Message-ID: <UZTpDPu00VcJ0FLk4r@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri,  8 Dec 89 01:25:33 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #319

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 319

Today's Topics:
		     Hearings on HR2674 (2 of 6)
	      Re: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars
			     Mars rovers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Dec 89 19:39:53 GMT
From: mailrus!sharkey!itivax!vax3!aws@uunet.uu.net  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Hearings on HR2674 (2 of 6)

Below is testimony fron the hearings on HR2674. The next step is
to pressure Congressperson Nelson of Florida to send the bill to
'mark up' so it can get to the floor.

This information comes from Tihamer Toth-Fjel of the Ann Arbor Space
Society and Catherine Rawlings of Congressperson Packard's office.

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

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN RON PACKARD (R-CA)
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS
NOVEMBER 9, 1989

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I APPRECIATE THIS OPPORlUNITY TO EXPRESS MY VlEWS TODAY.

I COMMEND THE CHAIRMAN FOR HIS ROLE IN THE PASSAGE OF THE COMMERCIAL
SPACE LAW4CH ACT OF 1984 AND THE 1988 AMMENDMENTS TO THAT ACT.  THIS
LEGISLATION ADDRESSES MANY OF THE CRITICAL ISSUES FACING THE LAUNCH
INDUSTRY: LICENSING, LLABILITY INSURANCE, INDEMNIFICATION, USE OF
GOVERNMENT PROPERTY AND PREEMPTION. TODAY'S HEARING WILL GIVE US AN
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE HOW EFFECTIVELY THAT LEGISLATION IS BEING
IMPLEMENTED.

I ALSO COMMEND THE CHAIRMAN FOR HIS MORE RECENT ACTIVITIES IN
ENCOURAGING NASA TO STREAMLINE THEIR PROCUREMmNT OF LAUNCH SERVICES. IN
A MAY 1989 LETTER TO NASA'S ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, THE CHAIRMAN STATED,
"I SIMPLY CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY NASA HAS NOT TAKEN THE LEAD IN
DEVELOPING WHAT THE CONGRESS HAS ALREADY DIRECTED: THE
PROCUREMENT OF COMMERCLAL LbUNCH SERVICES IN A COMMERCIALLY
REASONABLE MANNER."

I ALLY MYSELF WITH THE CHAIRMAN ON THIS CONCEPT. IN JUNE 1989 I
INTRODUCED H. R.  2674, THE "SPACE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PURCHASES
ACT OF 1989" TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. THIS HEARING WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO EXPLORE THE FULL POTENTIAL OF THE CONCEPT OF STREAMLINED PROCUREMENT
PRACTICES FOR OOVERNMENT PURCHASES OF LAUNCH SERVICES.

SINCE NOVEMBER 1988, I HAVE MET WITH NUMEROUS PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH
THE LAUNCH INDUSTRY, INCLUDING ESTABLISHED AND ENTREPRENEURIAL LAUNCH
COMPANIES, SATELLITE COMPANIES, SPACE INSURANCE COMPANIES, SPACE
ASSOCIATIONS, SPACE SOCIETIES AND APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. MY
OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN TO EXPLORE THE IMPACT OF THE GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
PRACTICES ON THE U. S. COMM@RCIAL SPACE LAUNCH INDUSTRY.

THE ISSUE AT STAKE IS SIMPLE : COMPETITIVENESS. THE EXISTING AND
PROPOSED LEGISLATION UNDER CONSIDERATION TODAY ARE VITAL AND RELEVANT
ONLY IF THEY ARE EFFECTIVE IN ENCOURAGING THE EMERGENCE OF A STRONG,
INTERNATIONALLY CQMPETITIVE LAUNCH INDUSTRY.

THE UNITED STATES CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE ITS  COMMERCIAL LAUNCH
INDUSTRY. IT WILL BE A TRAGEDY IF CONGRESS DOES NOT TAKE EVERY POSSIBLE
ACTION TO PREVENT THE WORST SCENARIO: LOSS OF THE COMMERCIAL LAWQCH
INDUSTRY AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE EXPORT AND DEPENDENCY OF ALL U. S.
COMMERCIAL SATELLITES FOR LAUNCH ON A FOREIGN ROCKET.

