Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_9/V16NO925.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-03 | 34KB | 720 lines

Space Digest                Tue, 27 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 925

Today's Topics:
   $12M Houses and sci.space (was: Funding private space ventures)
             A ride to Mir for only $12 million? (2 msgs)
                       Buran and Aviation Week
     Buran Hype? (was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems)
      Clarke's "The Hammer of God" bought by Paramount (2 msgs)
                                 DC-X
            DC-X Prophets and associated problems (4 msgs)
                            Energia re-use
              Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!
                         Musicians and space
              Waste Management aboard Skylab and Shuttle

    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: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 16:09:21 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: $12M Houses and sci.space (was: Funding private space ventures)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Pat ([e-mail]) wrote:
: If [NASA] built houses,  they way they run their missions,
: [a] house would weigh 500 Lbs, [be] transported on site by a pickup
: truck and fold into place.  [It] would also cost $12 million dollars
: and take ten years to get delivered.

..and employ thousands of people in dozens of Congressional districts.

There are some darned good reasons for that to be true today, and some
obvious reasons for us to fix the situation, but we need several key
items before we can move from the era of the $12M house to a $12K
mobile home.

Space hardware is expensive mostly because it is all custom-designed
for a completely new environment.  We humans have been building houses
in various forms for Earth environment for over 15,000 years.  We've
been seriously thinking about houses in space for only 30.  We're
taking the baby steps necessary before learning to walk, but we're
impatient to learn how to run.  Space technology is still -- sadly --
in its infancy, and we're barely getting started on the kinds of
projects which will develop that technology in its long road to
maturity.  Give us time to learn and grow, but keep holding our feet
to the fire.

Now that budget cuts have stripped away funding for most of the
interesting scientific objectives, this is the last remaining role for
Space Station Freedom -- developing new space technology -- and the
current Program isn't clearly working toward learning to build better,
faster, cheaper houses in the future.  Instead, we're just trying to
get that house built.  But there are reasons for that.

Since space missions (and space stations) are so few, reliability is
crucial -- which drives up costs more.  Since we've become adverse to
taking risks, safety is crucial -- mo' money.  Since it's so far from
the repair depot, logistics and maintainability are crucial -- still
mo' money.  The paperwork we've imposed upon ourselves is there to help
us deal with these and other factors related to developing space
hardware is tediously doing what it's supposed to do: most pieces of
space hardware work as designed in a safe, reliable manner.  However,
we fly millions of complex items on every space mission -- because each
mission is so precious -- and some of those items will fail.  We deal
with this, but it's frustrating.  (Can you think of a better way?)
(I can -- more, cheaper missions.  O, how I long for DC-2!)

If our goal as a space program is to develop new technology for space
missions which will make future space missions more economically viable
(thus bootstrapping the commercial exploitation of space), there are
many steps we should take which are different from our current
direction.  But NASA is faced with a dilemma: if we concentrate on
developing basic technology for future space missions, we don't have
enough money to fly the misions we're currently working on.  If we stop
flying the current missions, including Space Station, we don't have a
testbed for evaluating space technology.  Technology cannot progress
simply as a state of mind and as abstract ideas; it requires hardware,
testing and continual refinement.  So we have a compromise.  We spend
some money on developing new technology, and some money on these wimpy
little Space Shuttle and Space Station missions, in the hope that the
technology we develop and test will help us to accomplish really
interesting missions in the future and will pave the way for mankind's
expansion into the Galaxy.  (Is there another view of this dilemma?
Of course!  What's yours?)

But NASA can use all the help you can provide.  This newsgroup is a
free-wheeling discusion on space technology, which I and other NASA
people find useful in augmenting our thoughts about space technology
and in sharing in a useful, public dialog about the pros and cons of
ideas and missions (among other communications purposes).  This
newsgroup is like a protracted conversation in a pub, where we can talk
about things which interest us with like-minded (and other-minded)
people who care about space, and with people who are knowledgable about
the brief history of space exploration.  We Usenetters don't always
make a lot of sense, but there are useful ideas floating around in the
usual Usenet noise.  NASA can use these ideas in forming its future
directions -- and NASA does use them, through the inputs of people like
me.  Some of the thoughts we have discussed here found there way into
NASA's Vision, Missions and Values statement last year.

