Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v13_1/v13_182.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/8bkrAp600WBwEN704j>;
          Thu, 21 Feb 91 02:13:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 91 02:13:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #182

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 182

Today's Topics:
 Re: The Moon => Existance of God...? (was Re: SPACE Digest V13 #102)
         Burr named GSFC Deputy Director (Forwarded)
              Re: ONE SMALL STEP - REPLY
Space Station Processing Facility construction contract awarded (Forwarded)
         Re: Pioneer Venus Update - 02/18/91
              Galileo Update - 02/18/91
      NASA Advisory Council letter to Vice President (Forwarded)
             Re: Martian mystery?
            Re: SPS, Shuttle, Gaia

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 19 Feb 91 00:11:05 GMT
From: optilink![e-mail]  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: The Moon => Existance of God...? (was Re: SPACE Digest V13 #102)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Harold G. Andrews II) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tommy Mac)
> writes:
> >Perhaps the proof of God is our moon.
> >Consider:
> >The moon inspired Newton's idea's for gravitation
> This, I won't touch.  I'm not entirely familiar with Newton's thought processes
> concerning his theories of gravitation.  I suspect that, the genius he was,
> he could have deduced the laws by looking at the planets and how they moved
> in the sky.

I've read that Newton became interested in, and used the Moon's
orbit for first approximations of the law of gravity.  Of course,
that's not particular evidence for the evidence of God.  (I found
the rest of Tommy Mac's posting similarly unpersuasive).

I understand that Newton expected to be best remembered not for
_Principia_Mathematica_, but for a commentary he wrote on the
book of Revelation.  (Said commentary now seems difficult to
find!)

> >Tommy Mac   -If God wanted us to travel in space...
> * Harold G. "Andy" Andrews II, 1Lt, USAF  *  "Man the man whose punctuality  *
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!

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

Date: 19 Feb 91 21:14:00 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Burr named GSFC Deputy Director (Forwarded)

Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     February 19, 1991
(Phone:  [phone])

Jim Elliott
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
(Phone:  [phone])

RELEASE:  91-28

BURR NAMED GSFC DEPUTY DIRECTOR

    Peter T. Burr has been named Deputy Director of the NASA Goddard
Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., Center Director John M. Klineberg
announced today.  The appointment is effective immediately.

    Burr, 56, has been Director of Flight Projects at Goddard since
August 1989.  In that position, he had responsibility for the overall
direction, development and management of a large number of satellite
projects, including the Hubble Space Telescope, the Cosmic Background
Explorer, ASTRO-1, the Tracking and Data Relay Satellites, NOAA and
GOES weather satellites and the forthcoming Gamma Ray Observatory,
scheduled for launch on the Space Shuttle in April.

         An electrical engineer and graduate of the University of Virginia,
he came to Goddard in 1960 when he began work as a research engineer
with the Satellite Applications Systems Division.  Subsequently, he
held positions as Head of the Information Systems Engineering Section
in the Tracking and Data Systems Directorate; Assistant Project
Manager, then Project Manager, Test and Training Satellite; and
Spacecraft Manager, Synchronous Meteorological Satellite.

         From 1975 until its successful launch in 1980, he was Project
Manager, Solar Maximum Mission, and, from 1980 until April 1988 when he
was named Deputy Director of Flight Projects, he served as Project
Manager, Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite.

    Burr has received numerous awards, including the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics' Goddard Astronautics Award
in 1981 and the NASA Outstanding Leadership Medal in 1983.

    The new Deputy Director is married and has four children.

    Pending a permanent selection, Dr. Dale Harris, currently Deputy
Director of Flight Projects, will serve as Acting Flight Projects
Director, Klineberg said.

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

Date: Wed, 20 Feb 91 11:07:51 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ONE SMALL STEP - REPLY
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]>:

>It appears that the commercial procurement system, as used for the so
>called 'Zenith Star" proposal of sending a payload into LEO was
>successful because it allowed a commercial contractor to come up with a
>solution for a HLV that would cost less than the proposed 10B dollars
>NASA is proposing.

First of all I should point out that this vehicle has not been developed
and has never flown. It could also be that dispite McDonnell Douglas's
willingness to sign a fix price contract that complications will
develop.

However, this effort works for two reasons. The first (and most important)
is that is is focused on getting a job done. Unlike ALS the heavy lift
Delta variant is not a goal unto itself. They made maximum use of what
works and designed it to lower costs, not push technology.

