Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_9/V16NO991.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-13 | 33KB | 867 lines

Space Digest                Fri,  6 Aug 93       Volume 16 : Issue 991

Today's Topics:
                              11 planets
          Cost of Shuttle (was Re: Budget figures) (3 msgs)
      Current Sub AIP, and can it be used in space to? (2 msgs)
                DC-X Prophets and associated problems
                          Future War? Ideas!
                   Ghost Wheels & HenrySpancer_Zoo
                         Karla, name thereof
                              Kelly Act
                 Mars Observer's First Photo (2 msgs)
          NASA's planned project management changes (2 msgs)
                       Shuttle Waste Management
                     Why I hate the space 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: 5 Aug 1993 18:43:10 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: 11 planets
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
|
|1. Modern theories of formation of the solar system produce an asteroid
|belt in that vicinity without requiring a planet as an intermediate stage.
|The asteroids are leftovers from planet formation.
|

Leftovers always taste worse then the original meal.


|2. All the asteroids put together would make an object only about twice
|the size of Ceres -- a planet only in the loosest sense of the word.
|

Another re-statement of the Astronomers Missing Mass problem.


>3. There is no obvious way of making a planet explode.

Sure there is.

Give Alan, Fred, Ken and Doug, unlimited time to post to Usenet :-)

pat

--
I don't care if it's true.  If it sounds good, I will
publish it.  Frank Bates Publisher  Frank Magazine.

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

Date: Fri, 6 Aug 93 02:06:19 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cost of Shuttle (was Re: Budget figures)

> Similarly, when you buy a car, you usually figure the cost as
> the dealer price + tax + registration; some of the numbers used
> for [Fr]ed and STS recently are equivalent to figuring car cost
> as that + insurance for 20 yrs (assuming two tickets per year but
> no fatal crashes) + gas + routine maintenance + change of tires +
ad
> nauseum.


The truth is, it would be a wise man who did so. Particularly if you
watch the curve of costs/year and trade in when the total cost of the
current vehicle (including amortization) exceeds the cost of the new
vehicle. Maybe some day we'll have cars that will keep all the data
for us and trade themselves in :-)

--
=======================================================================
Give generously to the        Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist
Betty Ford Home for                    [e-mail]
the Politically Correct     Greybook:  [e-mail]
=======================================================================

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

Date: Fri, 6 Aug 93 02:22:54 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cost of Shuttle (was Re: Budget figures)

> I would argue that by _ignoring_ the compound interest on your
house, the
> insurance costs for your car, and so forth, you are using
meaningless figures.
> This is the big smoke-and-mirrors game of marketing. Maintenance,
meaning
> everything you put into something over its life, is a perfectly
valid part
> of the total cost! Has anyone around here taken any accounting
courses,
> had to justify any expenses in a job working for a regular company?
When
> I start a project here at work, I have to figure in man-hours,
equipment used,
> the cost of keeping my computer running, the lights on above my
office (such
> things are usually all wrapped up into a "human resources" column),
training,
> maintenance, and so forth and so on. Further, a full cost analysis
then looks
> at what money I'm saving by doing the project, how much I might be
wasting
> when compared with cheaper alternatives, and so forth and so on.
>


I heartily agree. In a business course I once took, the instructor
asked the question: what is the cost of the wastebasket beside your
desk?

If you don't include the cost/sqft of rent/mortgage/heat/light/etc
you shouldn't be in business. Actually not true: you won't BE in
business very long.

--
=======================================================================
Give generously to the        Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist
Betty Ford Home for                    [e-mail]
the Politically Correct     Greybook:  [e-mail]
=======================================================================

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

Date: Fri, 6 Aug 93 02:38:35 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cost of Shuttle (was Re: Budget figures)

> Ah, but you see, if you hadn't got a car in the first place
> you wouldn't have been able to live 10 miles from work...
> You being so silly buying a car (or conversely getting a
> place to live[job] that far from your job[house] forcing
> you to have a car in the first place) has
> now cost you enormously, get rid of the house, and car, then
> go look for a place closer to work!

