Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V12_0/V12_095.ZIP/V12_095

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 20KB

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/0addf9m00VcJ03Qk4d>;
          Fri, 20 Jul 1990 01:46:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 1990 01:46:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #95

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 12 : Issue 95

Today's Topics:
         Re: care and feeding of contractors
           Re: Gif's from hubble pictures?
            Re: World Space Agency
              Re: buying Soyuzes
           care and feeding of contractors
         Re: Nick Szabo's lobbying on the net
           Re^2: NASA's Lobbying On The Net
    MIR cosmonauts do 7 hour space walk to fix Soyuz TM-9 blankets
              Soviet Cosmonauts
                   Re: EOS
              World Space Agency
            Re: World Space Agency

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: 19 Jul 90 01:46:08 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Mike Coffin)
Subject: Re: care and feeding of contractors

From article <[e-mail]>,
    by [e-mail] (Henry Spencer):
> Any time you have billions of dollars being thrown around by a government,
> (a) you *will* end up with a bureaucracy, and (b) you *will* end up with
> fat contractors who spend a lot of money lobbying Congress to keep the
> gravy train on schedule.  Putting a different crew in charge will not help
> in the long run (although it could do wonders temporarily).

Apropos this, the Wall Street Journal had an interesting article on
the op-ed page today.  The author proposed simply disbanding NASA and
instead offering a fixed price per man-year in space on American-built
equipment. For the amount we're spending now, near space could be
swarming with people. The same principle could be used for putting a
base on the moon or for exploring Mars.

Mike Coffin                [e-mail]
Univ. of Ariz. Dept. of Comp. Sci.    {allegra,cmcl2}!arizona!mike
Tucson, AZ  85721            [phone]
--
Mike Coffin                [e-mail]
Univ. of Ariz. Dept. of Comp. Sci.    {allegra,cmcl2}!arizona!mike
Tucson, AZ  85721            [phone]

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

Date: 18 Jul 90 06:36:12 GMT
From: usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!jabaru!tanus![e-mail]  (Brian Evans Esq)
Subject: Re: Gif's from hubble pictures?

[e-mail] (Thomas Ziemer) writes:
>Hi there
>
>When will we see the first gif-converted pictures from photos
>shot by hubble, here in the net ?  Or were pictures posted ?
>I haven't discovered anything yet.
>
>Greetings ... thomas
>--

Would it be possible to perhaps create another newsgroup (sci.space.pics) to
carry all the GIF pictures from the HST and Voyager missions?



--
 _--_|\  `-_-' Brian Evans      Internet: [e-mail]
/      \  'U`  P.O Box 232    Compu$erve: 72500,1355 | Fax: [phone]
\_.--._/       Avondale Heights, 3034
      v        Victoria, Australia

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

Date: 18 Jul 90 18:03:27 GMT
From: clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!watyew![e-mail]  (Brian or James)
Subject: Re: World Space Agency

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

    [A proposal to merge the best aspects of the USA and USSR's Space
Programs deleted]

    Without the ESA, Japanese, or Chinese space agencies involved
[Not to mention the space agencies I've forgotten to mention] I don't
think that the term 'World Space Agency' is valid. How about 'Declining
Superpowers Space Agency' instead:) ?
    You may find that there are barriers to the free transfer of technical
information between the USA and USSR.
    Why does the phrase 'CoDominium' come to mind?
                            JDN

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

Date: 16 Jul 90 22:37:00 GMT
From: usc!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (David Anderman)
Subject: Re: buying Soyuzes

You could probably launch a manned Soyuz on an Atlas II booster...if you
launched it with the Centaur partially fueled. The chief advantages of
the Soyuz are: cost - it's dirt cheap, convenience (it can be converted
in mid-flight to a 1-2-or-3 person crew (just remove the chairs), and
simplicity (less electronics mean less to go wrong)....


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

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

Date: 18 Jul 90 22:54:29 GMT
From: clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: care and feeding of contractors

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>... NASA itself is a bureaucracy which needs to be eliminated and
>replaced with capable scientists whose primary goal is the exploration of space
>and not with making super-profits for the contractors...

