Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_2/v16no208.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 34KB

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 05:35:06
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #208
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 21 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 208

Today's Topics:
                       >>>>>Question about FRED
                             Ada in space
                      A response from Anonymous
                        Canadian SSF effort ??
                             F-1 history
                     Funny name for HST (2 msgs)
                         Galileo Uplink Rate
                  Getting people into Space Program!
                   Mars Observer Update - 02/19/93
                    Mars Rescue Mission, what if!
                  Measurement units for SSF and SSTO
                       Nobody cares about Fred?
Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed (2 msgs)
                     Return to the Moon campaign
             Spacewalk added to April Space Shuttle flig

    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 93 08:50:13 GMT
From: Mark Smilor <[e-mail]>
Subject: >>>>>Question about FRED
Newsgroups: sci.space

    I have two simple question concerning the price tag of Fred.

    1) NASA said that it would have cost $36 Billion for the Fred.  My
Question is what exactly does that figure include?  Is it just hardware, or is
this R&D, launch costs, etc, as well?

    2) My second question is could a private US corporation do a similar
space station (ie. size, mass, functions, power level, etc) for a significantly
smaller price, like $4 billion ?

    I would appreciate any information and if you have some evidence that
I could read I would greatly appreciate it.

    Thanks

    Ms

***************************************************************************

Mark Smilor
[e-mail]


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

Date: 19 Feb 1993 17:35:56 -0500
From: Bill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ada in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

I am looking for opinions about the usefulness of Ada in the space program.  Do
programmers like to program in Ada?  Why/not?  Does Ada's future in the space
industry look promising or bleak?  If you have an opinion/fact that you think
I could use, please E-mail me since I don't really want to sift through the net
looking for responses.  After all, my report is due soon....

Later and thanx in advance...

        Bill

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

Date: 19 Feb 93 01:36:01 GMT
From: Dave Ratcliffe <frackit!dave>
Subject: A response from Anonymous
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (8 February 1993) writes:
>
> While the reactions in this newsgroup is slightly
> more subdued, the effect is virtually the same
> as the torch-bearers storming the castle in
> sci.space -- a several contributors here think that
> banning anonymous posts to technical groups
> is a good idea.

What possible need would someone have for posting anonymously to a sci.*
group?

> Why is this?  Certainly most readers are adult and
> are able to hit 'N' (or whatever on VMS systems)
> when reading material they find 'incorrect' or, in
> their opinion, tasteless.

Sure most adults are willing to post under their own names. Why would
they want to hide behind an anonymous posting service? Ashamed of what
they have to say or just trying to rile people without fear of being
identified?

> No.  I think the fundamental issue here is control.

Now where have I heard THAT claim before.... Didn't take you long to
drag out the old 'control' bugaboo did it.

> Some Usenet contributors are afraid of losing control over others who
> disagree with them, especially disagree with them in way they don't
> understand, such as tasteless satire, seemingly off topic references and
> other drollery.  It doesn't seem "quite right" to them: it's the
> Hofstadter's cartoon character tweaking them from another frame.

Horse hockey. No control exists now. You're just afraid to post that
tasteless satire, seemingly off topic references and other drollery
under your real name. With anonymity comes deniability.

> The controllers don't know what to do with it, so they
> become anxious, posting notes to this group on the
> 'inherent evil' of anonymous postings.

I guess anyone who is against anonymous posting is an evil controller in
your mind.

> What is the evil?  I am responsible.  That is, I will
> response to sensible questions or comments.  I am
> also accountable:

You are not everyone. Others have and will use anonymous posting to do
anything they feel like doing knowing there is precious little
accountability for it. As I said in a previous posting, it's just like
CB radio. People get away with murder there. I don't want to see Usenet
turned into CB radio.

> if I post passwords or Secret Research Plans, the administrator of
> penet.fi will surely turn his e-mail racords over to the authorities.

