Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_4/v9_426.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 15KB

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/0YOIyMC00UkZFTn043>;
          Thu, 11 May 89 05:17:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 11 May 89 05:17:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #426

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 426

Today's Topics:
        Appropriate commercial industry role?
              Re: Govt. vs. Small Launch
             Re: Magellan update
                  Re:  Tesla
       Re: Private spending for space science (summary)
         Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.
         Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.
Freedom program submits capital development plan to Congress (Forwarded)
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #420
              "Tesla coverup" revisited
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 May 89 19:27:11 GMT
From: agate![e-mail]  (William Baxter)
Subject: Appropriate commercial industry role?

I suggest the following question for discussion:

What is the appropriate role for commercial industry in a space program?


Let's discuss this from a *practical* point of view, rather than
ideological.

Here are some related questions.  Please consider these as you ponder
answers to the question above.  Add more as you see fit.

What is the primary (non-political) barrier to space exploration and
development?

Does the Soviet success with low technology and mass production in their
space program indicate that refinement of existing technology is needed,
rather than development of new technology?

Does U.S. trouble with high technology space hardware (e.g. space
shuttle) indicate that refinement of existing technology is needed,
rather than development of new technology?

Is commercial industry well suited to refinement of existing technology?
To production of new technology?

Is government management well suited to refinement of existing
technology?  To production of new technology?

Can mass production of space hardware reduce costs more than
reusability?

Are incremental changes to space hardware possible during technology
development programs?

Is government planning of science projects conducive to good science?

Is there any way to provide government funding without central planning?

How can government foster development of private industries?

----

William Baxter

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

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

Date: 9 May 89 20:33:06 GMT
From: sei![e-mail]  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Govt. vs. Small Launch

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>It's not *all* the contractor's fault when he charges $400 for a hammer.
>A fair chunk of it is mil spec compliance costs.

Absolutely.  One of the questions I sometimes ask contractors unofficially
is how much of the cost of a project is consumed by simply generating
write-only documentation in compliance with specs.  Nobody has yet given
me an answer below 50%.  This is in addition to the cost of building the
real artifact to excessive specs.

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

Date: 8 May 89 15:51:28 GMT
From: asuvax!mcdphx!mcdchg!illusion![e-mail]  (Marcus Hall)
Subject: Re: Magellan update

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
]In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jonathan Leech) 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?

]Not significant over that short a period, I'd say.  But if I'm not mistaken,
]the IUS has a very limited period of autonomous operation; for example, it
]has no solar panels and limited battery capacity.  Magellan would probably
]be reasonably happy about it, perhaps with some minor modifications, but
]the IUS isn't designed to be parked in orbit for any length of time.

It would have taken a 10 day delay before it would have been necessary for
the cargo bay doors to be opened and the IUS batteries recharged, so I would
assume that the IUS could just as easily sit in orbit in the cargo bay for
just as long (although the shuttle couldn't sit on-orbit that long).  So, why
wasn't the original plan to get the shuttle up, then wait until the limit of
IUS batteries or shuttle on-orbit loiter befor deploying Magellan.  If it's
true that the 5-day delay saved 5Kg of fuel and the 2Kg was required for a
year's operation, it seems that waiting as long as possible (assuming that
you're ahead of optimal launch).  The IUS gets its INS aligned with the
shuttle after the shuttle aligns itself via star trackers.  The IUS would
have problems if this was done very long before its firing, but it should
be perfectly happy to wait in the cargo bay and be deployed late in the
mission.

There are several possibilities that I can think of for launching 6 hours
into the mission:

1) That's how they planned and practiced it.  It could be thought that if the
astronauts have to improvise something would be more likely to go wrong.

2) Launching first thing gives more on-orbit time to deal with things if there
is a failure of some sort.  Perhaps this would allow re-capture and return
of Magellan if the IUS fails to ignite?  I know that the mid-deck payload
was kept light to try to get maximum performance from the shuttlele; does
anybody know if the arm was removed to save weight?

marcus hall

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

Date:     Tue, 9 May 89 8:46:01 CDT
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
To: att!chinet!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane![e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject:  Re:  Tesla

>I am feeling picky today, so sue me :-)
>
> >>  the OAP in Washington, confirming an agreement for the photocopying of
>                                                             ^^^^^^^^
>Photocopying?!? In 1945?!? I don't think so.

I'll be picky, too... :-)

"Photocopying" does NOT mean "Xeroxing", which of course was NOT around
in 1945. But photographic-based methods of document copying were
available. More involved, sloppier, and not as good as Xerography, but
still not uncommon. Have you ever seen "V-mail"? This was a method of
reducing the volume and weight of shipments of mail to servicemen
overseas during WWII; the writers wrote their letters on special forms,
which were photocopied and reduced in size and then sent to the addressee
at his overseas APO or FPO address. So photocopying was widespread and
available enough for such a use; it certainly was available for official
business like the copying of Tesla papers.

Another example of early photocopies are the document copies you will
sometimes run across in the papers of older people, where the copy is a
negative. This format of photocopy was often used for running copies of
birth certificates and other official documents. I don't recall the name
of this type of photocopy, though. I believe this was common in the 30's.

Regards, Will Martin

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

Date: 9 May 89 14:44:44 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science (summary)

[e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:

>Among
>the projects that might not be too ambitious for an initial attempt are
>a lunar orbiter, as suggested by Henry, or a rendezvous with an earth-
>intersecting asteroid, as suggested by Paul Dietz and others.

A better initial private project would be a comprehensive search
for earth approaching asteroids (earth intersecting asteroids are
much easier to observe ;-)).

