Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_9/V16NO933.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-03 | 36KB | 882 lines

Space Digest                Wed, 28 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 933

Today's Topics:
                            Budget figures
                     Buran Hype? - FBIS/JPRS info
                           Cats in zero gee
     Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
                                 DC-X
            DC-X Prophets and associated problems (2 msgs)
                   Found your own dark-sky nation?
                  GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB)
                      Space Lottery! Any ideas?
                  SPACE TRIVIA LIST - 24th July 1993

        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: 27 Jul 1993 14:20 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Budget figures
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <233j22$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:
>
>>I found it interesting to note the slight discrepancys between the
>>posts claiming over $1 billion per shuttle flight, and the actual numbers,
>>which aim more towards a little under $500 million a flight.. still a lot
>>of money yes, but important to be close to accurate..
>
>There is no discrepancy. The half billion $$ per flight figure assumes
>that no development, construction, NASA overhead, or interest in included.
>In other words, it pretends the Shuttle was developed for free.
>
>The actual cost IS about a billion per flight but I am willing to live
>with the 'creative' accounting used to make it look better. Paying four
>times commercial rates for launch services is bad enouth. Although it
>is interesting to note that if NASA contractors accounted for things
>the way NASA does, they would be thrown in jail.
>
>  allen

Allen is getting old folks and his memory is going so I will post again that
according to Business week (First week of May 93) That the only way that
the 5 billion dollar investment that GM made in Saturn would be termed a
profit is if GM were to "write off" the development costs. Additionally,
the article stated that only when production reached the 300,000 unit per
year rate, which has recently happened, would GM make a profit on a per
unit rate.

According to an Earlier Space News article, using the 500 million per launch
figure is only correct when you add the infrastrucure costs incurred by
the TDRSS system and the worldwide ground support for that system. Which
by the way DC will have to pay for as well. Interestingly enough NASA is making
money right now on excess TDRSS capacity by marketing it through Columbia
Communications corp. It is roumoured that this money will be in the 50 million
per year range for NASA within a couple of years. Nice little offset to
lower the overall cost of the system.

So your tired old argument about people being thrown in Jail for these
accounting methods is as false now as it ever was. Market presence is the
buzzword here and space is the ultimate market to be present in.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 18:53:25 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Buran Hype? - FBIS/JPRS info
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <231rcr$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dennis Newkirk) writes:
>>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....
>>
>
>What's  JPRS-FBIS  for our general edification

Good question, this should be in the FAQ if its not already...

FBIS is the Foreign Broadcast Information Service which is
done by the CIA, gets all kinds of foreign radio, television,
etc. broadcasts which is of an informational nature and translates it.
They've been doing it since just after WWII according to a book
I read recently. Apparently JPRS does the same thing with print
media. Together they put it all in either daily or periodic reports.
The Dept. of Commerce, National Technical Information Service sells
them to anyone. They cover many countries and many topics mostly
of political and technological nature. NTIS has a nice catalog of
these products. See below for excerpt from their catalog.

For about $75 a year you can subscribe to the "JPRS Report: Science &
Technology: Central Eurasia: Space" and get most of the significant articles
on space subjects published in the CIS from newspaper and TV news
to technical journals. Its published about every 2-3 months according to
when they can fill up 50 or so pages.

I kind of wish they would do the same for the USA... BTW: NTIS says
they are funded only by the sales of the reports but I doubt that includes
the cost of gathering or translating...

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

Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) and Joint Publications Research
Service (JPRS) publications contain political, military, economic,
environmental, and sociological news, commentary, and other information, as
well as scientific and technical data and reports. All information has been
obtained from foreign radio and television broadcasts, news agency
transmissions, newspapers, books, and periodicals. Items generally are
processed from the first or best available sources. It should not be inferred
that they have been disseminated only in the medium, in the language, or to
the area indicated. Items from foreign language sources are translated; those
from English-language sources are transcribed. Except for excluding certain
diacritics, FBIS renders personal names and place-names in accordance with
the romanization systems approved for U.S. Government publications by the U.S.
Board of Geographic Names.