What authorities? Usenet is worldwide.  The list of possible applicable
authorities is endless. Violations of law in one place may well be
perfectly ok in other places. Which law should penet.fi adhere to?
Finnish law? OK, that means that people using the anonymous posting
facilities can do something that violates the law elsewhere with
impunity. I don't think that's right, do you?

>So, again, what is the *real* problem?

That you hide behind an anonymous posting. What are YOU afraid of?

> Is the problem that some are used to "punishing" posters who are
> upsetting in some vague way by complaining to the (usually acquiescent)
> sysadmin or organizations that the poster belongs to? That surely is the
> most gutless approach to solving problems,

About as gutless as posting with no accountability under an anonymous
account.

> but my experience on the net

This oughtta be good....

> shows that the same users who vilify anonymous postings are the first to
> write obsessively detailed grievances to the poster's supervisor when
> his or her tranquility is disturbed by some "intrusive" or subversive
> post or another.

You have read a lot of SysAdmin's and supervisors mail to prove this
assertion? Just how many of these people have you spoken to to gather
this information? Back up your claims.

> Anonymous postings prevent just this kind of intimidation.

And as a side effect you get to do anything you want without anyone
knowing just who you are. Gee. Isn't that nice.

> The poeple who decry anonymous postings are the real desperadoes who
> fear for the stability of their gang cartels.  Of *course* they fear the
> introduction of the anonymous Colt, the great equalizer.

Thank you Dr. Freud. Can we get up off the couch now?

> The settling of cyberspace will require new habits of thought from the
> hierarchicalists: thoughts as expressed as postings are to be judged by
> content and internal merit, if any, rather than on the trappings of
> affiliations or other hoopla or fanfare.

Besides, you can say anything you want and nobody knows who you are.

You seem to enjoy accusing everyone of being insecure, paranoid control
freaks. At the same time you choose to support the fact that people have
yet another way to avoid accountability for their actions. Wonderful.
Anonymous posting have their place in CERTAIN groups. If I or anyone
else needs to tell you what those groups are then you've been on another
planet breathing exotic gases for too long. Sci.space certainly is NOT
one of those groups. I did not see the Challenger  posting that
apparently started this whole broohaha but I have seen enough to know
that this anonymous posting service is already being used for the wrong
purpose.

I see no reason to believe it will get any better.

> Warning: this is an anonymous posting.  If pasted into a TCB or Security Kernel

[ ... remainder mercifully excised ... ]

This was MAYBE cute the first time. Repeating it was totally
unnecessary. I have no doubt you'll probably do it again. Please resist
the temptation. 96 lines of garbage is a total waste to everyone.

--
 vogon1!compnect!frackit![e-mail]            |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 - or - ..uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave                      |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
                                                         | Harrisburg,  Pa. |

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 21:43:45 GMT
From: "Kieran A. Carroll" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Canadian SSF effort ??
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rohit Sharma) writes:
>>Does anyone know what's going to happen regarding the C S A effort towards
>>SSF now that it's been cancelled (eh!) ????           ^^^^^
>>                                                    Canadian Space Agency
>
>I think it's pretty safe to assume that the CSA themselves haven't figured
>this out yet.
>
>Clinton's probably just made some enemies at ESA, JSA, and CSA.  They've
>been angry enough when previous changes to Fred were made without any
>attempt to consult them, and now this...
>
>Unless this is handled very skillfully indeed, NASA is going to have real
>trouble lining up international "partners" for future projects.