Don't give up hope, fellow Internauts.  We in sci.space are helping
develop the ideas which will underly the space missions of tomorrow.
(Meanwhile, rec.arts.sf.* is diligently working on the day after tomorrow.)

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/DE44, Mission Operations, Space Station Systems
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "It is mankind's manifest destiny to bring our humanity into space,
      to colonize this galaxy.  And as a nation, we have the power to
      determine whether America will lead or will follow.

      I say that America must lead."  -- Ronald Reagan

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 14:52:25 GMT
From: Edmund Hack <hack@l44c4-2>
Subject: A ride to Mir for only $12 million?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Claudio Egalon ([e-mail]) wrote:
: I might be wrong but I recall that John Denver offered around US$40
: million to fly to the Mir. Is it right? Since he did not fly, apparently
: the Russians  were asking more than that. I am not aware of how much
: the Japaneses paid to fly their journalist so I would like to know if
: there  is anyone in the Net that have the right figures.

Mr. Denver was quoted a price of $10,000,000 US cash for a trip to Mir.
He balked at it and didn't go. I remember the event clearly, as he came
down to JSC for a physical and antagonized the astronaut corps by being
late for a talk he was to give to them. The two other commercial
customers that _did_ fly paid about $10E6 US for the ride.  As I
understand it, the Japanese journalist complained about SAS and the fact
that he couldn't smoke onboard........

--
Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
[e-mail] - I speak only for myself, unless blah, blah..
"Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads"
"I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV."

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 15:07:39 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: A ride to Mir for only $12 million?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Claudio Egalon) writes:

>> Only one millionaire has attempted this, so far as we know, and he
>> wasn't willing to pay the full price, so he didn't fly.  (I'm assuming
>> John Denver is a millionaire-- forgive me if this isn't true, John.)

>I might be wrong but I recall that John Denver offered around US$40
>million to fly to the Mir. Is it right? Since he did not fly, apparently
>the Russians  were asking more than that. I am not aware of how much
>the Japaneses paid to fly their journalist so I would like to know if
>there  is anyone in the Net that have the right figures.

I believe you are mistaken here.  As I (vaguely) recall, the Soviets
wanted $10 million and John didn't want to pay that much.  I think the
Japanese journalist flew cheaper than that, but I'm not certain.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 11:59:52 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Buran and Aviation Week

Someone once pointed out that when Aviation Week & ST printed the first
reasonably accurate drawings of both the Energia and Buran, they included
the name Buran on the drawing.  Is anyone aware if AW&ST has ever revealed
how they happened upon this information some years before the rest of the
world was informed?
Thanks,
************************************************
Roger (Brad) Coon            "Better to have one
[e-mail]          freedom too many,
[e-mail]    than to have one
                  too few."

Politically incorrect and proud of it.
Niquimictitoc inana Bambi.
************************************************

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 15:14:45 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Buran Hype? (was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>
>We can conclude from this that it would be *very* interesting to learn
>what the claims were when developers were "selling" the Buran project
>within the Soviet bureaucracy.  Alas, I don't think our chances of
>finding this out within the next few years are very good.  Fans of
>Russian aerospace history may wish to comment on this...  Dennis?
>Chris? Glenn?

Here's the way its reported in Russia. It still does not point out the
judgement of all parties involoved, but its a good first look. Thank
the JPRS-FBIS folks for the colorful translations....

