Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_4/v9_410.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/8YMKOgy00UkZF2=E5Z>;
          Fri,  5 May 89 05:17:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri,  5 May 89 05:17:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #410

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 410

Today's Topics:
              Priorities at NASA? (long)
     Re: Myth: Only a Government can run a Space Program
Re: Myth: Only a Government can run a Space Program (Was Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!)
                  Re: Tesla
           Brilliant (but old hat) Pebbles
             Re: Magellan update
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 May 89 02:18:44 GMT
From: agate![e-mail]  (William Baxter)
Subject: Priorities at NASA? (long)


United States Congressional Record
Hearings of the HUD Independent Agencies Committee, Subcommittee on
Appropriations, April 19, 1988

Testimony of James Fletcher, NASA Administrator


  Mr. BOLAND.  Let me ask you whether or not the Space Shuttle still
retains the highest priority in the NASA budget request?

  Dr. FLETCHER.  The Space Shuttle is a broad series of things, but
getting it flying again is the highest priority, and following that
flying at a rate which is sufficient to work off the backlog is
certainly among the highest priorities.

  Mr. BOLAND.  We are going to have some difficult questions with
respect to where the priorities are, because this is what we will be
doing when we finish these hearings, and sometime in the next few
weeks we will sit down and mark up the entire bill.  If we are forced
to make cuts in the total NASA budget of $700,000,000 to $800,000,000,
would you recommend that we protect the funding for the shuttle above
all else?

  Dr. FLETCHER.  It is hard to say above all else, because it is hard
to say what that would do to the program.  But certainly the Space
Shuttle, both the return to flight of the Space Shuttle, which should
be in August, must be protected.  That is primarily the fiscal year
1988 budget.
  The fiscal year 1989 budget is primarily to keep the flight rate up
to help turn around the three orbiters that remain in a period of time
which will allow us to keep that flight rate up.  Those are certainly
high priorities.

  Mr. BOLAND.  Is there any other program within NASA that enjoys a
higher priority than the shuttle?

  Dr. FLETCHER.  I don't think so, Mr. Chairman.  That is certainly
anomg the highest.  However, all the rest of the programs have high
priority, too.  The low priorities went by the wayside.

  Mr. BOLAND.  I understand they all have a priority.  I am just trying
to establish the fact of what NASA believes, and you as Administrator
believe, to be the highest priority within the NASA budget.

  Dr. FLETCHER.  Certainly flying at the rate that we aim to is among
the highest priorities.

...

  Mr. BOLAND.  Let's talk about the priority question again.  If the
shuttle has the highest priority, and you want us to try to protect
it, we still have to find $700,000,000 to $800,000,000 in cuts.  What
has the second highest priorities?

  Dr. FLETCHER.  Mr. Chairman, I don't think there is a second
priority.  A Space Station is just as important as the Space Shuttle.

  Mr. BOLAND.  Of course, there is no Space Station without the Space
Shuttle, I take it, because if you don't have the kind of space
transportation system that is essential to have the kind of Space
Station you envision, then of course, I would think the shuttle would
enjoy the highest priority.

  Dr. FLETCHER.  You are quite right when you say there would be no
Space Station without a shuttle.  On the other hand, without a Space
Station, there will be no space program in the 1990's, no manned space
program.  We would really have to begin over again in terms of setting
our targets on human exploration of the solar system.

  Mr. BOLAND.  Let me try to give you a brief review and synopsys of
what this Committee's view is on funding of the Space Station in the
total budget picture.  Last year the budget summit forced us to cut
the station by $362,000,000 and we provided $424,000,000 as I
remember.  This year the request is for $967,000,000.  It is my view,
and I think probably the view of this Committee, that unless we can
fund the station at about $900,000,000, it doesn't make any sense to
fund it at all.  Because if you fund it at only $700,000,000, for
example, we will never get it built.  In fact, all we will be doing is
maintaining a base of people but we will never get any hardware.  So
tell us whether or not our view is correct.  Either the funding should
be at $900,000,000 or we don't fund it at all; how do you react to that?

  Dr. FLETCHER.  Mr. Chairman, I think you are pretty close to the
mark when you say the $900,000,000 is about a minimum that makes sense
to go ahead with on the Space Station.  I am not prepared to say we
ought to just cancel the space program if we don't get that amount of
money.  In fact, I don't believe it is up to me to say.  The President
would have to sign up to that vecause he initiated the program in
1984.  But certainly if you start cutting much below the request of
the President, it doesn't make sense.
  Before this program is finished, we have got to be spending on the
Space Station something like at least $2 and a half billion a year,
and we aren't going to get there from here if we don't go much above
$900 million.