The second reason is the commercial procurement. SDIO went to the
contractors and just said: 'here's the payload, this is the orbit we
need, do it'. This approach outside the Federal Acquisition Regulations
(FAR's) saves thousands of hours of labor and millions of $$.

>Why can't NASA put more of its projects into the
>commercial procurement system?

The main problem is control. If your a contract officer and your
project fails but you followed the FAR's, your ass is covered. If it fails
and you didn't, then your ass is hanging out in the open.

However, at least as far as launch services goes NASA must now buy
commercial. The problem here is making NASA follow the law. There are
a number of payloads going up on non-comercial vehicles over the next
few years. Not all of these are on the Shuttle.

>Would this not stimulate commercial interests into getting into space and
>make getting into space less expensive over the next 10-20 years?

IMHO, yes it would. GD has said that commercial acquisition of launch
services would cut prices almost in half.

>PS. If this sounds like a good idea, how do I forward this to NASA??

First, do a little research on these vehicles and Shuttle C. The Sept.
1990 issue of Aerospace America has a good article on the HL Delta and Titan.
Then, write and visit your represtentative and senators. Tell them about the
Zenith Star launchers and Shuttle C. Ask why we are spending billions on what
we could have for millions. If you need help getting a meeting, let me know;
I can help.

   Allen

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: |
|[e-mail]   |       "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!"                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 19 Feb 91 21:11:16 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Space Station Processing Facility construction contract awarded (Forwarded)


          Mitch Varnes                                    Feb. 19, 1991
          407/867-2468

          KSC Release No. 18-91

          SPACE STATION PROCESSING FACILITY CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARDED

          KENNEDY SPACE CENTER,  Fla.  -- NASA's Kennedy Space  Center  has
          awarded Metric Constructors,  Inc.  of Tampa,  Fla. a $56,215,000
          contract to  construct  the  Space  Station  Processing  Facility
          (SSPF).

          Under the terms of the fixed price contract,  Metric Constructors
          will build the 457,000-square-foot facility to  be  used  as  the
          central  pre-flight  checkout and processing point for Space Sta-
          tion Freedom elements.

          The SSPF, which will be located in the KSC Industrial Area,  just
          east  of  the  Operations  &  Checkout  Building,  will be a KSC-
          operated facility occupied by about  1,000  NASA  and  contractor
          employees.   The three-story SSPF will include communications and
          electrical control areas, laboratories,  logistics staging areas,
          operational  control  rooms,  office areas and a cafeteria.   The
          SSPF will have over  63,000  square  feet  of  dedicated  payload
          processing space, which includes a high bay and intermediate bay.
          A  5,000-square-foot  airlock  will  be  adjacent  to the primary
          processing area.   Both the airlock and processing area  will  be
          100,000 parts-per-million-rated clean rooms.

          A  visitor  viewing window,  which will allow NASA tour guests to
          view Space Station Freedom's pre-flight operations, has also been
          designed into the building's processing area.

          "This is the biggest new construction facility undertaken at  KSC
          since  the  Apollo  era,"  remarked  SSPF  Project  Manager  Walt
          Stampley.   "The design of this building makes  it  a  remarkable
          facility,"  Stampley  continued.    "The  fact  that  all  of the
          processing area's work stands will be air-bearing compatible  and
          that  there will be no fixed objects on the floor gives us almost
          infinite flexibility."  Air-bearing systems allow for easy  move-
          ment and positioning of large work stands and structures.

          KSC's  Space  Station  Program Manager Dick Lyon was pleased with
          the contract award announcement.   "This is a real milestone  for
          Space  Station Freedom and America's future in space," said Lyon.
          "We've been working hard developing what we feel is a  solid  and
          viable program,  and the announcement of this  construction award
          is definitely a big step in the right direction."

          Construction of the SSPF is set to begin on  or  about  April  1,
          1991, and the building should be ready for occupancy within 1,080
          days of the SSPF ground breaking.

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

Date: 18 Feb 91 17:33:53 GMT
From: pa.dec.com!hollie.rdg.dec.com!ryn.mro4.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!habs11.enet.dec.com![e-mail]  (Gary Mason)
Subject: Re: Pioneer Venus Update - 02/18/91

>     The Pioneer project has declared the Pioneer Venus spacecraft over as
>of 3:45 PM (PST) on February 15, and normal support for the spacecraft
>has resumed.  The spacecraft is configured to the High Gain Antenna and

What does "over...and normal support...has resumed" mean???   I am interested,
because in 1976 (this IS the right spacecraft?) I designed, built, and managed
the Data Analaysis Lab for the GSFC contingent.

