Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_2/v16no206.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 35KB

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 05:13:06
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #206
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 21 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 206

Today's Topics:
                      Galileo Update - 02/18/93
                        Human distance record
NASA budget boosts technology, promises improved Space Station program [Release 93-32] (Forwarded)
                       Netiquette and sci.space
                  Nobody cares about Fred? (3 msgs)
                           PEGASUS QUESTION
                   Please edit the Newsgroups line!
                              sci.space
          Spy Sats (Was: Are Landsat Satellites receivable?)
                   Titan or Bust! (Saturn Moon)...
              Virtual Reality research at NASA (2 msgs)
        Wouldn't an earth to moon shuttle be better than fred?

    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: 19 Feb 1993 16:57 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Update - 02/18/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from Neal Ausman, Galileo Mission Director

                                    GALILEO
                       MISSION DIRECTOR STATUS REPORT
                                  POST-LAUNCH
                           February 12 - 18, 1993

SPACECRAFT

1.  On February 15, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer
to 240 hours, its planned value during this mission phase.

2.  On February 16, the Low Gain Antenna (LGA-2) deploy/retract mini-sequence
was uplinked to the spacecraft without incident.  This mini-sequence includes
LGA-2 deploy/retract activities on February 17, 1993 and wobble identification
activities on February 25-26, 1993.  Additionally, Delayed Action Commands
(DACs) were sent to disable portions of the internal attitude control subsystem
fault protection prior to the deploy/retract activities and to re-enable FM 31
after the activities had completed.

3.  On February 17, the LGA-2 was deployed/retracted three times beginning at
1633 UTC and completing at 1723 UTC.  Real-time commands were then sent to
reacquire celestial reference at the completion of the star scanner checkout.

4.  On February 18, a permanent software patch was uplinked to the spacecraft
to fix the AACS (Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem) 12.0 flight
software design problem involving the improper setting of a crucial variable
needed to control the position of the scan platform.  The patch was uplinked
nominally.  This design problem was encountered during the AACS 12.0 inflight
load and reported initially in the Mission Director's Report
January 22-28, 1993.

5.  The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements have not exhibited significant change
(greater than 25 DN) throughout this period.  The AC measurement reads 20DN
(4.5 volts).  The DC measurement reads 139DN (16.3 volts).  These measurements
are consistent with the model developed by the AC/DC special anomaly team.

6.  The Spacecraft status as of February 18, 1993, is as follows:

       a)  System Power Margin -  71 watts
       b)  Spin Configuration - Dual-Spin
       c)  Spin Rate/Sensor - 3.15rpm/Star Scanner
       d)  Spacecraft Attitude is approximately 11 degrees
           off-sun (leading) and 7 degrees off-earth (leading)
       e)  Downlink telemetry rate/antenna- 1200bps(coded)/LGA-1
       f)  General Thermal Control - all temperatures within
           acceptable range
       g)  RPM Tank Pressures - all within acceptable range
       h)  Orbiter Science- Instruments powered on are the PWS,
           EUV, UVS, EPD, MAG, HIC, and DDS
       i)  Probe/RRH - powered off, temperatures within
           acceptable range
       j)  CMD Loss Timer Setting - 240 hours
           Time To Initiation - 233 hours


UPLINK GENERATION/COMMAND REVIEW AND APPROVAL:

1.  The LGA-2 deploy/retract mini-sequence memory load was approved for
transmission by the Project on February 16, 1993.  This sequence includes
Low Gain Antenna (LGA-2) deploy/retract activities on February 17, 1993, and
wobble identification activities on February 25-26, 1993.

2.  The EJ-1 (Earth-Jupiter #1) Final Profile Design was approved by the
Project on February 17, 1993.  This sequence covers spacecraft activities
from April 12, 1993 to June 14, 1993.


