Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_3/v16no350.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 29KB

Date: Mon, 22 Mar 93 05:09:48
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #350
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 22 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 350

Today's Topics:
*** CRESCENT MOON: May Be (Low Probability) Evening Tue 23 MARCH 1993 ***
             Alumnium was available in Elizabethan times?
       Clueless Szaboisms (Was Re: plans, and absence thereof)
                     Clueless Wingoisms (3 msgs)
                        Skysurfing from Orbit
                            Space markets
                     SR-71 Maiden Science Flight
                 SSTO: A Spaceship for the rest of us
                       Wanted 100-inch mirrors
                          Water Simulations
    Water Simulations (Was Re: Response to various attacks on SSF)
                  Why use AC at 20kHz for SSF Power?

    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: 21 Mar 1993 18:48 PST
From: "FRED W. BACH" <[e-mail]>
Subject: *** CRESCENT MOON: May Be (Low Probability) Evening Tue 23 MARCH 1993 ***
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mohib N Durrani) writes...

   [ a lot of really intense stuff deleted ]

#  Look For The CRESCENT MOON ( HILAL ),     --- >>>                         )
#   It Is One Of THE MOST BEAUTIFUL OF CREATIONS;  ---- >>>>               )
#    Then Offer An INTENSE PRAYER To The ONE CREATOR, ---- >>>>           )
#     All Sincere DEVOTIONS Are Surely ACCEPTED.  --- >>>               )

   What is the point of this?  Surely the moon is beautiful at all times.
   Please explain.   Thanks.

 Fred W. Bach ,    Operations Group        |  Internet: [e-mail]
 TRIUMF (TRI-University Meson Facility)    |  Voice:  604-222-1047 loc 327/278
 4004 WESBROOK MALL, UBC CAMPUS            |  FAX:    [phone]
 University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., CANADA   V6T 2A3

 These are my opinions, which should ONLY make you read, think, and question.
 They do NOT necessarily reflect the views of my employer or fellow workers.

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

Date: 21 Mar 1993 23:06:32 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alumnium was available in Elizabethan times?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.materials

I don't know all the details, but I remember in High School chemistry
the teacher mentioning that Aluminum wsa one of the Treasures
in the Tower of London.  Back when it was first isolated, during
elizabethan times, it was more costly then gold.   Given that most
clays are alumina oxides,  I can see, some form of long high heat,
reduction process generating aluminum.  After all Alchemy dates from
the 13th century.   You'd need some sort of intense heat source,
and  a strong reducing agent.  I doubt limestone would do it,  but
any society with steel technology, should be easily able to make
aluminum in non-production quantities.

pat

PS that date in 1827  for wohler, would be the date it was identified
as an element.  Lots of stuff was around before it was identified as
elemental.

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

Date: 22 Mar 93 04:42:42 GMT
From: Jerri Dawson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clueless Szaboisms (Was Re: plans, and absence thereof)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

Howdy!  I don't post much to newsgroups cuz they generally look like this
one; mass ranting and raving and flame wars cuz some folks never learned
how to share!

But I gotta say I am inspired (sorry ... lousy cliche) by the call to keep
(what's my hat say? ah yes;) "keep the dream alive".


Why does it seem like every board that carries some sort of space
conference has these idiotic bandwidth wasting flame wars going on?
"D-duh, doesn't the ability to access these types of media mean that there
exists intelligence?"  Yo, man!; if you don't agree, please don't show your
IQ by ranting off on some silly tangent .... like this one.  <ahem!>

Damn, Dennis, you raise some good points and, baby, I got some dreams for
you!  But, I'ma gonna let this here canadian woods distill out before I
bring them on.

But, I guess what got me started was reading posts here following perusal
of slick sillies ...er ... ah _w_illies <be,s-eg> (evil, "feces
masticating") economic plan.  How much of what goes on there (here) is
safe from the axe?  Particularly DOM-02; "Cancel the NASA space Station
Project"; (what up with a solid rocket motor?)DOM- ... never mind
designations, we're talking cancellation of; new spacecraft development
(ha-ha! show you how "they" do it: I ain't gonna clarify this any further
... you'll just have to read the book!); space station project;
development of solid rocket motor; THE FLIPPIN SUPERCONDUCTOR? (!!) (only
if "room temperature" has made progress).  and reduce DOE funding for
energy technology efforts!?  Man, while everybody else was  talking about
how gettin the Demos into office was gonna change things, I was saying "it
don't matter; demos, repub, liberts, whatever; ain't a damn thing gonna
change until the entire structure is revamped!"  (I know the rule; as soon
as I finish polishing up the revision, I'll share it with you!)