"...Smirnov, former VPK [military-industrial complex] chairman and a member
of the same Dnepropetrovsk team, in his regular report to Brezhnev on the
state of our space efforts, once mentioned in the end: The Americans are
intensively working on a winged space vehicle. Such a vehicle is like an
aircraft; it is capable, through a side maneuver, of changing its orbit in
such a way that it could find itself at the right moment right over Moscow
possibly with a dangerous cargo. The news disturbed Leonid Ilyich [Brezhnev]
very much, he contemplated it intensively, and then said: We are not country
bumpkins here. Let us make an effort and find the money. Of course, nobody
dared to contradict "No. 1." The VPK leadership took the instructions from
the four-times Hero of the Soviet Union as gospel. In the documentation, the
idea of creating the Buran is justified by the necessity of maintaining
military-strategic parity with the Americans. Another person who was
successfully pushing this concept was then Central Committee Secretary D.
Ustinov, in charge of defense and space issues. Once again, economic
interests were sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. In 1974,
when the work was started, this grandiose project had been seen as a
military program. Later, our Pentagon rejected it as holding no future
promise."
[Moscow KURATY in Russian 2I Dec91 pp. 8, by Engineer B. Olesyuk: "The
'Buran' Blind Alley", JPRS USP-92 001, 27 January 1992]

"On 17 February 1976, a decree was signed in the CPSU Central Committee
and the USSR Council of Ministers concerning the creation of the reusable
Buran space system. I wasn't able to ascertain who fathered the idea that
one must look for the roots of Buran in the Ministry of Defense.
Indirectly, that is confirmed by two other decrees dated May 1977 and
December 1981. Those venomous tongues say that, after becoming familiar
with the American Shuttle, the leaders of our armed forces became very
afraid and ran to Marshal Grechko [Minister of Defense] to try to talk
him into building the same kind of airplane. The Minister of Defense very
sanely decided that that would hardly be necessary. So then, going around
Grechko, they began to use the Shuttle to frighten L.I. Brezhnev, and
they explained to him that that damned Shuttle could zoom down on Moscow
at any minute, bomb it to smithereens and fly away. And they're all hoping
that Leonid Ilich himself understands how much responsibility rests on his
shoulders, the shoulders of the Marshall of the Soviet Union and Chairman
of the Defense Council. Brezhnev understood. Yes, of course, an
alternative weapon is necessary."
[ Moscow IZVESTIYA in Russian 12 Dec 91 pp 1,3;13 Dec 91 p3; 14 Dec 91 p 3;
17 Dec 91 p 3;18 Dec 91 P 3,  by Yaroslav Golovanov: "Just Where Are We
Flying To?", JPRS USP-92 001, 27 January 1992 ]

(Note in following: Semenov is head of NPO Energia builder of many
components of the Energia-Buran system.)
" "It is no secret to anyone in our sector," says Yu. Semenov, "that the
Energiya-Buran system was ordered from us by the military. It was said
at meetings on various levels that the American Shuttles, even on the
first orbital revolution, could perform a lateral maneuver and turn out
to be over Moscow, possibly with a dangerous cargo. Parity is needed, we
need the same type of rocket-space system. We made a better one than the
Americans did. But the former customers are now abandoning it, outlays
for defense are being curtailed. "
[Moscow Izvestiya in Russian 4 Apr 91 p 3, by Ye. Konovalov, IZVESTIYA
science commentator: 'Domestic Companions of Rockets: Why There Will Be
No Mass Firings at the Firm Where Gagarin's Spacecraft was Developed",
FBIS-UPS-91-004, 8/20/91]

"When the decision on the development of the Soviet aerospace system was
made, the Molniya Scientific Production Association, which Lozino-
Lozhinskiy heads, proposed to take as a basis its "ancient" (13 years
had been lost) Spiral design. However, it was rejected with a quite
strange explanation: "This is not at all what the Americans are doing." "
[Moscow KRASNAYA ZVEZDA (First edition) in Russian 31 Jul 91 p 4, [Article
by Colonel M. Rebrov "The Revolutions of 'Spiral'. A Biography and
Portrait of the Chief Designer of the Buran Space Plane"]
FBIS-UPS-91-004, 8/20/91]

"[The Spiral] was very good project, but it was one more mistake of our
government. They said Americans didn't have a space shuttle and we
shouldn't have one [either] and it was destroyed. And then after you
made your space shuttle, immediately they demanded a space shuttle.
It was very crazy of our government."
[Interview with cosmonaut Georgi Grechko by Dennis Newkirk, 4/6/93]

Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

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

Date: 26 Jul 93 09:34:08 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clarke's "The Hammer of God" bought by Paramount
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gerald G. Marfoe) writes:
> I just caught the tail-end of NPR's interview with Arthur C. Clarke from
> Sri Lanka. At the end of the interview, Susan Stamberg (sp?) announced that
> Clarke's latest novel, "The Hammer of God", had been bought by Paramount.
> Looks like we'll be seeing the movie in a few years then.

