Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_3/V16NO327.ZIP/V16NO327

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Thu, 18 Mar 93 05:00:13
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #327
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 18 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 327

Today's Topics:
                        20Khz Power supplies.
             A little less flame and more light, please?
                           Aurora spotted ?
                              Brontides
                      cancel wars accountability
                   Cancel wars and academic freedom
               Censoring & punishment GARBAGE (2 msgs)
                          DCX Facility Tour?
                          EMCONJ.FLI problem
                      Galileo Update - 03/15/93
                              Good Sign
                          Life in the Galaxy
                         Lunar ice transport
      moon's fate when removing gravitational influence of earth
                            NASA Paperwork
                  NASA worships the God of paperwork
                  Response to various attacks on SSF
    Threat of mass cancellings was Re: Anonymity is NOT the issue

    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: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 13:30:26 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: 20Khz Power supplies.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Thomas
Clarke) writes...
> >In article <[e-mail]>
> >[e-mail] writes:
> >> The MCM 7805 series regulator
> >> that is used by the millions to regulate +5 VDC is actually a 40 Khz
chopper
> >> regulator in architecture.  That is the DC voltage is converted to
> >> 40 Khz and then rectified to the new lower DC voltage.
> >
> >Is this true? Most 7805s I've come across are linear.
> >--
>
> Tom take a look at the noise spectrum output of a 7805. You will see that
> it is concentrated (fundamental frequency) at 40 Khz. Then go to a book
> on the theory on the part. ( I think the original design is from TI) and
> read about switching regulators. These are early generation parts and
> are only about 50% efficient, although they can accept quite a range of
> input voltage. (8.5-18 VDC for +5 VDC) I think the proper term is a
> chopper regulator for these early generation devices.
>
> I think what you are talking about is that they are listed in the linear
> devices catalogs sometimes. TI has an exclusisve book for Regulators.
>
I just dragged out my old National Linear Book.  The LM 78XX (XX=05, 06 ...)
even has a xhematic diagram.  Between the input and output is an NPN
transistor and a 0.3 ohm resistor.  Thre rest of the circuit sure looks
linear to me - a differential pair between output and a zenered reference
that drives the output through an emitter follower etc. etc.  The spec
sheets shows the output imnpedance rising above 2000 Hz - could this
be the source of the noise you see?

Of course some clever manufacturer could have come up with an equivalent
part that is a switching regulator as long as it meets the 78XX specs.
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
[phone], FAX: [phone], [e-mail]

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

Date: 16 Mar 93  22:09:50
From: [e-mail]
Subject: A little less flame and more light, please?
Newsgroups: sci.space

(Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>instead they go get an MBA and start pushing paper,

Allen W. Sherzer replies:
>Well I didn't.

Steinn Sigurdsson retorts:
>Bent much metal recently? ;-)

Ahem.   Gentlemen, this argument is disintegrating into a set of
personal flames.  Could we get this back to a discussion of some
semi-technical topics, or into a set of space policy options (with
supporting technical/economic rationales), please?

   And by the way -- I also have a MBA (concentrations in Finance
and Operations, with a strength in Strategy).  And I also have 'bent
metal' for spacecraft recently, as well as pushing paperwork as
'chief systems engineer' on a NASA contract -- which is currently on
schedule and under cost.  Which one I won't discuss -- but it's in
excess of $10e6 and is scheduled for flight in the next year.  I've
also led "product development teams" which have designed and
produced other pieces of space hardware - on cost and schedule for
the DoD, NASA and commercial entities.
   Look -- a MBA doesn't make you a papershuffler.  Nor does it make
you a good 'manager'.  What it does is give you more tools to
develop a better understanding of the business and how what you are
doing fits better into the overall program and business perspective.
Some of the tools taught in MBA programs can be used effectively in
aerospace development and production programs.  Others can't easily
be applied (My class in "Multi-National Working Capital Management",
for example, even though the topic is fascinating....).  Some of the
tools can be directly applied (For example, the class I took in
"Operations Analysis and Management Techniques").
    Similarly, a Masters in aerospace engineering doesn't make you
an expert on spacecraft design, nor does a Masters in political
science make you an expert politician.  In my opinion no academic
education, by itself, makes you an 'expert' in any field.  (I will
admit there may be exceptions to this rule, particularly if the
field is purely academic -- such as "History of the Romance
Languages"). The academic educations provide tools and frameworks of
organization of problems which can be applied to resolve real-world
problems.
   IMHO to be proven an expert, one has to demonstrate that
skill by accomplishments in the field.
   And I should add, you don't need an academic education to become
"an expert", if you are willing to learn from your mistakes and from
others.  And you don't need to be an expert to have an opinion, or
to be able to converse and argue intelligibly about a topic.
   However, there is a lot of "flame" in this forum at the moment.
That flame is not contributing to the rational discussion of the
topics being brought forward, an exploration of the differences of
opinion or the sources of those differences of opinion, nor
contributing to providing data for others on the net to learn from
or establish their own opinions.
  What we've got is a bunch of opinions being promulgated as "sez
me" "sez you" and semi-personal attacks (which are uncalled for at
any time).

