Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V12_0/V12_053.ZIP/V12_053

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

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/oab1CUy00VcJAIu05g>;
          Thu, 12 Jul 1990 02:07:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 1990 02:07:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #53

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 12 : Issue 53

Today's Topics:
                   Re: Grim
              Re: "Outreach Program" kit
             Re: Bush Approves Cape York
 Re: Inaccurate quotes (was: Re: More on NASA 91 Appropriation Vote)
              Re: Big Rock Watch
               Re: NASA Budget
          Re: Chinese Long March: curse or blessing?
            Re: NASA's lobbying on the net
              Re: man-rated expendables
 Re: Inaccurate quotes (was: Re: More on NASA 91 Appropriation Vote)
              Re: Nasa's budget
       not enough scientists/engineers/technician types
              Re: Titan boosters
                Re: Titan HLV
    Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration -- support robotics

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: 11 Jul 90 22:31:49 GMT
From: hao.hao.ucar.edu![e-mail]  (Derek Buzasi)
Subject: Re: Grim

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
#
#>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]

A car with a slight misadjustment of the ignition system is a poor analogy
to the HST. After all, the HST is only within about 10% of spec -- in perfect
analogy to the car I describe. If HST put 90% of the light into a 0.1 arc sec
circle (which is about 90% of specified performance), that would match your
analogy. However, instead it puts only 10% of the light into that circle --
which matches mine.

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

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

Date: 11 Jul 90 16:19:05 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: "Outreach Program" kit

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eugene N. Miya) writes:
>>... the word "manned" is in
>>the basic specifications for that project, and they are not soliciting
>>proposals for changes in those specs...
>
>1) To correct an impression, no, Truly's letter says manned and unmanned ...

Note that it says "and", not "or".
--
NFS is a wonderful advance:  a Unix    | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
filesystem with MSDOS semantics. :-(   |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 11 Jul 90 19:49:34 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Bush Approves Cape York

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gregory N. Bond) writes:
>
>U.S.) will have to pay like anyone else.  And there is _NO_ role in
>space for the Australian military.

I guess they wouldn't want to put up a com-sat or an observation sat (spy
sat just doesn't fit the Aussie frame of mind), huh?

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

Date: 11 Jul 90 22:08:51 GMT
From: ox.com!itivax!vax3.iti.org![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Inaccurate quotes (was: Re: More on NASA 91 Appropriation Vote)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Baxter) writes:
>If you want to know more about what Andy thinks can call him at
>602/329-9205.

Just in case anybody does wish to call, this number is incorrect. The
correct number is: 602/ 327-9205. This is his home number but his
answering machine gives you his work number.

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

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 00:34:05 GMT
From: uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU![e-mail]  (Greg S. Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Big Rock Watch

Nicholas J. Szabo writes:
#The rock was tracked by several Earth-based telescopes.  With a good mirror
#Hubble might have gotten some nice pictures :-(.

Nope. Even if the mirrors were free of spherical aberration, the
telescope has not been checked out enough, and certainly the tracking
is not debugged enough to follow a rapidly moving asteroid. Tracking
the planets is a hard enough goal for HST.



--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      [e-mail]
 UUCP:        ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

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

Date: 11 Jul 90 14:24:18 GMT
From: thorin!homer![e-mail]  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: NASA Budget

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>One of the things we should do in this three year period is to design a
>small incrimentally growable space station.

    Oliver Harwood had one 5 years ago.  And got dumped on by Rockwell
for it.
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])    __@/
    ``Are there any more questions, besides the ones from the
      liberal communists?''
    - George Uribe, natl. director of "Students For America"

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

Date: 11 Jul 90 15:54:30 GMT
From: thorin!homer![e-mail]  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Chinese Long March: curse or blessing?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>3. Dumping is only a real concern if the producer is underselling with a
>competitive product.

    The product being sold is launch services, not rocket hardware.  I
doubt that accountants care if LM uses "third world technology",
whatever that might be, as long as it gets their comsats into orbit.
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])    __@/
    ``God is more interested in your future and your relationships
      than you are.'' - Billy Graham

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

Date: 11 Jul 90 18:24:58 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: NASA's lobbying on the net

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:

>One might like to be
>able to say "only factual postings you humps," but in practice I think
>NASA people would just clam up completely, and that'd be no fun.

