Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V12_0/V12_043.ZIP/V12_043

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

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/kaafeL200VcJIH6055>;
          Wed, 11 Jul 1990 01:35:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 1990 01:34:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #43

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 12 : Issue 43

Today's Topics:
           Re: grim tidings for the future
               Re: NASA Budget
           Re: grim tidings for the future
    Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration -- support robotics
            Re: Investing in NASA
            expendables vs shuttle
            Re: Orbital Elements Bulletins
                   Re: Grim
               Re: Soviet Space Policy
                Re: Red Shift
             Soviet Space Policy
              Re: man-rated expendables

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 01:19:52 GMT
From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink![e-mail]  (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future


[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). [Examples of valid
> pure research--inexpensive relative to space megaprojects--done by NASA.]

Thanks for the reminder that NASA has activities other than the big-news items
which are controlled by military/political interests.  It's sometimes easy to
forget about the parts that don't get mentioned by the media.

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

Is it underfunding, or mis-application of funding?

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

Date: 10 Jul 90 12:58:42 GMT
From: ox.com!itivax!vax3.iti.org![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: NASA Budget

mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney) writes:
>>>For that matter, what will we do for a capsule?  Buy a Soyuz? (half :-) )
>>
>>For starters why not? With the man-rated Titan HLV and a Soyuz we wouldn't
>>need the Shuttle anymore.
>
>So how do we bring things back from space, such as satellites?

Shouldn't be too hard to design a box wiht a heat shield. In it we
put the object to be returned and send it back just like the capsule.

However, I point out that we don't return all that much stuff right now.
If we take 1/3 of the yearly savings of my proposal, we can build the LLNL
space station. For a bit more, we could build a large inflatable "dry dock"
where satellites are repaired (or even built). With this, there wouldn't be
a need to return satellites.

This should last until somebody gets around to building a shuttle which
is in fact cheap to operate. In the meantime, we will save billions.

>Like it or not, Shuttle has its place in the world.

Now that is true. However, this is only because of politics. In three years
we could have an alternative which only costs half as much. Why not go for
it?

>I think the Sovs won't sell just a Soyuz; they'd want to sell the whole
>sheebang, from capsule to booster.

I suspect they would sell, they need the money. Besides, I suspect (but
could be proven wrong) that the capsule has the bulk of the value added.
This makes it the most profitable.

However, if you are correct then why not buy the whole thing from them?
After all, it would save us $4.5B and in three years we would have our
own capablitiy.

>However, we did have this design called "Apollo" which worked really well.

Yeah it did didn't it! Pity it was thrown away to protect the shuttle.

>Maybe someone (and I think the Laser-Launching people are doing this) will
>give us an Apollo '90, using the best of composites, advanced design materials
>and electronics. OR, maybe not, but an Apollo '90 which is engineered to
>be "mass-produced." With a special emphasis on a Cargo-Apollo (When in
>doubt, borrow an idea from the Comrades!)

Now you got it.

  Allen

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

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

Date: 10 Jul 90 02:58:07 GMT
From: eagle![e-mail]  (Teddy Fabian)
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.


well guess what.. another reply from a NASA employee.. and probably without
my manager's direct knowledge, although he know I read "USENET".. but I
must point out, being typed from my own home computer at 10:51 PM and
then transmitted to a NEWSSERVER at Lewis Research Center, and from there,
to the world at large...

you've got to realize that we (I) are not abusing anything.. we're interested
in space related topics... if we (I) weren't, we (I) would not spend our
free time reading the opinions of thousands..  maybe I'm wasting my time..
yes, my own time.. no one, not even NASA, pays me to work at 10:51 PM...

before you jump on folks, and make assumptions, think about the other
possibilities...

because if you continue, that "factual" information you so thirst for,
will dry up...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*  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: 10 Jul 90 18:12:09 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!matt.ksu.ksu.edu![e-mail]  (Jerry Anderson)
Subject: Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration -- support robotics

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Dorsett) writes:

>                       This is not an "automation vs. humanity" debate.  The
>issue is what we can accomplish with a given number of dollars.

I strongly disagree.  It is not a question of what can be done with the
money available, it is a question of fighting for more money.  As long as
there is no manned presence in space, the space budget will dwindle year
after year.

Nobody gets excited when a vacuum cleaner lands on Mars.  If you want money,
get a live TV broadcast of Colonel Joe Middleamerica planting the U.S. flag
on Mars - in living color and during prime time.

--
Are you the Q-104 Elvis?                          Jerry J. Anderson
                                                  Computing Activities
BITNET:   jerry@ksuvm                             Kansas State University
Internet: [e-mail]                     Manhattan, KS  66506

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

Date: 10 Jul 90 17:01:58 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Investing in NASA

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Anderman) writes:
>If investing NASA is not a good idea, where should we invest?

Orbital Sciences and Hercules would be a good place... :-)
--
NFS is a wonderful advance:  a Unix    | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
filesystem with MSDOS semantics. :-(   |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 10 Jul 90 17:01:25 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: expendables vs shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>>... With the man-rated Titan HLV and a Soyuz we wouldn't
>>need the Shuttle anymore.
>
>So how do we bring things back from space, such as satellites? I don't think
>a communications satellite will fit in the air lock of a Soyuz...