Sorry folks; just unzipped PREZPLAN.ZIP to a sub-directory on wwu/norml's
account and got to reading.  I guess it is time for me to start seriously!
"reading their beads"!  (When I was homeless, it was "StreetVoice", now
it's "Bipolar" [because I AM!].)

but, hey, sorry, this ain't the place for it.  Y'all got some neat things
I can learn, and I'll be back to watch.

I just posted to thank Dennis for his comments and to ask for (oh-oh!)
<whisper it> opinions on the impact of the economic "plan" on space.

Guess I better clarify something else;

To folks that got their slice of the "amurrican pie" about ten years ago,
(before it became extinct), things may still be looking kind of rosy, and
Slick's plan don't hurt ... much.  But, for those of us silly little fools
that absolutely _insist_ on living in today and trying to plan for
tomorrow, this thing is not only a disaster; it is a slap in the face!
And, then, there are those folks that can't quite think about any damn
"tomorrow?!!  I gotta figure out how to eat TODAY!" .... " Life's a beach,
and then ... "Jaws 5; Food-To-Go ... Denver"".


Sorry again;

Thanks, Dennis!  I guess I'll learn more about you as I continue reading
here.  Maybe e-mail telling me about some of the stuff you do?  (Yeah,
sure, it might only be a better way of keeping the mop water in the bucket
during re-entry burns, (It's a JOKE, mon!) but g-damn!, "down here" in the
streets and at "day treatment" and on the ward, there ain't no way to even
_think_ about having "my" platform flying some space mission!

Never mind anything else, Dude, you have arrived!

Granted, the words don't seem to convey much.  Save it, read it, ingest
it; sooner or later, you'll feel it!  "And that's a guaran-fuckin-tee!"

Wayne
--
  Jerri Dawson     [e-mail]      Wayne Smith
  3010 Ferry ave #119  Bellingham WA 98225-6556 [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 04:07:29 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clueless Wingoisms
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

[e-mail] writes:

>My paycheck comes in this proportion

>40% Taiwanese National Cheng Kung University Contract
>30% SpaceHab (Where the contract that we won came in at less than 1/3 the
>cost of our competitors due to MY design)
>30% Office of commercial whatever at NASA hq for accelerometer work.

Looks remarkably close to 100% public funds to me.  The only part I got
wrong is that 40% of it is coming from Taiwanese instead of U.S. taxpayers.

>100% paid for by money that I have
>raised through my own efforts in the private sector to enable me to work on
>SEDSAT 1 through may of next year.

Since any return on investment would come from public funs, this is
only private sector money in a trivial sense.  The big problem I'm
pointing out here is that your mindset is overwhelmingly divorced from
any need to meet people's voluntary wants and needs in the marketplace.
The source of your funding, and even more so the fact that you have
been deluded into believing it is "commercial", shows how such a
clueless vision of the future can be perpetuated.


--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Mar 93 04:32:39 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clueless Wingoisms
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

BTW, as far as "bending metal" goes, I've written, tested, and
debugged software critical to putting out several products
_that people voluntarily pay for in the market_:

RS/6000    workstation (>$2 billion sold, only division of IBM
    growing instead of going belly-up)
Symmetry 2000 symmetric parallel processor (>$200 million sold)
Intersolv make & revision control tools  ($millions sold)

My software has also been in place for several years at JPL,
helping to schedule deep space missions on the DSN.  I've also
heavily delved into planetary science, finance, business
planning, exploratory engineering etc. and applied these to my
efforts to create a free-enterprise vision of our future in space.
My posts on these subjects speak for themselves.  I've got
the knowledge and experience in both commercial markets and
in space projects to back up a vision of the future where the
space program recieves large-scale, efficient private sector
funding to meet people's needs on earth, instead of the narrow,
insular world of lobbying bureaucracies, glorious astronauts and
their stage props ("what NASA needs is better PR").

'Nuff said.  This resume-posting is silly.  Don't hide behind
your credentials; let the ideas in your posts speak for themselves.


--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Mar 93 05:27:45 GMT
From: Jerri Dawson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clueless Wingoisms
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>debugged software critical to putting out several products
>_that people voluntarily pay for in the market_:
>

This says something?  People "voluntarily pay for" pet rocks!

>RS/6000    workstation (>$2 billion sold, only division of IBM
>    growing instead of going belly-up)
>Symmetry 2000 symmetric parallel processor (>$200 million sold)
>Intersolv make & revision control tools  ($millions sold)
>

"mo money, mo money, mo money ..." <bronx cheer!> "IBM, UBM, we all BM for
IBM"

>efforts to create a free-enterprise vision of our future in space.

