Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_1/V16NO163.ZIP/V16NO163

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 34KB

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 18:33:15
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #163
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 12 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 163

Today's Topics:
        Deadline approaching: Workshop on AI and KBSs in Space
                  Getting people into Space Program!
                         hardware on the moon
                     HST repair mission (2 msgs)
                       Launching using Pegasus
                   leading-edge anonymity (2 msgs)
   Mars flyby + asteroid rendezvous (was Re: Mir mission to Mars?)
              parachutes on Challenger? Ejection Seats!
                      Precursors to SSF (3 msgs)
       Pyke's iceberg ship (was Re: Cooling re-entry vehicles.)
                  The Future *is* What It Used To Be

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 Feb 93 14:00:30 GMT
From: joachim fuchs wgs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Deadline approaching: Workshop on AI and KBSs in Space
Newsgroups: sci.space

The deadline for abstract submission following workshop is
approaching. To meet the deadline submissions can be sent as well
to me, [e-mail] (Joachim Fuchs). However, the comments
on Fax submission are as well valid for email submission.

=======================================================================

              2nd Announcement and Call for Papers
  Artificial Intelligence and Knowledge Based Systems for Space
                        - 4th Workshop -

                      May 17th - 19th, 1993
                ESTEC, Noordwijk, The Netherlands


                          Organized by

                    THE EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY
           Simulation & Electrical Facilities Division
                      Technical Directorate


Purpose
-------
The European Space Agency (ESA) has for many  years  pursued  ac-
tivities in Artificial Intelli- gence and Knowledge Based Systems
for Space. The technology has already been  successfully  applied
in  several  domains and is now widely considered a viable option
in many developments.

The objective of this workshop is to obtain an active exchange of
information  within the European AI community, within industry as
well as within ESA. Not only  increasing  awareness  of  the  new
developments  and technologies play an important role, but inputs
obtained in this workshop will also serve ESA  to  harmonize  and
standardize the developments in Artificial Intelligence for Euro-
pean Space programmes.

Since the domain is still very evolutionary there  are  two  main
interests  in  organizing this workshop at the Space Research and
Technology Centre of the European Space Agency (ESTEC).

On one hand the applicability of proven and now almost "standard"
methods  and  technologies  of  AI should be demonstrated through
their use in operational or quasi-operational applications. There
is as well the wish to standardize where suitable the development
of Artificial Intelligence in order to  increase  the  confidence
even further.

On the other hand, new methods and techniques should be  proposed
and  their potential domain of application - particular for space
- should be identified. In this context AI could as well stand as
acronym for "Advanced Informatics".

These are the main drivers for the fourth Workshop on  Artificial
Intelligence at ESTEC.

Topics
------
The proposed issues reflect the main issues to  be  addressed  in
this  Workshop.  There is naturally a certain overlap between the
different topics (eg the boundary between "established" and  "ad-
vanced" algorithms will always be fuzzy).

The list of topics is not considered exhaustive. Authors are  en-
couraged  to submit papers to topics they consider relevant, even
if they are not mentioned below. Those will as well be  reviewed.
However, the submitted papers should be oriented towards real ap-
plications.

* Applications
  - AI in the different phases of the Spacecraft  Life-Cycle  and
    the Space Mission
    - Requirements Definition, Design, Assembly, Integration, Ve-
      rification and  Qualification of S/Cs,  Subsystems and Pay-
      loads
    - Mission Planning, Mission Preparation  and  Ground  Support
      (Operations)
    - Crew Operations, On-board S/W
    - Data Gathering and Analysis
  - AI Techniques in the Development of Intelligent Tutoring Sys-
    tems for Ground and On-board Crew Training

* Methodology
  - Knowledge Acquisition and Representation
  - Conceptual Models
  - Knowledge Based Systems Life-cycle (Development Methodology)
    - User Requirements Definition
    - Ergonomy of KBS
    - Validation and Verification of KBS (Reliability, Testabili-
      ty)

* Advanced Algorithms
  - Machine Learning
    - Case Based Learning
    - Generalization through Explanation
    - Neural Nets
  - Prediction Methods (eg for Planning)
  - Constraint Logic Reasoning
  - Genetic Algorithms/Evolutionary Programming
  - Fuzzy Logic

Round Tables
------------
Round Tables will provide a forum for a  more  active  discussion
amongst  participants.  For  this reason presentations of ongoing
work are welcome even if there are no  final  results  available.
The  final definition of subjects and number of Round Tables will
be a function of attendance and the nature of abstracts received.

