Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V12_0/V12_021.ZIP/V12_021

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 16KB

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/EaZ3TDm00VcJ0=Sk55>;
          Fri,  6 Jul 1990 03:03:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <IaZ3SmC00VcJ8=[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri,  6 Jul 1990 03:03:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #21

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 12 : Issue 21

Today's Topics:
           Payload Status for 07/05/90 (Forwarded)
           Re: grim tidings for the future
           Re: grim tidings for the future
    (Abberated) Reflections on the Hubble Space Telescope
              Re: Nasa's budget
              Re: Nasa's budget
             Re: realities of testing HST
                  Hubble Q&A

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: 5 Jul 90 18:18:32 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 07/05/90 (Forwarded)


    Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 07-05-90.


    - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at OPF) -

    Experiment monitoring continues.  Preps in work to support
    BBXRT battery removal tomarrow.


    - STS-37 GRO (at PHSF) -

    Test batteries will not be discharged today; awaiting
    possible manifest/schedule impacts.


    - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) -

    GTA pressure monitoring, MLI installation and installation
    of flight caps on experiment subsystem computers continues
    today.


    - STS-41 Ulysses (at Hanger AO) -

    At the VPF, prechecks of electrical test equipment and
    software validation continue today to support CITE testing.


    - STS-42 IML-1 (at O&C) -

    Rack, floor, and module staging is continuing.


    - Atlas-1 (at O&C) -

    Temperature sensors and cables will be installed today.


    - STS-46 TSS-1 (at O&C) -

    EMP paper closure continues.


    - STS-47 Spacelab-J (at O&C) -

    Rack staging continues.


    - HST M&R -

    Work off PR'S scheduled for today.

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

Date: 5 Jul 90 22:41:16 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!csd4330a!newsserv![e-mail]  (Tim Wright)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:



   Oh, we have plenty of launch capacity...go to any of the commercial
   rocket manufacturers here in the U.S., and they'll sign you up in no
   time.  I firmly believe that we are well past they days of the many cheap
   probe tactic...we've done a lot of the easy science now, and it's the
   co-ordinated findings from several instruments simultaneously that we're
   looking for.  Perhaps if our planetary program was in the situation of the
   Soviets, (probes break a lot more than they work) this would make sense,
   but I have no qualms with the way we do our probes.  It would be nice if
   we could rework the funding process for them, but that's not NASA's fault.

Unfortunately, as I understand it, NASA has the launching facilities.  So they
control who goes.  When the shuttle is delayed that pushes back all other
launches.  It takes days to reconfigure the system for new launches.  So how
can a company run an effective launching business if their success depends
so much on NASA?
    People go to other countries more reliable, cheaper launching systems.


--
                                     Tim Wright
                         ERIM
                                     Ann Arbor, MI
                                     [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Jul 90 19:04:17 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>>Funny how all those projects were successful on economy budgets rather than
>>deluxe class "big science" tickets.
>
>    You think Galileo is on an economy budget?    Try again.

Compared to what? Hubble?

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

Date: 4 Jul 90 22:18:46 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!servax0!Sol27![e-mail]  (Jones A G)
Subject: (Abberated) Reflections on the Hubble Space Telescope



How to make your own Space Telescope
------------------------------------


To create your own working Space Telescope, just following these simple steps:


1.    Design a Little Space Telescope.

2.    Send the Little Space Telescope up into Space.

3.    Look through it.  What do you see?  Please choose your answer from the
    following options:

    a)    A lot of pretty stars.

    b)    A lot of not-very-pretty, blurry stars.

    c)    A large, angry gorilla beating its chest and making strange,
        unearthly faces.

4.    If your answer was 'a', you may now make a Big Space Telescope and
    proceed into the wonderful world of astronomy.

    If your answer was 'b', go back to stage 1 and try again until you
    understand all the problems.

    If your answer was 'c', you didn't follow the instructions properly -
    instead you constructed a Little Spaced-out Telescope.  You may now
    apply for a senior post at NASA, where strange men in white coats will
    look after you and cater for your every wish - no matter how much it
    costs.


_______________________________________________________________________________
Alun.

PS   If you want to flame me, my address is [e-mail], and if you
don't, its [e-mail].

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

Date: 5 Jul 90 15:46:26 GMT
From: xanth!xanth.cs.odu.edu![e-mail]  (Frank C. Paterra)
Subject: Re: Nasa's budget

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
thorin!grover![e-mail]  (David Becker) writes:

>>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.

Expendible may be cheaper, but without any sort of space station
currently, the shuttle is our only way of performing manned experiments
in space.  One could argue that manned experiments are a waste of time
and money, but if they are really needed, then we need the shuttle.
Of course we could design a man-rated re-entry vehicle that could be
launched on an expendible, but that won't be cheap either

>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).

Totally out of control.
--
Frank Paterra
[e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Jul 90 20:07:17 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!umich!ox.com!itivax!vax3.iti.org![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Nasa's budget

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank C. Paterra) writes:
>>Yes. The shuttle is the high cost way to space. Expendables can provide
>>the same service for far less cost.

>Expendible may be cheaper, but without any sort of space station
>currently, the shuttle is our only way of performing manned experiments
>in space.

Agreed. In a few years we could design a Apollo like Command Service
Module. Let's say that costs $500M to build (I suspect it could be
done for less). Then we spend another $500M to produce a heavy lift
vehicle (Martin Marietta has already proposed to do this) which can
lift 100,000 pounds. Finally, we spend another $500M building the LLNL
space station.

We would then have the needed capability for $1.5 billion. Each launch
would cost $150M which is half the cost of the shuttle (and would get
lower as the learning curve is traversed). This entire system would
be paid for from the savings of not using the shuttle. It would take
about a year to pay for itself.