 ... gawd, I wish that meant the same thing it says!  "... free-enterprise
vision ..."  oh, no; "execu-droids in space!"  (help! miss piggy!)

>My posts on these subjects speak for themselves.  I've got
>the knowledge and experience in both commercial markets and
>in space projects to back up a vision of the future where the
>space program recieves large-scale, efficient private sector
>funding to meet people's needs on earth, instead of the narrow,
>insular world of lobbying bureaucracies, glorious astronauts and
>their stage props ("what NASA needs is better PR").
>

gads ... can't we bury "commercial markets" here on earth?  Sounds like a
"_ser_ious bi'ness man", to me!

>'Nuff said.  This resume-posting is silly.  Don't hide behind
>your credentials; let the ideas in your posts speak for themselves.
>

 ... hmmm ... hoisted on whose what?  It looks as if your credentials were
good enough to have an _entire_ thread named after you!  ("Don't hide
behind your credentials"??!!! ya-reet!



Sorry, don't know you; ain't never seen anything by you before.  But that
doesn't stop me from wishing for slmr's twit filter!  ah, but, one _can_
learn from such, so I guess I can get by without the filter.

"My credentials"? ... Continuing Existence Award from Reality University,
Earth Campus ... survived three years homeless without a criminal record.
(no, it ain't that I didn't get caught; I didn't do it.)  Forget it ...
guess I just got to reading other's comments on your "posts that speak for
themselves" before reading the truth of their comments.

Carry on, son; we need folks like you to keep us striving for a better world!


--
  Jerri Dawson     [e-mail]      Wayne Smith
  3010 Ferry ave #119  Bellingham WA 98225-6556 [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 02:04:05 GMT
From: Tom A Baker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Skysurfing from Orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Magee) writes:
>I could use a little data on re-entry for a short story I am laboring on.
>
>1) From low earth orbit, how much thrust would need to be generated to slow a
>400 pound mass sufficiently to enter the atmosphere?

I remember that a 300 mph "delta speed" would do it from LEO.  You
can calculate from there, because ...

You phrased it wrong... Even a thrust of "epsilon" would do it, if you waited
long enough.

>3) How deep into the atmosphere must the shuttle descend before the wings
>generate sufficient lift to provide control?

*That* you can find somewhere.  That's where they switch from thrusters
to air controls.

But again there are a few more specifics; some surfaces get useful before
others.  I think the flaps can control pitch and roll long before the rudder
can handle yaw.

Sounds like a story we'd all like to read...

tom baker

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

Date: 21 Mar 1993 23:33:08 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space markets
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:
>I like the idea of selling advertising and movie-making rights on our
>current space operations.  If I remember right, NASA has turned it
>down, for National Prestige reasons, I imagine.  Tell you what;
>I'd have a lot more pride in my Nation if it's agents got with it.


The movie the Last Action Hero  will be a sticker on an upcoming
Delta Launch.

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

Date: 22 Mar 93 03:53:17 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: SR-71 Maiden Science Flight
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>Has anyone considered which is more fun to ride along on while
>running science gear?  I'd rather hop in the back seat of the 71
>and run the science gear, as opposed to dangling in a balloon.

Pat, it seems incredibly unlikely that the participating scientists would ride
in either one.  They are superfluous and very difficult to accommodate on either
vehicle.

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
          "Tout ce qu'un homme est capable d'imaginer, d'autres hommes
                     seront capable de la realiser"
             -Jules Verne

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

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1993 23:19:00 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO: A Spaceship for the rest of us
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1oih0d$[e-mail]> Dave Akin <[e-mail]> writes:

>Actually, I think all of the arguments in this thread are
>missing the point. In typical economic analyses of launch
>systems, propellent costs are often ignored in the
>preliminary stages as being within the noise level! The thing
>that really drives the cost of a reusable launch vehicle is the
>"refurbishment fraction":

Agreed.

>The bottom line is that the refurbishment fraction for a
>shuttle orbiter is approximately 10%; that is, it costs about
>10% of the replacement cost of an orbiter to refurbish it

I disagree. It costs over $500M to fly an orbiter which is somewhere
between 25% and 50%.

>What bothers me about the SSTO/SSX/DC-X enthusiasts (I
>started to say "groupies", but didn't want to start a flame war
>:-)  ) is that they are largely ignoring the whole point of
>refurbishment.