The proposed subjects reflect some of the strategic objectives in
the Agency:

* Autonomy
  - On-board Autonomy
  - Ground Support
  - Reactive/Predictive Planning
  - "Real Time", Temporal Reasoning

* Knowledge Repository
  - KB-Management
  - Knowledge Integration and Knowledge Sharing
  - Query Languages
  - Visualization Tools and Methods
  - Operational Aspects, User's View

* Model Based Reasoning
  - Diagnosis and Repair
  - (Re-) Configuration
  - Qualitative Reasoning

Practical Information
---------------------
Workshop participation is free of charge.

Working languages will be English and  French.  However,  authors
are  encouraged  to  use English as a "de facto" standard because
there will no simultaneous translation be provided.

Presentation time for the Workshop papers is 30 Minutes,  includ-
ing  the  time for possible discussions. Since the character of a
Round Table is more oriented towards the active discussion of the
participants,  the  time  allocated  for  each paper will be more
flexible, in average longer than for the Workshop (~45 minutes).

The infrastructure provided for the presentations  includes  sup-
port  for  viewgraphs,  slides  and video films (VHS, U Matic). A
particular attention should be given to the fact that  viewgraphs
should  not  be  copies  of the submitted paper, but rather being
edited for the purpose of presentation, eg finding more graphical
representations of the relevant issues instead of text.

There will be accommodation for poster sessions and  S/W  demons-
trations. All demonstrations need to be shipped to ESTEC prior to
the Workshop as standalone systems and installed by  the  demons-
trators. Purpose of the demonstration and requirements (power and
other connections, size) should be clearly identified and  stated
to ESTEC not later than March 22nd, 1993. They are subject to ap-
proval by ESTEC. Demonstrations showing AI applications will  get
preference over commercial demonstrations.

Papers for the Workshop and the Round Tables will be selected  on
the  base  of  abstracts  not exceeding one A4 page, which should
reach ESTEC at latest  on  February  15th,  1993.  The  abstracts
should  include complete information about the author(s) (and af-
filiation) and it should be stated under which heading the author
would place his proposal. The abstract should be sent to:

        ESTEC Conference Bureau
        Postbus  299
        NL-2200 AG Noordwijk
        The Netherlands

        Fax: [phone]
        Tel: [phone]

Fax submissions are acceptable to meet the deadline, but  authors
are  requested  to  send  a paper copy to the address above since
this will be used for the abstract book which will  be  available
at the workshop.

Full length papers (not exceeding 15 pages) should be provided to
ESTEC at latest at the Workshop (format A4).

Calendar of Events

  - 1st Announcement, Call  for  Papers     December  14th, 1992
  - Abstract submission deadline             February 15th, 1993
  - Notification of authors                     March 15th, 1993
  - Final Programme                             March 22nd, 1993
  - Registration Deadline                       April 16th, 1993
  - Workshop                               May 17th - 19st, 1993
  - Camera-ready papers                              at Workshop
  - Proceedings ready                                end of June

Organizing Committee
--------------------
U. Mortensen,     ESA/ESTEC (Workshop Chairman)
F. Allard,        ESA/ESTEC
E. Bornschlegl,   ESA/ESTEC
F.-J. Demond,     ESA/EAC
H. Laue,          ESA/ESOC
A. Moya,          Commission of the European Communities (DG XIII)
G. Muehlhauser,   ESA/ESRIN
S. Valera,        ESA/ESTEC
J. Fuchs,         ESA/ESTEC (Workshop Organizer)


===== CUT HERE ===== CUT HERE ===== CUT HERE ===== CUT HERE =====

                          Response Card
              1st Announcement and Call for Papers
  Artificial Intelligence and Knowledge Based Systems for Space
                        - 4th Workshop -

                      May 17th - 19th, 1993
                ESTEC, Noordwijk, The Netherlands



I intend to submit a paper:  O YES     O NO

(Preliminary) Title _____________________________________________

Particular requirements (video, viewgraphs, slides...)___________

_________________________________________________________________

I intend to submit a poster: O YES     O NO

(Preliminary) Title _____________________________________________

Requirements (space...)__________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

I intend to make a S/W demonstration:  O YES    O NO

Purpose _________________________________________________________

Requirements (Connections, space...)_____________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Name             _________________________________

Affiliation      _________________________________

Mailing address  _________________________________

__________________________________________________

Telephone        _________________________________

Fax              _________________________________

Please mail or fax this form to the address listed above.