TRAJECTORY

     As of noon Thursday, February 18, 1993, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory
status was as follows:

    Distance from Earth         54,954,200 km (0.37 AU)
    Distance from Sun           201,645,400 km (1.35 AU)
    Heliocentric Speed          115,700 km per hour
    Distance from Jupiter       656,560,300 km
    Round Trip Light Time       6 minutes, 8 seconds


SPECIAL TOPIC

1.  As of February 18, 1993, a total of 65048 real-time commands have been
transmitted to Galileo since Launch.  Of these, 59958  were initiated in the
sequence design process and 5090 initiated in the real-time command process.
In the past week, 21 real time commands were transmitted: 6 were initiated in
the sequence design process and 15 initiated in the real time command process.
Major command activities included commands to reset the command loss timer,
uplink the LGA-2 deploy/retract mini-sequence load, disable/enable FM 31,
reacquire celestial reference, and uplink the AACS 12.0 flight software patch.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | If you don't stand for
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | something, you'll fall
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | for anything.

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

Date: 19 Feb 93 00:47:11 GMT
From: Paul Carter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Human distance record
Newsgroups: sci.space

Who holds the current record for being the furtherest away from Earth
(in terms of distance, not woolly headed-ness ! ) ?
Undoubtably, it's the crew of one of the Apollo missions, but which one ?

And when is it likely to be broken ?

--
     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: 19 Feb 1993 17:47:05 GMT
From: Jon Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA budget boosts technology, promises improved Space Station program [Release 93-32] (Forwarded)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter Yee) writes:
|>    NASA's new technology investment package will provide
|> significant funding aimed at new projects that could lower the cost of
|> space research, achieve demonstrable results sooner and are more
|> directly beneficial to the economy.    The new plan allows room in NASA's
|> budget for future enhancements to ongoing agency efforts in
|> aeronautics, human and robotic space flight and the transfer of
|> technology to new and existing industries.

    Does this press release have an English translation saying what's
getting axed and what added (besides Fred)?

    Jon ([e-mail])
    __@/

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

Date: 19 Feb 93 11:42:13 GMT
From: Del Cotter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Netiquette and sci.space
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>I thought this newsgroup was about science or space. Apparently its
>about netiquette.

*All* newsgroups are about netiquette.  The more people get it right, the
more profitably and enjoyably we can get on with talking about science and
space.

While we are on the subject, two things you should do:

1)  Use an appropiate subject line; 'sci.space' is unspecific and wastes the
time of a lot of people who did not want to read about netiquette (because
they already know it).

2) When following up someone else's posts, try not to start a brand new thread
(eg. if using 'trn', hit 'F' not 'f')


--
 ',' ' ',','  |                                                  |  ',' ' ',','
   ', ,','    |       Del Cotter       [e-mail]      |    ', ,','
     ','      |                                                  |      ','

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

Date: 18 Feb 1993 18:36 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>>You will recall that it was the tortise that won the race.
>
>>Yeah, but I also recall that it was a fairy tale. Apollo beat
>>the Soviets to the Moon as the hare playing catch up.
>
>The Moon...? Oh yes, that's that place we sent a few people to 20
>years ago. Meanwhile the tortise is learning far more than we know
>about living and working in space. The Hare thinks refueling monopropellent
>is too dangerous; the tortise does it all the time. The Hare minimized the
>EVA done because its too dangerous;

substitute lack of funding for dangerous and you will be far closer to the
mark Allen. What has happened to you? You used to be at least factual in
some of your refutations. Now it seems to win a point you must gerrymander
the "facts" to fit your politics.

 the tortise now does it as a matter
>of routine. The Hare has no plans for industrial material production
>in space; the tortise has been doing it experimentally for a few years
>now.

The US has been as well there Allen, it is a known fact that for all the
years that the Russians have been up there the have produced painfull little
for their efforts. Why do you ask? Because MIR is severely underpowered,
severely constrained by its inablility to reject heat from the station.

And this is what you want to replace SSF with?