The rumours have suggested that part of the Administration's
NASA budget request for 1994 will be money for SSF termination
liabilities. Canada has put somewhere between $500M and $1 Billion
into developing MSS; if the Clinton space station has no place for
MSS, I wonder how much of that cost he's going to be willing
to refund to Canada? Even if the new design will include some
sort of an RMS, it'll be likely that the current SSRMS will have to be
redesigned somewhat. Will Clinton pay us for the incremental design
costs?
--

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll [e-mail]

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

Date: 19 Feb 93 18:37:31 GMT
From: Gary Hughes - VMS Development <[e-mail]>
Subject: F-1 history
Newsgroups: sci.space

Random F-1 factoid... apparently the application used to justify the F-1
project when it was under USAF was that it was needed to build ballistic
suborbital troop carriers.

gary

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

Date: 19 Feb 93 22:37:06 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Funny name for HST
Newsgroups: sci.space

Pat ([e-mail]) wrote:

: Ken

:     Why isn't the HST mission carrying the EDO pallet.  Given the
: problems on the Intelsat mission, I'd think an extra week of hang time
: may come in handy.  Carry spare suits, bring along a bunch of fabricating
: materials,  god knows, what they may need up there.  IS there a weight
: problem?

Yes, mass is an issue.  Note the extreme altitude.  This is the highest
non-classified Shuttle flight I can recall.  If you're really curious,
I could ask the Flight Integration Manager (FIM) what drove the manifest.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "...Development of the space station is as inevitable as
      the rising of the sun." -- Wernher von Braun

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

Date: 19 Feb 1993 15:47:36 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Funny name for HST
Newsgroups: sci.space

Ken

    Why isn't the HST mission carrying the EDO pallet.  Given the
problems on the Intelsat mission, I'd think an extra week of hang time
may come in handy.  Carry spare suits,  bring along a bunch of fabricating
materials,  god knows, what they may need up there.  IS there a weight
problem?

pat

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

Date: 19 Feb 93 23:55:25 GMT
From: "Kevin W. Plaxco" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Uplink Rate
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:

[ most of mars observer update deleted]

>uplink and downlink via the High Gain Antenna; uplink at 125 bps,
>downlink at the 4 K Science and Engineering data rate.

My understanding is that this type of ratio between uplink and
downlink is typical--caused, no doubt, by the presence of
such exotica as He cooled maser amplifiers in the DSN ground
stations.  As the uplink doesn't contain any science data, the
descrepancy in rates isn't a problem. Commands aren't all that
long.

But not all that long at 125 bps is a hell of a long time at far
less than 10bps.  If the Galileo downlink is only 10 bps (or, hopefully,
40 bps due to DSN improvements) at Jupiter, what is the uplink
rate, and how will that effect engineering?

Or are they going to use the probe reciever now and then to uplink
from earth?

-Kevin

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

Date: 19 Feb 1993 15:19:16 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Rickel) writes:
|
|In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
||> BUt the X-15 was a massive success, for a very difficult problem
||> and it delivered a functionally operational spacecraft.
|
|Hmm.  Stretching a bit, i think, to call the X-15 an operational spacecraft.
|NASA gave the X-15 pilots (well, some of them) astronaut's wings, but the
|craft never came close to orbital velocity.  I doubt (but could well be
|wrong) that the X-15 could have survived reentry from orbit.
|
|I've heard that there were plans to launch a derivative into orbit.
|
|
|david rickel
|[e-mail]


I use operational in the sense, that you could hop in, gas up and fly
on a reliable planned basis.  Missions were sortied almost on a weekly
basis(really every few weeks)  over a multi year plan.

No, the 15 was orbital, but it could and did cross the "Space"
boundary on numerous missions.    It had an operational
level good enough that it could almost fly military Missions.
If you had a missile or platform you wanted to carry up that
high.

pat

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

Date: 19 Feb 1993 22:32 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 02/19/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from the Mars Observer Project

                        MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT
                             February 19, 1993
                               1:30 PM PST

Flight sequence C7 B is active.  The Flight Team reports that spacecraft
subsystems and the instrument payload are performing nominally.  The
spacecraft is in Array Normal Spin in outer cruise configuration, with
uplink and downlink via the High Gain Antenna; uplink at 125 bps,
downlink at the 4 K Science and Engineering data rate.