Keywords:

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

Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 16:51:07 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>Disney is a corporation and can do whatever they like; the space program
>runs off of my tax dollars, and I'd much prefer to see useful astronauts
>and payload sent up as opposed to Erma Hornswaggle from Dubuque, Iowa going
>up and losing continence.

So?  How many "useful" astronauts has NASA launched today?  How
much useful payload has flown out of Kennedy Space Center, as
compared to JFK or DFW or Atlanta Hartsfield?  And why do you
believe that something is not useful unless it's useful to the
United State government (i.e., the only entity on Earth than
can afford something as wasteful as the Space Shuttle)?


>>As soon as there's another Shuttle
>>crash (and there will be, denying that is just whistling in the dark),
>>Congress is going shut down your little space program for good.

>Baloney.  Number one, Congress isn't *quite* that stupid, and number two,
>NASA has quite a constituency.  Do you have any evidence for you claim,
>other than your wishful thining?

Ah, yeah.  I was paying attention the last time a Space Shuttle
crashed.


>>Go out to your local airport and count the number of jets
>>taking off in one five-minute interval.  Compare that number
>>to NASA's five-flights-per-year, which you call a great
>>accomplishment.

>Get with the nineties, Ed...they're running eight to nine flights a year
>now, three times as many as anyone else with ten times the people.  Not
>as good as it should be, but by far the best in the world.

Three times as many?  Phui!  Call up American Airlines and get
their flight schedule.

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

Date: 9 Feb 93 16:21:45 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: hardware on the moon
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Goffe) writes:

>[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes in response to an earlier
>question:

>>The later lunar modules were deliberately crashed on the lunar surface
>>for the benefit of the lunar-surface seismometer network.  One or two
>>of the early ones weren't; I forget whether they were just abandoned
>>in lunar orbit (from which they almost certainly would have crashed
>>by now) [further material deleted]

>Why would they have crashed? With no atmosphere, wouldn't the orbit
>have been stable? Further, I'd think any orbit would be close to the
>moon, so it'd be relatively free of perturbations from the earth or sun.

>Not a big point, just curious what I might be missing.

Mascons.  There tend not to be any long-term stable orbits around the
moon due to mascons in the moon itself which tend to perturb orbits.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 9 Feb 93 15:58:59 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: HST repair mission
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>   According to last week's "Space News", Endeavour on December 2
>   will be launched with provisions enought to support up to
>   seven spacewalks for about thirteen days on orbit. The nominal
>   mission is for an eight day flight including three Hubble repair
>   EVAs of six hours each. The more realistic plan is for four
>   spacewalks to repair Hubble on a nine day flight. But Endeavour
>   can go thirteen days and has six spacewalks available to do
>   the job (the seventh is reserved for Shuttle emergencies).

And some of you people think this could be done with a Soyuz.

NOT.


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 17:50:10 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: HST repair mission
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>   According to last week's "Space News", Endeavour on December 2...

>And some of you people think this could be done with a Soyuz.

Hmmm... I can't think of anybody who thinks it can be done with only
a Soyuz. I do however know of lots of people who think it can be done
with any of the inexpensive space station ideas out there combined
with one of the several OTV concepts also out there. Both could be
developed and operated for a fraction of what Shuttle costs simply
to operate. Not only is it a lot cheaper but returns several times
the science as both Shuttle and Fred put together.

More importantly, it is cost effective. We will likely spend more
on Hubble repair then it would cost to simply build another and
send it up on a ELV. Cheaper approaches will not only make it far
easier to do (a station with a OTV could have scheduled the reapir
long ago) but will actually make it cost effective. (I realize that
you don't like cost effective solutions but they will make space
more popular).

