Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_2/v16no296.txt

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

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 93 04:57:58
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #296
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 10 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 296

Today's Topics:
                 20 kHz Power Supplies "blowing up"!
                     Acceleration of ice (2 msgs)
                            Aurora Update
                            Fallen Angels
                        Huygens will float....
                            JPL Fact Sheet
                          Latest on Geminga
                      My DCX .sig and DCX update
        Planetary Rovers (and intro) (lecture summary) (long)
                    Proposed Jupiter f/c/b mission
                   Query on sun synchronous orbits
            Soviet Energia: Available for Commercial Use?
                             SSF_REdesign
                  The courage of anonymity (2 msgs)
         unnecceary violence (was: Nobody cares about Fred?)
         Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list
                          Who needs a plan?

    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: 9 Mar 1993 15:29:20 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: 20 kHz Power Supplies "blowing up"!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David B. Mckissock) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes...
>>
>>Unless you were some sort of demi-god there,  don't expect to
>>hear every story in the program.
>I worked in a System Engineering organization at the time,
>and our job was to help pull together the *ENTIRE* story
>concerning the SSF power distribution frequency. We
>worked closely with the other work packages, the Internationals,
>and Level II. It was our job to hear *EVERY* part of the story

There were still numerous people in Management whose job was to
not hear problems, but to roll the schedule.


>relative to the decision. My guess is that your Reston
>contact was outside the loop on the 20 kHz decisions, and
>heard spurious rumors.
><< Discussion attacking 20 kHz deleted >>

Not how you avoid a very resaonable discussion on how STUPID
the 20 KHz idea even was in the first place?

Can you name any competent Electrical engineers, or Computer engineers
or PE's  who thought this was a good idea?

Given how bad the concept of 20 KHz was,  why do you expect me to believe
the studies on it's safety.

Name 5 advantages to 20 KHz.  I dare you.

Name 5 disadvantages to 20 KHz.  Compare and assess these.

Now justify all the money spent on the 20 KHz power project.

>
>>Sorry, quoting some rag of documentation doesn't impress me.
>The 'rag' of documentation I quoted from is the Program
>Definition and Requirements Document, referred to as the
>PDRD or SSP 30000. For anyone working on SSF, this document
>*IS* the Holy Bible.
>

BIG DEAL.
The system requirements document.  I've seen requirements documents
on lots of projects.  ANd if the document is poorly done, it doesn't
matter.  If the people doing the work don't care about quality
it doesn't matter.

It's just more paper and vapor.  You guys have spent a lot of money,
and don't have much product to show.

>You obviously don't understand how NASA operates. For the SSF
>program, NASA has three Contractors responsible for building
>SSF hardware (McDonnell Douglas, Rocketdyne, and Boeing). A

And who is responsible for integrating their work?  How come
that's a major management issue?

>key part of our Contracts with these folks are their
>requirements documents. Each NASA center tailors the
>requirements in the PDRD for their individual contract, and

And how many requirements got dropped on the floor between the
three tailoring jobs?  Who has the contractual obligation
to the whole thing?

My guess is no-one.  I saw the management structure for Freedom,
it made the pre challenger STS management chart look clear.

There is no single clear line of responsibility  or control for any
single system or component.  each center has a piece.  each contractor
has a piece, each work package has a piece.   when something drags,
no-one has the job of really fixing it.

>this 'tailored' document is part of the legal contract
>between NASA and the Contractor. The requirements documents
>are under tight configuration control, as changes to the
>requirements lead to changes in the Contract.
>
Yes.

>At each design review, the Contractor must provide evidence
>that their design meets each and every requirement. In

And how rigorous does that evidence have to be?  do any
PE's stamp off  the designs?


>any areas where the design doesn't meet the requirement, a
>deviation or a waiver must be processed.
>
Or a smoke cloud is generated.

>This whole area of requirements verification is treated
>very seriously.

As serious as the budget over-runs?  i don't think so.


IF the requirements document is such a holy bible,  how come
Moorehead had to re-establish two-fault tolerance into vital
stabilization and propulsion systems?

That was a part of the work package 2 cost over-run.
I am not impressed with people waving and screaming about the
quality of the paper trail.  I llok at the work.

