Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V12_0/V12_038.ZIP/V12_038

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/oaaKpMG00VcJQFi05C>;
          Tue, 10 Jul 1990 01:53:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 1990 01:52:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #38

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 12 : Issue 38

Today's Topics:
           Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing
              Re: Nasa's budget
           Re: grim tidings for the future
           Re: grim tidings for the future
           Re: grim tidings for the future
     Ideas Needed for Manned Exploration of Moon and Mars
           Re: grim tidings for the future
             Re: Bush Approves Cape York
           Re: grim tidings for the future
              Re: man-rated expendables
           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: 9 Jul 90 17:27:20 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!samsung!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing

Do all of y'all discussing the Chinese launchers realize, in your
cost analyses, that the Chinese _army_ has a considerable hand in
launching the Long March boosters?

Also, about the aluminum, have you considered that they might be
buying it from somewhere else (I don't know where, I'm just
asking).

Phil

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

Date: 8 Jul 90 06:13:08 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Mark Perew)
Subject: Re: Nasa's budget

[e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) 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.

I don't see any commercial concerns being overly enthusiatic about a
manned presence in space (LLNL doesn't count for reasons that should be
obvious).

>>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.

What facilities?  You can't launch a CT or a Delta II from LC 39.  The
only launch facilities that they share in common are the O&C which seems
to be handling things alright and the Eastern Test Range facilities for
range safety which don't exactly seem over burdened

Also, I'm wondering about these claims (from you and others) that the
shuttle is an inefficient way to get to orbit.  Granted that I think
it is normally silly to send people up to deploy a SynCom but look at
the couple of times it was a good thing that we had people up there.

And, if the shuttle is so expensive why are Saenger (how ever it is
spelled) and Hermes being built (yes I know the difference between a
taxi and truck) and why did Glavkosmos build Buran?

>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).

It would help if our Congresscritters would decide once and for all just
how much money we will spend on this and leave it alone.  One reason the
requirements keep changing is that no one knows how long the project
will have to be dragged out.


--
Mark Perew
Internet: [e-mail]
BBS:      714 544-0934   2400/1200/300

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 20:27:53 GMT
From: hao.hao.ucar.edu![e-mail]  (Derek Buzasi)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>>>>>    You think Galileo is on an economy budget?    Try again.
>>>>
>>>> Compared to what? Hubble?
>>>
>>>Galileo is a $902 million project compared to HST's $1.5billion (+
>>>expenses down the road).  Magellan is $463 million and the gamma
>>>ray obs is $500 million.  Those aren't small potatoes!
>>
>> So I can get 3 Magellans or three Gamma Ray Observatories for the price
>> of one Hubble? Or another Galileo and a Gamma Ray?
>>
>> Maybe it's time to start rethinking our whole policy of space exploration.
>> Back in the "Old Days" we would build two or three of everything just in
>> case. Now, we come up with one and if it fails...
>>
>>
>
>But it could easily be argued that one Hubble more than makes uo for 3
>Magellans or 3 GRO.  They are apples and oranges.  Each does somthing
>differnet but I suspect if you did a pole the majority would prefer
>one HST.
>

A poll (sic) of whom? Most astronomers are not extragalactic types, and
thus do not fall into the category which most fervently supports HST.
Most astronomers, if you take a moment to survey the field (you
might check out, for example, the AAS's annual surveys) are photometrists
and variable star people for whom HST is useless. In fact, it is worse
than useless since it sucks away money from those things which are, in
MOST astronomers's point of view, particularly interesting. Recall,
for example, what happened when KPNO polled the users on whether, among
theoretical options, all small telescopes on the mountain should
be closed. The response was interesting -- most people wanted the
4-meter shut down instead, and the scientifically more productive
(in terms of publications -- count 'em) smaller telescopes kept open.
Of course, this viewpoint was ignored since it didn't agree with the
Big Science viewpoint prevalent in D.C.

>And another thing, HST has not failed!!!!!!!!  I am tired of hearing
>this.  We have every reason to beleive in the end most if not all
>of the science will be done.