[[[A sample of JPRS Serial Reports is listed below. There are many other types
of reports available.]]]

Asia Serial Reports:
  Korea Kulloja
  Mngolia
  Southeast Asia
  Vietnam Tap Chi Cong San

China Serial Reports:
  China
  Quishi

Europe & Latin America Serial Reports:
  East Europe Report

Near East & South Asia Serial Reports:
  Near East and South Asia

Central Eurasia Serial Reports:
  Aviation & Cosmonautics
  Foreign Military Review
  Military Affairs
  Worldwide Serial Reports
  Arms Control
  Epidemiology
  Proliferation
  Telecommunications
  Environmental Issues

Science & Technology Serial:
China
  China-Energy
Europe
Japan
Central Eurasia
  Chemistry
  Computers
  Earth Sciences
  Electronics and Electrical Engir
  Engineering and Equipment
  Life Sciences
  Materials Science
  Physics and Mathematics
  Space
  Science and Technology Policy


FREE Catalogs & Information
Call [phone] and ask for any of the following catalogs
PR-827 - NTIS Products & Services Catalog
PR-858 - Tour NTIS by Video Tape. NTlS-The Competitive
Edge, is available. The 8-minute tape gives an overview of NTIS
and its activities.
PR-797 - NTIS Alerts (formerly Abstract Newsletters)
PR-888 - CD-ROMs & Optical Discs Available from NTIS
PR-868 - Environmental Highlights
PR-758 - Environmental Software & Datafiles
PR-882 - Central & Eastern Europe Business Information Catalog
PR-746 - Directory of Federal Laboratory Resources

International Air Mail:
Paper copy reports and micro-fiche copies are shipped surface
mail unless Air Mail is requested. Canada and Mexico add $4 per
paper copy report $1 per microfiche copy. Other countries add
$8 per paper copy report $1.25 per microfiche copy. Computer
products are shipped by overnight courier at no extra cost.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Technology Administration
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161

To order subscriptions, call 703-487-4630.
TDD (To place orders), call 703-487-4639.
Rush Service : 1-800-553-NTIS

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 19:32:08 GMT
From: Keith Mancus <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cats in zero gee
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <22vsl4$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:
> Not a cat you like certainly.  And by the way, cats do not take well to
> microgravity--it's been tried.

  Could you give me a reference to this?  I wasn't aware it had ever been
tried.

--
 Keith Mancus    <[e-mail]>
 N5WVR           <[e-mail]>
 "Black powder and alcohol, when your states and cities fall,
  when your back's against the wall...." -Leslie Fish

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 19:14:25 GMT
From: Jim Carr <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

  ... concerning the geological problem of He-3 abundances ...

>This problem, and it's hypothetical solution, is supposed to have been
>a motivating factor in P&F's early experiments.  But P&F claimed to
>have stumbled upon an effect far larger than anyone expected.  That's
>where the reasonable science starts to end and the pathology seems to
>start.

Close.  It was the motivating factor behind Steve Jones' experiments,
as is clearly demonstrated in the literature.  After demonstrating
scientific break even with muon-catalyzed fusion and proving that
muon-catalyzed fusion is (just barely) a no-go for energy production,
he also published a paper estimating 'cold' fusion rates under other
conditions of geological interest and later was led to electrochemistry.

On a separate point, to clarify something I wrote that Dale Bass commented
on, I did not mean to imply (by an unfortunate juxtaposition of two
sentences) that fusion in the Pd-D system might be muon catalyzed.
It is (purportedly) electrochemically induced.  Muon catalyzed fusion
is best done under very different conditions and most experiments on
the Pd-D system take care to monitor cosmic rays so they can be either
vetoed or gated as one desires.