And not to forget that the calculations did not include the part of
taxes going into creating a massive road infrastructure. Which
everyone is forced to pay for, regardless of usage. In reality there
should be a rental fee for your 20 miles/day, compact car class road
use. If the fee covered your total share of repair, expansion,
amortization, pollution, etc... it might change the balance.


My, my. We just might have space shuttle pricing logic being applied
to the automobile in every day life without our having really thought
about it :-)

--
=======================================================================
Give generously to the        Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist
Betty Ford Home for                    [e-mail]
the Politically Correct     Greybook:  [e-mail]
=======================================================================

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 21:54:00 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Current Sub AIP, and can it be used in space to?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Saw whis on sci.military, and much of it I think can be used in space.. Since
>submariens and space ships share much in common...

Spacecraft have been using fuel-cell technology for nearly thirty years.
Stirling engines have been considered for space use, but they tend to be
awfully heavy.  Nobody has seriously considered Diesels or gas turbines
for space power -- they are heavy and they specialize in large amounts of
power for short periods, where spacecraft tend to want smaller amounts for
much longer periods.

Most anything that is being thought about for subs has long since been

looked at for spaceflight.  The usual reason for rejecting it is that it
weighs too much for its power output.
--
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: 5 Aug 1993 17:42 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Current Sub AIP, and can it be used in space to?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>Saw whis on sci.military, and much of it I think can be used in space.. Since
>>submariens and space ships share much in common...
>
>Spacecraft have been using fuel-cell technology for nearly thirty years.
>Stirling engines have been considered for space use, but they tend to be
>awfully heavy.  Nobody has seriously considered Diesels or gas turbines
>for space power -- they are heavy and they specialize in large amounts of
>power for short periods, where spacecraft tend to want smaller amounts for
>much longer periods.
>
>Most anything that is being thought about for subs has long since been
>looked at for spaceflight.  The usual reason for rejecting it is that it
>weighs too much for its power output.
>--
>Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

There are some things from the sub programs that are of great benefit to
the space program. The Navy is far ahead of everyone else when it comes to
work in vibration suppression. This technology is sorely needed by the
space program when it comes to reducing the disturbing influences of
motors, fans, astronauts, etc. It is unfortunate that the Navy is not
very forthcoming with such information. We do have an ex subjock working with
us on vibration isolation of payloads but there is a lot of work that can
be done on this subject.

A quick look at some of our SpacHab accelerometer data shows that fans are
one of the biggest culprits of continious noise in the Spacehab locker.
If anyone wants a challenge to design something better, here it is.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 21:56:40 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>>The story I hear is that the X-30 management -- in this and other ways --
>>had a whole lot to do with the project's problems.
>
>Who were the managers? Gummint or private employees? NASA or DoD?

It was one of these glorious multi-way joint projects, run by its own
project office.  The long-time boss was Robert Barthelmy, who's a USAF
civilian employee I think; he was reputed to be NASP's single biggest
technical obstacle. :-)
--
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: Thu, 05 Aug 93 14:59:17 PDT
From: Charlie Prael <[e-mail]>
Subject: Future War? Ideas!
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:

> >Second, tanks are notoriously difficult to keep up, treads fall off
> >and bad land can make combat with them impossible (see desert storm
> >for evidence).  There is an absolutely essential need for a much more
> >mobile system, (read man with gun!).
>
> The problem is even worse: Tanks are _heavy_ and the specialists,
> tools and parts needed to keep them working are even heavier. You'll
> notice that the airmobile/air assault divisions have very few tanks
> and those are 30-year old, unusually light ones. In terms of the
> intersterllar war question, I suspect transporting an armored division
> would be harder than sending an entire (unmechanized) infantry army.

A few things to think about.  First, U.S. airborne/airmobile units are
now re-equiping with much more modern "armor".  The preferred unit seems
to be a LAV-25 variant with a 105mm low-recoil gun system, which fires
the same 105mm shells as earlier models of the M1 Abrams.  Note that this
is light enough to heli-lift beneath a CH-53, or drop from a C-141.

