Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V12_0/V12_063.ZIP/V12_063

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/oabetgC00VcJILek4M>;
          Sat, 14 Jul 1990 01:32:28 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 1990 01:31:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #63

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 12 : Issue 63

Today's Topics:
         NORAD orbital prediction FORTRAN source code
    Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration -- support robotics
                   Re: HST
                 Re: Energia
          Re: LOOK FOR (SOVIET) UNION LABEL
           Re: grim tidings for the future
              Re: Titan boosters
               Re: NASA Budget
        Re: Suspensions of Shuttle Commanders
             Re: SETI funding cut
           Re: Short Fuse on "Outreach Program" kit
              Re: Titan boosters
          Re: The Decay of NASA's technical culture

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: 13 Jul 90 07:24:37 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!uniwa!vax6![e-mail]  (Liam Gumley)
Subject: NORAD orbital prediction FORTRAN source code

I am interested in obtaining the FORTRAN source code for the NORAD orbital
prediction model which uses the orbital elements posted by Dr. TS Kelso from
the Air Force Institute of Technology.

I have been in contact with Dr. Kelso regarding the source of the elements
and the availability of source code, and he has been very helpful.  However
he does not have access to an anonymous ftp site that I can reach to get
the source code.  He suggested I try and find someone who does.

Any suggestions ?

BTW, I am most interested in the accuracy of the ground track prediction for
polar orbiting earth satellites.  Does anyone have any experience/opinions ?

===============================================================================
| Liam E. Gumley                     "We've gone completely crazy!"   _--_|\  |
| Department of Applied Physics      - the Dodgey Brothers.          /      \ |
| Curtin University of Technology                                    \_.--._/ |
| Perth, Western Australia.                                                v  |
| Internet:[e-mail]                I think, therefore,      |
| Bitnet:[e-mail]    all opininons are my own.|
===============================================================================

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

Date: 13 Jul 90 17:06:17 GMT
From: vax8530![e-mail]  (T. Joseph Lazio, Cornell University)
Subject: Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration -- support robotics

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (T. Joseph Lazio, Cornell University) writes:
>>    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.
>
> This is where the time problem comes in.  The problems of Voyager were not
> so urgent that a 5 hour interval between noticing the problem and correcting
> it was of importance.  If Voyager had detected a rock which would hit it in
> one hour and destroy it, well, that's all, folks.

    Perhaps you do not recall the concern voiced by many scientists
    before the Neptune encounter.  Voyager was planning on crossing the
    plane of the rings (remember that pre-encounter evidence for
    rings was inconclusive).  In the minds of many, again pre-encounter,
    there was a good chance that Voyager would get nailed by a piece
    of ice going *very* fast.

    Moreover, you assume that a manned craft would be able to
    detect the rock in time to do something.  Since the biggest
    danger is not from fist or car-sized rocks but from centimeter
    and millimeter sized rocks, this assumption may not be justified.

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

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

Date: 13 Jul 90 04:09:19 GMT
From: att!watmath!watserv1!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: HST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Can somebody tell me why the HST is not shoot to the geostationary
>orbit? Other than political reasons that NASA want to use shuttle
>for HST, so they get two birds with one stone. Is there any
>fundemental scientific reasons that the HST should be at the orbit
>it is right now rather than a higher one?

(a) It's big and heavy and difficult to boost to high orbit.

(b) Maintenance and refurbishment are not available at all in high orbit,
    which is significant for HST because new instruments are already
    under development (and a damn good thing, too, the way it's turned
    out!).

If it were easy to get it there and visits weren't an issue, then yes,
a high orbit would be better.

Actually, you might want to put it further out than geostationary, to get
it completely clear of the Van Allen belts.
--
NFS:  all the nice semantics of MSDOS, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
and its performance and security too.  |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 90 20:08:54 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: Energia


>From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)

>>And then this large, unproven (total of two flights to date, I believe)
>>rocket blows up, taking half your space station with it.

>B) If they trust Buran and their cargo with it, why shouldn't we? I guess
>   it's cuz they're Foreigners, eh?