>One could argue that manned experiments are a waste of time
>and money,

Which I would not. Indeed I would like to see affoardable systems
so we can fly more manned experiments. As long as the shuttle is there,
it won't happen.

>Of course we could design a man-rated re-entry vehicle that could be
>launched on an expendible, but that won't be cheap either

See  above. How long did it take to design and build the Apollo CSM?

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

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

Date: 6 Jul 90 03:51:49 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: realities of testing HST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>"Can you please tell us why you awarded a contract for several hundred
>>million dollars to a contractor that you now feel you cannot trust?"
>
>Trust but verify.

"If you trust them, sir, why do you need to spend money verifying that
they have done what you claim you trust them to do?"

I understand the distinction; my point is that J. Worthless Congressthing
doesn't.  (As witness some of the imbecilic pronouncements now coming out
of Congressthings on the subject of HST.)  And you'd better believe that
on a program suffering from serious cost overruns in a time of very tight
NASA budgets, NASA cared about that viewpoint.
--
"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: 6 Jul 90 04:14:19 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Hubble Q&A

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>    * The error is in the primary mirror.
>    * There IS ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY no backup primary mirror.
>    * Kodak produced a backup primary mirror.
>    * The problem is in the secondary mirror.
>    * The problem is in BOTH the primary and secondary mirrors.
>    * The problem is in the relative alignment of the mirrors.

I don't recall anybody saying it was an alignment problem, not after
the true situation started to become apparent.  (There were early hopes
that the persistent focusing trouble *was* just a question of needing
better alignment, but nobody believes that now.)

Nobody knows for sure whether the problem is in primary or secondary or
both, although last I heard there was reason to suspect the primary.

There is no primary backup in the sense of a complete, finished, ready-
to-fly mirror.  Kodak did early work on a backup, and I think it still
exists somewhere, but I don't think that went as far as final figuring
and polishing.  In any case it's irrelevant, since replacing the primary
in orbit is clearly impossible.  (I haven't seen a proof that replacing
the secondary is impossible, although this definitely was not provided
for in the design.)  Compensating for the problem in the instruments is
probably easier, given that a visit will be needed to do anything anyway.

>    * The Hubble primary mission is SOMEWHAT impaired.
>    * The "circle of confusion" produced by the primary
>      Hubble mirror is considerably worse than that found
>      in a $50. Sears toy telescope. Hubble is worthless.

I don't know where you heard the latter.  The imaging part of the mission
is in big trouble except in the ultraviolet.  The non-imaging instruments
(4 out of 6) are not hurt as badly, although opinions vary on just how
severe the impact is on them.  There should still be enough worthwhile
work for Hubble to keep it fully occupied, given how massively over-
subscribed it was before.

>    * NASA has already shceduled a repair mission for 1993.
>    * Neither the primary mirror, nor the secondary, can be
>      repaired or replaced in orbit.
>    * The repair mission is scheduled for 1994.
>    * There will be NO repair mission of any kind.

Again, where did you hear that last?  That is the one that can definitely
be ruled out, barring the faint possibility that imbeciles in Congress get
the project killed based on stupid misconceptions.

Neither the primary nor the secondary is *designed* to be replaced in
orbit.  (You can forget about repairing them except in a high-tech optics
shop on the ground.)  Replacing the primary looks impossible.  Replacing
the secondary is certainly difficult and perhaps impractical.  Dealing
with the problem in the instruments is easier.

There was a 1993-4 visit scheduled for routine maintenance and installation
of an upgraded WFPC.  This may or may not be rescheduled now.

>    * The cost of testing the mirror on Earth would have been
>      "millions," "tens of millions," "hundreds of millions."
>    * A simple foucalt tester, that every kid who has ever ground
>      a mirror could build for a few bucks, would have easily
>      detected this unbelievably huge error.
>    * The mirror was not tested for reasons of economy.
>    * The mirror was not tested for reasons of technological
>      inadequacy (inability to simulate orbital zero-grav
>      conditions).
>    * The mirror was not tested because it was ground and
>      polished so precisely that testing was deemed unnecessary.
>    * The miror was tested, but the tests failed to reveal the
>      error.

The mirror was tested, using tests that did not reveal the problem because
they were based on the same faulty specifications.  (You can't grind a
mirror without testing to see how you're doing, whether you are Perkin
Elmer in a billion-dollar optics shop or Joe Doakes in his basement.)
Testing the mirror precisely enough to reveal the very small errors
that were expected would have been very expensive.  Tests that could
have caught *this* error would have been easier, but nobody thought
it very likely to be worth the trouble.  It is not unheard-of to build
a telescope without doing an "all up" test on the entire optical system
beforehand; none was done for Europe's New Technology Telescope.

>    * The Hubble sat on the ground ready for launch for the
>      better part of 6 years waiting for launch, but was not
>      tested for want of time.
>    * The mirror was completed barely in time for launch, and
>      testing was foregone to facilitate on-time launch.

There was ample time for mirror testing during the various delays, and
the various schedule slips occurred well in advance, so nobody was ever
racing against the clock, that I know of.  There *has* been a lot of
work done during the delays, some of it very important as it turned out,
but the optics haven't been messed with lately.

>To my nose, the whole thing is beginning to stink like some kind of
>coverup, but if so, just what the h**l are they trying to cover up?

There is always somebody screaming "coverup" when all the facts are
not instantly apparent.  Have some patience; mama can't bring you
the Moon right away, she's got to figure out how to get there first.
--
"Either NFS must be scrapped or NFS    | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
must be changed."  -John K. Ousterhout |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #21
*******************