  Allen


--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------126 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 18:58:06 GMT
From: Jonathan Hardwick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Launching using Pegasus
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes
> [e-mail] (Claudio Egalon) writes:
> >There are some talk in the Brazilian community that the Brazilian
> >satellite, which is scheduled to be launched from a Pegasus rocket,
> >does not have any insurance. I am wondering if any one here in the
> >NET could coment on that whether it is true or not. It seems kind of
> >dumb not insure this satellite since Pegasus was used only twice in
> >the past and in the second mission did not work very well.
>
> It might be a very smart choice: Imagine how much an insurance company
> might ask, to cover such a high-risk launch. The Brazilians would be
> betting their savings in insurance costs against the risks of a failure.
> It's a pretty high stakes gamble, but it still might be a smart move.

Looks like their gamble paid off [excerpting from a clarinet article on
grounds of reasonable use -- besides, this will probably bring them
subscribers from sci.space :-)]:

] Subject: Pegasus rocket launches Brazilian environmental satellite
]
]    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (UPI) - An unusual winged rocket launched from
] an airborne B-52 jet carried a Brazilian environmental satellite into
] orbit Tuesday in the third flight of the commercially built booster.
]    Soaring 43,500 feet above the Atlantic Ocean, B-52 pilot and former
] shuttle astronaut Gordon Fullerton released the 49-foot-long Pegasus
] rocket from beneath the right wing of the massive, eight-engine jet at
] 9:30 a.m. EST.

The article seems to have been written right after launch, so no word
yet on whether the satellite is ok.  Tune in to tonight's news, I
guess...

Jonathan H.

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

Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 14:21:23 GMT
From: Steve Gardner <[e-mail]>
Subject: leading-edge anonymity
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy

              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.
Lines: 27
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (John Eaton) writes:
>Society as a whole fears anonymonity because society has no way to control
>an anonymous individual. Crooks and school boys have long known that by
>hidding who they are they will never be punished.
    "Society as a whole"?  Who is this "society as a whole" fellow? ;-)
    When people speak of "society as a  whole" they are in the vaste
    majority of cases talking about the institutions and the powerful
    individuals of the society.  "Society as a whole" is an abstraction
    that defies definition.  What you really mean is that the powerful
    intrenched interests in society fear anonymity.  It is not merely
    crooks and school boys that benefit from anonymity.  Rebels do too.
    But most importantly the agents of control in a society benefit
    from anonymity too. Certain elements of the FBI, CIA, NSA, and DEA
    are more anonymous than any crook or schoolboy could be but they
    are supported by the powerful and their anonymity is considered
    blameless by the spear carriers of the powerful.

>But our superheros also hide their idenities. Look at Batman, The Lone Ranger
>etc. They all operate without revealing their true names. They know that if
>someone knows who you are then they can harm you.
    You forget a very crucial example Don Diego "El Zorro". This
    mythical character was anonymous because he was up against
    powerful intrenched interests.  The Lone Ranger and Batman were
    goody-two-shoes characters whose exploits upheld the status quo.


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

Date: Mon, 08 Feb 93 18:29:41 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: leading-edge anonymity
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy

I really had to reply to some of the JUNK being posted here about
anonymity.  To say that anonymous stuff is automatically junk _IS_
prejudice, plain and simple.  The reason people post anonymously is so
that they don't have to put up with some of the CRAP I've seen around
here.  If you think this guy's just out to stir things up, why are you
giving him what he wants?  _HE_ never stirred things up.  If you took a
look around you, you'd see that, in fact, YOU have been the ones stirring
things up!

                                                        Jason Cooper

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

Date: 9 Feb 93 04:13:13 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars flyby + asteroid rendezvous (was Re: Mir mission to Mars?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:
> [e-mail] (Ralph Buttigieg) writes:
>> Perhaps better yet would be to include an asteriod rendezvous  as well
>> as the Mars flyby.
> I'm not aware of any asteroids one could rendezvous with on a Mars mission
> without significant fuel expenditure.