Actually, such a project has already been funded, and points up the
problems with private efforts.  The Spacewatch telescope in Arizona
was (is?) getting funds from the Planetary Society.  I am under the
impression that the effort there is seriously constrained by lack of
funding, and by now obsolete equipment; this could be wrong.  However,
computers are better now, and CCD technology continues to advance.
One can now buy small commercial cooled CCDs (integration time up to
an hour) for a bit over ten thousand dollars.  Building an automatic
asteroid searcher seems to me to be within the resources of a small
group of dedicated amateurs (assuming they have access to good skies).

In the meantime, a fellow named Zook at NASA is proposing (how
seriously I'm not sure) a widefield scope that could do electronic
asteroids searches.  Described briefly in the latest Final Frontier,
Zook's scope would be able to see down to magnitude 23.  It could spot
1 meter objects out to the moon, and 100 meter objects out to 0.5 AU.
Recall that it is estimated that there are several hundred thousand
EAAs greater than 100 m in diameter.

I think it would be an excellent project for NASA to locate most EAAs
> 100 meters in diameter, and also to do a comprehensive census on the
main belt (perhaps all asteroids > 1 km in diameter).  It becomes a
lot easier to plan a rendevous (or multiple fly-bys of different
asteroids) when there are lots of candidates.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 9 May 89 05:23:10 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!censor![e-mail]  (Jeff Hunter)
Subject: Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
> >         UFOs, though, are not proven to exist. There is absolutely no firm
> > ground to base their existence on. Just because the universe is so huge
> > that life MUST have evolved elsewhere has nothing to do with whether or
> > [e-mail]
>
> It seems inconsistent to me to accept blowing up the sun as a topic of
> intelligent discussion, while rejecting contact with ET's as utterly
> frivolous.
>
    It looks to me like he was rejecting the "I had an alien space child"
fringe. (Says mother: "well junior is small and bald, and he looked kinda
blue for a minute there. That proves it don't it?")

>
> But there is one kind of virus which can infect any form of intelligent
> life.  I am speaking, of course, about memes.  Imagine the kind of
> destruction we would be causing if we exposed a peaceful, traditional
> society to Marxism or the Bible (or both).  Imagine the kind of destruction
> they could cause if they infected us with a super-UFO-Nazi religion.
>
    I think that memes may be more species-specific than you think. For
example there are several multi-billion dollar industries based on the
meme that a young female is more desirable than an old one. For a
hypothetical race where the female gets continuously "sexier" as she ages
don't expect wrinkle cream to sell well (unless it tastes good:-).








--
      ___   __   __   {utzoo,lsuc}!censor!jeff  (416-595-2705)
      /    / /) /  )     -- my opinions --
    -/ _ -/-   /-     No one born with a mouth and a need is innocent.
 (__/ (/_/   _/_                                   Greg Bear

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

Date: 9 May 89 06:30:24 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.

[e-mail] (Mark Anderson) in responding to a posting by Scott
Hess states:  It is also clear, that in my lifetime, my children's lifetime,
and their grandchildren's lifetimes that we will not be able to reach
and network the stars using present day technology and knowledge.  We
limit ourselves to the speed of ight.

Don't be so sure!  Nanotechnology, the atom-by-atom manipulation of matter
seems to lie within advances in engineering we can foresee.  If this is
true, and you want to go, there is nothing standing in your way to the stars
but your own failure of imagination.  (Cell repair machines would let you
live long enough to cross the galaxy--in style)  Keith Henson
PS, a paper "Megascale Engineering" I wrote discusses moving galaxies.

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

Date: 9 May 89 15:42:24 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Freedom program submits capital development plan to Congress (Forwarded)

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                        May 9, 1989


N89-38 Editors Note:

FREEDOM PROGRAM SUBMITS CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONGRESS


     The Capital Development Plan for Fiscal Year 1990 has been
sent to the Congress as required by the NASA Authorization Act of
FY 1988.

     The law requires NASA to submit an annual capital
development plan through 1996.  The plan includes the estimated
cost of all direct research and development; space flight,
control and data communications; construction of facilities; and
the research and program managment for the fiscal year involved
and the two succeeding fiscal years.

     Copies of the plan are available in the NASA Newsroom or
from the Public Affairs Officer for the Freedom Program.

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

Date: Tue, 9 May 1989 16:33-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #420

> taught about the various aborts that were possible; abort on pad (get the
> hell out of the shuttle...), RTLS, AOA, ATO...you get the picture.  Somehow,

And I'm sure it would have been awfully hard to miss the fact that
there was NO abort option from them time of lighting the SRB's until
SRB burnout ~2 minutes later...

And still isn't.

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

Date: Tue, 9 May 89 08:37:27 EDT
From: [e-mail] (John Karabaic)
To: "[e-mail]"@aagate.arpa
Cc: "[e-mail]"@aagate.arpa
Subject: "Tesla coverup" revisited


Whoops! I should check all my messages before replying!

I'm not surprised HQ ASD replied in that way.  I'm a short-timer now,
but I'll refrain from saying anything about HQ's abilities (three-star
generals can probably arrange to have tours extended).  The prongs of
attack I suggested might work.  You just have to be patient and keep
trying.

Thanks for the excellent references, by the way.  When I have time,
I'm going to to go through them.  Maybe I'll file some FOIA paperwork
myself.
!!!!!!!!!!!!Don't use *reply*; our mailer is not working properly!!!!!!!!!!!
        Lt John S. Karabaic ([e-mail])
     WRDC/TXI                    513 255 5800          It's not just a job.
     WPAFB, OH 45433-6543        AV 785 5800            It's an indenture.
                These opinions are mine.

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #426
*******************