Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V12_0/V12_066.ZIP/V12_066

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/YabfTeW00VcJALuk4V>;
          Sat, 14 Jul 1990 02:12:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 1990 02:12:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #66

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 12 : Issue 66

Today's Topics:
              Re: buying Soyuzes
              UFO notes group???
           Re: grim tidings for the future
             Re: Bush Approves Cape York
                 EOS
                  Re: grinch
              Re: man-rated expendables
              NASA Articles in USA Today
              Re: Titan boosters
              Re: HST and KH 9s
     Re: Re: Ideas Needed for Manned Exploration of Moon and Mars

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 12:50:45 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!pbs![e-mail]
Subject: Re: buying Soyuzes

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>>>I think the Sovs won't sell just a Soyuz; they'd want to sell the whole
>>>>sheebang, from capsule to booster.
>>>
(deleted)
Why would the United States want to buy Soyuz spacecraft, even if they were
marketed sans booster etc.?  Soyuz indeed works for the Soviets, but the thing
is not exactly fool-proof and you have to have a feel for flying the thing.
You also have to know how to fix it in orbit like the Soyuz currently docked
with Mir that is going to require a spacewalk by the cosmonauts to fix some
insulation that came loose.

While most of the time Soyuz gets the job down, the present model still is not
up to the level of the Apollo CSM of the 1960's.  If the U.S. really needs this
type of expendable manned spacecraft, it would be better off building a smaller
version of Apollo with 1990's technology and launching it atop a Titan IV.  BTW
a smaller Apollo would be about the size of the Soyuz.

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

Date: 13 Jul 90 17:29:45 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hp-pcd!hpvcfs1![e-mail]  (Mike Dobbs)
Subject: UFO notes group???

Is there a notes group for discussing UFOs?
:

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 05:14:30 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Charles Radley)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

NASA has not blown up any experimental engines recently because they
have not built any.


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

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 05:05:53 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Charles Radley)
Subject: Re: Bush Approves Cape York

Right.   And remember that building a launch site is not necessarily an
ecological disaster for the area, the Kennedy Space Center is in fact a
huge nature reserve, where many endangered species enjoy protection
which they do not get in the land outside the center.


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

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

Date: 11 Jul 90 19:06:57 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (David Anderman)
Subject: EOS

If NASA operates EOS, it will become a big project.
If EOS becomes a big project, NASA will screw it up.
Therefore, NASA should not operate EOS.
Furthermore, NASA will make EOS into a technology development program,
rather than an applications program.
Let's have someone else run EOS!


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

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 90 19:00:45 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: grinch


>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nicholas J. Szabo) writes:
>Look, I am not trying to be a grinch here, I just want to point out
>that this is an unfair situation for other government agencies and
>private companies, and that some (only a small fraction, actually,
>but NASA posts quite a lot) of the posts have been legally and ethically
>questionable.  I certainly don't want to discourage Ron Baalke et. al.
>from their informative, valuable postings.  A agree with Tom Neff that
>it would be a great loss if sci.space lost these postings.  But I
>strongly disagree that NASA equipment should be used for promoting the
>agency.

I don't think Nick quite understands the matter of the Hatch Act and of the
use of government equipment. He seems to have fallen into the trap of taking
the engineer's approach to law: if A is legal and B is illegal, then we can
use logic to determine the legality of C. There is a lot of logic in law, but
the operators are different than for science and engineering.

The Hatch Act and the body of interpretation around it prohibit specific
activities and permit others, with the general intention that government
employees not take advantage of their position to exert undue influence
on the workings of the government. (Now if only there were a similar law
covering media celebrities! :-) Federal employees are given a set of
guidelines covering what they may and may not do. These rules are a long
way from forbidding all political activity. For instance, employees are
allowed to vote in elections. They are generally allowed to publish written
works and express opinions as long as certain conditions are met. Among the
things which are specifically prohibited are certain forms of lobbying (a
precise definition for this being required), and political party activities
such as fundraising and soliciting votes.