Any time you have billions of dollars being thrown around by a government,
(a) you *will* end up with a bureaucracy, and (b) you *will* end up with
fat contractors who spend a lot of money lobbying Congress to keep the
gravy train on schedule.  Putting a different crew in charge will not help
in the long run (although it could do wonders temporarily).
--
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: 17 Jul 90 12:31:22 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!daver!tscs!tct![e-mail]  (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Nick Szabo's lobbying on the net

According to [e-mail] (house ron):
>We _should_, though (IMHO) be a bit wary of postings _on behalf of_
>any organisation as opposed to its employees, where that posting
>really becomes intense lobbying in the true sense of the word.

I quite agree with this point.

However, since no one (not even Nick Szabo) accuses NASA of having
perpetrated this kind of propaganda campaign, I suggest that all
criticism of NASA's Usenet participation should be restricted to
comments on specific persons and/or articles.

Some may say, "Well, they don't do it now, but they might do it
later!"  So what?  Many organizations "might do it later."  Double
standards are dispicable.
--
Chip Salzenberg at ComDev/TCT     <[e-mail]>, <uunet!ateng!tct!chip>
"Most of my code is written by myself.  That is why so little gets done."
        -- Herman "HLLs will never fly" Rubin

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

Date: 18 Jul 90 12:34:07 GMT
From: usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!bunyip!uqvax.decnet.uq.oz!janus!zeus![e-mail]  (house ron)
Subject: Re^2: NASA's Lobbying On The Net

[e-mail] writes:

>So, bottom line, what Nick has accomplished is to convince several
>people not to bother with this place any more.

I hope not!  Since I started reading this group a short while back,
I have found it most enlightening and enjoyable.  Whatever it was
Nick did, whether right or wrong, would not, I hope, matter SO much
that anyone should "not bother with this place any more".  Come on,
people at NASA, say what you wish.  Those who object can tune out.

Regards,

Ron House.   ([e-mail])
(By post: Info Tech, U.C.S.Q. Toowoomba. Australia. 4350)

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jul 90 10:39 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: MIR cosmonauts do 7 hour space walk to fix Soyuz TM-9 blankets

   Date:  Wed. 18 July 1990
   From:  Jim Apsey <[e-mail]>
     To:  "[e-mail]"
Subject:  MIR cosmonauts do 7 hour space walk to fix Soviet Soyuz TM-9 problems

    Last night on Radio Moscow (12040 Mhz or 11780 Mhz in Detroit area) it
was announced the MIR cosmonauts repaired the blankets that covered the Soyuz
TM-9 during a seven hour space walk.  They also noted there was trouble closing
the hatch upon re-entry into the MIR space complex.  I believe their seven hours
in raw space is a record - in any event it was a very strenuous time for them.

    Once again, while NASA squanders our taxpayer's money on unbelievably
expensive space shuttles, Hubble telescope mirrors (the Eastman Kodak mirror
is much better than the Perkin-Elmer mirror but was not used for political
reasons according to today's New York Times) and a space station which
will require some 3,800 hours in space per year to maintain.  All the while,
the Soviet Union has built an impressive (to an amateur and probably to experts
as well) space complex for doing industrial production in space.  Their latest
addition promises profits to the Soviet Union from its future operations.

    The method for getting into space needs to be drastically changed by
completely abandoning the way-too-expensive and unreliable space shuttle which
makes great profits for its contractors but is holding the USA back in space
exploration!  NASA itself is a bureaucracy which needs to be eliminated and
replaced with capable scientists whose primary goal is the exploration of space
and not with making super-profits for the contractors whose compromises led to
the death of the Challenger crew and is leading to the death of our space
exploration.

    Congratulations to the Soviet Cosmonauts Anatoly Solyov and Alexander
Balandin,  for their bravery and expert work during yesterday's seven hours in
raw space,  a task for which they were not specifically trained!  Their seven
hours in space was unexpected and unplanned for, yet they did what they had to
do to maintain their space complex.