--
J. A. Carr       <[e-mail]>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)

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

Date: 27 Jul 1993 19:31:01 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

Allen W. Sherzer ([e-mail]) wrote:
: >Intersting theory.. anybody know if this would actually be possible?
: >(and it brings up a concern, if one jet fails, how bad a heat-leak
: >would it cause?) Allen? This stuff all seems right up your alley..

: I don't know. I'll ask when I get a chance but the people in the know
: are rather busy now.

: It could be that the doors aren't needed. Doesn't Shuttle have thrusters
: in the nose which gets pretty hot? It could be that airflow is such
: that this isn't a problem. Maybe the nozzle is made of the same material
: as the TPS which can take the heat with no problems.

To an extent I beleive so, though the greatest heat buildup is on the lower
front end and on the leading edges of the wings.. I'll see what additional
info I can dig up on the orbiter side of things.. will be patient for
info on DC-X.. (know they HAVE to be busy right now.. ;)

<crosses his fingers> let's hope she hops okay..

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: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 20:29:50 GMT
From: Dave Stephenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

>> From: Dave Stephenson <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
>> Newsgroups: sci.space
>>

>> [e-mail] writes:
>>

>> >> 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.

>>

>> How does Y. Gagarin grab you. The Vostok capsule was basically a
>missile
>>


>Excuse me, but [e-mail] did NOT write the above,
>[e-mail] responded very negatively to the above.
>Watch the attributions.

Appologies for being too quick with the editor to save world wide
bandwidth!
--
Dave Stephenson
Geological Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada              *Om Mani Padme Hum 1-2-3*
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 20:55:37 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>>STS Missions.
>>      Cargo to orbit.    ELV's do this much cheaper.
>>      Cargo to earth.    RV's do this much cheaper.

>Wrong. It may be cheaper but as COMET proves, it ain't easy and it cannot
>be done for the optimistic prices that were proposed.

Well, the Russians do it all the time and far cheaper than we do. Your not
saying the Russians can do something we can't are you? BTW, if you don't like
Soyuz, they have a full line of cargo return vehicles.

>>      On orbit science missions (Untended)  GAS cans, SPAS, LDEF
>>      ELV's with RV's  do this much cheaper.

>Wrong. COMET is a glaring example of how badly you can screw up a "commercial"
>mission.

Indeed. However, the Russians have a more than adaquate existance proof that
it can be done.

>Allen's pat reply that it failed because of STS does not hold water.

For the record, I have never stated to the net or to Dennis any opinion
as to why Comet failed. No, I don't think it's because of STS but rather
because Westinghouse wasn't up to the task.

>They were given a contract for the amount of money that they asked for and
>they could not even get the first mission off the ground even when they
>spent 85% of the money for all three missions before it was terminated.

By and large true. Commercial procurement isn't a panacia which will
solve all our probelms. It is only a necessary part of the solution.

>>      ON orbit Manned experiments.  (MIR does this much cheaper)

>Does it now. From what Dr. Alifanov from MAI says,

Perhaps you could post his numbers?

>it is terribly innefficient in doing experimentation.

What is the basis for his comparison? If he is comparing Russian
experiments and procedures to ours, then it isn't a valid comparison.
He needs to compare running our experiments on Mir vs Shuttle.

>>      HST cost 1.6 Billion in DDTE(according to wales.)  the HST
>>      repair mission is costing 800 Million.  It's a judgement
>>      call on what's cheaper.

>Yea and your implication is that spending another 800 million do do another
>HST is "cheaper" than the repair mission.

A valid one according to my research. We are now looking at TWO repair
missions upping the total cost to well over $1B. If we assume that HST
was a typical project, then according to the recent assessment done by
NASA of their procuremnt, then another HST could be had for far less than
$400M which causes launching on Titan with a new HST to win hands down.