The Payload Data System is active and the Gamma Ray Spectrometer is
taking calibration data.

Yesterday's status report stated that the Flight Software Build 8.0 Design
Review which took place this morning was the Final Review.  In fact,
today's review was the Preliminary Design Review.  Flight Software
engineers presented their rationale for changes in the Flight Software to
the Mission Manager, the Flight Engineering Office Manager and various FEO
team members, and Flight Operations Office management.

The selection of the Power-In maneuver Aim Point was made today,
finalizing the overall maneuver design process.  The Power-In maneuver, so
named by the burn of bi-propellant powered thrusters required to perform
it, is being undertaken to shorten the length of time between the Mars
Orbit Insertion maneuver and achievement of the desired orbit for Mapping
activities to begin.  Utilization of Power-In will allow more time for
successful deployment of the spacecraft into the mapping configuration
prior to the beginning of the command moratorium during solar
conjunction.  Science will be able to advance the start of the mapping
phase, allowing clear observations of the planet surface before the
beginning of the Martian dust storm season which begins just after solar
conjunction.  Science data will be acquired for one complete mapping cycle
prior to solar conjunction.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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 1993 15:43:34 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Rescue Mission, what if!
Newsgroups: sci.space

Zubrins Mars Direct Proposal calls for a redundant stage/supply dump
system.

Send a fuel factory/ supply dump ahead where it makes fuel
for two years.  then  Send another fuel factory and supply vehicle
along with the astronauts.

Tha astronauts attempt a precision landing at factory 1.
If they make it. great  put the other one  somewhere within 400
miles of their current base.

If they miss, by a small amount, they travel to the dump
by crawler.

If they miss by a large amount,  they land the second factory
at their location.

If they miss by a small amount, they travel to the dump by crawler.

If both fail,  they weather in, and radio for an emergency launch of
another factory ship.

Viking made precision landings using on board computers,  I
imagine, this plan should work fine.

Now for a medical emergency, they just have to cope. llike
the military and the pioneers.

Amundsen spent 6? years in the northwest passage.

pat

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

Date: 19 Feb 93 17:35:32
From: "Steven J. Edwards" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Measurement units for SSF and SSTO
Newsgroups: sci.space

As has been reported before, all of the previous incarnations of Space
Station Freedom used the old English measument system instead of SI
(metric).  Is the new design incarnation still going to be measuring
both force and mass in pounds?  Is the truss (if present) still going
to measured in feet?  Will the perigee and apogee still be given in
nautical miles?  (Sailing, sailing, over the bounding main ...)  I
have heard that NASA has thought that teaching SI to the current
astronaut corps is "too demanding".  Golly, if it meant a chance at
going into space, I'd learn Sumerian clay cuniform notation if it were
needed.  If NASA is worried about contractor upgrade and conversion
costs, the questions are "if not now, then when?" and "if not the US
contractor community, then who?".

Some of the SSTO documents posted to this newsgroup also gave
specification measurements in units of pounds and feet.  I hope that
this isn't what's on the blueprints.

If the above projects are intended for the 21st century, then it seems
doubtful that they should use a measument system that is already out
of date now in the 20th century.

If the above projects are intended to be used by the international
community, then it seems doubtful that they should use a measurement
system employed only by old timers in a single country.  This is
doubly true if hardware contributions are also expected from other
countries.

 [The above opinions expressed are my own; not necessarily held by others.]
      == Steven J. Edwards           Bull HN Information Systems Inc. ==
      == [phone]              300 Concord Road         MS 820A ==
      == [e-mail]     Billerica, MA 01821          USA ==
"That Government which Governs the Least, Governs Best." -- Thomas Jefferson

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

Date: 19 Feb 93 23:01:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes...
>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?]
>

Oh well so I went overboard on this one. I get real tired of hearing things
like Allen's post (oh I have a source but I can't tell you because of...)

No I capitalized engineer because if you look real close at my posts I have
a bad habit of random capitalization.