Let's hope it's as good as the movie versions of *Childhood's End*, *A
Fall of Moondust*, and *The City and the Stars*.

(Gerald, you are a smart guy but if you think "Paramount bought the
movie rights to a Clarke novel" equals "Paramount will make a movie of
a Clarke novel," you haven't a clue about how Hollywood works.)

> Would anybody happen to have taped the interview? If anybody can get a
> transcript of the interview and post it on sci.space, I'd appreciate it.
> Clarke was saying something like, if or when we do encounter other
> intelligent lifeforms in the universe, that he should hope that they weren't
> malevolent beings. Hopefully, any malevolent race would have self-destructed
> before it got into contact with us.

Sorry, don't have a tape.  I heard part of the interview; didn't seem

that ACC was saying much different from what he usually says on such
occasions.  He did mention that AT&T had given him a videophone
recently.

If you are frustrated in your quest for a tape of the interview, you
might look at the July/August 1993 issue of *Wahrd* magazine.  (Oops,
when I was reading this I was in Arkansas.  I mean *Wired*.)  There's
a short interview in there between ACC and Jeff Greenwald.  It's not
much but the rest of the magazine is so much fun to read you'll
probably be glad you bought it.  It's bringing back the Breathless
Enthusiasm school of magazine journalism.

First *Wired* discovered day-glo ink, then Marshall McLuhan; now
they're hailing Arthur C. Clarke as a prophet.  Are the Sixties
rolling around again?

Engineer of Hijacked Train:      Bill Higgins
"Is this a holdup?"
                                 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Masked Gunman:
(Hesitates, looks at partner,    Bitnet: [e-mail]
looks at engineer again)         SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
"It's a science experiment!"     Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 14:58:48 GMT
From: Edmund Hack <hack@l44c4-2>
Subject: Clarke's "The Hammer of God" bought by Paramount
Newsgroups: sci.space

Gerald G. Marfoe ([e-mail]) wrote:
: I just caught the tail-end of NPR's interview with Arthur C. Clarke from
: Sri Lanka. At the end of the interview, Susan Stamberg (sp?) announced that
: Clarke's latest novel, "The Hammer of God", had been bought by Paramount.
: Looks like we'll be seeing the movie in a few years then.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Less than 50% of all novels bought or optioned for
screen adaptation ever make it to a script being comissioned. Less than
50% of comissioned scripts ever enter pre-producton and a lot of those
get shut down, the film is completed and is so bad it may show up on
cable at 3 AM, etc.  I wouldn't hold my breath.  (For example, someone
held options on the first two Asimov Daneel Olivaw/Elijah Bailey novels
but they never went forward. I think that Heinlein remarked once [in
"Grumbles from the Grave" maybe] that he had made a tidy sum over the
years optioning the same books and stories over and over - in particular
"Stranger in a Strange Land".)

--
Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
[e-mail] - I speak only for myself, unless blah, blah..
"Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads"
"I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV."

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 17:10:23 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:

>J. Liberal Congressperson will respond: but many of the payloads on
>which DC-X's projected savings are based are a waste of money.  We
>should spend the money on free cheese for homeless mice.

I'm sure some do think that. On the other hand, they know full well that
these payloads are going to fly since they don't have the clout to stop
them. Politics is the art of the possible and nobody is going to waste
time on what can't be done. Note that Pat Schroeder and Ron Dellums both
hold very high positions on the HASC. It's hard to find two more liberal
members yet they authorize billions in military space they don't like
ideologically. Showing them a way to spend less on what they don't like,
but must endure, would be popular with them since it would free up funds
for what they do like.

Note that if I made this arguement, they would know full well I wouldn't
support budget reductions if the efficiency came to pass. They know I
would prefer to do more where the money is now. This may yeild a situation
where both parties 'split the difference' and move some savings elsewhere
and keep some.