Josh, I woulda thought that you had learned from  ISEE-3/ICE, Giotto
II, and Galileo that there are a lot of asteroids out there.  If you
look hard enough and get clever enough, there may well be
opportunities.

(Upon reading your message I went looking for Mars Trojans in the
*Boys' Big Book of Asteroids* but found nothing. Not surprising. But
that doesn't mean there aren't rocks you can visit with low delta-V
with a Mars flyby.)

Granted, slowing down relative to the asteroid, and leaving for Earth
again, will unavoidably cost a fair amount of propellant.  But I bet
there are tricky trajectories/opportunities that could minimize that.

If you get to fly past Mars, you can use a gravity assist to crank
your orbital inclination, speed, and direction through quite a range.
The number of possible *flyby* target asteroids and comets would be
vast.  Rendezvous is much harder but I'm optimistic.  If you're
allowed to throw a Venus flyby on the same mission, and aerobraking on
return to Earth, it gets really interesting.

Example: I think Galileo used its first Earth flyby to tilt its
orbital plane to meet Gaspra's 4-degree inclination, then cranked back
on its second Earth flyby into a transjovian trajectory. I could be
wrong about this.

Adventuresome cosmonauts might play with aerobraking at Mars or Venus
to give even further velocity changes!

Of course, what Shakespeare        | Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey
ORIGINALLY wrote was "First thing  | Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
we do, let's kill all the EDITORS."| Bitnet:           [e-mail]
But for some reason it didn't      | Internet:       [e-mail]
survive past the first draft.      | SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS
-- David D. "Laserdave" Levine ([e-mail])

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

Date: 9 Feb 93 16:12:36 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: parachutes on Challenger? Ejection Seats!
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (R. Lee Hawkins) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>Actually, Martin-Baker thought they could build an ejection system for
>>>the shuttle... and they are the world's most respected manufacturer of
>>>ejection seats.  The upper-deck crew would go first, followed by the
>>>mid-deck crew, whose seats would follow rails up through the upper deck.
>>>I don't think anyone has done a system quite like that before, but
>>>"sequenced" ejection systems, in which seats fire in a preprogrammed
>>>sequence to avoid collisions etc., are fairly common.
>>
>> Why not a full-ejection-module like on the F-111 or B-1?  Seems like
>> this would work at almost any speed, with a large enough rocket could
>> easily clear the SRB blast, and would save everybody, and might even
>> save some of the equipment in the crew compartment for use as spares or
>> incorporation into the (now toasted) shuttle's replacement.  I realize
>> such a solution would have a hugh weight penalty, and by its nature
>> isn't exactly retrofittable, but perhaps such a system would be useful
>> on future vehichles.  I can't imagine any other means that is even
>> remotely survivable over much of the flight regime.

I thought they'd ripped that out of the B-1 because it didn't work
correctly?  Too big a cabin to get down in one piece or something;
tended to jelly the contents when it hit.

>>
>> Cheers,
>> --Lee
>> ________________________________________________________________________________
>> R. Lee Hawkins                         [e-mail]
>> Department of Astronomy                     [e-mail]
>> Whitin Observatory
>> Wellesley College                Ph. 617-283-2708
>> Wellesley, MA 02181                FAX [phone]
>> ________________________________________________________________________________

>Wow Astronauts have lost alot of clout over the year. If Mercury/Gemini/Apollo
>ha dnot had some way to see and get down to earth safely they would ahve made
>the designers create one.. (Window they did)..
>Mayeb what is needed is to have astronauts to organize and bsically say, you
>design the next shuttle with a ejection module or something, or we will not
>flY!!

And they would tell them, "Then you don't fly.  If we can't lift
sufficient cargo because of demands for equipment that still wouldn't
add survivability to a lot of boost-phase accidents, then there's no
point in sending you up at all."

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 9 Feb 93 15:35:57 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Precursors to SSF
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>   >The degree to which the actual Intelsat rescue mission differed from the
>   >water tank simulations was alarming to the SSF program, '

>   Well it's about bloody time!

>Wow! Allen, you spent a lot of time explaining to everyone how
>the Intelsat rescue was a criminal waste of time and money.