 The Tortise has had a working space station for several years; the
>Hare has invested billions and years of time on bits of paper.
>

No the Russians have spent a lot of time in orbit. Whether their station
works or not is doubtful for the reasons stated above. There is a great
deal of difference in just being up there to fly the flag and going up there
to do real work and real research. The Russians acknowledge that we are
ahead of them in orbital materials processing and in medical knowledge when
you talk with them at conferences. How many professional conferences do you
 attend a year Allen? This is with much less time spent in orbit but with much
greater productivity per time spent up there. Losing SSF and gaining a Mir
will do nothing for the things that you profess to support.

>It may be a fairy tale but it looks to me like it is the Hare
>playing catch up.
>

You often of late have engaged in fairy tales Allen. You belittled materials
processing in space of late but now use it as a justification. You talk
about large structures in space and your desire to see us build them. Well
with a Mir type station well wil get nothing more than another spam in a can
station that will be a loser for us all.

>>There's no denying that. However that's been politically
>>impossible here.
>
>Then quit defending the status quo and change the politics.
>
>   Allen
>

Hey Allen we have been changing the politics. How about you.? We have been
lowering the cost of spaceflight by bidding and winning contracts that
perform at a lower cost than others. We have been doing our part. How about
you? I have challenged you time and time again to put up or shut up on
your ideas. Come on form a company now and put up your ideas for a new
station. Your ideas are so obiviously superior to NASA's that you are bound
to win.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 18 Feb 1993 19:00 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>Where do you get your information Allen that the original truss could not be
>>built in orbit?
>
>In 1989 after Congress mandated the redesign it became common knowledge. If
>you want a more recent source, a SSF engineer recently posted in sci.space
>that the truss wouldn't work. You recall he said he still can remember
>the day their chief enginner was told it wouldn't work.
>

I have never seen any post from an SSF engineer on the truss in the year
that I have been reading sci.space. As for the "common knowledge" I want
to see a source. send it to me on personal mail if you have to. In my opinion,
if the problem that you say is there was there, then there would have been
people screaming from the rooftops about it. Something stinks in that little
"confidential reporting"

>In addition, I and others where leaked some internal NASA documents
>showing that not only the truss but other parts as well coldn't be
>built.

well why don't you send the documents to the Washington post to bolster
your position. I am sure that since you are so well in the know about this
that you can work to kill SSF and push your own ideas by this move. To do
otherwise is criminal and is at odds with what you profess to be advocating.

>
>>You seem to spend a lot of time pushing the "fact" with not
>>engineering basis for it.
>
>As I said in the past, some of this comes from engineers who want to
>see an effective space station built but are distressed at NASA's
>attitude. Since these people are placing their jobs in jepordy by
>talking to me, I won't reveal names.

Allen on a daily basis I see more NASA engineers from more projects than
you do. I can guarantee you that. I work around engineers from package 1
and I spend several hours a week at Boeing right now, including spending
time with SSF engineers. I think that if what you say is true, I would have
heard something about it. The problems that I hear about more than any
are related to integration BUT they are being solved.
>
>Are you saying I am lying about this?
>

I am saying that you are being one heck of a lot less than truthful about
what you are saying. If what you are saying is true then don't you think
that others would take this "inside information" that you have and release
it to the press? Why is it that it is official NASA that comes out with all
of the problems? Why is it that NASA started scheduling more EVA after a mission
that you so derided?

NASA has one problem that I see every day and that is too much reliance on
simulation. This  is a heritage of our engineering schools that train
too many engineers to be mathmaticians and not enough of them bending metal.
And heck yes I am working to correct this by having over 100 students working
on our SEDSAT 1 project over the last four years and having volunteers from
industry that do too many paper studies help us and are glad for the experience.

>>I seem to remember a shuttle mission where a 90
>>foot section of the truss was built.
>
>I remember a mission a LONG time ago where a small section of truss
>was assembled. It wasn't 90 feet long and didn't include all the
>connections for power, cooling, data, and whatever.
>

Fraid you dont remember the mission too well. On top of that it is not
the utilities that you are railing about Allen it is the truss, which was
assembled with very little problems. Come on now be consistent with what
you are arguing against.