   Please, can we do better than this?
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                         Space Technology Investor


--- Maximus 2.01wb

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

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 93 15:55:45 MET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Aurora spotted ?

 I found in the popularization review "Science et Vie Junior", special
issue "La vie extra-terrestre", January 1993, the description of an
"encounter" which makes me think of Aurora:

 "Over the open sea: on September 2, 1990, a Boeing-727 of Air France,
flight Strasbourg-Algiers, crosses the Mediterranean. On the radar on
board, a mysterious echo, resembling nothing known, follows the same
road as the plane. Speed: about 7,800 km/h ? The radar has been checked,
it was functioning normally. What could happen is still unknown."
(end of quotation)

 I have my own idea about that. 7,800 km/h = 4,850 m.p.h = about Mach 7
(like Aurora). Direction: Strasbourg => Algiers (between N => S and
NNE => SSW), not very different from Scotland => Libya (NNW => SSE).
Aurora is said to have a base in Scotland (maybe Machrihanish, Kintyre
peninsula), and the US like very much to spy on Libya. Who disagrees ?

J. Pharabod

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

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 93 18:01:15 MET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Brontides

Thanks to Mr. McElwaine (yes !) I found back a reference I was looking
for. That's about the so-called (if my memory is good) "brontides".
Here is the interesting (for me) excerpt from McElwaine's posting:

>      deployed beginning in the Fall of 1977.  In late 1977 and
>      early 1978, there was a strange rash of giant AIR BOOMS along
>      the East Coast of the U.S and elsewhere.  The AIR BOOMS were
>      never satifactorily explained, by either the government or
>      news media.  They could NOT be positively identified with any
>      particular SST or other aircraft, and indeed were much louder
>      than aircraft sonic booms.

I thought these booms happened in the mid 80s, therefore I could not
find back any reference. Now I have found:
"East Coast Mystery Booms: A Scientific Suspense Tale", by Deborah
Shapley, Science, Vol. 199, 31 March 1978.
Of course the explanation in Science is not at all McElwaine's
theory (which unfortunately I have already forgotten, but which, IMO,
will soon be posted again). Deborah Shapley reports three hypotheses:

1. Thomas Gold, professor of astronomy at Cornell, and Gordon MacDonald,
a geophysicist, suggested explosions of leaked, airborne methane, coming
from tectonic activity of the earth. Other scientists were skeptical.

2. The NRL (Naval Research Laboratory) suspected military aircraft
flying at around 35,000 feet for brief periods of supersonic flight.
But skeptics said these aircraft were doing that for about 15 years.

3. Jeremy Stone, FAS (Federation of American Scientists) director,
and Richard Garwin, an IBM scientist, thought the Concorde was the
cause of most of these booms. Turns south of Nova Scotia would have
caused the booms reported there. Acceleration of Concorde off the
coast of England would have sent shock waves which would have been bended
down to earth by the thermosphere (altitude 100 miles) and could have
hit the New Jersey or the Charleston area.

But the Concorde flights have continued after 1978, and it seems
that there were no more booms. Has anybody on this list heard of
a more convincing explanation ?

Regarding my own theory, which was that it was a precursor or a first
prototype of Aurora, it seems not very good. The mid-80s would have
been OK, but 1977-1978 is probably too early ... but who knows ?

It seems that the 1991-1992 "airquakes" over California were not like
those giant booms - these airquakes were described as short rumbles making
the ground lurch. But maybe the boom over the Netherlands on August 19,
1992, has something to do with these "brontides" ?