Not quite. Many people said that Shuttle is useful for the
repairing of satellites. I simply pointed out that this activity
has never been and will never be cost competative as long as you
use the Shuttle for repair. I have always agreed that practice
EVA was a good thing.

>Are you now accepting it was a reasonable way to learn about
>surprises, or that the problems they found were "obvious"?

If NASA had been running a regular program of EVA and then used
Intelsat as simply one of a series of test projects then I would
agree. However, NASA isn't running such a program (much to the peril
of the space station). It therefore seems a little odd that EVA
research is only regarded as important when there is a good
photo-op.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------126 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 9 Feb 93 15:48:14 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Precursors to SSF
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andy Cohen) writes:


>> Too little too late. Freedom has got to be the shoddiest large scale
>> engineering project every attempted. Almost no prototyping, zero
>> integration testing. Only now are they asking themselves if it can
>> even be built.

>Wrong.  That question has been asked daily since 1986.

Then just why did you spend three years and billions of dollars on
a design you KNEW couldn't be built?

A lot of people out there believe that the Freedom project is welfare
for aerospace workers and that nobody at NASA cares if a station is
even built. This only makes it seem more likely that NASA doens't care.

>Wrong again.  The old truss design's death started around 3 or more years
>ago during a WP-02 Engineering Review Board meeting. At this internal
>review, those who were responsible for designing different types of truss
>members told the chief engineer that no matter what they did, the members
>were compromised when the loads were modeled.  I'll never forget that day
>and the look on the man's face.

One reason Congress mandated redesign was that they didn't think
it could be built. Your telling us that they where correct but that
you where proceeding with the design anyway.

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------126 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 9 Feb 1993 17:31:11 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Precursors to SSF
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer)
wrote:
>
.
>
> One reason Congress mandated redesign was that they didn't think
> it could be built. Your telling us that they where correct but that
> you where proceeding with the design anyway.
>
What can I say?  Life as a contractor sucks.  If you want the work, you do
what your customer tells you to.

One comment that all agreed to since 1988 was that NASA should have said
this is what we need and we'll pay exactly this much...then go away and let
those who could do the job....DO IT!!!  If they do it then they get the
money....  That's how a lot of fighter programs worked....  That's not how
Manned-space systems contracting works.....nope.

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

Date: 9 Feb 93 11:14:40 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pyke's iceberg ship (was Re: Cooling re-entry vehicles.)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Del Cotter) writes:
> <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>>  Armed Forces Network TV runs a little spot about "American Military
>>  Heritage", and they have a spot about Picrete (sp?)
> Pykrete was named after its inventor Geoffrey Pyke, the British engineer who
> invented it for proposed mid-Atlantic floating airbases during the Second
> World War.

All the essential facts have been posted in this thread, but if you
want to read a bit more about Pykrete and this adventure, look at
*Engineers' Dreams* by Willy Ley.  It's a wonderful book, and though
it isn't concerned with space, you will enjoy it if you are the sort
of goofball who reads and posts to this group...

There was also a recent article in *Air and Space* about Pyke's
iceberg ship.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "Enough marshmallows
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | will kill you
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | if properly placed."
Internet:       [e-mail]  | --John Alexander, leader of
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | "disabling technologies"
 [*Aviation Week*, 7 Dec 1992, p. 50]  | research, Los Alamos

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

Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 14:25:18 GMT
From: Timothy Kimball <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Future *is* What It Used To Be
Newsgroups: sci.space

Bruce Watson ([e-mail]) wrote:
:
:
: From _Satellite!_, Bergaust and Beller, 1956:
:
: "One of the most remarkable aspects suggested by [Professor Hermann] Oberth
: at that time was the _space mirror_ concept. A huge mirror in space would
: reflect the Sun's radiation in focused beams, its utility aspects including
: heating and illuminating cities. It could also be used to "boil" the water
: of our oceans, which in turn would yield vapor and rain during drought
: periods. Considered seriously by many scientis today [1956], the space
: mirror was first suggested in 1923.
: --
: Bruce Watson ([e-mail]) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131

And now we _do_ have a great big mirror orbiting the earth.
Although I don't think we'll be pointing it at the sun
any time soon... :^)
--

/* tdk -- Opinions are mine, not my employer's. */

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 163
------------------------------