   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."             |
+----------------------89 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 19:03:01 GMT
From: Keith Mancus <[e-mail]>
Subject: Found your own dark-sky nation?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.geo.geology,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
> [e-mail] (Joe Dellinger) writes:

>>      Of course, it probably wouldn't work anyway. A while back somebody
>>actually tried to found "a libertarian paradise" on some previously unclaimed
>>sea-level atolls between Fiji and Tonga, the "Republic of Minerva". Tonga
>>simply waited a few days while the "Minervans" built up a seawall for them,
>>then invaded, kicked everyone out, and officially annexed the atolls to Tonga.

> I read something of more detail about this... apparently the (whatever)
> of Minerva was outside of Tonga territorial waters... and more than a couple
> days passed before the gov of Tonga let a couple people out of the jails
> and said they could stay out if they went and kicked the guys off the
> island.

  If anyone can point me at a detailed reference, preferably once that's
still readily available, I'd appreciate it.  I've heard only bits and
pieces of the Minervan story.

--
 Keith Mancus    <[e-mail]>
 N5WVR           <[e-mail]>
 "Black powder and alcohol, when your states and cities fall,
  when your back's against the wall...." -Leslie Fish

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

Date: 27 Jul 1993 19:13:19 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <233m4k$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>|Small fractions between years to meet payroll doesn't equal multi-year
>|expenditures to buy equipment.  Any number of pieces of hardware have been
>
>And 80 Million  to Buy the ACRV's up front in a 20 Billion dollar
>program is also a small fraction.  My point is the  ACRV's can
>be bought up front.  you argue that that is absolutely no way
>financially possible.   I am sorry, i think people are just
>a little more flexible then you think.

No, I think you'll be bitching if we don't stock up on ACRVs up front and
you'll be clueless as to why it isn't possible.  Congress will probably have to
allocate some sort of money to go over the $2.1 bil cap or something else will
have to be postponed (thereby laying the way for cost overruns at a later
date).

>|scrapped mid-way through a project, both due to financial difficulties (i.e.
>|Congress wouldn't micromanage the money) and other considerations.
>So we end up with a bunch of soyuz capsules in a warehouse.
>Look at apollo,  we still have 2 SV's  rusting on the dock.
>Shit happens.

Pat, then people like you bitch about how much of a waste it was to buy all
that hardware we didn't use.

Of course, you're taking the discussion down the "ACRV" road, rather than
address the specific problems involved with the funding mechanisms as they are
set up now.

But thank you for pointing out that YES, this is a $2.1 billion/year program
which may or may not end up to $20 billion.  Not some $80 billion dollar
program which you so casually alleged a few days ago.

>|Basically, Freedom is a year-by-year project which happens to have an extended
>|outlook. Not a multi-year funding-guaranteed project.
>Yeah.  But on the basis of the program,  you can do some up front
>buying.  Look at all the integration facilities they built in MSFC
>and KSC.  That was up front spending.

Oh Pat, I thougth that was just make work which the lazy engineers did between
coffee works.

Gosh, you mean that ENGINEERS and CONTRACTORS really do manage to accomplish
some work? *gasp*

>You seem to have a bellief that Taurus would be the way to handle
>logistics in the event of a Shuttle loss.   That of course assumes

NO, Pat, I did not. You wanted a "Federal Express" delivery.  I put out one. It
was not in the requirements set out in the initial discussion that Taurus would
handle ALL resupply to the space station.

>Taurus doesn't keep blowing up.

Oh? And how many have "blown up" pat?

>OSC stays in Business.

By the time Taurus comes on line, Lockheed and at least one other company will
have products with the same characteristics as a Taurus.

>Equally risky propositions.

OSC isn't in great shape, but it's more stable than the former Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics.  Lotta ARPA money flowing down the pipes.

>No.  i saw at least one proposal for MTPE/EOS  to ahve constellations
>of satellites, flying in lots of different orbits.  Sure it was a draft.
>but lots of stuff is drafty.

Pat, why don't you deal with the facts?  NASA was ready to go with two big
sats.  It was a done deal until some people in Congress along with some NASA
types said "Uh oh, do we really want to do this?"

