Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V12_0/V12_067.ZIP/V12_067

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/UabffzC00VcJIM6E5k>;
          Sat, 14 Jul 1990 02:26:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 1990 02:25:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #67

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 12 : Issue 67

Today's Topics:
           Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing
            Re: NASA's lobbying on the net
             Re: one opinion....
            Re: NASA's lobbying on the net
                   Asteroid
                   Re: HST
    Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration -- support robotics
       Re: Free Space Station - Spacious but needs work
           Re: grim tidings for the future
        Re: Suspensions of Shuttle Commanders
           Re: grim tidings for the future
          Re: The Decay of NASA's technical culture
              Re: man-rated expendables
              Space Services RIFs Staff
              Re: Nasa's budget
              Re: Titan boosters

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: 12 Jul 90 04:20:26 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Charles Radley)
Subject: Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing

I see, so you are in favour of US corporations losing business to the
Chinese baby-killers.


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

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

Date: 13 Jul 90 16:33:33 GMT
From: hao.hao.ucar.edu![e-mail]  (Derek Buzasi)
Subject: Re: NASA's lobbying on the net

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
#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.
#
#Fine.  That's it, I'm out of here.
#
#Those of you who want to see the Shuttle land, ask Nick for passes.
#He's the authority, apparently.
#
#--
Congratulations, Mary, on demonstrating for us exactly why Nick views
some NASA postings as being legally and ethically questionable.


#Mary Shafer  [e-mail]  ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
#           NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
#                     Of course I don't speak for NASA
# "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all"--Unknown US fighter pilot


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

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 04:40:46 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: one opinion....

Whilst we do not all claim to be "experts", I have 13 years in the
aerospace industry as a systems engineer, worked on several NASA
programs (still do).    I have great respect for the informed lay
public, who in my experience sometimes are better informed than some of
my peers and customers !!


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

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

Date: 13 Jul 90 21:38:14 GMT
From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!unicorn![e-mail]  (Worth Henry A)
Subject: Re: NASA's lobbying on the net

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Nicholas J. Szabo) writes:
>
>(5) There is a large audience not able to participate in this discussion
>    because they lack taxpayer-funded equipment.  Some people like myself
>    are fortunate enough to have access to private equipment and we need
>    to speak up for the others.
>

     Don't forget that the net upon which you are posting is itself
heavily subsidized in various ways by taxpayers and stockholders. Your
self-righteous and hypocritical spiel has done nothing to serve the
public and may well have done much to damage this most interesting
and valuable social experiment called the "NET".

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

Date: 13 Jul 90 05:55:04 GMT
From: att!mcdchg!laidbak!obdient!vpnet![e-mail]  (Jason J. Levit)
Subject: Asteroid


  Anybody hear about this new asteroid that passed within 3 million
  miles of earth?  If not, here's the details...

  It passed by Tuesday, and was estimated at 300 feet to 1,000 feet in
  diameter.  It made one of the closest crossings of earth orbit in 50
  years!  They named it 1990 MF (people at JPL).  They started tracking
  it on June 26th, when it was 8 million miles away.  It was traveling
  at 12,500 mph....

  So, another "near miss".  They're coming closer and closer and
  closer....how many would have liked to nuke this one?  :-)

--
Jason J. Levit - KB9BUU | A good planet is hard to find.  Let's save this one!
[e-mail]  |                  Apple II Forever

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

Date: 13 Jul 90 19:35:49 GMT
From: psuvm![e-mail]
Subject: Re: HST

Is it true that we don't have anything big enough to boost HST to high
orbit?(i.e. if they are willing to do it). How about Saturn V, Titan III?
I know Saturn V is out of commission, but for 1.5B bucks, isn't it
worth it to get it working?

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 16:32:48 GMT
From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink![e-mail]  (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration -- support robotics


[e-mail] (Steve Rehrauer) writes:


> Anyone who proposes an American manned space-presence should, I think, be
> willing to guarantee steady financial profits, or failing that, to have a
> detailed script for how the program will entertain.  Entertainment must be
> continuous; promises of One Big Entertaining Event 20 years from now wouldn't
> wash.  One uniquely entertaining event per month would suffice, I think.

The crew will be selected for their appearance and acting abilities (Reagan
would have supported this  (-: ).  There wouldn't be room for scientific
experiments (taken up by cameras & special-effects equipment).  That's not a
problem though, since there wouldn't be time for scientific experiments; (they
have to prepare for the next sit-com and soap opera).  Mission specialist?
Nope, they have a director instead.

Sitcoms from space.  :-)

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 16:34:12 GMT
From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink![e-mail]  (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Free Space Station - Spacious but needs work


We have "design for manufacturing", "design for marketing" and now "design for
the environment"; how about "design for robot maintenance"?  Space station
elements could be designed for easy maintenance by robots or remote
manipulators (teleoperators on Earth).  Human EVA is necessary if robot
maintenance is not made an important design criteria.

I certainly think this scenario is possible; it just requires a change in
policy (and design criteria).  The technology is there, it just needs to be
applied.

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

Date: 13 Jul 90 12:42:52 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!xylogics!world!ksr![e-mail]  (Chris Jones)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

In article <[e-mail]>, henry@zoo (Henry Spencer) writes:
>        With the latest expansion module, Mir is bigger than Skylab.