We bring very little back from space at present.  I am not, personally, in
favor of killing the shuttle -- too many ongoing programs depend on it in
some way -- but payload return from orbit is a fairly weak justification
for it.  For the rare heavy item that does need to come down, developing
a large cargo capsule should not present great difficulties.
--
NFS is a wonderful advance:  a Unix    | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
filesystem with MSDOS semantics. :-(   |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 10 Jul 90 19:35:11 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (David Anderman)
Subject: Re: Orbital Elements Bulletins

I cannot answer why NORAd issues bulletins for all the individual
components of the Mir space station; however, I can tell you that it
comes in handy. Often, when there I want to be sure that my data for Mir
is correct, I will run predictions for not just Mir, but all the
individual spacecraft, resulting in predicted passes several minutes
apart. At that point, the average of all 5 predicted passes is generally
correct. (Actually this is becoming less and less important as Mir seems
to be maneuvering less and less as it becomes more massive, and is
placed in a higher orbit).
Also, as to why the orbital elements are different, I believe it is due
to A) NORAD's data has a signficant margin or error, and B) the
bulletins are issued at different times for different Mir components.


--
David Anderman
Internet: [e-mail]
BBS:      714 544-0934   2400/1200/300

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 18:07:42 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: Grim


>From: hao.hao.ucar.edu![e-mail]  (Derek Buzasi)
>Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

>>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!

There's a difference between a problem which is certainly a considerable
nuisance and a total failure. Failure implies no remaining value. To match
your analogy, you would junk your new car if it ran poorly due to a slight
misadjustment of the ignition system. (After all, it would be out of spec.)
Most people would regard the new car as still having some value, and see
what could be done to repair it.
        John Roberts
        [e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Jul 90 03:29:38 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!xanth!xanth.cs.odu.edu![e-mail]  (Frank C. Paterra)
Subject: Re: Soviet Space Policy

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian or James) writes:

>The USSR seems to have a successful space program, despite a political
>system as prone as western ones to political infighting between bureaucracies.
>how do they arrive at their overall policies WRT their space program? Are
>any of these tactics applicable to dealing with the doldrums the US space
>programs seems to be in at the moment?
>                               JDN

The soviets have had their share of success stories -- like their
probes to venus and the moon -- but they have also had their
share of failures.  Remeber all those early failled probes to
mars and the recent problems with Phobos.  The basic fact is this
is tough stuff to do.  When you build something and launch it,
its gone and there is very little chance to fix hardware failures
later.

I'm kinda tired of people saying that NASA is full of
incompentents and that they can no longer do any right or the the
only reason that magellan and galileo are only products of "the
old NASA".  NASA has to deal with public oppion problems that
LLNL does not have to worry about, and they have to deal with
this at the congressional budget level.  Maybe LLNL has the right
idea and NASA is all wrong about the station (70+ launches and
30+ billion does seem kind of impractical), but NASA had to make
the station work well for everybodies needs, and thats a tough
thing to do.

Why do we have to protect turf and throw all kinds of political
bull around when ever a new idea is introduced?  How about NASA
and LLNL working together?

Rambling thoughts ... where did I put my yoyo?
Frank Paterra
[e-mail]
--
Frank Paterra
[e-mail]

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 17:09:57 GMT
From: hpfcso!hpfcdj![e-mail]  (Andy Goris)
Subject: Re: Red Shift


> It seems to me that everyone is pretty much agreed that the universe is
> expanding.  Dr. Hubble and his collegues showed that there is a Red shift
> that can be observed.  This dopler effect is believed to be caused by
> the universe expanding.

I have always been suspicious of the theory that the observed red-shift
of distant objects is caused by an expanding universe for the following
reason:  It seems unlikely that a photon could travel millions (and
billions) of light-years (both time and space) without being affected
in at least SOME way by all the forces and particles that it would
encounter on its journey.

Has anyone ever proposed that photons do lose energy over long periods
of time/distance, and perhaps this is where the 3-degree background
radiation comes from?

Andy Goris

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

Date: 10 Jul 90 15:39:34 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!watyew![e-mail]  (Brian or James)
Subject: Soviet Space Policy


    The USSR seems to have a successful space program, despite a political
system as prone as western ones to political infighting between bureaucracies.
How do they arrive at their overall policies WRT their space program? Are
any of these tactics applicable to dealing with the doldrums the US space
programs seems to be in at the moment?
                                JDN

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

Date: 10 Jul 90 19:31:42 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: man-rated expendables


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>You going to launch midgets into orbit, George? ;-)
>
>There's plenty of people who'd be willing to scrunch up a little for
>half an hour for the sake of getting into orbit...!  I thought about
>this briefly when I first saw the Pegasus specs --  the space is tight,
>the payload is small, and the accelerations looked a bit high, but it
>did not look impossible.

And you'll look like hamburger if anything goes wrong....me thinks I'll wait
til the successors of the X-30 go up.

            Doug

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #43
*******************