>The bottom line remains that it now looks like a problem area which
>NASA should have dealt with a decade ago.
>

I seem to remember that they dealt with it at the time pretty well. I agree
that the lack of a lot of EVA hurt but that is being rectified now so what
is your problem?

>>There seems to be a lot of talk about the Truss with little understanding
>>about what I buys.
>
>I know very well what it buys. The question (like for the rest of Fred) is
>if what we are buying is 1) worth the cost and 2) being bought for the
>lowest price. The answer for Fred seems to be 'no' to both questions.
>
>This doesn't mean we don't need a station, it simply means that fred
>isn't it.
>
>   Allen

What you you know about worth Allen? You were advocating a few messages ago
the building of large structures in space and deriding materials science.
You hate the truss that you don't know anything about as this post from you
shows and you are advocating an approach to procurement that simply does not
work as long as the General Services Administration has rule over the
procuremtn process. Heck yes SSF can be built cheaper. Get NASA some
independace from the bureaucrats and let them procure like a private business.

Why don't you start advocating things that will help like this instead of
anti-Nasa diatribes that serve no good.

I still challenge you to start that business because if you do what you
are so sure you are right about we will have the planet's best, cheapest
and most productive space program. This is not a taunt it is an iniviation
to just do it.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 17:36:36 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Allen I seriously question that you have ever worked on an R & D project.

I don't necessarily agree with a lot of what Allen says, but this sort
of thing is just a bit unnecessary.  Also a bit incorrect.

[Now perhaps you'd like to explain to me why you earlier capitalized
Engineer.  Is Engineer to engineer as God is to god?]

>>>So tell me, Mr. Sherzer, what is the REAL reason why you don't like NASA?
>>
>>Parts of NASA I like a lot. When I was in aerospace I read a lot of the
>>NASA aeronautical work. It was all first rate stuff and we are far better
>>for it. Manned space (which I think is very important) doesn't spend my
>>money very wisely. Examples abound; asside from Shuttle and Fred we
>>can look at:
>>

>Interesting that you are not in aerospace now. If you care so much about
>lowering the cost of spaceflight why don't you go back and show them how it
>is done?

I don't suppose it might be that he feels he can accomplish more doing
what he is doing, Dennis?

>>1. The wake shield facility. NASA cost models say it should cost $93 million
>>to build. A private company is building the exact same thing for $11 million.
>>

>Ever hear of the General Services Administration Allen? It controls ALL
>government procurment. If there is a hell on earth it is having to deal
>with GSA. The delays, the paperwork, the rules laid down by congress on
>procurement are abysmal.  Much contracting is done today simply to get
>beyond the labrinth and get the job done faster cheaper and better. Why
>don't you, (as the Administrator has), begin a call for procurement refore
>and a splitting away of NASA from GSA. This would do much to help NASA hold
>down costs and insure accountability, and bring valuable projects back within
>the walls of NASA where they belong.

Uh, Dennis?  Mr. Sherzer knows all this.  It would be hard for him not
to, since he used to work here.  Why do you presume total ignorance on
the part of anyone who disagrees with you?  Admittedly Allen does some
of the same thing, but he tends more to question competence and
motives (which I also disagree with) than he does simply assume people
are uninformed.

Note that GD testified before Congress that elimination of FARS only
dropped prices to about half what the government is currently being
charged.  If Allen's numbers are correct, there is extra cost in there
somewhere that looks to amount to at least another 3x over and above
FARS

>>
>>>Were you denied a job there?
>>
>>Never applied to NASA. I was offered a space station job (at a 15%
>>increase in pay) but turned it down. No, I'm not upset because I
>>didn't get a job.
>>

>Why did you not take it? Heck we could already had SSF in orbit and gone
>to Pluto now in the DC clipper with you there.

