Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_2/v16no279.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Sat,  6 Mar 93 05:10:12
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #279
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat,  6 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 279

Today's Topics:
                   Alternative space station power
                           Aurora (rumors)
                        Getting people into S
                          Is Columbus sunk?
                        Japan's space program
                    Magellan Venus Globe Animation
                   Mars Observer Update - 03/04/93
                      NASP (was Re: Canadian SS
Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed (3 msgs)
            Scientists Foresee Strengthening El Nino Event
                       Solar Panels Falling Off
                             Son of NASP
                    Spaceflight for under $1,000?
                           Space Scientist
           SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?)
         unnecceary violence (was: Nobody cares about 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: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 14:57:04 GMT
From: Brad Whitehurst <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alternative space station power
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>ac.nz>
>Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
>Lines: 20
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Hugh Emberson) writes:
>>>... Point one conductor at the sun
>>>(the other one is then in shadow) and run a thermocouple between the
>>>conducting plates. [...]
>>
>>HS> I doubt it very much.  Have you *looked* at thermocouple
>>HS> efficiencies?  They are, roughly speaking, terrible...
>>
>>Someone once told me about this solid state heat pump that worked
>>using some quantum magic, "Peltier effect" I think.  You pass a
>>current through it and it moves heat from one side to the other.
>>Does anyone know if you can run one of these things backwards?  Stick
>>something hot on one side and something cold on the other and get
>>electricity out.
>
>Yes, you can, but "Peltier effect" is a fancy term for "thermocouple
>run backwards", so we're not talking about anything new.
>--
    In fact, there are small commercial refrigerators for camping
and boating (12 volt) using this effect.  Also, someone makes "cold
caps" using Peltier coolers for hot-running, high speed (over-speed?)
Intel 486 CPUs, if I remember correctly.
--

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
[e-mail] |   We like it hot...and fast.

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

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 93 14:58:42 GMT
From: Dean Adams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aurora (rumors)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:
 >>I was answering these guys who wrongly said that the noise was
 >>>not a problem. (J. Pharabod)
 >>Well, they were not wrong to say that.  There is no reason to
 >>believe that noise is a problem when one of these aircraft is
 >>at an operational altitude.
 >But that was not what they said ! They said that the plane was going
 >so fast that it would be far away when the noise would reach the ground.
 >They did not say that it would be so high that nobody would hear it.

That was someone replying to your erroneous posting about how "noise" was
such a big problem, so the response was based on your context.  It almost
sounds like you now trying to use that as some sort of "evidence" ??

 >>>If Aurora were 100,000 ft up over Los Angeles
 >> It would not be that high.  More like half that, or maybe less.
 >Do you mean that, if Aurora were 100,000 ft up over Los Angeles, it
 >would be unable to reach safely Tonopah (or Groom Lake) and land there?
Groom...

I was saying that it would not likely be flying at 100K feet when over L.A.
and we know for a fact that it wasn't anywhere close to that height during
the "booms".  IF for some reason "Aurora" was at 100 over L.A., it could
certainly find a "safe" way to land.  The point is that there would be
no REASON for flying that high when coming in for a landing...

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

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 14:51:52 GMT
From: Brad Whitehurst <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into S
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roland Dobbins) writes:
...[Repetitious repost]...
>As I recall, that particular lifting body was called the HL-10, and it
>was most certainly _not_ designed *not* to fly . . . .
>
>---
> . Orator V1.13  .  [Windows Qwk Reader Unregistered Evaluation Copy]
>
    Roland!  (Or Somebody!)  Your needle is
stuck..stuck..stuck..stuck......
I hope these reposts are a software problem and not intentional, but
PLEASE shut 'em off!

--

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
[e-mail] |   We like it hot...and fast.

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

Date: 4 Mar 93 16:06:13 GMT
From: Titch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is Columbus sunk?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:
> BH>What's the message here?  If Clinton kills Fred, Columbus is sunk?
>
> I suspect that Columbus could be sent into a 51 degree orbit
> in case of no America station being available.

I read today that the ESA is definitely considering a cooperative venture
with the Russians: Columbus could be heading for the Mir-2 spacestation.

-Rich.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Rich Browning ([e-mail])   *  ASTRO SCOOP! ASTRONUT TO LAND ON SUN!
Department of Computer Science    * "I've got it all worked out," says Jim
University of Brighton            * Biggles, "I'm landing at night!".
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 23:20:55 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Japan's space program
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:

>[e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:

>>>Folks, If you don't know, don't speculate.  Henry will explain eventually :-)

>>Why not, as long as it is *plainly marked* as speculation rather than
>>claims of knowledge?