                                    Jim Apsey
                                    GM Research Laboratories

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

Date: 18 Jul 90 15:42:16 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Dave Balkwill)
Subject: Soviet Cosmonauts

I'm looking for a list of Soviet cosmonauts that have flown (especially
in the last year), along with dates and missions.  If anybody keeps such
a list, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks in advance.

--
------  [e-mail]  OR  [e-mail]  ---------
| "In Sweden, we play soccer in weather like this, in shorts." |
|    --  Bjorn Nittmo, kicker for NFL New York Giants          |
-----  DISCLAIMER:  Of course they're only my opinions! --------

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

Date: 18 Jul 90 20:19:36 GMT
From: groucho![e-mail]  (Steve Emmerson)
Subject: Re: EOS

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Liam
Gumley) writes:

>I am in the meteorology/oceanography game, so I am well aware of the problems
>inherent in obtaining the 'ideal' data to help answer a given science question.
>However the smaller the input to the design of a given sensor, the more
>specialised it is likely to be.  You need to have input from a number of
>sources in order to design a sensor which will meet all the required needs.
>Take for example a next generation atmospheric temperature sensor.  You need
>input from the National Weather Service on the required accuracy of the
>temperature soundings.

Agreed.  Unfortunately, the larger the project, the further apart the
needs of the investigators (though they might be more completely
specified) become from the engineering specifications of the sensor.
The scientist wants error limits on temperature measurement, the
contractor specifies milliwats per sterradian in a bench test and
intervening bureaucrats make the necessary judgement call.

This problem results from having the the users (i.e. investigators)
separated from the control of the project.  This separation inescapably
grows with project size (speaking generally, of course ;-).

>Absolutely.  There must still be a place for small, experimental missions
>designed to examine a particular problem.  However you must distinguish between
>these type of missions and one such as EOS which attempts to answer a whole
>range of questions about the Earth's biosphere.

I don't believe EOS will do anything that couldn't be done with more,
smaller systems -- each making its own contribution.  I also believe
some of those systems would have been up already -- producing useful
data -- if there wasn't a love-affair with large-projects going on.

>I certainly agree that there must be input from the eventual data users on
>the design specs of a given sensor.  This is why the EOS instruments all have
>science teams which are responsible for defining and guiding the sensor
>science requirements.  (I'm getting on thin ground here - I'm not really that
>close to the EOS operation...)  Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that EOS
>will be perfect, I am just uncomfortable with the argument that because NASA
>is involved, the EOS mission will fail.

That's not my argument.  My concerns about EOS are: 1) due to the size
of the project, it won't perform as needed; 2) due to the size of the
project, cost and time overruns will occur; and 3) because of 1 and 2,
it's an inefficient and unnecessarily risky use of scarce resources.

>From what I have seen in my somewhat limited experience, it seems that you
>do need to keep pushing the limits of what you can do with space remote
>sensors.  There is both a place for specialized smaller investigations driven
>by universities for example, and large programs such as EOS which attempt
>to address a whole range of problems.  One of the ideas behind EOS is to have
>common data sources available which are accessible by meteorologists,
>oceanographers, geologists, biologists etc. and to foster interaction between
>these disciplines.

I believe one can push limits without engaging in overly large projects.
Indeed, I believe it would be easier because the managerial overhead
would be less (envelope pushing of expensive projects mandates severe
oversight -- even if it fails -- whereas inexpensive projects don't).

I agree about interdisciplinary research.  I believe the data
interaccessibility, however, could be more efficaciously obtained via a
ground-based data-sharing and distribution mechanism (which needs to
exist anyway) which gets its inputs data from many, small (yet well
designed) observing systems.

>If you want some more info on EOS and Earth System Science, try and get hold of
>a package put together by the Earth System Science Committee entitled
>"Earth System Science - A Program for Global Change"  which addresses both the
>science and technology issues involved.  I guess it should be available from
>NASA Headquarters in Washington D.C.

I have it.

>I must say it does my heart good to see a bit of remote sensing discussion...

I heartily agree.