Second, whether you want to use infantry or armor depends, largely, on
what kind of terrain you are fighting in.  To use your two examples, in
the Australian outback, I would *take* the armored div over an
all-infantry Corps-sized group.  Why?  Because the mobility you have is
simply unmatchable, as is the shock effect.  In something like the
Amazon, the infantry force is much more desirable.

Terrain dictates the most effective equipment.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Prael  - [e-mail]
Shakala BBS (ClanZen Radio Network) Sunnyvale, CA [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 21:09:23 GMT
From: Dillon Pyron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ghost Wheels & HenrySpancer_Zoo
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (S.H.) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Hoult) writes:
>
>>
>>Welcome to the kill file.
>
>Really ?
>
>What else are you going to Kill ?
>
>Socrates was killed too.
>
>I still read about him.

Socrates also gave careful thought before he wrote.  Maybe if you spent more
than ten minutes reading this group before you posted, you'd get a little more
respect.

And, if you learned a little about the tools you are using, people might
respect you more.

As the man said, please step into the kill file.

BTW.  If you had a stable id, I would have mailed this.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
[phone] (when I'm here)     |
[phone] (when I'm home)     |Please send mail to [e-mail]
[e-mail]                 |since skndiv is going away.  Thanks
PADI AI-54909                     |

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

Date: Fri, 6 Aug 93 01:01:46 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Karla, name thereof

> The question has been raised in the past as to whether we should
even
> bother to continue naming asteroids, but the conclusion was reached
that
> if the IAU didn't do it, then some money-making operation like the
> International Star Registry would start doing it.
>


Sounds like a rather good idea to me. Sell the right to name them to
the highest bidder and use the money to fund R&D. Let someone like
the Space Studies Institute parcel them out. There are eccentric
multi-millionaires out there who would cough up a lot of dough to
immortalize their deceased pet poodle. Why not help part them ease
their loss :-)

More seriously, the post makes it sound like it would be a terrible
thing if someone made money off it. Well, there is absolutely nothing
wrong with making money.

--
=======================================================================
Give generously to the        Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist
Betty Ford Home for                    [e-mail]
the Politically Correct     Greybook:  [e-mail]
=======================================================================

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

Date: Fri, 6 Aug 93 01:11:15 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Kelly Act

> The Kelly Act is a series of bills passed in the 1920's and 1930's.
It
> played a key role in establishing the US Airline industry.


It also, if my memory serves me correctly, had several other effects.

The vested interests were worried about the profusion of small
operators, and were horrified about the bad image that the
barnstormers and their Jennies were having. They wanted some means of
putting them out of the picture.

What happened was worse than even the main players expected. A
government official took them into a meeting and parcelled out the
air mail routes. They were told who would live and who would not; who
would merge with whom...

The end result was a massive scandal that was the reason that the
Army pilots were called in to take over the mail routes. After the
Army pilots killed themselves off in droves over the "Hell Stretch",
the Allegheny Mtns, private mail plane service was reinstated.

I'd really rather see a bit less of a Central Planning model than the
Kelly Act.


PS: And in the Did You Know That category:

    USAir, formerly Allegheny Airlines, started off life doing
flying hook and wire mail pickups in Western Pennsylvania and West
Virginia?

--
=======================================================================
Give generously to the        Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist
Betty Ford Home for                    [e-mail]
the Politically Correct     Greybook:  [e-mail]
=======================================================================

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 22:29:56 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer's First Photo
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>
>>And, of course, it's available by FTP, right?
>
>That's either sarcasm or naivete; no way to tell which. :-)
>
>It won't be available for FTP until somebody gets a copy and scans it in.
>NASA's PR people are still in the dark ages when it comes to electronic
>availability of such things.

Didn't the public affairs office at JPL recently set up an FTP host
specifically to act as clearinghouse for such things?  Maybe someone in
know could refresh my memory...