>If you don't know the answer and it's likely that someone else does, then
>speculation rarely adds to the conversation.  Given the way many people use
>language and memory, it can easily detract from the conversation.  Speculation
>is great for brain storming and I've seen some great ideas come out of it.
>However, this was a library question (i.e. there's a fairly simple, correct
>answer available if you know where to look) so speculation just wastes
>bandwidth and confuses people.

Something clearly labelled as speculation "confuses people"?  Only
those who are confused by things like shoelaces, I would think.  If
someone says, "Perhaps it . . . " I generally assume that's
sspeculation.

So your only argument comes down to the old canard about "bandwidth".
Oddly, more of that gets wasted by people complaining about wasting it
than is generally wasted by the people accused of same.

--
"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: 5 Mar 93 08:18:55 GMT
From: David G Metzger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Venus Globe Animation
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>                       ================================
>                        MAGELLAN VENUS GLOBE ANIMATION
>                                March 1, 1993
>                       ================================
>
>     A Venus Globe animation has been released by the Magellan project, and
>is available at the Ames Space Archives.  The animation consists of 72
>frames derived from data from the Magellan CD-ROMs, and has been converted to
>different formats so that it can be run on the IBM PC and Macintosh computers.

 [...]

>     ___    _____     ___
>    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
>    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
> ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | It's kind of fun to do
>/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | the impossible.
>|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | Walt Disney
>

    Thanks so much for making this available.  Viewers might want to try
putting a dark filter over the left eye for a 3D image, thanks to the
Pulfrich effect.  The faster the rotation, the more pronounced the effect.
A lens from a pair of sunglasses is often sufficient. I found that a blue
filter worked well.


--

                                    Dave Metzger
                                    [e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Mar 1993 23:17 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 03/04/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from the Mars Observer Project

                     MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT
                           March 4, 1993
                            3:00 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 Gamma Ray
Spectrometer is taking calibration data.

DSS-15 (Goldstone 34 meter antenna) has been unavailable for tracking
for the last 2 scheduled passes due to pointing hardware problems.
Current estimates for earliest availablity is 10:00 PM this evening.
Flight Operations is working to extend scheduled DSS-45 (Canberra 34
meter antenna) coverage for purposes of gathering additional tracking
data for Navigation and Spacecraft team maneuver development inputs.

Navigation and Spacecraft teams continue final parameter development to
update Flight Sequence C8 for performance of Trajectory Correction
Maneuver 3, scheduled for March 18.  The Maneuver Performance Data File
meeting is scheduled for 9:00 AM Friday.  The TCM-3 velocity change will
be approximately one half meter per second, and will be performed
utilizing the 22 Newton thrusters, rather than the larger 490 Newton
units used for earlier corrections.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | It's kind of fun to do
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | the impossible.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | Walt Disney

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 23:28:11 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASP (was Re: Canadian SS
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Mary Shafer) writes:
>
> NASP, which is a single-stage-to-orbit airbreathing horizonal-takeoff
> vehicle, is not a transport aircraft.  It's probably dead.  Physics
> has apparently finally reared its ugly head and driven a stake through
> the heart of the program.  About time....

I'm amazed that the NASP was even funded.  Back in 1978, the American Institute
of Aeronautics (Technical Committee on Space Systems) concluded that:

  "One advanced Earth-to-orbit transportation concept employs a hypersonic
   airbreathing launch platform using supersonic combustion ramjet ("scramjet")
   propulsion combined with a rocket second stage which ascends to orbit.
   It has been shown that such concepts are not economically competitive
   with SSTO vehicles as space launchers unless the high costs of developing
   and operating large scramjet platforms can be defrayed substantially by
   sharing with various atmospheric cruise missions.  Practical "commality"
   or multipurpose use has been historically rare, so some form of SSTO
   vehicle will remain the most promising approach to economical Earth-to-
   orbit transportation for some time to come."

