Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V12_0/V12_028.ZIP/V12_028

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/MaZMVA600VcJ8B5k56>;
          Sat,  7 Jul 1990 02:59:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat,  7 Jul 1990 02:58:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #28

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 12 : Issue 28

Today's Topics:
           Re: grim tidings for the future
              Re: Nasa's budget
            Re: How to fix the HST
               one opinion....
           Payload Status for 07/06/90 (Forwarded)
           Re: Management of space projects
           Re: grim tidings for the future

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: 6 Jul 90 05:58:07 GMT
From: uoft02.utoledo.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nicholas J. Szabo) writes:
>
>
> NASA's budget is another misconception:
>
> (Robert Ritter writes)
>>People like you
>>are only looking at the flambouyant aspects, scientits look back and see
>>an impressive array fo science in the last 15 years.  ANd it is continuing
>>despite busget cuts.
>
> In fact, NASA's budget doubled from $7 billion to $14 billion between
> 1980 and 1990.
>
> The "spinoff" argument is also fallacious.  Any sort of civilian high-
> technology effort will produce spinoffs.  There is nothing special about
> NASA, except for this argument being a major feature of their public
> relations effort.
>

The point is that the taxpayer is really getting a good investment, the
same a private industry expects for there money.

> IMHO, NASA needs invigoration through competition.  We have many talented
> space scientists and aerospace engineers at labs and universities outside
> of NASA.  There are many proposals outside NASA for advancing space
> technology beyond the chemical rocket and tin-can space station stage.
>
> An example is the coil gun.  With only $7 million, Sandia Labs has built
> a prototype of a coil gun that could launch small satellites into orbit.
> Sandia scientists claim that it will take only $1 billion to develop
> a full-fledged working version.  Furthermore, the operating costs
> thereafter will be minimal -- just load the gun and buy a hundred dollar's
> worth of electricity from the local utility.   The overall cost per pound
> to orbit would be just 1% current launch costs.
>

These arguments are getting really tiring.  Over and over we hear
how this will *only* cost such and such, and once in operation, cost
will be minimal.  The shuttle was billed as such.  Such projects
are *never* that cut and dry.  Rememebr about 10 years ago when
Clippers and blimps was going to be the low cost shipping of the
future?

> It is correct to be cautious about this claim--after all, NASA originally
> claimed the Shuttle would dramatically reduce launch costs.  But there
> are differences:
>
> * This technology is fundamentally different (a gun instead of rocket
>   engines; electricity instead of combustion).  The theoretical improvement
>   is orders of magnitude.
> * This is a different agency, with a different management setup and
>   different incentives.
> * Sandia is asking for $1 billion -- only 3% of what NASA spent
>   to develop the Shuttle.
>

Above arguement still holds.

> Isn't it time we in the U.S. gave some of our other talented laboratories
> a chance at the limelight?  At least let them fill in technology gaps
> (coil guns, laser launch, microsatellites, inflatable space stations,
> ion rockets, etc.) that NASA isn't pursuing.  I propose the U.S. allocate
> to the Department of Energy a budget of $14 billion matching NASA's, to
> pursue civilian space efforts.
>

Sure, I think so.  I just think we can do it AND still fund NASA.  lets
keep NASA doing what they are best at: good, hrad, basic science.
Let the private industry commercialze space.

> The resulting competition should wake up NASA, just as the Russian
> competition of Sputnik brought it into being in the first place.  This
> could be just the ticket for reinvigorating our space program.
>
>
I think you are more optimistic than I.  Im not sure much of
anything can wake this country up.

Robert Dempsey
Ritter Observatory

>

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

Date:         Fri, 06 Jul 90 14:51:19 EDT
From: Jeffrey R Kell <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Re: Nasa's budget
To: "Frank C. Paterra" <xanth!xanth.cs.odu.edu![e-mail]>,
        [e-mail]

On 5 Jul 90 15:46:26 GMT you said:
>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. [...]
>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.

