Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V12_0/V12_015.ZIP/V12_015

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/gaYh=Jq00VcJ89T04G>;
          Thu,  5 Jul 1990 01:40:38 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu,  5 Jul 1990 01:40:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #15

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 12 : Issue 15

Today's Topics:
           Re: grim tidings for the future
           Re: grim tidings for the future
           Re: grim tidings for the future
            Re: HST Focus problem
            Re: The end of Hubble
         Re: Bringing the HST down -- even possible?
           Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing
              Re: Nasa's budget
                Avation bbs's
 Re: Inaccurate quotes (was: Re: More on NASA 91 Appropriation Vote)
          Problems in building telescope - a lesson

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Jul 90 05:13:54 GMT
From: uoft02.utoledo.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

>                 reducing the entry-level cost to orbit by a factor of 5,
>                 and spending only 1/5 of 1% what NASA spent to develop
>                 the Shuttle?
>         Who built a prototype of a coil gun that could reduce the cost
>                 to orbit by a factor of 100?
>         Who is building a prototype of a laser launcher that could also
>                 greatly reduce cost to orbit?
>         Who built a prototype gas gun launcher, ditto?
>         Who is building a prototype of inflatable space stations that could
>                 reduce the cost of putting astronauts on the Moon and Mars?

I always have problems withe these type fo statements.  REmemeber the Shuttle
was supposed to be 'greatly reduce the cost' but after buget cuts, dealys,
etc that is not the case...I think these are others are unrealistic in
regards to cost (and practical methods).

>
>         Who has kept people in space, doing a wide variety of studies,
>                 almost continuously for the last 10 years?
>         Who has launched the most satellites into space over the last
>                 10 years?
>         Who set the record for human duration in space?
>         Who has an operational, permanent micogravity furnace?
>
These are much too easy.  Aren't they?  I mean everyone does know the answer
don't they?

>
>
> Nearly all of the breakthroughs in space technology during the last 10 years
> have been accomplished by somebody other than NASA, despite the fact that

Depends on how you define things.  Yeah other have set indurance records
etc but in many subtle ways NASA has blown them away.  It is a hrad thing
to measure when different groups concentrate in different areas.

> NASA has spent more money on space than any other agency (over $100 billion
>  The space program can certainly survive without NASA; it would
> likely thrive.
>

Just like the private space effort in america has just been blazing across
the sky?  How do you suppose it would thrive?  I agree we should not be in
the business of launching comercial payloads but since the private sector
is unwilling to take things like a space station on them selves (too high
an outlay over too long with the rewards too far down the road - typical
american ideas that are killing us).  Recall also that there is a large
flux back into the economy from the money invested in NASA.

Robert Dempsey
Ritter Observatory

>

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

Date: 4 Jul 90 15:06:19 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>    3) What organization has launched the largest space station in
>       history?

I'm afraid you're behind the times, Irwin; the answer to *this* one is
"Glavkosmos".  With the latest expansion module, Mir is bigger than Skylab.
(It also has an order of magnitude more operating experience, already.)
--
"Either NFS must be scrapped or NFS    | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
must be changed."  -John K. Ousterhout |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 4 Jul 90 17:30:04 GMT
From: thorin!grover![e-mail]  (David Becker)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nicholas J. Szabo) writes...
"
" Time for a little quiz:
"
" [ Quiz on current space activity and accomplishments of the 80s ]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
"How about another quiz...
"
"  [ Asks who did Apollo, planetary probes and Skylab. ]
"
"  Granted your quiz above does point out a number of
"areas that NASA has not been the leading contender, but to expect that
"NASA is going to be the leader in everything is not only unrealistic, but
"is also insulting to those other organizations which are working hard to
"push the limits of technology.

Nick neglected to add "when?" to his quiz.  Granted, the fruits of NASA's
labors of the 60s were amazing.  They also culminated 20 years ago.
As Congress cut funding, NASA managed to launch a few more feats until 75 or so.
These can easily be classified as remnants of the agency of the 60s.

NASA has managed to push the state of the art only in white elephants the
last twenty years (with regard to new space activity).   Spinoffs and
better scientific instrucments don't add up to exploration.  NASA is NOT where
the action in space explotation has been the last 20 years.

We can only hope that until private enterprise can take the lead,
Glavkosmos remains a going concern during the USSR's restructing .

David Becker        Gotta love a machine that hangs on
[e-mail]        your every word.

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

Date: 2 Jul 90 19:36:07 GMT
From: swrinde!emory!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!crash!orbit!quest!viper![e-mail]  (David Messer)
Subject: Re: HST Focus problem

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
 >
 >A couple of brief comments on the problem.  First of all I have
 >plots of the PSF, it looks fairly well behaved, but indeed most
 >of the light is concentrated outside of 0.6 ".