Most of us have.  There are about 8 or 10 of here at Dryden that
either read this group or post to it.  You will notice that Dryden is
the _airplane_ research facility for NASA.  We don't get money for
_space_ research.  Just the same many of them are unwilling to get
beat over the head and shoulders just for speaking up.

Maybe I'm just stupid, I keep coming back for more... ;-)

>So, although I wish some of these people would take a break from the net
>and use the time to finish remedial 6th grade spelling, on the whole I
>want to hear from EVERYONE, including people at NASA.  The ones who
>aren't afraid to take up the cudgels for the agency in *this* crowd are
>actually the good guys.  It's the silent paper pushers I worry about.

Thanks for the vote of confidence Tom, I think...

Unfortunately, we all end up pushing paper more than any of us would
like, except those guys who _like_ to manage.  They usually end up
with the job.  Ever think about that?  The guy who doesn't like the
engineering gets to mange the engineering.  Scary thought...

Another opinion...

--
Albion H. Bowers  [e-mail]  ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!bowers

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

Date: 11 Jul 90 20:36:40 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: man-rated expendables

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>And you'll look like hamburger if anything goes wrong....me thinks I'll wait
>>til the successors of the X-30 go up.
>
>You may spend the rest of your life on the ground if you wait for that.

Fat chance, unless I die within 10-15 years.

>Incidentally, what makes you think the X-30 is less vulnerable to "major
>malfunctions" than rockets?  At least the rocket technology is something
>vaguely resembling mature.

A) It's not SRB powered, B) It'll have an ejection seat C) It's more likely to
be able to "fly back" in some way, shape, or fashion in the event of bad
things happening.  You lose power in Pegasus, you drop like a rock. You lose
power in the X-30, you'll slow down and become a glider.

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

Date: 11 Jul 90 14:18:21 GMT
From: thorin!homer![e-mail]  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Inaccurate quotes (was: Re: More on NASA 91 Appropriation Vote)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Baxter) writes:
>If you want to know more about what Andy thinks can call him at
>602/329-9205.    His opinions have been discussed in fora like this at
>various times in the past, but nobody has ever bothered to call and talk
>to him about his views.

    What I'd like to know is why, as a petition candidate for the NSS
Board, he didn't submit a statement.  Does he expect people to vote
for him based solely on his name?
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])    __@/
    "Opossums ran amok in Chapel Hill this weekend..."
    _The Daily Tar Heel_, 11/1/88

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

Date: 11 Jul 90 16:12:23 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!pbs![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Nasa's budget

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Becker) writes:
>(DELETED)
> Congress critters will be aware from now on that space can humiliate them
> just as well.
> (DELETED)
For starters let's stop calling them "critters".  I don't care how low an
opinion you may have of individual members of Conress, or of Conress as a
whole, until our form of government changes we still have to deal with them.
Continually calling them "critters" does not help our cause one iota.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 90 16:46:12 MDT
Subject: not enough scientists/engineers/technician types


    I think the largest contributing factor to the bureaucracy that
has clogged up our space efforts in the last 20 years stems from the lack
of emphasis on real skills and more emphasis on 'management', accounting,
etc.  I know this is a common belief, but what brought it home to me was
another one of those random statistics you run into from time to time.
This one stated that in Japan the ratio of Engineers to lawyers is 10:1,
in America it is 1:10.  If this keeps up, I might start to agree with
those on the net here that want to wipe the slate clean (NASA, etc.) and
start from scratch.   What we need, I think, is another creative and
productive genius like W.VonBraun to come around and inspire his peers
and others to do their best and get results.  Get the OMB and other
micromanagers out of the day to day work and let them oversee from a large
distance.
    Every person working in this field should be in it for not only
the money, but for personal enjoyment of occupation.  Then the best efforts
would be put forth and the risks acknowledged and minimized, but not allowed
to freeze progress.   Just howling at the moon, wishing we were there.