Down at Kennedy, they have 2-3 inspectors for every task,  and
yet someone left a work scaffold inside the shuttle  and it
banged it up real bad when they tipped her up.

three people had signed the scaffold was removed.

Basic engineering criteria and design decisions were made for SSF
on fatally flawed reasoning.  all the paper in the world won't
make up for those mistakes.

I dare you to justify 3 things:

    1)  20 KHz power developement.

    2)  Non Metric (english)  component selection with the
    european modules being Metric.

    3)  Total failure to practice EVA until this year.

pat

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 15:43:04 GMT
From: John Papp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Acceleration of ice
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.engr.chem,sci.space,sci.physics

Hello,

I am currently doing a design project which requires the acceleration
of a block of ice to about 1500 m/s in an almost pure vacuum (space).
This block of ice will be under about 6.4e6 Pascals of acceleration
pressure (m*a/area) in about a 100 K environment.  Once this block has
reached 1500m/s, the acceleration will be removed.

Assumptions.  The block will be ice when it begins accelerating.
              The acceleration will build to a constant value
                 and will then be removed when the ice has reached 1500m/s.

My question are:
     Will the ice liquify or sublime under the acceleration
        even under the zero pressure of the environment?
     If the ice liquifies, will it refreeze when the acceleration stops?
     If the ice liquifies, will it explode when the acceleration stops?
     If the ice liquifies, will some of it escape when the
        acceleration stops but most of it refreeze?

As of yet, I know of no experiment that was done to answer these questions
and phase diagrams of water are somewhat lacking to what happens during
transition or just do not go down to the pressure and temperature values
stated.

Any answers or references to answers to these questions would be greatly
appreciated.

Thanks.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
|                  |                            |
| John L. Papp        | "You sound like a manure salesman   |
| [e-mail]  |  with a mouth full of samples."     |

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 19:45:38 GMT
From: Charles Pooley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Acceleration of ice
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.engr.chem,sci.space,sci.physics

In article 11412 several questions were asked re a proposal to design
some sort of gas gun (my guess) to accelerate ice (prob. from Lunar
surface, also my guess), and there was concern about the state of ice
during acceleration.  You said the ice temp was to be about 100 K.
At this temp, ice is very hard, probably somewhat brittle, and with very
low volatility--1 kg ought to be ok for a thousand years.

   Prob. there would be a little loss from transient heating of the base
and sides of the ice slug as it is exposed to high temp gas and to friction
with the tube wall (I'm assuming a gas gun), but as the transient will be
brief and the thermal conductivity of ice is low, only a tiny amount of
water would be lost, then the surface temp would return to that of the
bulk of the ice.

   Probably the only tricky thing would be in preventing the ice slugs
from breaking...

   Have you considering squirting water from a nozzle?  The H2O could be
at -20 C or so, as it would be liquid inside the nozzle, then would freeze
as the pressure falls enough.  Then there would be a fast moving stream
of ice at something below -20 C, and some of that would sublimate til the
bulk temp got low enough to stop evaporation in vacuum.

  Fun part is calculating pressurw you will need...

--
Charles Pooley                  [e-mail]    GEnie  c.pooley
EE consultant, Los Angeles, CA

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 01:42:20 GMT
From: Craig Keithley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aurora Update
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat)
wrote:
>
>
> if the refuelers operate from nevada, they need refuelers.   and the crews
> get wore out.
>

I realize that you're referring to the refuelers, but the reference tickled
my memory that Aurora was a drone (tele-operated?).  Sorry, I haven't
following the Aurora thread closely enough to see the answer to: is Aurora
a drone?  If so, what does that do for its manueverability and
acceleration?  And what's the back of envelope estimate for weight savings
on a crewless vehicle?



Craig Keithley           |"I don't remember, I don't recall,
Apple Computer, Inc.     |I got no memory of anything at all"
[e-mail]       |Peter Gabriel, Third Album (1980)

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 93 18:55:39 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fallen Angels
Newsgroups: sci.space

Daniel Myers ([e-mail]) wrote:
> [e-mail] (Roland Dobbins)  writes:
>
> [lots of stuff deleted]
>
> >Phoenix is the brainchild of Gary Hudson, who appeared as himself in the
> >book.  He can be reaced on BIX as "ghudson".
>
> I am VERY interested in this topic.  How does one on internet reach
> anyone on BIX?
>

Since last month, its just been a matter of e-mailing "[e-mail]".