BTW, much of military space is related to verification of arms control
and is quite popular with liberals.

   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."             |
+----------------------10 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 14:34:52 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <230ifc$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:

> [re: astronauts reluctance to fly without controls]

>: The answer to that is quite simple. If he don't like it, he ain't
>: gettin' hired on my spaceline....

>Only one small problem with these beleifs about "anybody" just flying
>the missions.. I'd like to see the company willing to just loft a non-pilot
>type in their launch vehicle.

Nobody is saying there won't be a pilot in command on manned missions. All
they are saying is that the pilot won't operate the vehicle in the usual
'stick and rudder' manner. If they don't like it, they can work somewhere
else.

I would take the job if nobody else wants it. I scored in the 95TH
percentile int he Air Force Pilot Apptitude Test so I think I can do
the job.

  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."             |
+----------------------10 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 15:16:56 GMT
From: Doug Mouser <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

.....Much text deleted.....



>
> (Much of the thanks does indeed go to Goldon, AND the many people
> inside NASA who have proven willing to make and accept the changes
> nesessary to reform NASA and make it a more efficient organization..
> from what I've been reading about the new "projects structuring"
> system that probably will end up being used, I beleive most of those
> with open minds out there will find themselves pleasantly surprised.
> It's important to note that these changes have been going on for
> almost a year, and will probably take another year or two to get
> working right, but personally I beleive NASA'll end up doing it, and
> doing it right. Give em a chance.. ;)
>
> Mike

    Give NASA a chance!  How about giving ideas from other organizations a
chance.  This is not aimed at anyone but, I for one will not give NASA
another chance.

    Sorry for the ranting but I just read the specs on brilliant condems a
week
or so ago and I'am still pissed.......arrrrrrrrh

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 14:56:58 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:

>> "The shuttle made claims, and failed. Therefore the whole thing
>> must be impossibly hard."

>> Why can't we just realize the shuttle itself is a failure and doesn't
>> say anything about the physics of launching spacecraft?

>This cavalier dismissal of concerns is very disturbing.  Come on,
>skepticism is warranted about any very different technology.

Agreed. However, there is a big difference between specific criticisms
about specific program risks and the general 'shuttle didn't work so
this won't work either'. The former is valid and a key part of the
development process. The latter, adds nothing to the debate.

>For the DC, there are things we should be concerned about...

That's why is it an experimental program which may lead to a production
vehicle. The development program is designed to answer all these concerns
before commiting to the whole program.

>  Is there a market for DC big enough to justify the rosey cost
>  projections?

This, we already know the answer to. At the moment there isn't however,
a fraction of the savings could go to a 'kelly act' which would buy the
launches needed to bring costs down. But even with the existing market,
DC should be cheaper than anything flying in the west today.

>Some of these will be tested by DC-X, but perhaps the funding for
>the next phase should wait until those tests are in.

Not a bad idea but it can't be done. Congress votes for funding now so
if we don't get it now, it's all over.

  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."             |
+----------------------10 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 15:48:14 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

:     Give NASA a chance!  How about giving ideas from other organizations a
: chance.  This is not aimed at anyone but, I for one will not give NASA
: another chance.

:     Sorry for the ranting but I just read the specs on brilliant condems a
: week
: or so ago and I'am still pissed.......arrrrrrrrh
Actually, most of the management fixes being put in place come from
industry, and should prove a big improvement.. and specs on brilliant
condems? <gives a blank look> Never heard of it.. what's upsetting
about it? (and what does it have to do with NASA?)

Mike
--
Michael C. Jensen   Valparaiso University/Johnson Space Center
[e-mail]  "I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
[e-mail]  *WindowsNT - From the people who brought you edlin*
---Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own... ---

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 15:02:11 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energia re-use
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>>>   3) are any components of the Energia lifter salvaged after lauch?
>>I think the liquid strap-ons are recovered, but it takes a huge
>>helicopter.
>Russian accounts seem to differ on whether any recovery has actually been
>done.  The strap-ons certainly are designed for it, and there have been
>claims that the core is meant to be recoverable too (although I don't
>quite see how).