  "Rapidly evolving vehicle concepts and technologies point to the feasibility
   of fully reusable Earth-to-orbit vehicles, including single-stage-to-orbit
   (SSTO) transports, by the early 1990's.  Such vehicles could reduce
   Earth-to-orbit transportation costs below those of the present shuttle by
   factors of 50 or more, to below $5 per kilogram in orbit.  The key
   technologies are high-pressure and dual-fuel propulsion, low-mass cold
   and hot vehicle structures, reusable thermal protection systems, and new
   areodynamic concepts.  These growing technologies should be supported
   assiduously."

On pages 63--66, the authors describe a "Class 4 ballistic SSTO" that looks
*very* much like the proposed Delta Clipper...

The report is a relatively slim volume (91 pages) but does a good job of
putting the current situation in context....  Highly recommended.

  R. Salkeld, D.W. Patterson, and J. Grey, Eds. "Space Transportation Systems
  1980-2000."  New York: AIAA, 1978.   (AIAA Aerospace Assessment Series,
  volume I.)  (TL 795.5 S63)

My question to the net:  Where does the classification "Class 4 ballistic
SSTO" come from in connection with DC type SSTO's, i.e., what are class
1, 2, and 3 ballistic SSTO's?

---
Dave Michelson                             University of British Columbia
[e-mail]                                  Antenna Laboratory


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

From: Ian Taylor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed
Newsgroups: sci.space

Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: Freedom Cut
Organization: Alcatel Austria Informatik R&D, Vienna, Austria
References: <1lvpte$[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 09:15:32 GMT
Lines: 33
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <1lvpte$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>A source that I consider reliable inside NASA HQ has stated
>that Freedom is indeed dead.  However, NASA Administrator
>Goldin will personally lead a (well funded) look at new
>concepts for building a station that will better address percieved
>needs, so a new station is hoped to rapidly follow Freedoms demise.

Long live Freedom.

My dream scenario:

1. Work with the Russians to build Mir II. Bolt on the european and japanese
   modules as they are still funded. The Russians have enormous technical
   resources and people, use them!

2. Start work immediatedly on converting Freedom technology to Moon/Mars base
   infrastructure again based on cooperation with Europe/Russia/Japan.

3. Any remaining bucks can be effectively used for Discovery/DC-1 development.

Go for it Daniel!

I'm ready, hire me <grin>

+-- I -------- fax [phone] --------------------- voice [phone] --+
| T a y l o r  Alcatel Austria Research, Ruthnergasse 1, Vienna A-1210 Austria |
+-- n ---- [e-mail] --- PSI%023226191002::SE_TAYLOR --- 20731::ian -----+

        The keyboard is mightier than the pen.


   infrastructure based on cooperations
1    Work with the Russians to build Mir II

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

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 14:28:18 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>Dennis, batteries are not in and of themselves able to cause single fault
>>failures. It depends on the system they are connected to.

>Tell that to the many satellites that have failed due to battery problems.

Don't change the subject Dennis. You asserted that batteries form a single
point failure for ALL spacecraft. You then attempt to prove the statement
by providing an example of a place where the battery WASN'T the source
of a single point failure (dispite catastrophic failure).

This is what is called a contradiction.

>IUS is one of the super expensive programs that you love to complain about

I don't recall ever complaining about IUS.

You still don't get it. I don't mind expensive one bit provided the funds
are efficiently spent. For example, I recently bought the most expensive
CPU board for a system I am developing. I did it because the increased
performance would yeild results better enough to justify the additional
cost. But even thou I bought the most expensive board, I still spent some
time shopping around to get the best price for my customer.

>I would not have done that, looking at the statistical
>data that show that most missions would have made it.

Depends. Let's see, assuming Shuttle lifts two satellites both with
IUS and let's say each satellite costs $100M. Let's also say the failure
rate without redundant electronics is 1% and .5% with redundant
electronics.

That means we are spending about $400M to get the satellite up. So if I
can provide redundant electronics for under $2 million a copy it is a
good idea.

>I don't even call you stupid, just unwilling to look at any view
>other than your own.

Your projecting again Dennis.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------102 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 5 Mar 93 15:40:58 GMT
From: "Dr. Norman J. LaFave" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Keith Mancus 283-4283,
[e-mail] writes:
>   The work *was* done by McDonnell Douglas, but it is not part of
> or funded by WP2.  The plume loading study was done under the
Applications
> Analysis Support Contract (AASC), which supports MOD and various
divisions
> of the Engineering Directorate.
>   There are a lot of contracts and contractors out there, and it is
> mistake to assume that all this work is done under the Work Packages.