Don't expect immediate receipt of your mail on BIX.  Its
a dial-up service and some busy souls may only jump in once a week
(hopefully not much more: mail is expired after 15 days).

If you want to trawl for more IDs, buy Byte or Windows magazines, or join us
on BIX!

--
||Dave Jones ([e-mail])|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |
BIX:davejone

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 02:39:02 GMT
From: Jonathan Stone <[e-mail]>
Subject: Huygens will float....
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

> [...] the probe
>would float deep enough such that the refractive index sensor would
>be fully immersed, but high enough so that the Descent Imager/Specral
>radiometer is above the waterline.
                         ^^^^^^^^^^

Is there is a generally-accepted planetary-science generic term
analogous  to ``waterline'', but for liquids that aren't H20.
Is ``waterline'' that term, and if not, what is it?    And do we
already know enough about Titan's atmospheric composition and surface
temperature to engineer a probe that will float in  all plausible
Titanian surface liquids?   If not, what *will* Hugyens float in?
Liquid ammonia??


In case it isn't clear, these are genuine questions, not
sarcasm or pedantic second-guessing of JPL...

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 18:42:04 GMT
From: Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]>
Subject: JPL Fact Sheet
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Michelson) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (Dave Michelson)

>>Mars; Mariner 7, launched in 1969 to Mars; Mariner 8 and 9,
>>launched in 1971 to orbit Mars.

>Interesting summary, but I would hardly classify Mariner 8 as a
>"successful Mariner" :-(

Was Mariner 8 a launch abort?

-rabjab

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 19:02:24 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Latest on Geminga
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Earlier I wrote:
>>Italian astronomers at the
>>Universities of Milan and Cassino have now reanalyzed optical images
>>recorded over the period 1984-92 and have determined that Geminga
>>moves across the sky at a rate of 0.17 arcsec/year and that its
>>distance from Earth is about 300 light years (G.F. Bignami et al.,
>>Nature 25 Feb. 1993.)

This inspired Richard M. Mathews to ask:

> What are the error ranges on these proper motion and distance numbers?

So I pulled out the 25 Feb Nature over lunch to check.  Bignami et al
give proper motion in RA as 0.14" per yr and in dec as 0.10" per year,
for a total of 0.17" per year with what they call a "conservative"
error estimate of +/- 0.05" per year.

It is a very good article, and well worth reading.  If you have access to
Nature go on and take a look at it.  I agree with the authors that their
error estimate is *quite* conservative.  Their most serious limitation
is that they only have three data points to work with.  Since each of the
three images came from a different telescope/detector with differing
plate scales the greatest source of possible error is in matching up the
data.  The authors spend a fair amount of print explaining how they
worked to overcome these problems.

Concerning the distance, earlier today Dick Edgar wrote:
> I don't know about the proper motion, but the distance estimate I can address.
> Quoting from the Holt & Halpern paper (Nature, 357, 306; 28 May 1992):
[quotation giving distance between 380 and 38 pc deleted for brevity]
> So to paraphrase:  *if* only 1% of the spin-down energy comes out in gamma
> rays (and where does the rest go?  The gamma/x-ray luminosity ratio is
> over 1000...), and *if* the radiation is isotropic, then the pulsar is
> about 38 parsecs away. [...]

Bignami et al discuss the distance in their article too.  Purely from
proper motion considerations they concede it *could* be a solar system
object.  But _if_ their identification of the optical source as the
optical counterpart of the Geminga pulsar/gamma source is correct then
from the well established literature covering distances to pulsars they
find a distance of order 100 pc, well within the bounds given by Dick
above.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute

 "Forgive him, he is a barbarian, who thinks the customs of his tribe
  are the laws of the universe."                       - G. J. Caesar

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 19:56:35 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: My DCX .sig and DCX update
Newsgroups: sci.space

Several people have sent email about the change in my .sig file and wondering
if something happened to the DCX schedule.