Perhaps he didn't take it because he prefers not to work on things he
doesn't believe are the right thing to be doing?

>As I have challenged you before and will again. Start a company, start
>bidding on NASA contracts, and with your vision, ideas, and cost cutting
>philosphy you will outdo Rockwell and Lockheed in five years. NASA must
>go for the low bidder by law. Like the commercial says Just Do IT!

Except for the loopholes that are often used to allow procurement 'in
house' instead of commercially.

--
"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: 19 Feb 93 17:13:59 GMT
From: Bob McGwier <tang!n4hy>
Subject: PEGASUS QUESTION
Newsgroups: sci.space

Henry says:

>I do get a definite impression that one reason OSC opted for air launch
>was to avoid the bureaucracy involved in building launch facilities at
>a place like the Cape or Vandenberg.

Bob says:

I know quite a few of the people at OSC and this was one of their
considerations.  Another more important one is dynamical considerations.
It is MUCH easier to maintain the stability of a vehicle that is already
moving and is effectively gliding that it is to stabilize a rocket in
vertical takeoff from a standing start.  This is intuitively obvious to
me at any rate.

Bob
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. McGwier                  | Bob's interests include amateur radio,
Institute for Defense Analyses     | astronomy, and golf (10 handicap fanatic)
Center for Communications Research | Asst. Scoutmaster BSA Troop 5700
Princeton, N.J. 08520              | [e-mail] (internet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 19 Feb 93 11:29:55 GMT
From: Del Cotter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Please edit the Newsgroups line!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel Burstein) writes:
>I'd just like to point out that this was a major feature in a story by
>(the late) Isaac Asimov titled "the Martian Way."  Basically, a group of
>humans stationed on Mars, worried that Earth will cut off their water
>supply, fly out to the asteroid belt, find a half-kilometer or so
>ice-based asteroid, insert a few rocket engines, and fly it back.

*Please* edit 'sci.materials' out of the Newsgroups line!  I *did* ask.

It should be obvious that this subthread is of no interest to materials folk.

--
 ',' ' ',','  |                                                  |  ',' ' ',','
   ', ,','    |       Del Cotter       [e-mail]      |    ', ,','
     ','      |                                                  |      ','

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

Date: 18 Feb 93 11:33:09 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: sci.space
Newsgroups: sci.space

Henry Spencer writes:
"... If you don't like it and want it to go away, the right thing
to do -- apart from possibly adding suitable items to your kill
file, if your newsreader supports one -- is to grit your teeth
and IGNORE IT.  It will die quickly if everyone just shuts up
about it.  ..."

I agree.  However, IMHO, in real life it doesn't work that way.
Take for example, the posts generated by McElwaine (I still don't
know his real title: B.S. Physicist, B. S. Astrominist, 1st ???).
I try to ignore him, but he continues to post that stuff.
Let's forget about this anonymous posting stuff and get back to
the real reason this newsgroup was created; discussions about
SPACE, the final frontier :-).

These opinions are mine and mine alone and nobody tells me what to
do, except my boss.

Eric Sappenfield
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 16:40:25 GMT
From: Martin Connors <[e-mail]>
Subject: Spy Sats (Was: Are Landsat Satellites receivable?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry
Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Martin Connors) writes:
> >Can anyone confidently tell me what is the best resolution
> >spy satellites can attain in practice in imaging the surface of the
Earth
> >(near sea level) and in what wavelength bands?
>
> We could tell you, but then we'd have to kill you. :-)
>
> Nobody who knows is going to be able to talk about it in public.  The
> very *name* of the National Reconnaissance Office was classified until
> quite recently, never mind technical details on the hardware they use.
>
> The diffraction limit will make it impossible to do better than a few
> centimeters with visible-light optics that fit in current launcher
> payload shrouds.