If you can determine just how the light is scattered, wouldn't
it be possible to run a filter over the data to restore the
image?  I know this can be done to take an out-of-focus image
and put it into focus.  Does someone who is an expert in image
processing have a comment?
--
Remember Tiananmen Square.           | David Messer       [e-mail] -or-
                                     | Lynx Data Systems  ...!bungia!viper!dave

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

Date: 2 Jul 90 19:45:35 GMT
From: swrinde!emory!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!crash!orbit!quest!viper![e-mail]  (David Messer)
Subject: Re: The end of Hubble

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head       ) writes:
 >
 >So I would say the reaction would be amazement that mirror testing of
 >some sort was not done in the 6-ish *YEARS* available to ground crews.

Just think how bad it would've been if the thing had launched
on-time!  :-)
--
Remember Tiananmen Square.           | David Messer       [e-mail] -or-
                                     | Lynx Data Systems  ...!bungia!viper!dave

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

Date: 2 Jul 90 19:31:56 GMT
From: swrinde!emory!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!crash!orbit!quest!viper![e-mail]  (David Messer)
Subject: Re: Bringing the HST down -- even possible?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
 >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Maroney) writes:
 >>Everyone seems quite sure that the HST will not be brought down to the
 >>ground for repair.
 >>My question:  Can it be done?  Does the
 >>HST have the standard shuttle satellite-retrieval handles? ...
 >
 >Yes.  There is no problem, in principle, with the actual retrieval.
 >
 >>...what would be the estimated cost of the whole repair
 >>operation?
 >
 >Two dedicated shuttle missions.  (You won't be able to piggyback another
 >payload for a maximum-altitude mission, and HST fills the *whole* payload
 >bay for all practical purposes.) [+ other costs]

You could wait for the HSTs orbit to decay before retreiving
it.  Depending on how long this would take would determine the
cost-effectiveness of this option.
--
Remember Tiananmen Square.           | David Messer       [e-mail] -or-
                                     | Lynx Data Systems  ...!bungia!viper!dave

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

Date: 4 Jul 90 11:06:04 GMT
From: agate!agate![e-mail]  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing


The NSS is supported largely by the Aerospace Industry Advisory Council.
NSS president Charles Walker is a former McDonnell-Douglas
representative to the AIAC.  To the best of my knowledge he remains a
paid employee of McDonnell-Douglas.  NSS executive director Lori Garver
is an ex officio member of the AIAC.

The corporate members of the AIAC stand to lose business to the Chinese.
The NSS is simply one of their lobbying tools.


--
William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

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

Date: 4 Jul 90 15:15:12 GMT
From: usc!samsung!umich!umeecs!itivax!vax3.iti.org![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Nasa's budget

thorin!grover![e-mail]  (David Becker) writes:

>How would NASA fare if Congress dropped NASA's Big Space items
>(ie. shuttle and Freedom)?  Or cut flights to 1 or 2 a year (that is if
>the hardware doesn't force that anyway).

Wrong question. The correct question is: How would our space goals fare
if Congress dropped NASA's big space items?

The answer is that almost any goal readers of this net have would be
advanced by having these items dropped.

>Could cutting the Shuttle and cancelling Freedom actually help space
>explotation?

Yes. The shuttle is the high cost way to space. Expendables can provide
the same service for far less cost. In addition, the Shuttle wiht it's
first say on facilities makes it a lot harder to launch commercial
expendables which would reduce costs even more (mass production and
learning curve). If we ran access to space the way Ariane does, the
cost of getting to LEO would be cut in half almost overnight.

As to Freedom, that program is totally out of control. Tim Kyger told
me earlier this week that the number of shuttle filghts to do assembly
(not counting resuply) is about to double. They are about to start another
rescoping and redesign. (I'll post details later).

These programs cannot be defended. By defending these programs, we are
playing into the hands of people who do want to kill the entire thing.

>Perhaps forcing NASA to make do with a much smaller
>allowance will stimulate the cost-effective launchers that all us
>netters are dying for.  Or would the red tape survive as hardware is cut?


So far, red tape has shown to be stronger than engineers. NASA gets 1/3
the funding it did in the 60's (adjusted for inflation). Yet it has 2/3
the same number of staff. If this happened in a private company you would
say their productivity has been cut in half. Currently, NASA can't find
it's rear end with both hands. They haven't done anything well in 15 years
and I don't think it can be corrected.