DCX is still on schedule, it was a bug in the deamon which updates my
.sig. The vehicle is pretty much assembled now and is currently
scheduled to be rolled out at the end of this month (they are trying
to get Gore to attend the rollout, drop him a line and ask him to
do so). There is still a need to write to Gore and ask for full finding
of DC-Y.

The NRC recently visited the DCX hanger and came away very impressed. Last
year they where mildly critical of the effort but seeing actual hardware
being built so quickly and efficiently has changed some mines. I was also
told that the HL-20 people from NASA Langly saw it late last year. I asked
my source what they thought of it. He said they where 'very quiet'.

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------98  DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 18:04:20 GMT
From: Richard Man <[e-mail]>
Subject: Planetary Rovers (and intro) (lecture summary) (long)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom A Baker) writes...
> >The Viking probes sent back fairly boring pictures because we
> >landed them on boring but safe places - we couldn't afford to
> >lose them by, for example, landing in high wind area.
>
> Boring?  The Viking Lander images were *spectacular*.
> Safe locations were chosen for the Viking landing sites.  You normally
> want the spacecraft to survive the landing.

Actually, Tom didn't write that. I did. I agree the Viking images were
*spectacular* - I have some of the posters. The point in the article though
is that some micro-rover folks think that if we can afford to send many rovers
instead of just one or two, then we can afford to scatter them in many
places, possibly in "unsafe" area.

> >These uses might be impractical on a large,
> >less mobile robot like JPL's Robbie from the 1970's - a big slow
> >machine, moving only 1 inch/hour.
>
> Your facts are a bit off about Robby.
> Robby is an autonomous JPL rover of the 1990's.  It is about the size of a car,
> but much smaller than something like Ambler.  A couple of years ago
> in a test run in a dry riverbed, it covered over 100 meters in 4 hours
> 20 minutes, which comes out to about 1.25 feet/minute.

Roxanne wrote this from the note she took. Either she or the speaker could
have made the error. I apologize for letting the error through.

Richard Man, Boston NSS SpaceViews editor.
--
- Richard F. Man ([e-mail])
"Small Rovers, Big Dreams"

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 19:47:42 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Proposed Jupiter f/c/b mission
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:
>Earth-moon or earth-sun lagrange point?
>
>It looks like you're talking about the earth-sun L1 point, but
>isn't that a little far?

Sounded to me like Earth-Sun, and it's only about 1.5 million km away.
A halo orbit around the Earth-Sun L1 is a good place to park something
that wants to be well away from Earth and in continuous sunlight.  The
station-keeping costs are small.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 20:05:43 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Query on sun synchronous orbits
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gregory N. Bond) writes:
>   The Earth is not a perfect sphere, and this means that orbits around it
>   are not simple Keplerian orbits.
>
>Is this an artifact of the 'oblate-ness' (i.e. equatorial bulge) or
>the non-uniform density (i.e. mascons)?

To a first approximation, the Earth is a sphere.  This approximation isn't
good enough to track orbiting objects for more than, say, a few days.

To a second approximation, it's an oblate spheroid, a sphere with an
equatorial bulge.  This is actually good enough for most purposes, and
is what I was referring to.

To a third approximation, the north and south hemispheres are not quite
the same shape; the Earth is slightly pear-shaped.

To a fourth approximation, the equator is slightly elliptical.  This
means that there are really only two fully stable points in Clarke orbit,
for example, and comsats have to do regular station-keeping burns to
hold their desired longitudes.

The Earth's exact "gravitational shape" is lumpy and complicated, but
it doesn't have random mascons that are strong enough to be noticeable
for normal missions, unlike the Moon and Mars where they can't be ignored.

>I suspect we would need to know a lot about the gravity field around a
>body before we could compute a Sun-synch orbit...

For this you only need the second-approximation level, and the data for
that is probably already in hand for Mars.

>Can sun-sychnronous orbits have arbitary periods? ...

In principle; you adjust altitude to set period, and adjust inclination
to make it sun-synchronous.  In practice, by the time you get out to
Clarke orbit, you worry much more about perturbations from the Moon and
Sun than from minor details of Earth's gravity.  Comsats spend most of
their stationkeeping fuel fighting lunar/solar effects.

