fuzzy thing to
say what's right and what's wrong.

Canals  were the great technical operation of the 1700's.
and they were obsoleted by Rail Roads.  would you have advocated
continued canal developement,  because  of the R&D issues
involved and the need to keep up american canal building
capacity.   and railroads died to road travel.  and trucks
to airlines.

Horizons are funny things.


>
>>WOuld they be healthier  if they were  pouring money into
>>large IC Fabrication plants every year?  DEC can't afford more then
>>one large design project at a time,  do you think they could do more
>>after pouring money into a DRAM plant?
>
>DRAM is easy.  That's why foreign countries that want an SC business
>start there.
>

And if it's  so easy,  why don't IBM and DEC and Intel and AMD
still make them?  only your employers are still at it,  and I
think they get some money from the feds to keep at it.


>>And IBM used to do everything in-house,  and it left them technologically
>>adrift come the 80's.  They had drifted so far from the main-stream
>>they had no products to sell to the other electronics firms.
>
>No, what left them 'adrift' was cutbacks in research.
>

I think all those people who won nobel prizes in the 80's from
IBM Research  will dispute your thesis.

IBM has spent twice as much on research as any of their competitors.
it was because they ahd to conduct reserarch in all areas.
IBM failed because they lost touch with the market.


>>The only way they could develope a PC, was to buy entirely from
>>outside sources.
>
>No, that's the only way they *wanted* to develop a PC, since it wasn't
>seen as a real big market at the time.  Your version strikes me as
>slightly revisionist history.


Depends on how you look at it.  ESD had i believe one year and 8
million dollars to crank out a box.   that meant they couldn't
have  a 2,000 person developement team writing software,  building hardware
and debugging a production plant.

IBM built other desktop machines at the same time as the PC.

the IBM 3000  workstation,  the DATAMASTER (predecessor)  the
Displaywriter.  but these all cost so much to build,  that they
were un-competitive on the market.

they wanted to make a market competitive product.  that meant
a low cost out sourced developement effort.  just like the fiero.

pat

--

God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things.  Right now,
I am so far behind, I will never die.

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 16:54:04 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Jupiter names
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>... At some point, before there really were "real" Jupiters,
>they converted the Redstone as a reentry test vehicle, and called it
>the "Jupiter-C." Partly, the reason for that was that was, I am sure,
>"disinformation."

Actually, the various sources are pretty much in agreement on this one:
it was done because von Braun's crew noticed that when the Cape people
set schedules, they (a) tended to give new programs higher priority,
and (b) tended to look at names, not at program affiliation.  So anything
named "Redstone" got lower priority than something named "Jupiter",
even if they were part of the same program.  Hence "Jupiter C".
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 93 13:48:23 GMT
From: Steven Sharpe <[e-mail]>
Subject: M31
Newsgroups: sci.space

You would have stay up until midnight or so to see M31 properly at this
time of year. Look for it in the east, south of the "W" of Cassiopeia.

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 16:32:54 GMT
From: Michael Corvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Smallwood Memorial Spaceport (was: The 51 degree orbit)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bruce Dunn) writes:
|>         Of course there is an alternate solution :-).  Just set a North
|> American Spaceport in Newfoundland or Labrador (clear eastward ranges from
|> about 47 degrees to 60 degrees) and use Russian hardware.  Given the current
|> devastated state of the economy in Newfoundland (the cod fishery has failed),
|> the province will no doubt welcome a launch site with open arms.  Of course,
|> the weather can be miserable, but this would be no impediment to Russian
|> hardware and experience.

Dories in orbit :-)???  "Burn the docks, we be goin' into space, boys" (to paraphrase J.Smallwood...).  Actually, I should plug a nearby alternate
that features the benefit of easier transportation access: Cape Breton.
There's plenty of scrap steel up in Sydney to build a spaceport with :-)
and they could sure use the jobs too.

I'm not sure about the range of clear launch azimuths from there, though.
And the idea of Capers launching rockets is a bit frightening ;-) ;-) ;-)
since the CBLA (Cape Breton Liberation Army, commanded by the notorious
Gen. John D. Cabot Trail) might get some ideas...

(I'm an expatriate from Dartmouth, NS...)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corvin           PP-ASEL, PP-G        [e-mail]
Space launch Systems GN&C            Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============    My views, not Martin Marietta's   ========================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

We now interrupt this silliness to return regular sci.space programming...

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

Date: 21 Jul 1993 11:42:55 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: The 51 degree orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith Mancus) writes:
|
|  Sorry if I didn't make it clear that I was talking about carrying pieces
|of SSF.  Even 51 degrees presents some problems without ASRM or some
|equivalent larger booster.


ASRM and the AL-LI ET  are easy solutions.



--

God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things.  Right now,
I am so far behind, I will never die.

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 93 13:46:15 EDT
From: [e-mail]

Subject:SSTO with crossranges

Allen sherzer writes "..the SSTO with crossranges has about 16% more
flightsover with to amortize it's overhead which means it operates maybe
10% cheaper,is more responsive, and delivers more payload per
vehicle."
As if anyone cares, you don't amortize overhead, you allocate


it.  The total overhead won't change that much (b/c the ssto with
crossranges will require more servicing which is done inbetween
flights).  Basically, with crossranges, *total* costs will remain
relatively the same.  You will however,as Allen stated, get more bang
for your buck because of being able to complete more flights.
Sorry, but
being an accountant by trade, I don't get to put in my two cents worth
often. :-)

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 904
------------------------------