   Allen

|                          |      In War: Resolution                      |
| Allen W. Sherzer         |      In Defeat: Defiance                     |
|   [e-mail]            |      In Victory: Magnanimity                 |
|                          |      In Peace: Good Will                     |

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

Date: 2 Jul 90 02:30:00 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!tmsoft!masnet!f734.n250.z1.fidonet.org![e-mail]  (mick winestone)
Subject: Avation bbs's

DOes anyone know of any Avation bbs's.
I know One called the Avation bbs but i can't log on.
Does anyone know any of any others.

--- QuickBBS 2.64 (Eval)
 * Origin: THE EAGLE'S NEST "Fun For Everyone" [phone] (1:250/734)

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

Date: 4 Jul 90 15:49:04 GMT
From: usc!samsung!umich!umeecs!itivax!vax3.iti.org![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Inaccurate quotes (was: Re: More on NASA 91 Appropriation Vote)

[e-mail] (William Baxter) writes:

>>>[Andrew Cutler agrees with me that SEI a waste of money based on the
>>>90 day report]

Not a correct paraphrase. You stated that Andy thinks SEI is a waste of
money. You didn't say this was based on the 90 day report. If I
misunderstood, then we may not have a problem. I also agree that even
thinking about the NASA 90 day study is a waste. However, as currently
implimented, SEI is being run assuming the 90 day study won't work.

>>                                 Why did he
>>tell me in a phone conversation (roughly): "At least they are doing it
>>[SEI] right this time and taking a few years to study it and not just
>>jump in".?
>
>I asked Andy about this.  He says he never made any such statement to
>you or to anyone else.  In fact, he said that he has not discussed SEI
>with you at all.  You really should quote people accurately.

I stand by the quote. It was an offhand remark and I'm not suprised he
doesn't remember. It stuck with me because it wasn't the sort of thing
I expected to hear from him. If you choose to take his memory over mine,
suit yourself.

I can't help but notice that you ignored two points and focused on a third.
Can you tell us that if SEI is a waste, why is Dr. Cutler in his NSS campaign
literature asking for support of the NASA outreach  program which is funded
under SEI? Why is he himself working on it? If he agrees with you surely he
would have nothing to do with it.

>Tim Kyger, whose name is commonly associated with your own in this
>forum, also thinks that SEI is a waste of money.  He calls it the "Staff
>Expansion Initiative."

Yep. We have talked a lot about that. If I agreed wiht his assumptions
I would agree wiht him. If he agreed with my assumptions he would agree
wth me. Being mature adults, we agree to disagree.

He is going to send me an article which I will post on this subject.
To parphrase, he thinks all the SEI money will go to NASA who will use
it in an attempt to impliment the 90 day study. We both agree this will
never work.

I think that the Space Council is well aware of the situation at NASA.
From what I have seen, the council is going to manage the program in a
way similar to what the Marshall Institute proposed in their report on
the Lunar and Mars initiative. If so, then NASA will have little control
over the process and SEI money is going to the Space Council and not NASA.

I am also concerned about political aspects. We are getting this far because
of Bush's efforts. If he gets burned on this, he may decide to drop it next
year. That would be a major blow. Tim, on the other hand, thinks that Bush
will stay with it.

We both agree that another agency is needed to maintain the infastructure
developed in this program. This agency would facilitate commercial operations
in space in the same way that the FAA facilitates air travel.

  Allen

|                          |      In War: Resolution                      |
| Allen W. Sherzer         |      In Defeat: Defiance                     |
|   [e-mail]            |      In Victory: Magnanimity                 |
|                          |      In Peace: Good Will                     |

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

Date: 4 Jul 90 05:24:09 GMT
From: uoft02.utoledo.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Problems in building telescope - a lesson

Some time back someone posted a request for observatories to
discuss how things when they were setting themselves up.  I meant
to respond but never got around to it.  In light of recent events
this may even be more relavant.  I was not around when the Ritter 1-m
was being installed but I have heard the legend.  It was behind schedule
and they had difficulty in installing it because all the right equipment
was also late in arriving.  The installation story is an amazing
(long) firside tale of hearty crfatsmen using 2x4s and chains to get
the damn thing in.  The people who were supposed to align it were
not really qualified so months and months slipped by before any
real progress was made.  The image quality was poor and they could not
figure out why.  The a recent young PhD came here.  Quickly he sized up
the situation.  he went to our sister telscope at Yerkes and studied it.
He then realized that the mirror was incorrect!!!  The blank had been
ground correctly but the coating was wrong.  Apparently, the company
had put on a layer, tested and kept reiterating as things got better.
However, in their rush after the last round (since things were improving)
they did not run the final check again.  It had to be redone.  Now
we have an awesome scope that has been in the forfront of astronomy
for 20 years!!!!  This was back in the day where then entire
observatory cost $1million.  I think there is a lesson there, perhaps.
Just some thoughts....

Robert Dempsey
Ritter Observatory

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #15
*******************