>After that version, they wanted the Ultra heavy platforms.  now the lighter
>platforms.   Things change around pretty severely.

Only because you want to change around the material to obscure the issue.

>I haven't kept up on EOS  and MTPE.  but the programs have evolved,
>and scaled back.

Scaled back?  Not really.  Redesigned, yes.

>|They've already got money, committments and sign ups for the first launch.
>|You are trying to compare apples and oranges.  Taurus is relatively low-risk,
>|and based upon established 30+ year experience with unmanned solids.

>So is COMET/COnsetoga,  and it looks pretty questionable if it will
>survive.

Crap.  Pure crap.  Consetoga was being sold as a commercial solution for which
there has been no demonstrated market.  Taurus is a defined solution to a DoD
need.  DoD IS willing to pay money to make sure they have the capabilities of
Taurus on the shelf.

Lockheed is also willing to throw in their hat for Taurus-like launchers. I
suppose Lockheed has nothing better to do than to burn their money?

>It's not the project engineers who are the problem.

Why not?  They're collecting paychecks not to do anything other than to
stall, according to your version of things.  After all, it is THEIR welfare
plan, so you allege.  Of COURSE they are part of the "problem."

>It's  teh project managers and the NASA managers.

Yes, those nameless, faceless evildoers who conspire to drag things out as long
as they can.

>Why did they distribute the contract work out to every
>congressional district,  rather then concentrating it
>around the Major centers. (Marshall, Kennedy, Johnson, Lewis).

Because RONALD REAGAN didn't PERSONALLY FOOT THE BILL. Duooooy.  Congress
provides the money, the individual congressmen have to have something to give
to the folks back home.

>Why has every scale back on SSF not lead to a cut back in
>staffing?

Probably because they have to have the same engineering staff go through yet
another iteration of redesign and man hours to do that dont' grow on trees.

>The PE's  are pretty tired of this noise.  Engineers want to build,
>not interface in endless matrix requirements tracing meetings.

Well, they seem to be managing all this "up front work" which you say is
occuring...

>Skylab had one big requirements manual, kept in a 3 ring binder.
>And the darn thing flew.

Skylab was built with spare parts from Apollo.  They weren't trying to build
and assemble from scratch, along with integrating Japanese and European
requirements.

>Of course,  on the funding to date, they haven't produced
>any flight hardware.  there are lots of explanations  but the cold truth
>is  9 billion dollars has been spent and  we are nowhere near to a
>flight vehicle.

The cold truth is that if I jerked you around three different times and kept
your hands tied on funding, you'd probably be accused of wasting money too.

>No,  but i can quote their conclusions.  Is that some sort of crime?
>The Vest panel  thinks 51.6 is a good idea.  Can you refute their conclusion?
>I don't think so, doug.

51.6 is a political expedency which you have so carefully noted which will
result us in moving more money to the Russian Republic so they won't be bad
boys anymore and sell potential weapons technology to unwashed Third World
nations. :)

>>No, but the NASA chief spends more goddamn time sitting up on the Hill being
>>grilled about operations, budgetary costs, and trying to get money out of
>>Congress than he does in the White House.
>
>hey.  congres shas always controlled the money.  it's the job of the
>executive to  squeeze it out of them.  It is done.  look at the
>Black budget,  none of that is reviewed by congress.

I think you need a civics lesson.  Certain members of Congress ARE cleared to
review "black" programs.  It's not some magic black hole.

Of course, you can stop the smoke generator, Pat.  We're not talking about
black programs.  We're talking about a publically reviewed project.  You just
don't get the crowing micromanagement in a black program that you do in a
public hearing up on the Hill.  Tsk, think you'd know that by now.

>>Or do you think that "pork" magically comes from the President?
>Yes.  In fact it does.  LBJ proved that.

Why don't you bring yourself in to the 1990s?  Pork does NOT magically come
from the President.