OK I will confess why I posted this. I saw Patriot Games (video) the other
days and found the portrayal of CIA operations using satellites
unrealistic to say the least. On the other hand that got me wondering what
the current limits are. Surely the diffration limit is by no means the
worst of the problems in imaging through the atmosphere. I heard through
the grapevine that there was an instance of imaging individual tiles on
the Space Shuttle, which is likely possible from a mountain site with
guide star techniques to correct atmospheric effects. But what would be
routinely visible to a spy sat looking down?
--
Martin Connors         |
Space Research         | [e-mail]  [phone]
University of Alberta  |

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

Date: 19 Feb 1993 17:33:14 GMT
From: "Kevin W. Plaxco" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Titan or Bust! (Saturn Moon)...
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

>Is there a planned mission to Titan in the near future??
>

Define "near future".  Due to what I consider exceptional
shortsightedness on the part of NASA, congress, or both,
we do not have anything like reasonable propulsive technology.
Cassini, if launched as schedualed, will cruise for most of
*SEVEN* years before reaching it's objective.  Don't hold your
breath waiting for photos of the methane swamps of Titan.  And
thank god I chose biochemistry over planetary sciences, I couldn't
bare the thought of pinning my entire career on a single spacecraft
that has (I can't emphasize this enough) *SEVEN* years in which
to breakdown before I see any data.

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

Date: 19 Feb 93 14:29:43 GMT
From: Elizabeth Buie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Virtual Reality research at NASA
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Ata Etemadi) writes:

>I have heard that at NASA there is ongoing research into VR. Anyone have
>any more information about what NASA or ESA are doing in this area ?

At NASA's Ames Research Center they are doing a number of projects
on VR.  One in particular that I know of is the Virtual Wind Tunnel.
You can contact Steve Bryson or Sam Uselton of Computer Sciences
Corporation ([e-mail] or [e-mail]) or Steve
Ellis of NASA (Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA  94035) for
more information.
--
Elizabeth Buie                      [e-mail]
Computer Sciences Corporation       [e-mail]
1100 West St.  Laurel, MD  20707    tel: [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 17:26:25 GMT
From: "Adam R. Brody " <[e-mail]>
Subject: Virtual Reality research at NASA
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Elizabeth Buie) writes:

>[e-mail] (Ata Etemadi) writes:

>>I have heard that at NASA there is ongoing research into VR. Anyone have
>>any more information about what NASA or ESA are doing in this area ?

>At NASA's Ames Research Center they are doing a number of projects
>on VR.  One in particular that I know of is the Virtual Wind Tunnel.
>You can contact Steve Bryson or Sam Uselton of Computer Sciences
>Corporation ([e-mail] or [e-mail]) or Steve
>Ellis of NASA (Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA  94035) for
>more information.
>--
>Elizabeth Buie                      [e-mail]
>Computer Sciences Corporation       [e-mail]
>1100 West St.  Laurel, MD  20707    tel: [phone]

I was working here for a few years in VR.  I was using the Virtual
Interactive Environment Workstation (VIEW) to test the ability
of using a hand-held thruster for EVA self-rescue.  I was an
end-user rather than a developer of VR.  There is also some work
on robot control, virtual audio environments, and force feedback.

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 04:23:35 GMT
From: Jeff Greason ~ <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wouldn't an earth to moon shuttle be better than fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert Ivan) writes:
>|>   I've been thinking about this space station buissness lately and although
>|> i am a fan, i wonder if its a waste of time.  Sure eventually a Space station
>|> would be nice but is it needed now ?
>|>
>|>   It seems to me that having a earth to moon shuttle would be a far more
>|> suitable use of resources. Something that could take a few people and cargo
...
>|>
>|  Somebody's going to argue that this requires tons of support equipment.
>|Well forget about a moon base at this point. Just build the dam truck.  If at
>|a later point a moon base is required it will come.  And then if there is the
>|> traffic then maybe an earth space station.
>|>

Careful.  This argument is essentially what got us the current Shuttle
design.  Originally Shuttle was part of "shuttle/station", part of a system,
in which it would be designed for a specific task, and do it well.