--
Dave Michelson  --  [e-mail]  --  University of British Columbia

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

Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 00:35:26 GMT
From: Rod Beckwith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer's First Photo
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard D
Pierce) writes:
>>     The B & W photograph is available by calling NASA's
>>Broadcast and Imaging Branch ...
>
>And, of course, it's available by FTP, right?
===========================================================================
======
(Henry Spencer)wrote:

>>That's either sarcasm or naivete; no way to tell which. :-)

>>It won't be available for FTP until somebody gets a copy and scans it
in.
>>NASA's PR people are still in the dark ages when it comes to electronic
>>availability of such things.
===========================================================================
=====

Henry,

The images are coming in & converted to a viewable format, unless Polariod
technology has come a long way 8->......zero's & ones could be made readily
available for FTP format. Distributing things in a soft manner is so much
quicker, nah that would make to much sense, besides, the Postal service
must love their archaic ways.


I tend to agree that NASA is a BIT slow on getting things out. Efficiency
is so unbureaucratic!

Rod

--
Rod Beckwith     |$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$| The
Datacom I/S      |"The great obstacle of progress is not ignorance,| Nite
[e-mail]|but the illusion of knowledge."                  | Net
                 |$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$|
Knight

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

Date: 5 Aug 93 15:50:14
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA's planned project management changes
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

   Why does government procuremnt NEED to be different from accepted industry
   practice?

Different purpose, different scale.

Both the accounting methods and procurement practises
of a single-proprietor business differ from those
used by GM (and, funnily enough, the differences
don't get you thrown in jail [sic]).
What's more, Matsushita and GM use different accounting
methods and procurement practices. A "working" scheme
is not unique.

Of course that leaves the question open as to whether the
particular scheme used by government is any good wide open :-)

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

Date: 5 Aug 1993 19:21:45 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA's planned project management changes
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
|
|>|   Second, unlike your commercial customers, DoD (whatever agency) has the
|>|unilateral right to revise its contracts [...]
|>It's called a termination for convenience.
|
|No, read it again.  They have the right to REVISE at will. Termination is dealt
|with in the separate clause below.
|

I would suggest you either talk to some people who do government
procurement,  or  get some more experience in the industry.

Contracts, can't be revised at will.  DoD doesn't say, we know you
promised to deliver typewriters  for $300/each,  but we want
M1 tanks,  so cough up them at $300 each.

What DoD  does is use their  right to terminate a contract to open
a contract for re-negotiation as needed.

For Instance,  I have seen contracts for T&M engineering, at a
negotiated rate,  have that rate re-negotiated,  when money got
tight.  the firm had the option of walking,  or taking the new
rate.  that's not quite the image you ar epresenting.


|>|   Third, DoD obtains extensive audit and work surveillance rights under its
|>|contracts. [Much less so with other agencies, but still, the guv'ment may
|>|come in at any time to look at the books; this is NOT the case with a
|>|commercial entity]
|>
|>Lot's of contracts include this.
|>Any CPFF  or T&M contract includes the right to audit cost basis
|>materials  and  hourly timesheets.
|
|Including stationing their own employees on site to monitor all goings on?
|

Have you seen the methodologies for Agricultural programs?

To participate in pesticide free programs,  often inspectors will
be at farms on a regular basis.  the USDA inspection program for tuna,
involves the participating firms (Starkist i.e.)  paying for the
inspectors who stand around and stamp the cans.

As i pointed out,  in the movie business,  auditors will routinely
show up to count tickets and heads in the theaters.


|Hardly.  Even the TQM prayer groups don't go to the monitoring extremes
|which the government does... and that was before TQM became hip :)
|

I am pretty sure, GM for the Saturn program, puts GM employees into the
subcontractors  plants to monitor process and production.


|>|   Fourth, DoD uses its procurement program as a vehicle for attaining
|>|numerous national, social, and economic goals.
|>So do every other business in the world.   All contracts carry an
|>implied social and economic policy in them.
|
|I realize this is your typical socialistic garbage, but you're wrong.
|

I realize you like to call people names  and deride their ideas rather
then admit that you may be wrong.  You must have had a bad life doug.