Tell me -- do you regard everything that doesn't perform to within even
10% of specifications to be a potential future success. Would you buy
a car that got 3 miles to the gallon and had a maximum speed of 8 miles
per hour based on the promise that eventually it would achieve 30 mpg
and 80 mph -- after three years or so in the repair shop!

>
>Robert Dempsey
>Ritter Observatory
>


--
******************************************************************************
Derek Buzasi                     *    "History is made at night.
High Altitude Observatory        *     Character is what you are in the dark."
[e-mail]                 *             -- Lord John Whorfin

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

Date: 10 Jul 90 03:24:04 GMT
From: clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nicholas J. Szabo) writes:
>... (Galileo's delays were largely due to
>the Shuttle's, which demonstrates why missions should be flexible in their
>choice of launch vehicle).

Well, be fair:  if Galileo *had* been flexible in its choice of launch
vehicle, it would have been launched several years earlier, and would
therefore have been dead or crippled before it reached Jupiter.  (The
nasty design defect in Galileo's thrusters was found during the post-
Challenger grounding, when similar thrusters aboard TVSat 1 exploded.)
Better late than never...
--
NFS is a wonderful advance:  a Unix    | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
filesystem with MSDOS semantics. :-(   |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 15:35:58 GMT
From: uc!shamash!timbuk!sequoia![e-mail]  (Greg Titus)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Becker) writes:
>Michael V. Kent writes:
>When _was_ the last time NASA blew up an experimental rocket or engine?
>
>(Challenger was defined as operational)

Doesn't matter what they call it.  They're all experimental.
By the time the entire shuttle program is ended, the SMEs will
still not have been run for as much aggregate time as the
engines on a Boeing 747 on a *single* New York to Tokyo round
trip.  Experience with the things NASA flies was, is and will
remain for a long time very limited compared with what we know
about more mundane objects.

greg
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Titus ([e-mail])             Compiler Group (Ada)
Cray Research, Inc.                               Santa Fe, NM
Opinions expressed herein (such as they are) are purely my own.

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 07:23:41 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Jim Guyton)
Subject: Ideas Needed for Manned Exploration of Moon and Mars


        PROJECT OUTREACH

        Ideas Needed for Manned Exploration of Moon and Mars.

        NASA is seeking innovative approaches to mission concepts and
        architectures, as well as technologies that could cut costs and
        improve mission schedule and performance.

        The RAND Corporation will provide an independent assessment
        of all suggestions.

        The procedure for submitting ideas is simple. For an information
        kit call 1-800-677-7796.  Call now.  The deadline for submissions
        is August 15, 1990.

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 10:08:48 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I don't have the numbers on the amount of pure research being done by NASA
>versus the amount of engineering, but I do have a five-foot shelf of
>catalogues of abstracts of NASA technical papers on aviation alone (and I
>might point out that NASA does not manufacture aircraft).  I don't see any
>rockets out the window, but I see lots of Cessna aircraft deliberately
>going into spins to test spin recovery methods, green LIDAR columns
>stretching up into the sky at night, high-altitude aircraft bringing back
>pollen samples, experimental head-up displays being tested, and a number of
>things which may be considered either pure science or development engineering.
>None of this stuff is going to be made commercially by NASA.

Yes, NASA is wonderful at doing the kinds of things it inherited from
NACA.  Aeronautical research is tremendously valuable to everyone
concerned, and NASA's longstanding tradition of excellence in that area
points the way to what it OUGHT to be doing in space, if space ever
becomes as cheap to fly in as the air has been for the last 80 years.

Someday when there are thousands of spacecraft plying the solar system,
what sight would be sweeter than a small fleet of donated/retired craft
decorated in NASA livery and performing research in materials and
performance.  Support from industry and government would be enthusiastic.