THAT SCEARRIO IS NOT AS FAR AWAY AS SOME MIGHT THINK. THE SEPTEMBER 16,
1989 ISSUE OF THE CONGRESSIQNAL QUARTERLY CONTAINS AN ARTICLE TITLED
"ROCKET INDUSTRY SEEKS HELP IN GLOBAL LAUNCH WAR." IN THIS "WAR," TIME
IS OF THE ESSENCE. THE EUROPEAN LAUNCH CQMPANY, ARIANESPACE, HAS
ALREADY SECURED HALF OF THE AVAILABLE COMMERCIAL LAUNCH CONTRACTS.
JAPAN HOPES TO INTRODUCE ITS BOOSTER IN 1992. THE USSR IS INCREASING
ITS EFFORTS TO ENTER THE COMMERCIAL LAUNCH MARKET.  CHINA HOPES TO BE
BACK IN THE MARKET WITH ITS LONG MARCH IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

AS WE HAVE FOR OTHER HIGH-TECH INDUSTRIES, SUCH AS SEMICONDUCTORS AND
HIGH-DEFINITIQN TELEVISION, CONGRESS MUST EXPLORE HOW THE GOVERNMENT
CAN CREATE INCENTIVES FOR THIS INDUSTRY TO COMPETE IN THE GLOBAL
MARKETPLACE WHERE THEIR FOREIGN COMPETITORS ARE WELL-SUBSIDIZED.

PRIVATE INDUSTRY AND U. S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES HAVE CONDUCTED NUMEROUS
STUDIES TO EXPLORE MAYS TO REDUCE LAUNCH COSTS. A RECURRING
RECOMMENDATION IS TO ENCOURAGE THE U. S. GOVERNMENT TO BUYLAUNCH
SERVICES IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR.  IMPLEMENTATION OF
THIS RECOMMENDATION IS THE MAIN GOUL OF H. R. 2674 WHICH WE ARE
REVIEWING TODAY.

TO BRING DOWN THE COSTS OF LAUNCH SERVICES, THE COMPANIES MUST OBTAIN
ECONOMIES OF SCALE. THIS CAN ONLYY BE ACCOMPLISHED IF THEIR LARGEST
CUSTONER, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, BUYS THEIR SERVICES "OFF THE
SHELF" IN AS MANY INSTANCES AS POSSIBLE.

THE TERM "OFF THE SHELF" MEANS BUYING A PRODUCT OR SEKVICE THAT MEETS
COMERCIAL STANDARDS, NOT GOVERNMENT SPECIFICATIONS. MANY STUDIES, SUCH
AS THE PACKARD COMMISSION REPORT, STRONGLY ADVOCATE THIS PRACTICE BY
THE GOVERNMENT.  APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE TO THE LAUNCH INDUSTRY, THE U.
S. GOVERNMENT COULD PURCHASE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME LAUNCH SERVICE FOR
THE SAME PRICE AS HUGHES, GTE, OR ANY OTHER SATELLITE CQMPANY.
EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS BUY THEIR LAUNCH SERVICES FROM ARIANESPACE IN THE
SAME MANNER AS ANY PRIVATE COMPANY.  THIS HAS ENABLED ARIANESPACE TO
CONTRACT FOR FIFTY ROCKETS AT A TIME, ALL OF WHICH WILL MEET THE SAME
COMERCIAL STANDARDS.

I BELIEVE THAT GREATER IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS METHOD OF PROCUREMENT IS
FEASIBLE WITHIN BOTH NASA AND THE AIR FORCE.  OBVIOUSLY, THIS PROCESS
WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR EVERY PAYLOAD THE GOVERNMENT LAUNCHES. MY
INTENT IS NOT TO PUT U. S. GOVERNMENT ASSETS AT UNREASONABLE RISK. SOME
PAYLOADS ARE OF SUCH COMPLEXITY THAT THEY WOULD REQUIRE A GREATER
DEGREE OF GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT. FLEXIBILITY FOR SUCH CASES SHOULD BE
ALLOWED.

HOWEVER, THE VAST MAJORITY OF GOVERNMENT PAYLOADS ARE SIMILAR TO THE
TYPES OF SATELLITES OPERATED AND LAUNCHED BY THE COMMERCIAL
SECTOR--COMMUNICATIONS, NAVIGATION, AND WEATHER SATELLITES. INDEED,
MANY GOVERNMENT SATELLITES OF THESE KINDS ARE ALREADY LAUNCHED
COMMERCIALLY.  FOR EXAMPLE, BOTH THE NAVY AND THE STRATEGIC DEFENSE
INITIATIVE ORGANIZATIUN (SDIO) HAVE CONTRACTED FOR COMMERCIAL LAUNCH
SERVICES AND ARE FULLY SATISFIED WITH THE SERVICE THEY RECEIVE. THESE
NAVY AND SDIO SATELLITES ARE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN MANY
OTHER SATELLITES THE GOVERNMENT COULD LAUNCH COMMERCIALLY.