When it became clear Congress wouldn't fund both, Shuttle became the
"program in search of a mission", which produced the engineering nightmare
we have today, whose only real merit is that it exists (of course,
mechanical relay computers also exist, but nobody would argue that they
are desirable once you have transistors ...:-)

Speaking as an engineer, it is very, very difficult to produce a
satisfactory product is you haven't got a clear purpose for it!  If you have
a very vague idea about what it is for, you try and do enough things that
you'll hit it, and it is difficult to do them all well.  <note that
serendipity DOES apply -- it is common to design a system very well for one
purpose, and then have the customers use it for a completely different
purpose.  That's OK -- now you have a good idea of what they REALLY want>

Disclaimer:  All opinions expressed are my own, and do not reflect the
     position of Intel, Portland State University, or Zippy the Pinhead.
============================================================================
Jeff Greason                  "You lock the door ... And throw away the key.
  <[e-mail]>   There's someone in my head, but it's not me."
  <[e-mail]>                -- Pink Floyd

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


Received: from VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU by isu.isunet.edu (5.64/A/UX-2.01)
    id AA18988; Sat, 20 Feb 93 10:48:39 EST
Received: from crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu by VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
          id aa09003; 20 Feb 93 10:45:47 EST
To: [e-mail]
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!wupost!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!ira.uka.de!gmd.de!dearn!esoc!hschneid
Organisation: European Space Operation Centre (E.S.O.C)
Date: Friday, 19 Feb 1993 08:49:55 CET
From: Hermann Schneider <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject:    ESA press release 5.93
Lines: 50
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]



    Press Release Nr.05.93
    Paris, 17 February 1993

    HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE SERVICING MISSION
    JOINT ESA/BAE UK TECHNICAL PRESS BRIEFING
    Wednesday 10 March 1993

    On Wednesday 10 March 1993 astronauts from ESA and NASA will
    be at British Aerospace Space Systems Limited, Filton, Bristol,
    UK, training on the replacement set of solar arrays which they are
    scheduled to fit to the Hubble Space Telescope at year end.

    You are invited to attend a technical briefing on that day, which
    will be given by senior representatives of the European Space
    Agency and British Aerospace. The briefing will include details of
    the design modifications and status of the solar arrays, together
    with a brief overview of the scientific results already achieved by
    the teams of astronomers using the telescope. There will be an
    opportunity for interviews with the mission specialists in the crew
    of NASA's Space Shuttle flight STS-61, who will be carrying out
    the servicing mission for the Hubble Space Telescope in a series
    of "Extra-Vehicular Activities - EVA' (space-walks). Five
    astronauts are expected : Story Musgrave, Colonel Tom Akers,
    Jeffrey A. Hoffman, Kathryn C. Thornton from NASA and Claude
    Nicollier from ESA. There will also be a chance to view the solar
    arrays in the British Aerospace clean room area where the
    astronauts are working on their familiarisation programme.

    The briefing will take place on Wednesday 10 March 1993 at British
    Aerospace Space Systems, Filton, Bristol, UK (on the northern
    outskirts of the city of Bristol). The event will begin at 10h30
    a.m. and end with a buffet lunch running from approximately
    01h30 p.m. to 02h30 p.m.

    In order to assists with arrangements for travel to and from
    bristol, British Aerospace proposes to run a free coach from and
    to London Victoria Coach Station - if there proves to be sufficient
    press interest. This coach would depart from London at
    approximately 07h50 a.m. and arrive back at around 05h30 p.m.
    Further details will be available on request when numbers are
    known.

    In order to gain access to the site and the briefing it is essential
    that all attendees are expected and their names are provided in
    advance. Please let us know by returning the attached fax form as
    soon as possible and by Friday 26 February at the latest if you or
    a colleague will be attending this briefing.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 206
------------------------------