I'm confused here. Reduction of the refurbishment fraction is
key to the whole approach being taken by SSTO.

>Indeed, many of the tales being told about
>DC-X ("airline-type maintenance", etc.) are the same things
>I heard in the early days of the shuttle program.

Irrleevant. DC is a different program being run very differently
with different methodology and technology.

If your going to argue that DC will fail because Shuttle failed and
not address the differences then you can argue, for the same reason,
that no space project will ever work.

>Don't get me
>wrong, I have a lot of friends at MacDac, and I really hope
>DC-X works like a dream, but I think it's a real mistake to
>go into a program assuming you can improve things by an
>order of magnitude based on an assumption (implicit or
>otherwise) that you're an order of magnitude smarter than
>the guys who did it the last time...

Since the people behind this are in many cases the 'guys who did
it last time', I think its more a case of them learning from their
mistakes.

>As a reality check, X-15 operations tended to have a
>refurbishment fraction of about 3%/flight.

Most of the estimates I have seen for DC-Y put its refurbishment
fraction at just about that level.

>factor. That will make it an efficient and useful addition to
>the world's launch vehicle fleet... but NOT the quantum leap
>its supporters are promising.

It will for two reasons:
1. it will (if it works) reduce cost to LEO by an order of magnitude
   which will open up many new oportunities for space.
2. DC will be able to cover the entire burden of the cost needed for
   development and construction. This vehicle has the potential to make
   space, for the first time, self sustaining.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------87 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 03:23:45 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Wanted 100-inch mirrors
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

iny 'chunk' of the
Sun will be covered by the Moon and that the weather is likely to cloudy! But,
this could be a good excuse to visit the area which includes Loch Ness (if
you're from the area, let us know what else is worth visiting).

We think we will go to Inverness but John o' Groats is a possibility or maybe
it's not worth going even as far as Inverness. To help us decide, can anyone
calculate times of first and last contact of the lunar limb with the Sun along
with the time of maximum eclipse and the percentage of the solar diameter
covered for the locations below? Please indicate likely accuracy of data.

John o' Groats (58.6N, 3.0W), Glasgow (55.8N, 4.3W),  Aberdeen (57.1N, 2.1W),
     Edinburgh (55.9N, 3.2W),  Dundee (56.5N, 3.0W), Inverness (57.5N, 4.2W),
   Fraserburgh (57.7N, 2.0W).

-Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:
Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail).
ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address).
Newslines (48p/36p per min): 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire).

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

Date: 21 Mar 1993 23:15:12 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Water Simulations
Newsgroups: sci.space

Maybe they should switch from Chlorine to Ozone?

pat

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

Date: 21 Mar 93 18:13:34 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Water Simulations (Was Re: Response to various attacks on SSF)
Newsgroups: sci.space

I know a lot less about EVA, then I do about power systems,  but
We do really have a lack of experience in docking large masses
in space.  EVA is not a simple activity,  and I do feel that
NASA could have been conducting a whole lot more of it
then they have to date.

The other acid test is simply this.  After the INTELSAT wringer,
NASA suddenly stepped up their EVA Plans.  THis indicates that
they are suddenly far less confident of their Ability to conduct
EVA.

pat

Of course,. my feeling is that until they dramatically improve
suit technology,  All EVA is going to be a bummer.
SO Henry, you think Mechanical counterpressure suite may now
be ready for use?  We now have much better fabrics,  Do you think
a single layer suit could develope 3.5 - 5 PSI couinterpressure?
You might need to foam gel into the body crevices and joint areas,
but it should work.

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

Date: 21 Mar 1993 23:28:56 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why use AC at 20kHz for SSF Power?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>   you don't try major new experiments on your airliners (not unless it's
>   something trivial like a new type of paint, which isn't going to affect
>   the usability of the airliner if it doesn't work).
>
>True, but if you're building an airplane for the first time it may
>make sense to spend some effort to consider whether you really want
>to use water cooled internal combustion engines or whether you should
>try out something a little different...
>

But if you are building an airplane for the first time, you don't
make contracts with hundreds of companies to deliver vehicles
and cargo until you know wether it will fly...

>   NASA does indeed need to consider new technologies and experiment with
>   new ways of doing things... but *not* on spacecraft with major operational
>   missions to fly!
>
>Yeah, but the only funding they get is for flying spacecraft with
>major operational missions... (actually, does SSF really have any

All the more reason to be conservative in design.  If you have to
make it fly, then it damn well better fly.  Reserve your
experimenting for the non-critical portions of the mission.