J. Pharabod

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

Date: 17 Mar 1993 06:36:33 GMT
From: Lazlo Nibble <[e-mail]>
Subject: cancel wars accountability
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,sci.space,sci.astro,news.admin.policy

[e-mail] (Jay Maynard) writes:

> The coward asked folks to flood Dick Depew's superiors with mail and
> phone calls. Not only is [e-mail] NOT the coward's superior,
> he's not even at the same institution (most likely).

Depew's superiors and Julf are, in each case, the person most immediately
empowered to take care of the perceived problem.  You won't find an exact
parallel between the two situations, but this is a reasonable one.

--
Lazlo ([e-mail])

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

Date: 16 Mar 93 10:35:05 CST
From: Jason Burrell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cancel wars and academic freedom
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,sci.space,sci.astro,comp.org.eff.talk,news.admin.policy

In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Todd Blakaitis) writes:
>
> one more vote FOR anonymous postings.  <=- mine.
>
> everyone has the right to choose to post AND read anonymously.
> if you don't like anon.penet.fi posts....don't read 'em.
>
> Welcome to America....(I know, "world-wide," even more reason not to censor!)



        Count me in also. One more vote FOR anonymous postings.


--
[e-mail]
Device Driver Stacker.sys not found. Hit (P) to panic!
--
Any information provided in any note written by this user ID is under
the standard disclaimer. The author is not responsible for negligent use
of ANY information given in said note.

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

Date: Tue, 16 Mar 93 08:00:03 PST
From: Jason Cooper <[e-mail]>
Subject: Censoring & punishment GARBAGE
Newsgroups: sci.space

Yes, you heard right, GARBAGE.  Listen to yourselves, you guys.  And
while you're at it, take a look at the rest of the area.  NOBODY CARES!!
Let me parascribe for you your conversation as it may be seen on a
playschool playground:

[initial comment]
"HEY!  You're a stupid-face!!!"
"Yeah, well I'm not listening!"
"Fine, then you're a wimpy-wimpy-wiiiimpy!!"
"Still not listening!"
"I'm not listening either!"
"Me NEITHER!!!"
"Fine, then I'm leaving"
"Fine"
"Fine"
"Fine"

Pretty fruitful conversation you're having here, folks!

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

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 13:23:37 GMT
From: "John S. Neff" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Censoring & punishment GARBAGE
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jason Cooper) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (Jason Cooper)
>Subject: Censoring & punishment GARBAGE
>Date: Tue, 16 Mar 93 08:00:03 PST
>Yes, you heard right, GARBAGE.  Listen to yourselves, you guys.  And
>while you're at it, take a look at the rest of the area.  NOBODY CARES!!
>Let me parascribe for you your conversation as it may be seen on a
>playschool playground:
>
>[initial comment]
>"HEY!  You're a stupid-face!!!"
>"Yeah, well I'm not listening!"
>"Fine, then you're a wimpy-wimpy-wiiiimpy!!"
>"Still not listening!"
>"I'm not listening either!"
>"Me NEITHER!!!"
>"Fine, then I'm leaving"
>"Fine"
>"Fine"
>"Fine"
>
>Pretty fruitful conversation you're having here, folks!
It seems to me that about of the traffic is on this subject.

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

Date: 17 Mar 93 11:13:52 GMT
From: James Thomas Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: DCX Facility Tour?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Does someone have the address/phone/e-mail address of someone
with the DCX program I could contact about arranging a tour of
the DCX facilty.

I'd like to get some Cal Poly University students in to see
whats being done with the program.  Perhaps even go to the first
launch of the DCX if possible.


                                                                  A/~~\A
                                                                 ((O  O))___
                                                                   \  /     ~~~
  #                       #                         #              (--)\    #
--#---x---x---x---x---x---#---x---x----x----x---x---#---x---x---x---x---x---#---
  #    James T. Green     # [e-mail] #                    \  #
--#---x---x---x---x---x---#---x---x----x----x---x---#---x---x---x---x---x---#---
 \#//  \|/    \\\|||//   \#/   \\\||/   \||///    \\#|//     \\\\\|||/// \|/#\|
                              O u t s t a n d i n g   i n   t h e   f i e l d !