YET THE GOVERNMENT CONTINUES TO IMPOSE UNNECESSARY RDGULATORY AND
OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY OVER THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF LAUNCH
VEHICLES. THIS RESULTS IN SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER COSTS AND LESS
ENGINEERING FREEDOM.  THE SMALLER ENTREPRENEURIAL COMPANIES FIND IT
EXTREMELY DIFFICULT AND EXPENSIVE TO COMPLY WITH THE BURDENSOME
GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS.

TO BE INTERNATIONALLY COMPETITIVE IN THE LONG TERM, THE U. S.  INDUSTRY
MUST BE LAUNCHING COMPETITIVELY DESIGNED AND PRICED VEHICLES, NOT
VEHICLES DESIGNED BY GOVERNMENT SPECIFICATIONS. THE COMMERCIAL PRODUCT
DESIGN MUST REFLECT MARKETPLACE DEMANDS SUCH AS COST, EFFICIENCY, AND
RELIABILITY. INDUSTRY MUST HAVE THE FREEDOM TO IMPLEMENT INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES WITHOUT THE HINDRANCE OF THE U. S. GOVERNMENT.

THE UNITED STATES PRIVATE SECTOR HAS THE CAPABILITY AND ENTREPRENEURIAL
SPIRIT NEEDED TO EXPAND ITS ROLE AS A MAJOR COMPETITOR IN THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMERCLhL SPACE MARKET.  THE ECONOMIC, TECHNOLOGIGAL,
SCIENTIFIC, AND NATIONAL SECURITY BENEFITS THE NATION WOULD REAP FROM
THIS ACHIEVMENT ARE GREAT.  BUT THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH
THIS UNTIL THEIR LARGEST CUSTOMER--THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT GIVES
THEM THE FREEDOM TO REACH ECONOMIES OF SCALE AND EFFECTIVELY RESPOND TO
THE MARKETPLACE.

I HAVE GREAT CONCERNS ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT'S LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR THE
ENTREPRENEURIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES. THE U. S.  GOVERNMENT
STRONGLY ENCOURAGED INCREASED INVOLVEMENT IN THIS INDUSTRY, YET HAS
BEEN SLOW TO ENCOURAGE THE VIABILITY OF THESE NEW ENTRANTS.  THE U. S.
GOVERNMENT SHOULD MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO ENCOURAGE THE GREATEST RETURN ON
THE MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF PRIVATE INVESTMENT DOLLARS IN THIS
INDUSTRY.

I AM HAPPY TO DEFER TO MY COLLEAGUE, CONGRESSMAN JIM KOLBE OF ARIZONA,
TO FURTHER DISCUSS THE POTENTIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT
AND THESE NEW LAUNCH COMPANIES.

THANK YOU AGAIN, MR.  CHAIRMAN, FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF THE GOALS OF H. R. 2674, THE "SPACE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
PURCHASE ACT OF 1989." I BELIEVE THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THIS INDUSTRY
DEPENDS ON IT. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Allen W. Sherzer                    |  Is the local cluster the result   |
|  aws@iti.org                        |  of gerrymandering?                |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 7 Dec 89 21:43:49 GMT
From: groucho!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (Steve Emmerson)
Subject: Re: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars

henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>As has been mentioned before, nobody uses robots to explore Antarctica,
>even though supporting humans there is decidedly expensive.

Bad analogy.  The transportation infrastructure necessary to support
human occupation of Antarctica is quite well established.  Not so for space.

--Steve Emmerson	steve@unidata.ucar.edu

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

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 21:34:40 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Mars rovers


>From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@purdue.edu  (Herman Rubin)
>Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars

>I do not see this as being more meaningful, except that in deep undersea work,
>EVA is essentially impossible.  Also, on earth, including deep-sea work, the
>maximum communication delay time is 1/7 second, and even this provides some
>problems.  Experiments on teleoperation with the < 3 second delay for the
>distance of the moon show problems.  For Mars, there is a minimum delay of
>more that 5 minutes, which means no really interactive teleoperations.  I
>understand that the attempt to develop reliable Mars rover robuts is as yet
>unsuccessful.