Look at magellan,  they are going to test aero-braking,  but not
at the mission start,  at the end of cycle 4.  Use your mind,
when is better to take risks on an operational mission, after the
major objectives are done, or before.

>_major_ mission requirements beyond "find out how to build large
>habitable structures in space"?) - after all, often the way of
>trying out new ways _is_ by doing things...
>

Well,  Given that the backers have signed up to provide
Materials Processing,
Life Science experimentation,
Micro-gravity experimanetation,
Gas Grain simulations.
Liquid Physics work.

I know they have  4 major science facilities planned,  not to mention
I don't think the japanese are contributing money just so those
Wacky Americans can learn to how weld in zero G.
God knows what the europeans are planning in columbus.
>   How many new, untried concepts would you accept in the construction of
>   your house?
>
>Well, if I were an institution chartered to discover new ways to
>build houses, and occasionally given specifics (like build a really
>tall house, or a low energy consumption house) then I'd be willing to try more than
>if I were a local construction company.

nd what if you had promised that the house would be occupied by
a certain date by N people who would be living working and
conducting science experiments there?

Look at the NSF research station in the arctic.  Demanding enviroment,
scientific support program, etc.  Yet fundamentally very basic
construction techniques.  The biggest thing they are doing
is playing with insulation techniques,  and with various
heating systems.

pat

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


To: [e-mail]
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Grand Plan
Date: 21 Mar 1993 23:07 UT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Lines: 78
Distribution: world
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes...
>[e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes...
>>>CRAF was cancelled because it had overrun its budget massively, and Congress
>>>was giving clear signals that this would not be tolerated.  This had nothing
>>>to do with the manned/unmanned wars.

>>CRAF/Cassini did not overrun its budget.  Congress cancelled CRAF because
>>they wanted to same some money in the short term.  In addition to cancelling
>>CRAF, they reduced Cassini's budget for that fiscal year.  This reduction
>>caused the postponement of the launch date and extended the overall mission
>>a couple of years.  Normally, abrupt changes to the mission like this drives up
>>the cost, but JPL has adjusted and made changes liking reducing the mass of
>>the spacecraft.

>NASA proposed to do both for $1.6G.  By the time CRAF died, Cassini alone
>was going to cost that much (and Congress had been very clear that it had
>priority over CRAF).  "The Space Studies Board has found the cost growth
>in the Comet Rendezvous Asteroid Flyby and Cassini program to be very
>frustrating and difficult to understand." -- Louis Lanzerotti, chairman
>of NRC's Space Studies Board, phone interview by Space News (quoted in
>the March 1 issue).

The CRAF/Cassini budget did go up, but only after Congress underfunded
the mission which caused a 2 year extension.

No where in the article does it say that CRAF/Cassini had or was going
to exceed its 1.6 billion dollar cap before the underfunding of the project
occured in 1991.  In fact, to quote the very same article you refer to:

   "if Congress had fully funded both spacecraft, they could have been
    completed on time for the original price tag, but the savings of
    designing a single frame for two spacecraft were lost when the comet
    mission was cut".

Also, from the same article:

     "When Congress funded the missions at 35% less than requested in 1991,
      NASA postponed the comet mission by two years and INCREASED ITS
      COST"

>It's true that a certain amount of Congressional fiddling contributed
>*somewhat* to this

That is an understatment of the year.

Here's a recap of the CRAF/Cassini budget situation.

   o An agreement was made between NASA and Congress that the budget
     cap for CRAF/Cassini is at 1.6 billion dollars.  This cost does
     not include the launch vehicle.  Cassini has priority over CRAF.

   o In 1991, CRAF/Cassini was still on schedule and under budget.
     However,  Congress funded the project at 35% less than requested
     to save some money in the short term.  JPL communicated to
     Congress that if they didn't get full funding, both missions would
     have to be extended by two years, and the overall cost would
     exceed the 1.6 billion cap.  Congress accepted this, but still cut
     the budget for the year by 35%.

   o In 1992, the CRAF/Cassini missions were redesigned to their new
     launch dates.  However, Congress went ahead and cancelled CRAF anyway.
     JPL, on their own initiative, then made some cost saving changes to the
     mission and the spacecraft and trimmed the Cassini budget down to
     1.4 billion.

JPL had kept their end of the bargain, Congress did not.  But I don't really
blame Congress for all this.  I blame the budgetary process.  I does not
lend itself to long term planning.  Every year, nearly all projects are
subject to being underfunded or cancellation, and every year the projects
have to fight for their funding.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Don't ever take a fence
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | down until you know the
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | reason it was put up.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 350
------------------------------