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

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 09:52:53 GMT
From: Mikael Jargelius <[e-mail]>
Subject: EMCONJ.FLI problem
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

I also have a trident 8900 with 1024k RAM and emconj.flc runs just fine.
However, first I had to get play79.zip from ames.arc.nasa.gov in /pub/SPACE
/SOFTWARE. My old play version didn't work.

Mike
                                                                    *
----------------------------------------------------------------- * -----------
Mikael Jargelius  -  [e-mail]                  *
Swedish Institute of Microelectronics                 *     *        *
--------------------------------------------------------------- * -------------
--
                                                                    *
----------------------------------------------------------------- * -----------
Mikael Jargelius  -  [e-mail]                  *
Swedish Institute of Microelectronics                 *     *        *
--------------------------------------------------------------- * -------------

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

Date: 17 Mar 93 11:00:27 GMT
From: James Thomas Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Update - 03/15/93
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>Forwarded from Bill O'Neil, Galileo Project Manager
>
>                            GALILEO STATUS REPORT
>                               March 15, 1993
>
>     Over the weekend, spacecraft activity to map the High Gain Antenna
>receive gain pattern was performed on Saturday, as planned.  Tracking was
>scheduled ver DSS-42 (Canberra 34 meter antenna), DSS-61 (Madrid 34 meter
>antenna), DSS-14 (Goldstone 70 meter antenna) and DSS-15 (Goldstone 34 meter
>antenna) on Saturday.
>
What does this mean.  I heard discussion on the net about seeing
what the HGA could do in its current partially unfurled state.
Is that what this is about?


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: [e-mail] :-)~~~\
| "I've never understood how God could expect his creatures to  |
| pick the one true religion by faith--it strikes me as a       |
| sloppy way to run the universe."                              |
|                          <Robert A. Heinlein>                 |

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

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 93 10:36:14 GMT
From: Rick Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Good Sign

    Is it my imagination or, starting around issue #321, the "anonymity"
thread was aborted? Whether it's lost its interest on the list or the
list administrators are making it go away doesn't matter, its a good
sign that this list is back to SPACE RELATED ISSUES.
    P.S. Since this post is anon related, I dont expect to see it re-
posted...
                                                       =Rick=
================================================================================

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

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 12:01:05 GMT
From: Paul Carter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Life in the Galaxy
Newsgroups: sci.space

Jeff Bytof ([e-mail]) wrote:
:
:             Some Thoughts on Technological Life in the Galaxy
:             -------------------------------------------------
: I.
:
      [ annihilation/assimilation model stuff deleted ]
:
: II.
:
      [ technology to make contact in a sparsely populated universe ]


I think the annihilation model is unnecessarily pessimistic. I suspect that
the only civilisations that could survive to the point of space mastery
would be those that have overcome many war-like tendencies.
The rest would probably self-destruct with their world-killer toys.

Monsters in far away lands are a common, and inaccurate, theme in human history.
Compare maps produced in the middle ages with popular modern science fiction.
'Here be dragons' is simply replaced with 'here be vogons'.

Also, I have difficulty with item II (and with the SETI program).
How narrow we are to search for other civilisations using radio-type
technology. My guess is that other civilisations have surpassed such primitive
technology. ( Unless, of course, they retained it in order to broadcast
repeats of 'Here Comes ycuL'! )
I'm glad that there is a commitment to SETI, but would hope that other
technologies are considered in the program. Does anyone know ?


Regards,

--
     P A U L        P A U L         P A U L       P A U L         P A U L
     C A R T E R   C A R T E R    C A R T E R    C A R T E R      C A R T E R
      3d signature 3d signature  3d signature      3d signature    3d signature
Focus lines:            |             |

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

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 93 08:13:02 GMT
From: Ross Borden <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lunar ice transport
Newsgroups: sci.space