  Mr. BOLAND.  Now, if we fund the space station at $900 million in
1989 and we protect the shuttle from cuts, we have to find that $700
of $800 million somewhere else.  We will have to take virtually every
other increase for every probram above 1988.  That can include
Pathfinder, which is requested at $100 million; two or three of the
new expendable launch vehicles at various estimates from $43 million
to $60 million; the second TDRS tracking station; some salary money;
AXAF, the Advanced X-ray Facility and on and on.
  The point is that fiven our allocation under the 302(b) allocation
of the budget, if we are going to protect the shuttle and the station,
mearly everything else has to go.  Are you confortable with that, or
are you willing to accept that fact?

  Dr. FLETCHER.  I shudder every time you say you are going to have to
cut back $700 million from the request.  That in itself is
frightening.  Then when you start reeling off programs----

  Mr. BOLAND.  It is possible to do it with that size budget, isn't it?

  Dr. FLETCHER.  I can't really answer that.

...

  Mr. GREEN.  So I guess what we are asking you is do you want a space
program which is going to consist of a shuttle and Space Station and
really is going to have no money for mission to planet earth or new
science starts, and if not, then help us find a way within the
budgetary constraints we face.

  Dr. FLETCHER.  Mr. Green, you are absolutely right.  We are faced
with some tough decisions.  If you are not a reasonable optimist as
Administrator of NASA, you don't belong in that job.  I am optimistic
that somehow the Congress will come closer to the $11 plus billion
budget that the Senate Budget Committee voted on last week than the
lower figure you are discussing today.
  So maybe we are eternal optimists and will go down hoping for the
best.  I really cannot imagine not going ahead with all the programs
we have mentioned, particularly the ones the Chairman reeled off, such
as the AXAF----

  Mr. BOLAND.  You can't imagine not going ahead with AXAF?  Is that
what you are telling me?

  Dr. FLETCHER.  Yes.

  Mr. BOLAND.  We are going to get into that a bit.  Even with the cut
of $700 million, you still have an increase of a billion dollars, $700
million over 1988.  That is correct, isn't it?

  Dr. FLETCHER.  That is correct, yes.

  Mr. BOLAND.  You have some problem with cutting some of the other
programs that I ticked off, plus others that are in the NASA budget.
What enjoys the highest priority again?  What about dropping the Space
Station and funding all those programs?  The answer is going to be no,
I know.

  Dr. FLETCHER.  Mr. Chairman, everything you said about the Space
Station is true.  If you start cutting it much below $900 million, you
night as well reconsider the program--unless you just want to keep it
all for the next Administration, but somebody just said you are
pushing the problem ahead if you do that.  But the same is true of
every one of these programs.

----
William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

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

Date: 2 May 89 23:09:04 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Myth: Only a Government can run a Space Program

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John McKernan) writes:
>I agree that NASA is EXTREMELY wasteful, and that its GOVERNMENT money could
>be much more efficiently spent (possibly by getting rid of most of NASA and
>using simple nonmilitary style contracts with provisions that force the
>return of money if the hardware doesn't deliver).

Unfortunately, the problem goes deeper than that.  It's not just NASA.
The bigger problem is Congressional micromanagement and the constantly
changing budgets for every project.  For example, it is virtually
impossible for the government to promise money more than one year down
the road, or to sign a contract which contains cancellation penalties...
and any sane contractor is going to want such provisions in a "simple
nonmilitary style contract", because said contract probably calls for
payment on delivery rather than on contract signing, and no sane company
is going to agree to that without cancellation penalties.
--
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 2 May 89 18:54:42 GMT
From: agate![e-mail]  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: Myth: Only a Government can run a Space Program (Was Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!)

In article <[e-mail]>, jmckerna@polyslo (John McKernan)
writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Baxter) writes:
>>                    many smaller companies are already
>>spending money on their own launch systems.

>                    my posting you quote above specifies
>spending for planetary probes and manned space R&D. No private effort is
>spending significant amounts of money in these areas,

In most space programs the hardware is launched.  It would seem
reasonable to include the cost of launch in the cost of a project.  But
this is not the way NASA does it.  After all, if you add launch costs to
the Space Station project, you get a total of $61 billion.

As for investment in manned space R&D, why don't you express your views
to Space Industries, Inc.?  Was your statement meant to be justification
for the Space Shuttle and Space Station?

>      It is simply a fact that there is important research which will not
>be done by private companies or individuals, and so must be done with
>government money or something similar.