Indeed, one of my tasks is plume modelling and analysis and I neither
work for a WP or MacDac. I work for the ESC contract (Engineering
Support).

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson

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

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1993 21:58:14 GMT
From: Chris Landsea <[e-mail]>
Subject: Scientists Foresee Strengthening El Nino Event
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.geo.meteorology

 [e-mail] (Chuck Fisher) writes:
>  For at least the last decade the popular news
>media has linked heavy rainfall in the Western states and California in
>particular to El Nino events.  This year has seen a much higher
>precipitation level than for the past seven years and somewhat
>reminiscent of the '82-'83 season which was "blamed on" an El Nino
>which was present during that period.  Are there any generally accepted
>models which forecast precipitation changes based on El Nino events?
>

Need to toss in my two cents about the "End o' California Drought" and
its *supposed* association with the weak enhancement of the El Nino
conditions.

First off, the current El Nino thing going on (I hesitate to call it
an "event") is much weaker than what occurred during the winters of
'86-87 or '91-92 no matter what one wishes to define an El Nino with
be it Nino 3 Sea Surface Temperatures (SST), Southern Oscillation (SOI),
outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR) over the dateline, surface westerly
anomalies in the wind.  If you wish to check this out for yourself,
please look a the latest *Climate Diagnostics Bulletin* from NOAA's
Climate Analysis Center - it's free too.

Secondly, even when a "significant" El Nino is occurring, there is no
*consistent* teleconnection to Western U.S./California rainfall.  Please
check out Ropelewski and Halpert, *Mon.Wea.Rev*, 1987.  What *typically*
(and keep in mind that each El Nino has its individual characteristics)
is that the anomalous convection in the equatorial Central Pacific kicks
off (excites) downstream waves in the midlatitudes that have an anomalous
mid-tropospheric low in the North Pacific and an anomalous ridge along the
U.S./Canada west coast.  (See early work by White and Clark, 1975, *J.
Atmos. Sci.* and Namias, 1978, *Mon.Wea.Rev.*)

With this ridge along the west coast, one expects warmer than normal
surface temperatures, but the precipitation is more difficult to anticipate.
This is because of the complicating presence of where the southerly branch of
the jet stream sets up.  (Whenever a strong ridge in the westerlies is
present one often has a split flow in the westerlies occur with a southerly
branch of westerlies "beneath", or to the south of, the ridge.)  If this
southerly jet sets up over California, they get wetter than normal (as it
apparently has this winter).  However, sometimes the jet sets up over
northern Mexico - keeping the U.S. West dry.  Note that in all the news
about a wet California and southwest, the Northwest states (Washington,
northern Oregon, northern Idaho, Montana, and the Dakotas) have had a
dry December and January.

So I guess the best way to sum El Nino/California teleconnection up is
that:

     El Nino >>>  Wet California  (as in '82-83, '92-93)
     El Nino >>>  Normal California (as in '69-70, '72-73)
     El Nino >>>  Dry California (as in '76-77, '86-87, '91-92)

(And, again, I hesitate to call '92-93 winter a full-fledged El Nino).
(Data for above from the latest *Weekly Climate Bulletin*, also from
NOAA's CAC - also a free publication).

I hope this may help.  (This is not a flame either, just my perhaps
incorrect view of the wonderful world of meteorology.)

Chris
*****************************************************************************
Chris Landsea                          Voice:  [phone]
Department of Atmospheric Science      Fax:    [phone]
Colorado State University              Internet:  [e-mail].
Fort Collins, CO   80523                          colostate.edu
*****************************************************************************

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

Date: 5 Mar 93 15:15:14 GMT
From: Keith Mancus 283-4283 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Solar Panels Falling Off
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1n78r4$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
> [e-mail] (David B. Mckissock) writes:
>>1. MDAC is not building the solar panels, that is a WP-4 job
> I didn't say they were building them.  I know, in fact, that they are not,
> and have known so since before I started dealing with my MacDac sources.
> It was my impression that the MacDac group working on panel loading
> was part of the WP-2 funding even if the work was technically associated
> with the solar arrays package.  Please, if someone has the detailed
> WP breakdowns and can clarify this, let me (us) know...

  The work *was* done by McDonnell Douglas, but it is not part of
or funded by WP2.  The plume loading study was done under the Applications
Analysis Support Contract (AASC), which supports MOD and various divisions
of the Engineering Directorate.
  There are a lot of contracts and contractors out there, and it is
mistake to assume that all this work is done under the Work Packages.