For posting messages via electronic mail or publishing in print, I think the
general rules are something like this:
 - Don't write outright lies or deceptions concerning your work.
 - Make sure it is clear that you're writing on your own behalf and not as
   a spokesman for your agency, and that any opinions are your own.
 - Avoid things like "write to your Congressman and ask him to give us
   more money".
 - Don't publish classified material.
 - Watch out for sensitive material (for example, ongoing contract
   negotiations).
 - Don't use your agency's name for personal gain ("I'm a NASA engineer, so
   you know these model rockets I'm selling are the best").
 - If in doubt, ask your supervisor or some specific authority.

There may be a few more, plus additional ones for people with security
clearances. I haven't seen anything on the list lately that struck me as
a clear violation of any of these rules.

I don't think "cheerleading" postings violate the guidelines. It should
be remembered that many of these people work where they do because that's
what they're interested in, rather than vice versa. I don't think there's
any ethical necessity for people to avoid posting where there is a possibility
of financial interest, as long as the stated primary reason for posting is
other than financial, and there is no effort to hide this interest.

As far as use of government equipment for posting is concerned, I think it
depends partly on what is posted. Advertising the shoe business you run on
the side is definitely out (and presumably also a violation of net rules).
A moderate amount of general posting is usually tolerated as long as it
does not interfere with the assigned work.

It would be nice if people would make more of an effort to find out the law
before implicitly accusing others of legal wrongdoing. Theory just won't do
it as far as law is concerned. Occasionally pointing out the theoretical
possibility of conflict of interest is one thing. Attributing specific
unethical motives to others is different.

Note: This is a fairly sloppy summation of what we get around here. Federal
employees should be familiar with the specific rules in their own agencies.

         John Roberts                   "I'm not a lawyer, but my father is."
         [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Jul 90 00:03:56 GMT
From: philmtl!philabs!ttidca![e-mail]  ( Avatar)
Subject: Re: man-rated expendables

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
+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.


 Uhuh, a glider with the glide-slope of a BRICK! Realize that the X-30 is not
gonna glide, oh you might lucky and be able to grease a dead-stick landing
but you'll look just like the X-15 doing it...minus the aft-mounted ablative
compound skids..and it'll take a hell of a long landing strip to shut down,
like according to some BOTE calcs: 5+ MILES! Add 2 if the chutes fail. Your
brakes will be gone in the first mile...then all you'll need is a change of
shorts!

-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY           +-------------------------+
Citicorp(+)TTI                          *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 *
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA  90405     +-------------------------+
{csun,philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix}!ttidca!sorgatz **
(OPINIONS EXPRESSED DO NOT REFLECT THE VIEWS OF CITICORP OR IT'S MANAGEMENT!)

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

Date: 13 Jul 90 23:15:57 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!forsight!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: NASA Articles in USA Today

USA TODAY -- July 13
(Today's USA Today paper featured a full page of space issues)

"Help NASA Find Its Way in Space"

The USA editorial piece leads off with three analogies to the
current problems with Hubble, Space Station and Shuttle and
concludes NASA needs "our immediate help...It has lost its way in
space.  We set standards for the products we personally buy,  and
we must set standards for our government."

The article cites the Hubble mirror aberration, excessive space
station space walks for maintenance and shuttle fuel leaks as
"evidence of major flaws in many of NASA's projects (that)
indicates the highest standards are not being met."

USA Today offers the solutions that the White House, NASA and
Congress must put the agency on a realistic course by reviewing
its projects and giving priority to fewer, more certain goals;
keeping things simple and making better plans; more wisely
allocating funds; and more closely monitoring the quality of
work.

----------- (another USA Today item on the page)

"NASA Knows Where It's Going in Space"
(An opposing view)
By James R. Thompson, Jr., NASA Deputy Administrator

"Times seem tough for NASA right now, but experience has shown
that this is when NASA is at its best.  We're not discouraged,
and the American public shouldn't be, either.  America --
including NASA -- has always taken the long view, and right now
that view is brighter than ever."

Thompson cites goals including Space Station; moon/Mars missions;
robotic spacecraft to orbit the moon, sun, Mars, Venus, Jupiter,
Saturn; orbiting observatories to view the universe, in the USA
Today article.  Thompson, in the article, states the shuttle
will be flying again soon to provide the heavy lift capability
for space station and, the new orbiter Endeavour is on its way.