Naturally, the above opinions are my own.

Steve Emmerson        [e-mail]        ...!ncar!unidata!steve

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

Date: 18 Jul 90 17:04:55 GMT
From: clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!ria!uwovax![e-mail]
Subject: World Space Agency

NASA comes in for a lot of abuse for doing complex things clumsily at times
while the Soviets are alternately lauded and abused for sticking to simple
and robust methods. It seems to me that a combination of these two
approaches is needed. The shuttle is a marvellous machine, but is too
complex to be reliable. Freedom is far more complex than it needs to be,
and is almost guaranteed to be very late, very much over budget, prone
to frequent breakdowns and the source of massive tensions in political
and scientific arenas. If we could use the Soviet approach to launching
(mass production of ELVs, gradual design improvements, low cost per
launch) and station design and construction (maybe a bit more room inside)
- and add to that robust base the high-tech skills of the U.S., we would
really have something that might work. Now that the walls really are
falling and the Soviets are broke, a World Space Agency with a sensible
mix of skills and approaches might finally have a chance. How about
political action to make that a goal for 2000?

Phil Stooke, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.

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

Date: 19 Jul 90 00:22:50 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!unicorn![e-mail]  (Worth Henry A)
Subject: Re: World Space Agency

In article <[e-mail]>
 [e-mail] (Brian or James) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>    [A proposal to merge the best aspects of the USA and USSR's Space
>Programs deleted]
>
>    Without the ESA, Japanese, or Chinese space agencies involved
>[Not to mention the space agencies I've forgotten to mention] I don't
>think that the term 'World Space Agency' is valid. How about 'Declining
>Superpowers Space Agency' instead:) ?

    To be successful a WSA would need the "best" from everyone. The only
restrictions should be that nation members are signatories(sp?) of, and
compliant with (at least, in the rare cases where there are mechanisms to
determine such), the various weapons treaties, patent/copyright conventions,
GATT and Helsinki accords (we don't want to help the Iraqis build ICBMs,
do we?).

    To encourage the privatization of space, membership categories should
also be included for companies and other private organizations. Provisions
might also be provided to encourage the use of commercial launch services,
as well as other commercial space services as they become practical and
available. The WSA might also be authorized to patent and license technology
developed for or by the agency with proceeds going back to the WSA's budget
(special license rates for members, of course -- and, no more arguments about
spin-off benefits, the WSA would have the patents and license revenues as
proof! --- wouldn't it be great if the WSA eventually became self-
supporting?).

>    You may find that there are barriers to the free transfer of technical
>information between the USA and USSR.

   First, "the walls are tumbling down"...Ironically, in the very near
future the Soviets may become a member of the "reformed" NATO (Western
leaders have already been dropping some broad hints along this line), and
eventually, may even become one of the USA's best allies.

   Second, anyone wishing to control the transfer of "sensitive" technology
could bid to provide that technology at a secured, black-box, level. If they
fail to contribute enough to ensure an opportunity to bid at the black-box
level, or if they try to profit-gouge, someone else might provide or develop,
possibly superior, alternative technology (after all, technological
leadership is always fleeting, and is often merely an illusion).

   But..., before anything like a WSA can come about, the major space
players, especially the USA, must be willing to give up CONTROL. Europe,
Japan and Canada can attest to the USA's insistence upon control over
joint projects, and an embarrassing tendency for the USA to back out from
its project commitments at the last minute (Europe and Japan currently seem
to be pursuing more joint projects with the USSR then the USA... of course,
they have a space station and we don't, and may never). There can be no
privileged members in the WSA, with a preordained power to dominate and
hold the agency hostage.

   To be successful, a WSA must be independent, with member participation
based upon their contributions. An oversight council, consisting of
representatives of the members, could oversee the WSA's goals and budget,
their votes weighted by the level of the member's contributions. If a
member decides to "take its toys and go home", it would lose its contracts
and council representation, and other members would be allowed to fill in
the gap. Projects might be delayed, but they would not, necessarily, be
canceled due to one member's willfulness.

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #95
*******************