Cheers...Gary
[e-mail]

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

Date: 19 Feb 91 03:42:25 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 02/18/91


                        GALILEO STATUS REPORT
                          February 18, 1991

     The Galileo spacecraft health continues to be excellent.  Today, the
VE-12 (Venus-Earth 12) stored sequence ends and the VE-14 sequence begins.
Activities planned for today consist of:

        o disabling the AACS (Attitude and Articulation Control
          Subsystem) sun gate function and its associated fault
          protection now that the spacecraft is beyond a 1 AU
          solar distance

        o performing a planned sun acquisition to maintain a
          thermally safe sun pointed attitude

        o commanding to reset the Command Loss Timer to 240 hours

        o performing a USO (Ultra Stable Oscillator) test

     There are no spacecraft activities are planned for tomorrow.

      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab | Is it mind over matter,
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | or matter over mind?
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | Never mind.
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | It doesn't matter.

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

Date: 19 Feb 91 04:15:43 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Advisory Council letter to Vice President (Forwarded)

Jeff Vincent
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                  February 12, 1991
(Phone:  [phone])


N91-10

NOTE TO EDITORS:  NASA ADVISORY COUNCIL LETTER TO VICE PRESIDENT


     In a letter to Vice President Quayle, the NASA Advisory Council has
praised NASA Administrator Truly and his management team "for taking
quick, decisive and promising action" to implement the Report of the
Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program.  The NASA
Advisory Council will continue to review the agency's efforts in this regard.

     The NASA Advisory Council comprises 25 members who are leaders in
industry, government or academia.  They are appointed by NASA for 1-year
terms and normally are not appointed for more than three years in
succession.  The Council provides its advice and counsel directly to the NASA
Administrator.  It reviews NASA's policies, programs and strategies and
considers the degree to which the agency meets its objectives.

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

Date: 18 Feb 91 22:57:44 GMT
From: gauss.rutgers.edu!math.rutgers.edu![e-mail]  (Scott Cromar)
Subject: Re: Martian mystery?

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

> photo of the Martian surface.  The photo appeared to show a huge face
> and a pyramid.  Of course he claimed that they were not natural features

Actually, such pictures do exist.  Most really good collections of
Viking photographs have these pictures in them precisely because of
the sort of discussion you have described.  Of course, you can
computer enhance anything to look like just about anything else, but
these pictures do really look like a face and a pyramid.

As for what they are, they're just rocks sculpted by erosion.  If you
think that those shapes are wierd, you might try looking at pictures
of Goblin Valley in southern Utah some time.  (Southern Utah is, of
course, another dry environment where a lot of erosion is done by
the wind and expansion cracks in the rock--much like Mars.)

I am not suggesting that aliens landed in southern Utah, of course,
but who knows?

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

Date: 18 Feb 91 22:52:41 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: SPS, Shuttle, Gaia

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:
>>This is program cost.
>
>No it is my estimate of flyaway cost for a Shuttle mission. This figure
>does not include ANY costs associated with the development of the Shuttle
>or any costs associated with procurement of orbiters or structural spares.

I admire Mr. Sherzer for his attempts to ferret out launch prices.
However, even he is underestimating Shuttle costs.

The proper costs to use are the entire program costs, including
interest, amortized over historical and expected Shuttle flights.
Unfortuntealy, NASA and its supporters use accounting practices that are
illegal in the private sector, not to mention just plain lacking in
economic common sense, and it is therefore difficult to compare costs,
and easy to generate false claims.


>>The figures you give for the Titan are flyaway costs.
>
>Actually, the figures I give for Titan are flyaway price. However, if the
>Titan is to make money then the flyaway price must be above flyaway cost.

Flyaway price will be: flyaway cost, plus any _program costs_ that
were not spent on another company product, plus time cost of money
and return for share and debt holders.

This debate illustrates just how tough it is get rid of economic
illiteracy in the space community. But unless we undertake
this task, the exagerrated claims, broken promises and false accounting
will continue.



--
Nick Szabo            [e-mail]
Embrace Change...  Keep the Values...  Hold Dear the Laughter...

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #182
*******************