They're close, though I think Skylab was a little larger.  Skylab had a mass of
75000 kg.  Mir basically consists of the contents of four Proton (SL-13)
launches, and in that configuration the launcher can put 21000 kg into low
earth orbit.  However, the Mir core has a mass of 20000 kg and the Kvant 1 has
a mass of 11000 kg after jettisoning its propulsion module, so even if we
assume that the two latest expansion modules are 21000 kg each (unlikely,
though they're probably close), we end up with the current configuration being
73000 kg.  I suppose the Progress missions could have brought enough equipment
to push Mir up past Skylab.

It's mostly academic, anyway, since Mir exists and Skylab doesn't, and Mir
still has 7 unused docking ports which can accept future expansion modules (not
counting the two axial ports for Soyuz and Progress missions).

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 04:58:52 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Charles Radley)
Subject: Re: Suspensions of Shuttle Commanders

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.


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

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 04:29:03 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Charles Radley)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

Your numbers are low I believe.  Galileo I understand to be $1.5
billion, and HST $ 2 billion,.


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

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

Date: 13 Jul 90 21:20:44 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!ogicse!unicorn![e-mail]  (Worth Henry A)
Subject: Re: The Decay of NASA's technical culture

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Radley) writes:
>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.
>

   Trowing money is not going to solve the problem!

   Most enthusiastic and capable young professionals (and more than a
few older ones as well) are more than willing to give up some pay and
put in a lot of free overtime for projects they are enthusiastic about.
However, when faced with bureaucratic and professional obstacles, and
public indifference, they are eventually going to become frustrated,
cynical, and indifferent toward their own work and careers; no matter
how well they are paid. They then either leave NASA, possibly even changing
careers, or they begin counting the days until retirement (not a good
thing when one has not yet reached mid-life).

   Given the unpredictability of NASA's budgets and the high burnout
factor, NASA, like the military, should limit "career" positions to a
core of management, very-senior engineers, and other support roles
necessary to provide continuity and limit all others positions to
something like a five year or less appointment. NASA would receive a
continual stream of young, enthusiastic engineers who don't know what
is "impossible"; just like during NASA's heyday. The senior engineering
positions could be filled by engineers on long term sabbatical from
industry, military or academia.

   Newly-graduated engineers receive valuable experience they can take
to industry. Industry receives a source of experienced junior engineers
and a carrot with which to reward their senior engineers and to fight
burnout. And, since only the core of NASA's staff would be career, NASA
would have greater flexibility in adjusting staffing levels, resulting
in fewer mid-life career crises brought on by NASA's periodic cut-backs.

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

Date: 13 Jul 90 04:06:00 GMT
From: att!watmath!watserv1!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: man-rated expendables

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>>>...me thinks I'll wait til the successors of the X-30 go up.
>>In that case, meet you there...I ought to have a decade on-orbit experience
>>by then 8-)
>Riiight....it's your life. You'd better call Lloyd's of London; nobody else
>is going to write insurance for you.

They're not going to write insurance on flying in experimental high-tech
aircraft, either.  (What?  You think the X-30's immediate successors
are going to be certified as airliners?  I have this bridge to sell you...)
--
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 08:07:03 PDT
From: Edmund Hack <[e-mail]>
X-Vmsmail-To: AMES::"[e-mail]"
Subject: Space Services RIFs Staff

Space Services Inc. has laid off all of its staff as of 7/3/90, due to
termination of venture capital funding by a subsidiary of Houston
Industries.  A few of the staff are working at no pay to complete a
bid package for a series of Air Force launches that are being procured
competitively.  Houston Industries is the parent company of Houston
Lighting and Power Co., which is under fire due to extreme cost
overruns in the construction of the South Texas Nuclear Plant.

That makes one dead (SSI), one critical list (AMROC) and one
recovering well (OSC) in the start-up commercial launcher company
ranks.

Edmund Hack, [e-mail]
Lockheed ESC
"Incredibly expensive financial market software created here."

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 04:38:31 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Charles Radley)
Subject: Re: Nasa's budget

To answer your question, no there are no manned expemdable launch
vehicles left, nor capsules, nor the ability to build them.   NASA
burned their bridges when they went to the Shuttle.      The drawings of
the old Saturn and Apollo hardware have disppeared, and cannot be
re-generated, plus all the tooling has been dismantled.


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

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

Date: 13 Jul 90 15:44:50 GMT
From: shlump.nac.dec.com!star.dec.com![e-mail]  (Gary Hughes - VMS Development)
Subject: Re: Titan boosters


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Doug Davey) writes...
>
>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?
>

The original Titan SRMs had emergency thrust termination devices. They were
large ports in the nose section that could be explosively openned. The
propellant would continue to smolder but would no longer produce useful thrust.
The Gemini ejection seats would have been used.

The Titan IIIC was intended to be manrated (X-20 program) and the SRMs used in
Titan IIIC/D/E variants had the cutoff device. For the Titan 34D, the cutoff
devices were removed and replaced with an extra 1/2 segment of propellant.

However, the only in flight SRM failure that I know of was the explosion caused
by propellant delamination on a Titan 34D. I wonder if that would have been
survivable, even with a Mercury/Apollo style LES.

Gary Hughes
hughes @star.dec.com

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #67
*******************