Thompson concludes that problems give way to solutions, often
leading to better ways to do things,  as was true during Apollo
and Skylab.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | [e-mail]
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 16:27:59 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Titan boosters

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>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.

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.

It's also worthy of note that the astronauts are basically passengers
during ascent anyway.
--
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 18:52:42 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: HST and KH 9s

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:

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

>>    Someone [I cunningly can't recall *who*] mentioned that
>>the Hubble bears some similarity to the KH 9 satellites.

>A couple of folks, actually.

An KH-11s and KH-12s as well, all from Lockheed.

>>How expensive would it be to adapt the KH 9 design for use as a
>>orbiting telescope, to be used for astronomy rather than recon?

>What a brilliant idea. I wonder why this wasn't tried before we built
>Hubble. Hummmm. Might have been interesting. Probably would have been less
>than $1.5 billion. I wonder if the Air Force has spares laying around for
>recycling. I bet they *do*...time to put this in the "Brilliant Ideas
>For NASA" list via RAND.

Several reasons it was rejected actually.  The angular resolution from
spysats is considerably lower than can be achieved from ground based
observatories.  Keep in mind the Air Force is interested in `good
enough' technology, not pushing the state of the art.  It is cost
effective for them and it works well with Congress.  Second, spysats
use reaction control for quick pointing, and very _short_ exposures,
lots of light but not much time.  HST is fighting the other end of the
problem, _long_ exposures and very _precise_ pointing.  Reaction jets
were ruled out due to the reactive residue from the jets and the
coarse pointing they provide.  Third, spysats are not very cheap
(contrary to opinion) and are very easy to bury in a large defense
budget, unlike NASA which usually has expensive and spectacular
failures.  Also NASA publicizes our efforts to the world, when a
spysat fails the only ones who ever hear about it are those who are
cleared into the program.

And as for flying smaller telescopes before HST, it has been done.  I
do know that Celestron (a small telescope manufacturer for amateurs)
has flown at least one scope previously.  They also advertise that a
Celestron 14 was used as a calibration tool for HST, in what capacity
I don't know.

>>Are the differences between the criteria for a recon satellite
>>and an astronomical telescope so great that whoever it is that
>>makes the KH satellites would not be a reasonable source for
>>future orbiting telescopes?

>Well, specs on Hubble were MUCH tighter than on the KH-9 series. And the
>KH-9 series has been phased out by New, Improved Recon Sats.

I don't know about the specs for spysats, but HST was pretty tight.
NASA had hoped for superior resolution from it.  I am not defending
the people responsible for allowing this to happen, I am all for
finding out _how_ and _why_ it happened to prevent it from happening
again.  Also to fix the current problem.  Keep in mind the people who
screwed up are going to be the ones to fix it, so punishment is
probably not going to assist in recovering the current situation.  By
making recriminations of this sort one brings in _more_ politics
rather than reducing the amount of politics involved.

One last point I thought I would make is that there is no money
allocated in the NASA budget for replacement of equipment due to
damage, training or even just plain wearing out.  The replacement part
of the DoD budget is _larger_ than the entire NASA budget.  I'm not
saying that NASA is not to blame, but under the circumstances I don't
see how it could not be expected.

This is my _own_ opinion, as an insider looking out.  Also, I have no
connection to the space side of the house, so my opinions weigh no
more than each of yours.

Another opinion...

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

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

Date: 11 Jul 90 23:00:16 GMT
From: hpfcso!hpfcda![e-mail]  (Dennis Clark)
Subject: Re: Re: Ideas Needed for Manned Exploration of Moon and Mars


>Here's the specific proposal.  Launch 1,000 Voyager-like probes: 5 for
>every planet and moon in the solar system, plus 500 to various asteroids
>comets.  Most of Voyager's capabilities, plus many advanced capabilities not
>possible with Voyager, can now fit on smaller spacecraft due to progress
>in miniaturization since 1975.  Each probe would be launched by a Delta
>class rocket.

  One small budget problem.  Who's going to look at all of the data?  Hmmm...
Maybe we can farm it out to volunteer organizations to do.

Dennis Clark
[e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #66
*******************