Are there any man-rated expendibles left (at least the manned configurations)?
For that matter, what will we do for a capsule?  Buy a Soyuz? (half :-) )
There are a few expendibles left for satellite launches, but the Shuttle would
appear to be *the* only means we have left to get a warm body in LEO alive (at
least most of the time).

<Jeff>
******************************
* The man who invented the eraser had the human race pretty well
* sized up.
******************************
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Jeffrey R Kell, Dir Tech Services |  UTC Postmaster/Listserv co-ord. |
| Admin Computing, 117 Hunter Hall  |Bitnet:  [e-mail]        |
| Univ of Tennessee at Chattanooga  |[e-mail] |
| Chattanooga, TN  37403            |  Bell:  (615)-755-4551           |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+

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

Date: 7 Jul 90 00:03:29 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: How to fix the HST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark SOKOLOWSKI) writes:
> ... It's simply that by 1993, the technology
>of ground-based telescopes and their effective power will literally make
>the HST absolete, even if it can by then have the perfomances we expect
>from it _NOW!!!_. I remember having read an article in a european science
>magazine (I think it was Science & Vie from France) that proved quite
>clearly that the small HST's aperture (2.4m) isn't quite capable of
>matching the power gathering abilities of the most recent ground-based
>projects (like some 10m scopes in Chile, a few 6-15m in aperture scopes
>linked for interferometry in some other places etc...).

For optical imaging I agree 100%, but don't forget UV and infrared.
Hubble collects wavelengths the atmosphere blocks otherwise.  (And then
misfocuses them.  Christ!)  HST's new schedule will be packed with UV
experiments because a blurry UV spectrum is better than none at all.

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

Date: 6 Jul 90 03:27:27 GMT
From: eagle![e-mail]  (Teddy Fabian)
Subject: one opinion....



I've been reading with interest the comments of various individuals
here regarding the status of several of NASA's projects, and I've
wondered about just what motivates those individuals to be so critical
of NASA??

It seems that everyone is jumping on the bandwagon, and prejudging
both situations and potential results..


eg. the Hubble Space Telescope has some problems right now.. or so it
seems.. but maybe, with a little time, and thought, the problems will
result in even greater discoveries..  as a similar example, consider
that Christopher Columbus thought he was going to the West Indies.. yet
his navigational error put him in America.. if you were living in Columbus'
time, would you have critized him for his error too??

similar parallels can be drawn in other areas as well.. what appears as
a mistake today, may prove to be the desired effect when it's looked back
upon...


Why do the "experts" here think they all know everything better than the
folks doing the actual research??

What makes a guy in some far off distant corner of the world more knowlegable
about the things thousands of people spend lifetimes studying??

Does the ability to send a USENET message make an "expert"??  if so, then
I certainly don't think everyone qualifies..  I know I don't.. I've still
got many things to learn... I don't pretend to know about something I'm
not familiar with..

Why isn't the benefit of the doubt given??  Why is there no trust in the
people doing the research??


With all the doom and gloom attitudes, and the folks who are anti-this
and anti-that, I personally don't see how one could expect the folks doing
the research and development to want to continue...  put yourself in their
shoes.. would you want to continue a project if you knew thousands of
people where saying you were incompetant behind your back???


Maybe I'm just annoyied with the general lack of understanding being
expressed here.. but if you folks are really interested in space and
space related topics, I suggest you back NASA and it's projects.. otherwise
you might not have anything to complain about..  about having something
is better than having nothing...



my opinions are my own, and do not reflect the official position of NASA...


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*  Thanks,                                                    *
*      Ted Fabian            NASA Lewis Research Center       *
*                               Cleveland, Ohio               *
*                                                             *
*      phone:     [phone]  FTS 297-6307   |  disclaimer: *
*      email:     [e-mail]   |  my opinions *
*                 [e-mail]  |  are my own  *
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--
----------------------------------------------------
Thanks,    Ted Fabian   NASA Lewis Research Center
           [e-mail]      *my opinions
           [e-mail]      *are my own..
--
----------------------------------------------------
Thanks,    Ted Fabian   NASA Lewis Research Center
           [e-mail]      *my opinions
           [e-mail]      *are my own..