>>When Allen wants to beat the drum for DC-X follow-up money, does he flood the
>>White House with faxes and calls?  NOooooo, he gets the phone tree to call
>>key Senate and House members who sit on committees to make the money move from
>>out of YOUR pocket to the NASA budget. :)
>
>Gee.  ALAN where are you.  I seem to remember at least twice  ALAN having me
>call the white house  and Gores office to protect SSTO.  And there were
>call campaigns to the Quayle space council too.

Sure, but the Veep doesn't do much more than look pretty.  Let's be real.
Quayle had all these cutsy plans... which look real nice on vue graphs, but
didn't do squat for funding projects.

And the point was FUNDING PROJECTS. And where the money comes from.

>>Let me explain it to you in little steps:
>>
>>      A)  The president proposes a budget
>>      B)  The budget gets mangled into general terms by the House and Senate
>>      C)  House and Senate sub-committees take the large chunks of money
>>          and start designating them for individual projects.
>>      D)  Everyone votes on, it eventually becomes law (if not, then
>>          repeat B & C until law).
>
>The president, threatens to VETO budget until it  starts looking
>like his budget.  return to step B.

C'mon. YOu're being a dork again. Why else has ever President since Reagan (and
including Clinton) wanted the line-item veto? To KILL PORK.

>Bush and Reagan both shut down the government to score points
>on exactly this wrangling.

On general principles, yes. Not on specific line items. Or do you mean
to suggest that Reagan and Bush should have been such feverant space zealots as
to veto the budget until NASA had triple the dollar allocation?

Still doesn't work. Then you deal with the 2/3 over-ride in Congress.

Try again after the tone.

>>The president may articulate goals and vision, but he does not provide the
>>money for these projects.
>True,  but he has a great deal of control as chief executive.

No, you specifically implied that the President A) Raises money B) Allocates
money and C) Micromanages the budget.

He does none of these things.

>It is only due to republican wrangling and open war that they
>have had such detailed erosion of executive privilige.

Wrong again!  Should have checked the Washington Post.  Even Congress is
shocked at how much micromanagement they are doing in the executive branch
cabinets...

>And REAGAN got the money for his projects.  He could have
>argued for NASA,  he chose not too.

Unlike Slick Willy, Reagan chose not to be all things to all people.  The
overriding priority was (correctly) Defense, since the Soviet Union was still
in the business of building lots and lots of missiles and putting large
warheads on them. Targeting them at the United States.  Plus, keeping under
their heel the collective states of Eastern Europe and the other Socialist
Republics.

Given that the Soviet Union had to either reform or lose its edge, and then
eventually started a course of reform which led to its dismanteling, I cannot,
shall not, and will not apologize for what worked :-)

>YOu forget in th 70's we had Vietnam, Oil Criseses.

What's your point? Other than to obscure your original point.

>in the 60's the Missile Gap.  the 50's the Bomber gap.  Presidents get what
>they argue for.

I didn't know that national defense was ever NOT a priorty over other
issues.  That's pretty

>The cold war was a convenient excuse for things just like the war on drugs.

Pat, would you care to stop blowing smoke now?  YOu were blaming the Evil
Republicans for the woes of the space program.



     January 1993 - John Scully embraces Bill Clinton.
     July 1993    - Apple Computer lays off 2500 workers, posts $188
                    million dollar loss.

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 20:35:44 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Lottery! Any ideas?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>Hmm. I wonder what ISP can we could get out of a LOX/lawyer mixture?
>Any guesses? Paul maybe? :-)

Hmmm... Now there's a good idea for a research program with positive
spinoffs! Of course, it would take a lot of work. We would need bo
use up a LOT of lawyers. We would then need to repeat the experiments
with more lawyers to make sure the results are valid. I think it would
have a very positive impact. :-)

  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."             |
+----------------------89 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 27 Jul 93 15:18:22 EDT
From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPACE TRIVIA LIST - 24th July 1993
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro,rec.radio.amateur.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, ab3o+@andrew (Allan Bourdius) writes:
>>Jack Swigert flew on Apollo 13, which, although it looped around the moon,
>>never went into orbit.  Deke Slayton never flew to the moon -- his one space
>>flight was the Apollo Soyuz Test Project, which was an earth orbiting flight.
>
>Sorry, but you're wrong.  Apollo 13 HAD to go into lunar orbit because a
>short time before the oxygen tank explosion, they conducted a mid-course
>correction to take them off a free return trajectory.  The accident
>occured while Swigert was shutting down SPS systems used during the mcc
>burn.