There have been at least a couple of designs to change recovery of components.
One puts Buran type wings on the core stage and some TPS. I suppose the
core is supposed to land once-around in this plan. Another also adds wings
to the strap-ons for runway landings. Apparently nothing was ever recovered
with reuse in mind, I believe the 1987 launch wasn't equipped with
parachutes, I don't know off hand about the 1988 one. The boosters
may have been recovered by now because an effort is reportedly being made
to clean up some of the spent stages littering the landscape.

Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 93 08:45:23 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!

[e-mail] writes:
>So post low tech ways to get rockets built and and satellites into orbit..and
>poople to if possible..

OK:

Appropriate about one year's shuttle budget to build a whole bunch of
jail space and provide for, say, 5 years imprisonment for most of the
upper level federal civil servants and the upper level managment of the
pseudo-private "contractors" they do business with.  Enjoin them from
ever being employed by federal agencies (including the pseudo-private
 ones) or receiving any federal funds ever again.

That would open up competition in space transport to the degree
that the cost per lb to LEO would drop by a factor of 2 every 3 years
for the forseeable future.  It would have the side-effect of enabling
a general politico-economic recovery in this country, but we can ignore
such benefits as being "in the noise" relatively speaking.

>Or maybe some NASA system designers need to take come classes in small
business
>and economics? Might give them a perspective of how to do things truely on a
>shoe string, and a dead line..

Oh, you mean like an International Space University class on how to
run a small business? ;-)

But seriously, you might be onto something -- another really low tech way
to achieve essentially the same thing:

Put NASA personnel (including their contractors) to work in small businesses
by eliminating NASA, ARPA, their contractors and any other bureaucracies
that might try to lure such personnel into their control by offering "job
 security".  Make small space businesses and their employees exempt from
tax -- something we might actually be able to do if we can get rid
of Rostenkowski (the main barrier to incentives for private technology
 investment in this country).

PS:  Forget about trying to reform NASA or even getting it to obey the
law.  Believe it or not, it is in worse shape than the Soviet Union was
when Gorbachev tried to reform that bureaucracy.  Goldin will go down in
history as a hero of "good bureaucracy" who sacrificed himself in a futile
attempt to reanimate the maggot-riddled corpse of Apollo.  Let's pray with
all fervor that he doesn't even come close to achieving such a horror.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 14:17:21 GMT
From: Ed McCreary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Musicians and space
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>>>> On 24 Jul 93 23:30:57 GMT, [e-mail] said:
> Brian May (guitarist with rock group Queen was doing an
a> astrophysics
> degree including research in Canary Islands - source BAA Journal
a> 1980+/-3).

He also wrote a song on relativistic time dialation.

Oh so many years have gone,
though I'm older but a year,
You mother's eyes throught your eyes
cried at me.

Can you hear me calling
though I'm many years away?
Can you hear me calling you?
All your letter in the sand
cannot heal me like your hand.
For my life, still ahead,
pity me.

I can't remember the title but it's off of "Night at the Opera".
--
Eddie McCreary            [e-mail]

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be
one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind faith."
Thomas Jefferson

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 16:06:50 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Waste Management aboard Skylab and Shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

Josh Hopkins ([e-mail]) wrote:

: >Eventually we're just going to be facing problems of waste disposal.

: Not really.  The stuff can be tossed overboard.  It has been discribed as
: a very impressive sight actually.

Note the .sig.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/DE44, Mission Operations, Space Station Systems
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "After breakfast, I hook a full urine bag to the overboard
      dump valve [of Gemini 10] and am rewarded with the usual
      snowstorm of escaping white particles.  The constellation
      'Urion,' as Wally Schirra has dubbed it, is formed by the
      instantaneous freezing of the urine stream as it reaches the
      vacuum of space and breaks into thousands of individual miniature
      spheres.  Cascading out in an irregular stream, they whiz past
      the window and tumble off into infinity, glistening virginal
      white in the sunlight instead of the nasty yellow we know them to
      be.  The fairytale quality is typical of this place, an unreal
      world far above the unseen squalor below."
    -- Michael Collins, "Carrying the Fire," p. 246

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 925
------------------------------