Contrast this with the current reality, wherein NASA has tried for years
to BE an industry as yet unborn, rather than waiting for it to form
itself and then serving in a research capacity.  We could debate the
origins of this situation forever (and we may), but it should come as
no surprise that the aeronautical and spaceflight divisions have distinct
reputations, histories and performance records.

>                                                              And if NASA
>is so completely overfunded, then why are we still using *&$^%! Cyber machines
>in our flight simulators?

Are this and the enviable return on investment entirely coincidental?

--
"A man came into the the office one day and said he  \|/  Tom Neff
was a sailor.  We cured him of that." - Mark Twain,  -O-  [e-mail]
on his days as a doctor's apprentice in California.  /|\  uunet!bfmny0!tneff

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 17:44:31 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!chamber![e-mail]  (Joseph R. Beckenbach)
Subject: Re: Bush Approves Cape York

[Hm, I wonder if one of the previous posters meant "the administration has
 licensed United Technologies to manage the American presence in spaceport"?]

    Woomera is mid-Australia, far from Equator, and may actually be usable
now that some time has passed since last an atomic device was exploded there.
It would make a good testing range....


    I'd like to know a bit more about where they'll be siting it, and
how much room for expansion.  I'm assuming that it's on the west side of the
mountains along the coast, further north than Brisbane, to avoid the worst
of the Pacific humidity;  I'm also assuming that it's not right along the
northern coast, in the typhoon belt and the aboriginal reserves.  Dropping
pieces onto the Barrier Reef may be a concern.

    As for people and infrastructure, that would have to be built.
A nearby town or three would definitely spring up, and host a few research
universities;  I also assume that the Australian military would very much
enjoy getting in on the act, or at least around it.
    Australian unions may cause a problem, as well as the penchant for
4 weeks of annual vacation at 17.5% above normal pay.  Don't expect any
major satellite production on Australia:  delivery problems for the parts
involved, especially electronics from overseas.  Also, the work ethic is
weaker.

    And there is always unease thinking about the sparse population
of northern Australia and the explosive population of Indonesia not far off
the northern coast....


        Joe Beckenbach
        Caltech CS department

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 20:57:57 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

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

>But it could easily be argued that one Hubble more than makes uo for 3
>Magellans or 3 GRO.  They are apples and oranges.  Each does somthing
>differnet but I suspect if you did a pole the majority would prefer
>one HST.

If it worked as advertised, sure it might be worth 3 Magellans or GROs.
But it doesn't. Flat out.

In a world of smaller budgets, picky congressmen, and a budget deficit,
every dollar counts. Big Science projects eat up the pie available for
"pocket projects."

>And another thing, HST has not failed!!!!!!!!  I am tired of hearing
>this.  We have every reason to beleive in the end most if not all
>of the science will be done.

Sure it will. After more money is put into it. Ok, this isn't QUITE fair,
since the upgrades were preplanned. Except now they're called "bug fixes"
instead of upgrades.

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 21:47:00 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: man-rated expendables

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>
>[Just for all those despairing about the lack of man-rated expendables...
>with any luck one of my projects will lead to proposing to man-rate the
>Pegasus ... ].

You going to launch midgets into orbit, George? ;-)

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 22:08:28 GMT
From: uoft02.utoledo.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nicholas J. Szabo) writes:
>
>
> BTW, somebody posted saying that he hasn't seen anybody use NASA equipment
> to promote NASA.  Leaving aside all the factual, valuable, but naturally
> biased NASA PR regularly posted, this is at least the third posting in a
> week with pure, blatant pro-NASA lobbying coming out of NASA.  I am sure
> this is not official NASA policy and that these folks are posting without
> their manager's knowledge, but that doesn't make it any more ethical.
> I encourage opinions from NASA employees with regards to their employer,
> but please use your own time and equipment to originate the postings, not
> NASA's.
>
> Nick Szabo
> uunet!ibmsupt!szabonj
>
> These opinions do not reflect those of any organization I am affiliated
> with.


Who's equipment are you using?  Better be your own....(modem, terminal, net
server....)

Robert Dempsey
Ritter Observatory

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #38
*******************