Examine a contract,   it is an promise for a consideration.

All contracts must conform to public policy,  ie no contracts for
prostitution or slavery.

Right there is some social policy.

The contract is awarded by some mechanism.  ( Right there is your
socio-economic policy)

i.e.  GM  has their approved vendors list.  if you aren't on that list,
you will never be allowed to bid.  Right?  Do you think that might
include a social policy?

Contracts may go to the perceived best quality vendor, that's an economic/
social policy.  COntracts  may go to the cheapest vendor,  that's a policy.
Contracts may go to the guy who last did this work  (Old Boy system)
that's a policy.  COntracts may go to the first guy in the door.
or the one who promises the fastest deadline.

I realize  in your world,  there is no such thing as policy,  but
there are more things in the world then are dreamt of in your philosophy.


|>Look at detroits boycott of japanese products for years
|
|Detroit?  Ah, yes the two-faced types who yell "Buy American" with one
|mouth and end up cutting deals with japanese companies on the other hand
|for joint production... ho hoho.  All to improve the bottom line.
|

Ah Yes,  Detroit.

The firms that won't let their employees drive Japanese cars
or Wouldn't deal with Non-white business people until the
Feds jumped on their case.

Ford, the firm that won't do business with jewish people.

The not so big three  finally went crying to the japanese in the 80's
only after having no choice.  If you had ever been to detroit even in the 70's
you would have a whole different take on reality.

I would suggest you read some history on Ford,  before you laugh.


|There's nothing "social" in that.  It's money and greed.  Why else are most
|companies building products overseas?  Not for the good of the United States,
|but cuz it's CHEAPER.
|

And is that not a social and economic policy?  Build the product
in the cheapest manner.  Reaganism  is a social policy.
it's not very nice,  but it is a policy.


|>   ATT, IBM,  and the
|>fortune 500  usually have policies to help small and disadvantaged
|>business too.
|
|Only because it suits their public image and because they are required by
|law to have a certain percentage of small/disadvantaged businesses on-board
|in various government contract work, due to the SBA act.
|

Does it matter why?


|It's not because they want to be nice guys.

Standard Oil found out that it was in their interest to cultivate
suppliers from non-traditional sources.  it gave them leverage over
their traditional suppliers.


|
|>|   Fifth, under certain types of contracts, there are limitations on the
|>|amount of profit you can earn and on the amounts and types of costs you may
|>|recover.
|>Same thing on T&M, and CPFF contracts in the priovate sector.
|
|Sure, but if DoD decides to revise the contract, you're screwed regardless.
|

And same thing in the private sector.

See how in construction, companies are killing each other.

builders are getting hosed by the clients.  they may have a negotiated rate
for services,   only to be told,  that the rate is changing.


|>|   Finally, DoD [and any other agency] has an absolute to terminate all or any
|>|part of your contract at any time....
|>Lot's of contracts carry a termination for convenience clause,  actually
|>all contracts by law are terminable,
|
|Certainly.  But the government has lots more lawyers on staff and they make the
|rules, not a neutral party.  Care to rethink that?
|

They may make the rules, but they are bound by their rules.

I've  been involved in claims against the feds for contract terminations.

I'll tell you this,  I'd rather deal with the Feds,  tehn any state government.
the Feds, are ruled through the District courtts.  An independent arm
of government.  the states run administrative claims.

And It doesn't matter how many lawyers the feds have, i've participated
on numerous winning claims.  Plus,   if they lose the claim,  they have
to pay your court costs.


|
|>>Now, did you want a further exploration on why the government is not quite
|>>the capitialist business entity which you'd like to think?
|>Do you want to rethink your position first?
|
|Hardly.  DoD is lots bigger than any single company on earth.  And their
|enforcement branch has guns as well as lawyers :)
|

Do you want to re-think your position some more?