    The ideas suggested for cable cars, railroads and pipelines are
interesting (I especially like the pipeline), but they all involve a
*substantial* amount of civil engineering.  The main advantage of the mule
train approach is that there is minimal route preparation.  You simply
survey the route (with as many detours as necessary) and use 'dozers &
dynamite where it's unavoidable.
    Of course, it could easily be the case that the terrain is much
too rough for any overland route to be feasable.
    Having said that, I do like the pipeline.  While the start-up
costs are greater, the high potential throughput and low operating costs
are attractive.
    To overcome the problem of freezing at night, the pipeline could
be buried in the regolith (an excellent insulator).  Does anyone know
what the mean temperature of regolith is at, say, 2 meters ?  The
cost of ditch digging would have to be balanced against the increased
capacity.
    Another potential problem solved by burying the pipeline is micro
meteorite punctures.  What is the flux of micro meteoites at the lunar
surface ?   Would it be a long term problem for an unburied pipeline ?
    Also, a pipeline would require some measure of refinement at
the poles, as you do *not* want to be pumping muddy, gritty water.  To
take it a step further, you could perform the electrolosis at the pole
and pump the H2 and O2 to the equator seperately, though that would be
outside the scope of the design project.

    A separate consideration is the useful lifetime of the project
(be it mule train, pipeline, or ice-flinger.)  If the ice deposits will be
exhausted in 30 years, a scheme with high start-up costs would be
undesirable.  Were the students given an expected life span or are they
just assuming an indefinite period ?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  I shot a man just to watch him die;    |     Ross Borden                   |
|  I'm going to Disneyland!               |     [e-mail]            |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 16 Mar 1993 13:59:12 +0100 (CET)
From: "Hans M. Steiner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: moon's fate when removing gravitational influence of earth

Organization: ESA/ESRIN EDMS Software Development
Sorry if this has been asked before, but in the FAQ list I could not
find an easy answer to my problem.

If one could "take away" the earth in an instant (remove the influence
of the earth on the moon), what would happen to the moon's orbit around
the sun?

Would the moon eventually plunge into the sun, stay at the same orbital
distance as now or escape from the sun? Or, would it get closer to the sun
and find a stable orbit there?

Please send comments or answers directly to my userid, since I am not
subscribed to this list.

Thanks in advance
Hans Steiner

End of Message

End of Message

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

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 93 13:04:38 EET
From: [e-mail] (F.Baube[tm])
Subject: NASA Paperwork

This message might be WAY off base, but ..

Okay, so there's lots of paperwork, and reasons for it.

But lately it seems like when something on a spacecraft is stuck,
a mechanical problem, it was caused by a mallet whack, or the use
of the wrong fastener, or something similarly trivial.  Trivial
until a multi-zillion-dollar vehicle has a mechanical failure.

Let's say it was a whack with a mallet to get something to fit.
After the deployment problem, this mallet whack is traced.

Was this mallet whack noted in the paperwork ?

If so .. Who signed off on it ?  Wasn't there a procedure to
require an assessment of the possible effect of a mallet whack ?
Or did some assembly tech just do it and not have to tell anyone ?

If the mallet whack wasn't in the paperwork .. Why not ?

In either case, what then is the point of all the paperwork,
if it can't stop simple mechanical problems caused during
spacecraft assembly ?

--
* Fred Baube GU/MSFS      * We live in only one small room of the
* Optiplan O.Y.           * enormous house of our consciousness
* [e-mail]       *       -- William James
* "`Casablanca' best demonstrates America's mythological vision of
*   itself -- tough on the outside and moral within." -- Aljean Harmetz
* #include <disclaimer.h>

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

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 10:04:46 GMT
From: Alan Carter <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA worships the God of paperwork
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David B. Mckissock) writes:
|> Finally, I disagree that the paperwork for Challenger was in
|> perfect shape. In a Systems Engineering seminar I took a few
|> years back, it was noted that part of the Challenger tradegy
|> was due to a requirements traceability failure. The Shuttle
|> Level II requirements document contained a requirement
|> establishing a wide temperature range on the entire vehicle.
|> This requirement was incorrectly flowed down to Thiokol,
|> resulting in the SRB's being designed, qualified, and tested
|> to a smaller temperature range. The contention is, if the
|> Shuttle Level II folks had their paperwork in-order, then
|> this error in requirements flowdown would have been caught.

It is important to distinguish between the paperwork being in order
(we *have* document XYZ123), and the *contents* of the paperwork
being in order (document XYZ123 maps to reality). I do not deny that
it is necessary for any project more ambitious than an afternoon
spent in one's shed to store (often boring) information in a more
reliable and accessable form than the human brain. The trouble is
that it is easy for management to become focused on paperwork rather
than the real goals of the project.