>>>>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?
>

What I Allen doing? I am speaking in directed regard to the space program.
I see his "Space Activist Newsletter and it is better than his off the cuff
posts but still there is a persuasive anti-NASA bias to it without showing
how, why, when and where of how he would make it better. To stand on the
sidelines and holler is no better at best than monday morning quarterbacking.
If you are not part of the action you cannot understand all of the ramifications
of decisions that are made and why they are made and what can be done to
correct them.

>>>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.
>

If Allen knows this then there is a very good precidence of saying, "Well
why don't we take and fund government efforts through private institutions
such as SSI and others that would spring up (maybe even one that he would
found) to do the work without the goverment red tape. If private industry
is such a balm to getting the job done, then there is no reason for
massive overruns and failed businesses as we saw for years in the basic
industries of the Country. A case in point is Rockwell's contract for the
Shuttle Endeavour. Congress Allocated the money that Rockwell said it would
cost for a new orbiter. Rockwell who is micromanaged by NASA as much as
it is for any other program completed the orbiter on time and under budget.
This does not answer fully what you seem to imply there that in no way can
government do a job for what they say they can but if you free up procurment
and you give an agency the money that the originally request for a project
to do the project and then leave them alone, then many times the job is
done on time and on or under budget. An unfortunate but true fact in most
of the industry is that companies low ball a contract to win it and then
cry for more money later. However this is far more prevalent in the
military than for NASA but it is all to existant there as well.


>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

Well heck a 50% drop in the price is a great place to start. This is
wonderful information. Why don't you and why dosen't Allen scream from
the rooftops of the savings to be had to do this instead of blaming
NASA for all of the problems and overruns.

>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>

I hope you do not confuse the above statement with me. I did not post that
particular one. I think that probably in his sphere of endeavor Allen is
quite competent. It is just when he begins to arm chair Von Braun every
decision of NASA that he steps beyond his area of competence.


>>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?
>

This was an intended scarcasm on my part. Well I get mad when someone
talks about all of the bad things going on without the nerve to get in there
in the trenches and do something postive to fix the situation. I agree that
sometimes an outside observers position is a valuable one. It is just that
in my opinion Allen has breached the bounds by a wide margin of the role of
observer and has degenerated into an partially unfounded attack, that
by the content of his posts, he does not understand either the underlying
biases that guide his post or, he does it with the intention to wound without
then quantifiying or qualifying what he would do to improve the process or
machines to get the job in space done.

>>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.

I have seen so many times that NASA in house does a better job than the
contractors do out of house. I have seen many times that due to inadequate
procurement penalties for non-performance for bad work, that the guys at
NASA have to make the promised delivery work after it is recieved in a
non-working or marginally working condition.

As to the challange, it is perfectly valid. That is what we here are doing
at the UAH CCDS and even in our student group. We compete with professional
companies in the IN STEP NASA program process and we win contracts. We do
unsolicited proposals in our student group that gain us contracts due to the
hard work we put in and the quality of the experimentation that we do.
We have even aided corporations gain contracts by our ideas that enable them
to perform the contracts that they get better and cheaper than their rivals.

This is from experience and is not one whit of diatribe and really and truely
it is not an attack on Allen. I have sent him personal e-mail telling him
the how to's and why's of how we have saved NASA litterally tens of millions
of dollars, while helping NASA to advance their own technology. This is not
a joke it is not verbal abuse heaped on someone, that in the end I respect
for at least getting out there and opening himself to verbla machete attacks,
we have been doing what I challenge Allen to do, we have done it successfully
and are doing more and more of it and if you don't watch out we will one
day outdo the big boys in space.

All I want is for those who do attack, to back it up or make it better
by entering the fray or back of and let us do it.


Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 20:09:34 GMT
From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed
Newsgroups: sci.space

That would be "Fredii", then?  (Pronounced "Freddy", of course.)
--
Mark Brader, Toronto            "Don't be silly -- send it to Canada"
utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]                 -- British postal worker

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

Date: 19 Feb 1993 18:10:59 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed
Newsgroups: sci.space

SO if we re-do SSF , how should we do it.

Are trusses inherently more costly and problematic?
certainly it allows larger growth.

Should we look at something made from ETclusters along
with Pre-built modules and inflatable zones?

Should we look at higher altitudes and and steeper inclination orbits?

If we went to 48?? degrees, we could still launch from KSC
yet also get Russian access for not a lot of cost?

I do like the idea of a 4.8 billion dollar go
certainly that's a much more do-able and defendable figure.

Will NASA also look at SSTO? Well, if they have a one-year
re-design time, by then DC-X will be deep into it's test regime.
I guess then would be the time to look at things.

pat

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

Date: 18 Feb 93 20:03:22 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Return to the Moon campaign
Newsgroups: sci.space

       "Return to the Moon" Campaign Begins in Southern California
-
        Heeding the call of NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin for a
"better, faster, cheaper" space program, two southern California
chapters of the National Space Society plan to unveil the initial draft
of a new approach to lunar exploration at an upcoming event in
Riverside. During a presentation to be held on Saturday, February 27
at 2:30 pm at the Riverside Library, located at 3581 7th Street in
downtown Riverside, OASIS and the Inland Empire Space Group will
provide the details of their plan to introduce the Back to the Moon
bill, formally known as the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act, during
the 103rd Congress.
        The Back to the Moon bill would authorize the Federal
government to purchase lunar science data from private vendors
selected on the basis of competitive bidding.  It is expected that
this new concept will result in more economical lunar missions,
allowing the United States to restart its lunar exploration program,
stalled since 1972.
        The National Space Society, formed from the merger of the
National Space Institute and the L5 Society, is based in
Washington, DC, and maintains an international membership of over
24,000. Its chairman is former Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin.
        For more information please call: David Anderman,
Executive Vice-President of OASIS, the greater Los Angeles
chapter of the National Space Society, at  714/524-1674, or
David Bliss, President of the Inland Empire Space Group, at
909/689-3306.


--- Maximus 2.01wb

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

Date: 19 Feb 93 22:52:18 GMT
From: John E Childers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Spacewalk added to April Space Shuttle flig
Newsgroups: sci.space

Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of NC at Charlotte
Lines: 40
Nntp-Posting-Host: ws161.uncc.edu
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Peter Yee) writes:
>Ed Campion
>Headquarters, Washington, D.C.            February 17, 1993
>(Phone:  [phone])
>
>James Hartsfield
>Johnson Space Center, Houston
>(Phone:  [phone])
>
>RELEASE:  93-31
>
>SPACEWALK ADDED TO APRIL SPACE SHUTTLE FLIGHT
>
>     A spacewalk has been added to Space Shuttle mission STS-57 aboard
>Endeavour, set for an April launch, as part of a series of spacewalk tests NASA
>will conduct during the next three years to prepare for the construction and
>maintenance of Space Station Freedom.
>
>     The main objectives of the STS-57 mission are to retrieve the
>European Retrievable Carrier (EURECA) deployed during a Shuttle flight in
>August 1992 and to conduct research in the Spacehab module which more
>than doubles the amount of middeck research locker space aboard the
>orbiter.
>


Since the Spacehab module sits in the cargobay over the airlock hatch,
will the Spacehab have to be depressurized for the spacewalk or does it
have some type of crawlway and multiple hatches to avoid exposing those
experiments to zero pressure?



John Childers                            | Voting for Clinton may have been
University of North Carolina at Charlotte| a mistake, but voting for Bush or
Electrical Engineering Department        | Perot would have been just as
Charlotte NC 28223                       | big a mistake. :-(
Internet? Try [e-mail]   |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer?  Does anyone on usenet ever offically speak for their computer?

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 208
------------------------------