Note that a one-day sun-synchronous orbit wouldn't be geostationary,
since it wouldn't be above the equator.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 9 Mar 1993 15:08:44 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soviet Energia: Available for Commercial Use?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Problem with energiya, is there is alimited test base for the rocket.
it hasn't gone through a full qualification program.

Some of the big Com Sat proposals could use a big ELV,  and a lot
of other programs could use something like it,  but it needs to be demonstrated
as operational.

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

Date: 9 Mar 1993 18:45:40 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF_REdesign
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
wrote:
>
> Anton,
>
> There are several possible new designs for SSF, ranging from a simple
> cut-down of the current design - leaving a man-tended platform, to a station
> using Russian components and launchers. The wild card in the speculation is
> the US Senate race in Texas, which may result in the most conservative design
> possible being selected soon.
>
> At any rate, we will know within 90 - 180 days. If the process works poorly,
> and the Texas Senate race intereferes, we may see a poor design, with Goldin
> out the door shortly thereafter...
>
> --- Maximus 2.01wb

We were told through official sources that the redesign effort will be
60-90 days and headed up by an Apollo-world vet named Shea.  Goldin's
support to all of the current adiminstration's moves will likely keep him
in place.....we've heard he's staying.

One of the proposals are a wingless shuttle body.  Instead of wings there
are expanding solar panels and the crew area is replaced by Resource
Node-like connections...tying these shuttle bodies together.....guess which
contractor came up with that?!

Read last weeks Av Week&Space Tech....for more....

My opinion:  This is the setup for cancellation.  Clinton says he supports
it and funds it over $2B....making it a big, fat target and looking like he
kept his campaign promise.  He then directs a redesign which will make a
1996 FEL virtually impossible and places the program WAY off balance
causing serious SS design cost overruns.... The house proposes cancellation
(as they have EVERY year) and this time the President doesnt stop the bill.
 He does not look like the bad guy since the house kills it for the house
proposed budget.....
Result: no Space Station and.........100,000 out of work(not counting the
impact to shuttle).



Unless the public says NAY......

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

Date: Tue,  9 Mar 1993 14:48:51 -0500
From: Nicholas Kramer <[e-mail]>
Subject: The courage of anonymity
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,alt.privacy

Excerpts from netnews.comp.org.eff.talk: 8-Mar-93 Re: The courage of
anonymity by [e-mail]
> Ideas are ideas and who posts them
> does not make them stronger or weaker, unless it has to do with an
> issue of believability that requires an expert to back up.

 And I ask you: How many people here give different weight to ideas on
Usenet based on the author? Am I truly unique, or do other people also
have trouble keeping track of exactly who said what? I for one almost
never even READ the name of the author, much less give it much thought.
In the end, I think for every instance of "truth by reputation," there
is an instance of anonymous mail abuse.



                        Nick

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

Date: 9 Mar 93 13:48:08 GMT
From: Matt Rosenblatt <[e-mail]>
Subject: The courage of anonymity
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space

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

>As far as anonymous postings in general, the threats of
>personal violence that the Challenger post unearthed, for me,
>more than confirmed my decision to use it.  [anon8785]

Huh?  Threats of personal violence?  Like, "You nisht-gutfa!  I'm
gonna take the next train to Princeton Junction and give you such
a khmallyeh, when you wake up, your clothes'll be out of style!"?
How can one threaten an anonymous poster with personal violence?

                    -- Matt Rosenblatt
                    ([e-mail])

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MIRACLE                        MYSTERY                      AUTHORITY

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

Date: 9 Mar 1993 17:42:31 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: unnecceary violence (was: Nobody cares about Fred?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>Oh?  Did Mr. Ford talk to you lately?
>
>No Doug, he's dead.

So?  Who said that would stop you?

>>The United States government is not Henry Ford.
>Irrelevant.

It is NOT.

>I maintain that spending less money for the same services is a good
>thing. You seem to disagree but are a little unclear on the exact
>reason (prefering to call me a commie or red-neck depending on your
>mood).

I don't seem to call you either a commie or a redneck.

However, rather than creating a market for services, you seem to be hell-bound
to force one solution (Soyuz/Atlas) in place of another (Shuttle).