                K.MacArthur (not [e-mail])

                    Temp. at NMSU for the summer

"Those who are willing to sacrafice a little essential liberty for security
deserve neither."  --- paraphrase of B.Franklin  (I think)

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 01:26:13 GMT
From: usc!samsung!umich!ox.com!itivax!vax3.iti.org![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Titan boosters

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (john reece) writes:

>> For a savings of $150 million per launch and the need for fewer
>> launches, they can get shaken up a bit.

>The vibration is not simply a matter of personal convenience for the crew.
>Once vibration exceeds a certain threshhold they are effectively incapacited
>until several minutes after it stops.

Lots of people have gone up on Titans and they did OK.

However, if vibration is a big problem, I'm sure it can be fixed. At a
savings of $150M per launch, we can spend a lot of money to do it. If I
am wrong and it can't be fixed, (which I doubt) then we have lost nothing.

  Allen

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

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

Date: 11 Jul 90 15:27:39 GMT
From: usc!wuarchive!mailrus!uflorida!mephisto!prism![e-mail]  (Daniel McGurl)
Subject: Re: Titan HLV

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (SERRE GLENN) writes:

>Allen refers to the development of the Titan HLV as taking three years from
>ATP (Authorization To Proceed).  IMHO this is hopelessly optimistic.  This
>timeline is probably a product of some marketing dog who is trying to
>get more business for Martin Marietta. The Titan HLV is currently only a
>concept (or concepts).

Just how optimistic is it?  I seem to recall that Pegasus went from development
to launch in about 2 years.  Now, granted that the Titan HLV is a more complex
launcher, and new launch facilities may take time, but the fundamental
concepts are in place.

At any rate, 3 years may be optimistic, but maybe not as much as you may
think.  Pegasus has a design fairly different from any commercial rocket
currently in use.  Titan HLV could just be a scaled up from from the
Titan 4.

>To wrap up, I think a Titan V (HLV) is a good idea and a logical evolution, but
>the advertised (by Allen) three year timeline should be taken with a grain of
>salt.

Maybe we could get OSC to design and develop it, then I'd be willing to bet
on three years (of course, they'd need money, but otherwise...)

>--Glenn Serre
>[e-mail]
--
Daniel Sean McGurl                  "If you are not part of the solution,
Office of Computing Services and     you *are* the problem."
Information and Computer Science Major at:
Georgia Institute of Technology                     ARPA: [e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Jul 90 16:44:48 GMT
From: vax8530![e-mail]  (T. Joseph Lazio, Cornell University)
Subject: Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration -- support robotics

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Philip C. Plait) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Russ Cage) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Rabson) writes:
>>>Half of the worthwhile results of a manned mission are surprises.
>>>Because human beings are "in the loop", these things can be noticed
>>>early on and more attention paid to them.  We have seen this yield
>>>excellent results on the Moon, and we are still many years away from
>>>making a robot with the *observational* smarts of Homo Sapiens.
>>
>>>Robots cannot do anything near what human beings can.  Remember that.
>>
>>I disagree. Robots can and have gone to every planet in the solar system
>>except for Pluto. We as humans (and Americans!) lack the knowhow to get
>>a man back to the Moon in less than 10 - 15 years.
>>
> Perhaps, but you miss the point.  Robots do not have the ability to react to
> the *unexpected* that might be encountered on such a mission.  They have only
> minimal interpretive abilities, and no real creativity (no real AI yet).

   What do you mean by *observational* smarts?  We can produce robots
   which have instruments to observe from the radio to the UV.  Humans
   are remarkably limited outside the visual and even within this limited
   range, are not that good at providing hard data.

   Robots do have the ability to react to the unexpected, thanks to
   human controllers on the ground.  Further, I think that if you
   examine the record, particularly of Voyager, you will see that most
   things to which the probes had to react were equipment failures.
   While it is easy to reroute instructions or shut down instruments,
   it is a bit more difficult to shut down life support.

   Perhaps now would be a good time to ask the oceanographers how they
   explore the ocean bottoms.  After all, the bottom of the ocean is
   a hostile environment to humans, admittedly in somewhat different aspects
   than outer space but hostile nonetheless.

--
      T. Joseph Lazio
      Cornell University  [phone]
      [e-mail]
      [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #53
*******************