--
| Keith Mancus    <[e-mail]>                           |
|                 N5WVR                                                  |
| There are no stupid questions. However, MS-DOS is a good example of a  |
| stupid answer.           -Skip Egdorf                                  |

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

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 13:45:41 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Son of NASP
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:

>NASP, which is a single-stage-to-orbit airbreathing horizonal-takeoff
>vehicle, is not a transport aircraft.  It's probably dead.

However, the Son of NASP seems to be in the works. This will be a very
reduced scale effort and will focus on building and flying several
prototypes rather than just one. It looks like DC-X had an influence
on them.

>Physics has apparently finally reared its ugly head and driven a stake through
>the heart of the program.  About time....

I agree they whern't likely to do much in hypersonics as such but from the
materials point of view it was a successful program.

BTW, large parts of the total NASP spending came from the contractors
and not the government.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------102 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 6 Mar 93 04:23:44 GMT
From: Russell Mcmahon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Spaceflight for under $1,000?
Newsgroups: sci.space

I would be immensely interested in a paper on the use of Pegasus for
manned launch. My conclusions were based very much on "back of an envelope"
figuring. It sounds like you have used a much bigger envelope (grin).

What is your involvement in this area ?
Any comment on the very small satellite area which I mentioned ?

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

Date: 5 Mar 1993 11:49 EDT
From: Pat Loyselle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Scientist
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.research.careers

   Well I don't think it's that important if you have a Ph.D. or not.
I've got one in Physical Chemistry but I don't think that had anything
to do with getting my job.  I think it's more important to get involved
in an area that you like, are good at, and is of some interest to NASA.
Don't get yourself into too narrow of a slot because projects change,
and come and go.  If you can, try to get involved in some research
project associated with NASA, work with (for) a professor who has a
grant with NASA that way your name and abilities become known to
people at NASA and might help you get a job there down the road.  If
nothing else it's good experience and a lot of fun.
                      Good luck,
                         Pat

----------
Patricia Loyselle                             [e-mail]
NASA Lewis Research Center                    [phone]
Cleveland, Ohio 44135

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

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 14:07:13 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>If only this were true. Congress has a standing policy of not approving
>multi-year budgets.

It's not a policy but Appropriations has been very unwilling to provide
multi-year appropriaitons for NASA today (unlike Apollo when it was
routine).

>They refuse to obligate future Congresses to specific expenditures.

Only partly. A large part of the reason is that Congress believes that
NASA doesn't spend money very wisely and needs the extra supervision.

>NASA does not have the legal power to do this on their own.

No, but the Administrator can re-program fairly large sums of money
on his own. Even within an area there is a lot of freedom for the
administrator. Freedom, for example, is usually only one or two line
items. There may also be restricitons or requirements on in the bill
for station spending but the vast majority of the funds are there to
be spent as the administrator sees fit (as long as it is for station
work).

There are also a lot of 'slush funds' controlled by center managers. Some
estimates say that up to 30% of money spent on Freedom are diverted by
center managers to fund their non-station related pet projects.

So the money is there and NASA can spend it with a lot more freedom
than you think.

>This has had major impacts on all long term NASA programs because year
>to year funding has been a political football.

An assessment of the space station effort done at a high level of NASA
has shown that Freedom can be built on schedule for $2B per year *IF*
all the money where spent on Freedom.

Now this is what they have been getting from Congress for the past
few years and are likely to get for the next few years. If the money
where spent wisely we would have a station.

Can't blame congress for this.

>has granted NASA some discretionary money, but funds for major programs
>are detailed in authorization bills and can't legally be diverted to
>other projects.

NASA Authorization bills tend to authorize everything. Also, since they
pass after the appropriation bills the appropriation is the defacto
authorization.

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------102 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 14:35:19 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: unnecceary violence (was: Nobody cares about Fred?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>Exactly where in NASA's charter is the part about serving as a
>>welfare agency for engineers and MIS managers?
>>that page.

>Go work the numbers.  So what are you supposed to do with these people, have
>them flip burgers?

Every night I drop to my knees and thank God that you are alive today
instead of in the days of Henry Ford. I can hear you say: "I'm sorry
Mr. Ford, but you can't be allowed to build your auto factory. You
would displace too many buggy whip makers and we can't have that".

My solution would be to have them work in a larger self sustaining
space economy.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------102 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 279
------------------------------