I'd rather do business witht he DoD  then Herbert Haft any day.


|Now, you're the raging socialist, Pat.  Government does not maximize profits.
|Nor does it go out and excessively borrow :)
|

Government does what it does.  Policy is seperate from administration.

If you wish to discuss the policy of administration  please talk
to congress.  if you wish to discuss the administration of policy,
please talk to your COntract officer.

If there is any doubt,  please see the General SErvices Administration,
unless this is a DoD contract,  then see the DSCA or NASA,  then see the
NASA Administrative directorate.


>
>No, actually, it's not. It's made out of old 8" gun tubes and designed
>to blow up underground bunkers. Made from scratch. Good stuff.

Works well,  of course,  if the bunker is full of civilians
and not Command staff, that's a whole nother problem.


>>program.  given that they are only purchasing one vehicle and
>>no other products are critically pathed upon it,  it's not high risk.
>
>What happens if the one vehicle dies?  They don't have a lot of spares sitting
>around.  I'd call that significant risk, hm?

Well, they either fix it,  or they build another one.
the second one is a lot cheaper.

Besides DC-X is already 50% successful.  it's already demonstrated rapid turnaround
and servicing
>>
>>The new variant OV's were not compatible on asystems level
>>with the old OV's  which meant twice as much training,  and
>>more operational twists.
>
>Well Pat, you seem suddenly Risk Adverse for someone so adament to launching
>SSF in a higher inclination because it'll be "tougher."

Understanding why they wouldn't make their logistics problems
200% more difficult is far different from advocating a far more
productive Space station.

Different OV's  will reduce productivity in the STS program.
A different station orbit will increase productivity.


>
>
>C'mon Pat, I got 20 pages of FARs for a small solicitation. Gimme a break.  I'd
>hate to think what they look like for larger amounts of money.

About the same size.

How many RFP's do you read?  I read any where between  20- 100
in a year.

A large contract will often have more task orders and more detail
on proposal specs,  but,  the included FAR's are about the same.


>
>>One local washington company  with about 200 employees,  had to write
>>a policy, do you know what their policy was?
>>If you bring drugs to the office, you must share them.
>
>So what do you think would happen if the government goes back and looks at that
>particular policy?  Do you think that Uncle Sam will think that's cute and
>continue to hand them money?

No-one from the government is tasked to enforce this policy.

and besides,  they won the contract, i doubt the contracting officers
give a damn.

when i read how some of the RFP'sa re written,  i figure at least half
of them are on drugs.

pat

--
I don't care if it's true.  If it sounds good, I will
publish it.  Frank Bates Publisher  Frank Magazine.

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

Date: 5 Aug 93 12:21:24 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Shuttle Waste Management
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] ("John Hardin at home") writes:
> Would it be feasible to include large amounts of ferrous materials in the
> astronauts' diets - large enough so that the solid wastes could be
> manipulated magnetically?
>
> Possible drawbacks might include:
>
> - The astronauts themselves become subject to magnetic fields. Does the
> cabin shield the astronauts from the earth's magnetic field? What about EVA?
>
> - That much iron might have negative effects on their health.
>

How about gentically engineering them with chicken DNA.  That with a high
calcium diet should allow them to lay their waste....

Sorry, I couldn't resist. 8^)

Tony

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

Date: 5 Aug 93 15:44:48
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Tholen) writes:

   Henry Spencer writes:

   > No, with enough engines that they can survive loss of 1/2 of them instead
   > of only 1/4 like a 747.  (1/2 is nominally survivable on a 747, but note
   > what happened in Amsterdam.)
 ...
   And I recall reading about a United trans-Pacific flight to Tokyo even
   longer ago that had first one engine shut down, then a second, and I believe
   a third, though I recall a second engine was restarted for landing, but it
   may have been flying on one engine there for a while.  Does somebody have a
   better memory than me about this incident, and if true, what was determined
   to be the cause?

That sounds like the one that flew into the Pinatubo plume?
There was at least one 747 on a trans-Pacific flight that lost
three engines when it ran into the plume and made it out
with one restart.

   Both 747s, by the way.

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 991
------------------------------