Therefore it is of the utmost importance that we take the space service
business away from NASA and leave them with only research to do.  Their
track record clearly indicates a preference for big development
contracts which make aerospace companies happy, at the expense of space
science of all types.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

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

Date: 1 May 89 15:44:37 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane![e-mail]  (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: Tesla

I am feeling picky today, so sue me :-)

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

 >The Smithsonian Magazine recently carried a  list of some of Tesla's other,
 >less well-known patents and inventions:
 >>
 >>  ...florescent lights, x rays, the electron microscope, microwave
 >>  transmission, satellite communication, solar energy, guided missiles,
 >>  computers, the automobile speedometer, television, vertical takeoff
 >>  aircraft, and radar."

Just how do you invent or patent Xrays? Seems like they were already there.

 >>  disappeared into the U. S. military research complex. As late as
 >>  September 5, 1945, Col. Holliday of the Equipment Laboratory,
 >>  Propulsion and Accessories Subdivision, wrote to Lloyd L. Shaulis of
 >>  the OAP in Washington, confirming an agreement for the photocopying of
                                                             ^^^^^^^^
Photocopying?!? In 1945?!? I don't think so.

 >instant formation of these condensation clouds of several hundred miles in
 >radius could be related to the testing of a Tesla device "which could
 >instantly freeze whole armies into blocks of ice."

Alright! Now we have the answer to the Greenhouse Effect! Or at the very
least, a new appliance: The Microwave Freezer! Now we really can make
milkshakes in the microwave.

Ok, Ok. so I got carried away. But it does sound flakey doesn't it? Like
something you would read in the National Enquirer. But I guess anything is
possible (except touching your elbow to your nose)  :-)

--
John Sparks   |  {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps
[not for RHF] |          [e-mail]         | 502/968-5401 thru -5406
Don't worry if you're a kleptomaniac, you can always take something for it.

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

Date: 3 May 89 02:51:22 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Timothy Roberts)
Subject: Brilliant (but old hat) Pebbles

I saw the demonstration of the "Brilliant Pebbles" test vehicle on CBS
News and was intrigued.  Anyone who has ever fired a TOW or Dragon
missle has seen exactly this image of a "bobbing" rocket.  The Dragon
uses 36(?) one shot solid fuel motors set around its waist like rows of
tiny funnels.  All forward momentum comes from the explosive that
squirts the missle out of the tube.  The side motors fire when the
optical sight detects the missle dropping or straying from the
"imaginary crosshairs" on the target.  The missle itself produces an IR
source that the sight detects and compares to the crosshair position.
If the rocket's signal doesn't match the crosshairs, a pulse is sent
through a wire to the Dragon missle.  The Dragon then interprets the
pulse into which motors to fire to stay aloft/on target.  What this
looks like is a ping-pong ball falling down a long tube.  The
ball/missle bounces from side to side as it contacts the wall/Guidence
Corridor limit.

So what?  I am glad you asked.  Put the sight on the missle and you
don't need a wire.  Put the IR source on a missle plume and you've got
Brilliant pebbles.  This thing is circa Viet Nam War and I have toted
them all over Hawaii, Okinawa, and Thailand during my days in the Marine
Corps.  We were told the sighting system (which detaches from the
launcher tube and is used on the next rocket) cost about 15,000 bucks.
Each missle was on the order of $2000 and it went up in smoke when it
was fired.  That comes to $17K and a little bit of solder.  Someone
recently posted that the test vehicle for Smart Pebbles cost $500,000.

You decide.  Should I gain pleasure from the cheering of SDI engineers
or write to my congressperson to stop the use of taxes on something that
*VIOLATES* the ABM treaty.

I like big science.  I detest weapons based in space.  The Peace Shield
will make a lot of engineers rich and destabilize the current nuclear
standoff.

My last Question: If the Defense community and the science community are
so closely related, Why haven't I seen Quasar photos taken through KH-12
or Lacrosse Spysats?  Think about it folks, These things are up there
right now and they are used to take picture of where we already are.
You tell me which is more important to Congress, pushing the limits of
our view of the universe or going through eachothers shitcans looking
for intelligence secrets.

Okay.  Mr. Deitz, Mr. Spencer et al. The ball is in your
court.

Tat Tvam Asi, Svetakatu.                   Timothy P. P. Roberts
(That Thou Art, boy!)                      UW-Milwaukee, Dept. of Physics
2835 N. Pierce St Apt #1                   [e-mail]
Milwaukee, WI  53212                       [phone]

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

Date: 2 May 89 21:43:26 GMT
From: thorin!threonine![e-mail]  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Magellan update

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Scott) writes:
>The reason for the savings on propellant is that with the
>later launch date the path to Venus is more direct, resulting in fewer TCMs.

    So, why didn't they plan to launch as early as possible in the
window, then leave it in orbit until the optimal time for Venus
injection? Atmospheric drag?
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])    __@/
    "Opossums ran amok in Chapel Hill this weekend..."
    _The Daily Tar Heel_, 11/1/88

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #410
*******************