Apollo 13 did not HAVE to go into lunar orbit, and did not.  They took the
quickest way back, which is completely understandable.  To do this, they had to
put themselves back on a free return trajectory since, as you point out, they
weren't on one (in order to reach their planned landing site, Fra Mauro).  But
there's no reason on or off earth they would have used fuel to slow themselves
into lunar orbit when it could be used to get them back more quickly, and I
recall that the return trip was shortened by a day by firing the LM engine some
time after the lunar pass.

I believe the last straw that caused the explosion was turning on some heaters
to "stir" the liquid oxygen.
--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]

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


From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Date: 27 Jul 1993 14:07 CDT
Organization: University of Houston
Lines: 76
Sender: University Space Society <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
References: <22u3n0$[e-mail]> <230k8o$[e-mail]> <233jhr$[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: judy.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <233jhr$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes...
>In article <230k8o$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:
>>
>>: Even if the system in place costs twice as much as competitive flying systems
>>: for 90% of it's mission.
>>
>>Gee.. um.. what missions are those? Currently, there are no other man rated
>>launch systems, and nothing is flown on the orbiter (according to the
>>NASA policys implemented after STS-51L) that can be flown on a BDB.
>
>STS Missions.
>
>       Cargo to orbit.    ELV's do this much cheaper.
>
>       Cargo to earth.    RV's do this much cheaper.
>

Wrong. It may be cheaper but as COMET proves, it ain't easy and it cannot
be done for the optimistic prices that were proposed.

>       On orbit science missions (Untended)  GAS cans, SPAS, LDEF
>       ELV's with RV's  do this much cheaper.

Wrong. COMET is a glaring example of how badly you can screw up a "commercial"
mission. Allen's pat reply that it failed because of STS does not hold water.
They were given a contract for the amount of money that they asked for and
they could not even get the first mission off the ground even when they
spent 85% of the money for all three missions before it was terminated.

>
>       ON orbit Manned experiments.  (MIR does this much cheaper)
>

Does it now. From what Dr. Alifanov from MAI says, it is terribly innefficient
in doing experimentation. He says that we have far more productivity from
STS as it is than from MIR.

>       ON ORBIT Bio science experiments.  RVs  and MIR do this
>       for far less.
>

See the Above

>       On ORbit system repair (satellitte rescue, etc)
>       It is cheaper  or nearly so to AIP the system and launch replacements.
>       HST cost 1.6 Billion in DDTE(according to wales.)  the HST
>       repair mission is costing 800 Million.  It's a judgement
>       call on what's cheaper.
>

Yea and your implication is that spending another 800 million do do another
HST is "cheaper" than the repair mission.


>
>>Every shuttle flight is well packed with things to do, and I havn't seen
>>one recently that had anything that could have been done off a BDB, so
>>what exactly are these missions.. and all this coming from the guy who
>>tells ME to "go read up".. <grins>
>>
>
>I do, think, you need to read more.  Your postings show a lack of
>breadth  in competitive programs  and mission analysis.   when you know
>what brilliant condoms is,  i'll think you are keeping
>up on your readings.
>
>pat
>

While yours show a lack of information based upon knowing what is going on in
the program. Sometimes you say some good things, BUT your total outsider
perspective shows very clearly that from a systems perspective, that is looking
at the problems from all angles, your analysis is often at best incomplete.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 933
------------------------------