The "conventional" model of a Mars rover involves a vehicle barreling along
at breakneck speed, like the mobile greenhouse from "Lost in Space". It is
argued that teleoperation is not possible, because by the time a warning
signal can be sent to the rover, it will undoubtedly have smashed into a
boulder or plunged off a cliff. Therefore, the rover must be a fully
autonomous vehicle, able to see and avoid obstructions. Unfortunately,
a tremendous amount of processing power is required by current algorithms, 
so we will have to wait until the state of the art advances considerably.

I submit that this is not really necessary. There is a very simple solution
to the control problem: SLOW THE VEHICLE DOWN, to the point at which control
by contemporary techniques is possible. Even a rover which moves only a
fraction of a mile per day can cover a considerable distance over the
course of a several-year mission. 

Using this approach, most of the "intelligence" required for navigation
can be kept on Earth, where weight is not a factor, and human involvement
can guide the rover to the most interesting places and allow it to collect
the most interesting samples. The rover would be equipped with a forward-
looking camera (or two or more for stereo effect, possibly on elevated poles
to enable them to look over the tops of nearby objects), and would transmit
the images plus telemetry back to earth. The decision on where to go
next would be made on Earth, and a set of appropriate instructions sent
back to the rover. The rover would proceed to the next designated point and
stop, then the process would be repeated. A "dumb" rover with no feedback
of its own could be used, or performance could be enhanced by the addition
of more sophisticated local controls, such as sensors to detect wheel
or foot slippage, inertial guidance, and the ability to "fix" on local
landmarks. With round-trip light-speed delays of about 10-40 minutes, the
control cycle could be repeated many times per day.

Several possibilities for earth-based control:
 - Continual human supervision can be employed to detect objects of interest.
 - Computer image analysis can be used to produce a "map" of the local
   terrain for more effective guidance.
 - A long sequence of instructions can be sent to the rover at each step,
   possibly allowing it to travel a considerable distance, depending on the
   fidelity with which it can carry out the instructions.
 - A proposed sequence of instructions can be simulated before transmission,
   to check for possible problems (i.e. violation of safety rules, such as
   excessive tilt or too close an approach to an obstacle.)
 - Some surfaces may be inherently slippery or be covered with loose material
   that promotes slipping. Feedback to ground controllers can detect this
   problem, and permit the use of appropriate countermeasures.
 - If, for some reason, continuous motion is desirable, a sufficiently slow
   rover and a sufficiently fast and versatile controller can make this
   possible.
 - Information from remote sensors (the Mars Observer is expected to map much
   of the planet at a resolution of 1.4 meters) can be used for long-term
   planning and the avoidance of major obstacles.

Typical scenario for an "advanced" system:
   The Mars rover transmits a stereo image of the view ahead to Earth. A
   computer on Earth combines this with previously-obtained imagery to produce
   a three-dimensional map of the terrain. Human controllers, referring to 
   the overall mission objectives, plot a reasonable course to the next
   stopping point, and submit it to the computer. The computer runs a 
   simulation, and indicates that it foresees no difficulties. The appropriate
   set of instructions is assembled, along with error detecting/correcting
   codes, and sent to the rover. The ground crew then waits for acknowledgement
   from the rover, and the next set of images.

Part of the beauty of this approach is that a rover can be designed and built
fairly quickly. It is not necessary to wait for the development of an
advanced autonomous system. In its initial use, the rover will move very
slowly. As experience, knowledge of terrain, and sophistication of controllers
increase, the net speed of the rover can be increased accordingly. If there
are major breakthroughs in autonomous vehicle control algorithms, the rover
can be reprogrammed for greater autonomy.

While I'm on the subject, here are a few items to add to the "wish list"
for a Mars rover:
 - Mechanical levers to get the rover rightside-up, to be used the day
   after the big office party. :-)
 - Protective covers for sensors, plus wipers to remove accumulated dust
   (could electrostatic attraction of dust be a problem?)
 - The usual built-in redundancy, including the ability to continue operation
   after one or more wheels/feet are disabled.

I think some of these ideas are included in current design proposals.
                               John Roberts
                               roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #319
*******************