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

Date: 6 Jul 90 16:27:28 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 07/06/90 (Forwarded)


    Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 07-06-90.


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

    Experiment monitoring continues.  Scheduled to remove BBXRT
    batteries today.


    - STS-37 GRO (at PHSF) -

    Test batteries will be partially reconditioned today;
    awaiting possible manifest/schedule impacts.


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

    Troubleshooting experiment computers scheduled for today.
    Closeout inspections and final CITE hardware installations
    continue today.  MVAK familiarization in work.


    - STS-41 Ulysses (at Hanger AO) -

    At the VPF, pre-checks of electrical test equipment
    continues today to support CITE testing.


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

    Rack, floor, and module staging is continuing.


    - Atlas-1 (at O&C) -

    Temp sensor and cable installations continue.


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

    EMP paper closure continues.


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

    Rack staging continues.


    - HST M&R -

    ORUC interface testing is scheduled today.

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 90 12:11 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Management of space projects
X-Envelope-To: [e-mail]
X-Vms-Cc: ELIOT

Daniel Briggs asks:

Well, this post may be a bit premature, but I'd like to hear what the
net has to say about the subject.  Simply put, what CAN we learn from
the HST fiasco?  How can management of space projects be made better?

===

The primary engineering rule that this seems to support is simple:

Design for testing.

Every good engineering design should include plans for as realistic a test
as possible, while it is still possible to fix things.  A design that cannot
be tested at each crucial stage should definately be considered sub-optimal.
*IF AT ALL POSSIBLE* the design should be modified so that realistic testing
will be possible.  As a computer scientist this philosophy has been driven
down into my toes.  David Briggs goes on to discuss another Space project
which seems to follow this philosophy to good effect:

The project is the Stanford
Relativty Gyroscope Project, also known as Gravity Probe B or the
Schiff Experiment...Quoting again from the same
PR glossie,

  Cost control versus on-orbit success is one issue.  One into
  spacecraft development, a program inevitably has a large "marching
  army" of engineers.  Any technical delays will cause large cost
  overruns.  Gravity Probe B manages this risk through incremental
  verification-building progressively more and more complete subsets of
  the experiment hardware while the army is still only a platoon, with
  firm engineering solutions verified at each stage.

  In all, four major steps of incremental verification drive out risk
  and attendant cost uncertainties...

BTW, note that this gadget is
designed to run strictly in a zero g environment, yet they still
manage to build a prototype system that *runs* on the ground.

=====

This seems to me to be exactly what I mean by "Design for testing".

Chris Eliot
Umass/Amherst

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

Date: 6 Jul 90 20:48:21 GMT
From: earthquake.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (George William Herbert)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Emmerson) writes:
>
>>The point is that the taxpayer is really getting a good investment, the
>>same a private industry expects for there money.
>
>I'm a moderately informed taxpayer, and I *don't* believe I'm getting a
>good investment.  The U.S space program strikes me as spending far too
>much money for far too little return.  [Of course, I also feel that
>other programs are even more wasteful.]

While there is plenty of ground for feeling that space development has
made mistakes, I don't see how you can feel that it's a bad investment.
What we've spent on R&D for space has paid back 15 times over the
origional investments in ground-based spinoffs.  If that isn't
a good investment i have no idea what is...

  == George William Herbert  ==   "Well, if an outraged Canadian terrorist was
 == JOAT for Hire: Anything,  ==  *** to come down and assasinate Quayle, what
=======Anywhere, My Price.======= ****** would happen?" -history prof _trying_
 ==   [e-mail]    ==  ************* to explain why WW I started...
  ==     ucbvax!ocf!gwh      == The OCF Gang: Making Tomorrow's Mistakes Today

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #28
*******************