You may not have noticed, but they don't trust Buran. Something on the first
flight scared them, and they've been trying to fix it before they risk
another launch.

Also, didn't the first of the two Energia launches have something wrong
with it? Maybe not total failure, but something substandard.

I think the general opinion is that they both have potential, but that they
have not yet proven their reliability.
              John Roberts
              [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 16:31:44 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: LOOK FOR (SOVIET) UNION LABEL

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>      LAST BUT NOT LEAST, WHO WANTS TO GO BACK TO CAPSULES?
>WHAT CAN YOU DO STRAPPED INTO THE NOSE CONE OF A BALLISTIC
>MISSILE? ...

About as much as you can do strapped into the cabin of a shuttle orbiter.
--
NFS:  all the nice semantics of MSDOS, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
and its performance and security too.  |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 04:30:56 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Charles Radley)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

The only launch facilities NASA control are the KSC Complex LC-39 a/b
for the Shuttle, and Wallops Island for sounding rockets.    All the
other launch facilities are controlled by the US, including the
commercial ELV sites at Cape Canaveral
Air Force Station.
Air Focre thus control all lu\aunches of the following:  Deltas, Titans,
Atlas's.
NASA only gets involved to the extent that they BUY those launch vehicle
from the commercial providerws, and arrangment set up post-Challenger.


--
Charles Radley
Internet: [e-mail]
BBS:      714 544-0934   2400/1200/300

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

Date: 13 Jul 90 18:57:55 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (SERRE GLENN)
Subject: Re: Titan boosters

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>3) Titan IV and/or Delta are not THAT much cheaper than the Shuttle, if any.
>
>It costs about 50% more (per pound) to send your payload on a Shuttle
>over a Commercial Titan. A CT launch costs less than half a Shuttle launch.

I know we went through this before, but did we (this group) ever come to a
conclusion on how much we thought the Shuttle cost per pound to LEO is?

Note that CT is not a heavy-lift vehicle, and it required very little new
design to make it fly (basically just a new fairing and payload adapter).

>>The Titan HLV (or any U.S. HLV after the Saturn V) is just a pipe dream.
>
>Well, the HL Delta isn't. Granted it doesn't exist yet so there is some
>risk but McDonnell Douglas seems to be betting a half a billion dollars
>of it's own money they can do it.

Well, tell us about the HL Delta then. (Inquiring minds want to know!)

--Glenn Serre
[e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Jul 90 20:17:23 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!ogicse!unicorn![e-mail]  (Worth Henry A)
Subject: Re: NASA Budget

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Dan Sullivan) writes:
>
>>all of this could be paid for with the money saved from ...
>
>...
>
>If you dobt this, look at the proposals for spending the so called
>'peace dividend'
>[e-mail]

   REALITY CHECK : WHAT PEACE DIVIDEND???
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   The so-called peace dividend has already been consumed by the S&L
bailout. The bailout will cost $150++ billion, and quite probably another
$50-$100 billion spent on prosecution and administrative costs. The bottom
line is something like $200++/yr per household for the next 40 years. I
hope I'm wrong..., but, the unfortunate political REALITY is that given
this fiscal drain -- combined with deficit reductions, long neglected
social problems, and Congressional outrage at NASA's recent difficulties
-- NASA can only look forward to a 70's-style skeletal budget for the next
decade, if not longer.

   Do you really think President Bush is going to continue his already
weak advocacy for SEI, now that he's been forced to utter the T-word?
The only hope that I can see for major space exploration initiatives, is
in international efforts. Unfortunately, Washington is not willing to give
up control in order to allow this to happen, although, budget realities
may eventually force a decision between:

   1 > A skeletal NASA?

   2 > Merge with the ESA, the Soviets, Japan ..., to form a vigorous,
       productive, independent, and affordable, World Space Agency?

   3 > Eliminate NASA, and all civilian government involvement in space?

   Which would you chose?

HW
7/13/90

PS - Perhaps we need a sci.space.politics newsgroup, so that those
     not interested in the politics of space, insulted by such crass
     realities, or unable to believe that others have opinions differing
     from their own, don't have to be irritated by the periodic flurries
     of such postings.