For an example of a pathological case of this see Richard Feynman's
description of how NASA managers started with what they felt was a
politically acceptable rate of launch errors (100000 to 1) and then
fitted in numbers, running the engineering logic backwards, until
they had inputs that produced the desired outputs. ("Fantastic Figures",
page 177 of "What Do *You* Care What Other People Think.")

In many ways the whole Process debate in software engineering is
based on the (in my opinion wholly false) premise that one can find
a series of rules and regulations for manipulating paperwork that will
be completely self-encompassing, such that one *only* need take care of
the paperwork, by following the process, and well engineered products
will drop out as if by magic, with no intellectual effort, consideration
of design compromise, or effort by experienced programmers striving for
elegance. Indeed, one can run the whole thing with kids and pay them
peanuts for their trouble.

Paperwork exists only to serve the original engineering goals, not the
other way around. In order for the paperwork to remain honest, it must
be subject to continuous engineering scrutiny. We do not know how to
systematise this scrutiny, and have to fall back on the diligence of
experienced engineers when we apply it at all. When management
(especially non-technical management) is motivated to track and operate
through paperwork because the paperwork *is* easy to systemise, and the
paperwork universe can be freed of much of the mess of the real world,
it is difficult to find anyone to give the engineers a mandate to provide
scrutiny with a brief that amounts to little more than "keep your eyes
open and your sense of trouble keen," and back them up.

I'll offer two further aspects of this view of the engineering vs.
paperwork dichotomy. Firstly, the paperwork model stresses the
depersonalisation of the engineering process. You are supposed to be
able to mow down engineers as in the final scenes of "Zulu", and more
will pop up and take over their paperwork. The paperwork also means
that the structure and activities of the team can grow to the point
where no one individual can comprehend even all the parts that they
directly interface to. The engineering model identifies individuals
motivated and able to have creative insights and organises their
work such that they can see what is going on, so that their judgement
and knowledge is applicable.

Secondly, while it does nothing whatsoever to assist with the positive
side of a project, the creative judgement I referred to above, the
paperwork model does wonders when it comes to identifying individuals
who can be deemed to be "at fault" after a mishap. The engineering model
is to do with getting it right, the paperwork model is to do with
getting it wrong. I have heard it argued that if everyone is busy covering
their backsides then no mistakes will be made, but this is quite fallacious.
Nothing would ever get done at all if people didn't take risks every day.

My own opinions, not those of clients past of present.

Thanks for reading, Alan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Maidenhead itself is too snobby to be pleasant. It is the haunt of the
   river swell and his overdressed female companion. It is the town of showy
   hotels, patronized chiefly by dudes and ballet girls.

   Three Men In A Boat, Jerome K. Jerome, 1889
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 13:21:13 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Response to various attacks on SSF
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andy
Cohen) writes:
>
> I wonder if SSF will fly
> just because we're bogged down in paper.  I was in a mtg yesterday when it
> was stated and agreed to by all that the best approach on the table would
> not work because it would take 1 year for the documentation of the approach
> to get out to the entire SSF communitee......It's time to stop killing
                               ^^^^^^^^^^
> trees and start flying systems.
>
Amazing!!!!!  NASA needs to get one smart guy who can understand to
within 10 or 20% what is needed to make a station work.  Put him/her
in charge and make their word law.  No paper bibles, just the authority
or this chief engineer.  And if something made by a contractor doesn't
work, there should be penalties.  Not like Morton-Thiokol...

I like you spelling of communitee.  Kind of cross between community
and committee.  There should be a word with that meaning :-)
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
[phone], FAX: [phone], [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 23:19:59 GMT
From: Ed McGuire <[e-mail]>
Subject: Threat of mass cancellings was Re: Anonymity is NOT the issue
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,alt.privacy

[Followups to n.a.policy only; note also news.admin is bogus]

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Karl Krueger) writes:

>Censorship is not the way to go about
>things, neither is the "ARMMing" of cybernetic missiles.  It is a
>difficult problem, the only solution to which is to rely on the precedent:
>freedom.

Hear, hear.
--
Ed McGuire                   1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/       Dallas, Texas 75234
 Member of Technical Staff   214/620-2100, FAX [phone]
Intellection, Inc.           <[e-mail]>

It's Only News.
Raise Usenet quality.  Read news.announce.newgroups and vote.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 327
------------------------------