I can't see how you say you believe in free market mechanisms when you insist
upon a specific solution as the be-all, end-all.

>>Every time I mention that you have less lobbying money to lobby against Shuttle
>>than Rockwell and Lockheed have to lobby FOR STS, you refuse to address
>>the issue.
>
>Well I have my own lobbiests. At the moment, I'll see your Rockwell lobbiests
>and raise you Lockheed, Boeing, Douglas, and Martin Marrietta. They are all
>pushing for SSTO which will end the Shuttle program.

Sure. STS is destined to terminate around 2005-2010.  Your personal agenda
appears to be Kill The Shuttle Now/Worry about consequences later.

Why don't you post a clear date on when you want to see Shuttle operations
stop, so there won't be ANY ambiguity involved.

>>>My solution would be to have them work in a larger self sustaining
>>>space economy.
>>There ain't no such thing.
>So long as people insist on supporting expensive program which rob
>payloads from cheaper systems you are correct.
>
>You yourself already admit this. That's is why your bottom line arguement
>is that Shuttle must stay because it's a good jobs program.

If there were gold in them there hills, there are any number of billionaires
and large corporations to "Just do it."  However, we don't see Hynduai
building launchers, or H. Ross Perot sticking his ears into the conquest of the
Final Frontier for fun and profit.

The bottom line is that you'd cut the throats of people without a rational
transitional plan, and without the consequences.

Your urge to freely spit on NASA at any opportunity demonstrates this.

My "bottom line arguement" isn't "Keep the SHuttle as a Jobs Program."
Shuttle is a unique national asset which is not casually replaced by any of
your back-of-the-cocktail-napkin schemes.

The political forces involved in terminating a national asset with symbolic
value are far beyond your measly efforts, young Skywalker. :-)

Especially when you start adding up the amount of money which is already being
cut out of DoD and NASA.

>>About the only "self-sustaining" part of the space economy are comm sats, with
>>future growth in remote imaging.
>
>Sure, but what would happen if launch costs dropped by a factor of two
>overnight? That's what would happen if NASA got out of the operations
>buisness.

Fine, if it's so brilliant, than OSC or any of the other private bucks will
(eventually) come up with a "cheaper" solution.  However, OSC and the other new
kids on the block are finding that launching UNMANNED hardware isn't the
technical or financial cakewalk which you allege.



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 9 Mar 1993 13:02:39 -0500
From: Jon Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle

    This notice will be posted weekly in sci.space, sci.astro, and
sci.space.shuttle.

    The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list for sci.space and sci.astro is
posted approximately monthly. It also covers many questions that come up on
sci.space.shuttle (for shuttle launch dates, see below).

    The FAQ is posted with a long expiration date, so a copy may be in your
news spool directory (look at old articles in sci.space). If not, here are
two ways to get a copy without waiting for the next posting:

    (1) If your machine is on the Internet, it can be obtained by anonymous
FTP from the SPACE archive at ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3) in directory
pub/SPACE/FAQ.

    (2) Otherwise, send email to '[e-mail]'
containing the single line:

help

    The archive server will return directions on how to use it. To get an
index of files in the FAQ directory, send email containing the lines:

send space FAQ/Index
send space FAQ/faq1

    Use these files as a guide to which other files to retrieve to answer
your questions.

    Shuttle launch dates are posted by Ken Hollis periodically in
sci.space.shuttle. A copy of his manifest is now available in the Ames
archive in pub/SPACE/FAQ/manifest and may be requested from the email
archive-server with 'send space FAQ/manifest'. Please get this document
instead of posting requests for information on launches and landings.

    Do not post followups to this article; respond to the author.

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 19:59:12 GMT
From: Charles Pooley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who needs a plan?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Various people have been wondering what might save NASA and the space
program as we know it.

    The only thing that will is, first, that SETI be successful in
discovering a civilization 'out there', and discover that they are
Communists...

  Nothing else will do it.    Meanwhile we may have to get back to
where DR. Goddard was before he was interrupted by WWII....

--
Charles Pooley                  [e-mail]    GEnie  c.pooley
EE consultant, Los Angeles, CA

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 296
------------------------------