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

Date: 13 Jul 90 20:52:23 GMT
From: swrinde!emory!mephisto!uflorida!mlb.semi.harris.com!jujeh.mlb.semi.harris.com![e-mail]  (Ken Lyons)
Subject: Re: Suspensions of Shuttle Commanders

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Radley) writes:
>Regardelss of whose fault it was, I think it is more to do with some
>kind of NASA internal regulation prohibitng astronauts from engaging in
>hazardous activites, which presumably mean astronauts should not take
>part in aerobatics, period.

Does "hazardous activities" include participating in Space Shuttle missions? :-)

K.Lyons

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

Date: 14 Jul 90 02:38:49 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Kok Chen)
Subject: Re: SETI funding cut

[e-mail] (David Dick) writes:

>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:

>>[paraphrased from an article in San Fransisco Chronicle]
>>
>>The House of Representatives cut all funding for the SETI
>>project in next year's budget.
>>...  The house action was preceded
>>by a presentation of tabloid alien articles and a reference
>>to the SCOTI: Search for COngressional Intelligence .
>
>Another example of the verb "to proxmire".


In all fairness to Proxmire, he apparently golden fleeced SETI
based upon advice from a congressional aide.  He stopped opposing
SETI when it was personally explained to him what it was all about.

Moreover, the fleece didn't cause SETI to die.  It simply caused
work to be scaled back (albeit somewhat drastically in certain areas)
until funding was restored.


Kok Chen, AA6TY                [e-mail]
Apple Computer, Inc.

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 21:08:12 GMT
From: ssc-vax![e-mail]  (Ronald J Wanttaja)
Subject: Re: Short Fuse on "Outreach Program" kit

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul R. Chernoff) writes:
>
> I can't believe that NASA/RAND are serious about this.  With an August 1990
> deadline, how can they expect to get any well thought out *new* ideas
> about space exploration, manned or unmanned?

Welcome to the world of government contracting.  I've worked two responses
for government requests for proposals (RFPs) so far this year, and both
required submission within 30 days of the RFP release.  This is very common
for low-value contracts... and since the Outreach one is essentially a
"no-value" one, it is even less surprising.  I've been on a number of small
proposal teams over the years.  The shortest response period I've seen is
two weeks.  Most run 30-45 days.  Sixty days is luxurious.  The longest
submission period I've seen for a study contract has been 90 days... and
that was for a $22M contract on Space Station!

The "Project Outreach" announcement probably isn't intended as a signal to
don your thinking cap to try to come up with new methods.  It's merely
announcing a way to submit any ideas you already have.  When I think of the
page limits, mangagement volumes, detailed cost breakdowns, rigid
submission formats that go with ordinary government RFPs with 30-day
response times, writing something up for Project Outreach seems trivial.
They're just looking for good ideas they may have missed.

                      Ron Wanttaja
                      (ssc-vax!wanttaja)

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

Date: 13 Jul 90 13:41:10 GMT
From: cellar![e-mail]  (Doug Davey)
Subject: Re: Titan boosters

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry
 Spencer) writes:
>
> The manned Titans have all been Titan IIs, without the solid boosters.
> However, they did plan to man-rate the IIIM, with big SRBs, so it can
> be done.
>

In light of the problems the shuttle has with crew escape while
the SRBs are burning, I'm curious what the escape plans were for
a human-rated Titan IIIM.  I believe the Gemini capsules had
ejection seats, which I assume would be unusable during the
SRB burn.  Would the human-rated Titan IIIM have used an escape
rocket to pull the capsule away as the Mercury and Apollo systems did?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Doug Davey   bellcore!cellar!ddavey   [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 05:11:09 GMT
From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Charles Radley)
Subject: Re: The Decay of NASA's technical culture

I did not read your entire meassge, but you did not appear to mention
the problem NASA has hiring and keeping people.   They are not permitted
to pay salaries to compare with those available in private industry.
Congress keeps vetoing pay raises.


--
Charles Radley
Internet: [e-mail]
BBS:      714 544-0934   2400/1200/300

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #63
*******************