Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Thu, 31 May 1990 02:17:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 31 May 1990 02:17:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #469 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 469 Today's Topics: Re: Endeavour Construction Re: HAWAII AND STAR WARS Radiation Launch Advisory for 05/30/90 (Forwarded) Payload Status for 05/30/90 (Forwarded) Re: Hawaii and Launching rockets info-request ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 May 90 05:31:36 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Wales.Larrison@ucsd.edu (Wales Larrison) Subject: Re: Endeavour Construction Henry, some additional comments... >This month's issue of Spaceflight (one of the BIS publications) is >one of the best ads yet for this excellent magazine. ..An interview >with the Assistant Deputy Administrator of NASA, talking about nasty >things like funding instability. (He observes that Endeavour, >unliket any other NASA project, is ahead schedule and under budget! >He says the reason is very simple: it was funded all at once, in a >lump sum, so NASA knows where it stands financially for the entire >project, and can confidently plan several years ahead.) Besides getting the mult-year funding for Endeavour, NASA also has tried something a little bit different with it. Since NASA has not requested a new, risky development program for the replacement Shuttle orbiter, they and Rockwell agreed to a firm, fixed price contract for the replacement vehicle. However, it was written into the contract that for every $1.00 saved from the firm, fixed price, Rockwell would be able to keep 20 cents. Needless to say, Rockwell isreally pushing themselves to produce the vehicle under budget.... This is a good example of some creative contractual negotiations which really saved the government money. I think it was a very good idea, and I wish we could get a couple of other programs under the same contractual terms. Unfortunately, I've also seen a couple of arguments from Congress folks and independent think-tank types this was really a bad idea - since it reduced Congress's flexibility to change yearly funding to meet budgets, and is giving Rockwell a "windfall" profit. (I think think such argument are hookum, since Congress's ability to change yearly funding invariably costs money - saving pennies this year while having to spend dollars over the next 10 years - and if Rockwell can really build a quality product under cost and on schedule, then they should get paid extra for it. Else, what do we offer folks to do a better job?) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Wales Larrison "Space Technology Investor" --- Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Universal Electronics, Inc. (1:103/302.0) -- uucp: Wales Larrison Internet: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 31 May 90 00:57:28 GMT From: usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster!andrewt@ucsd.edu (Andrew Taylor) Subject: Re: HAWAII AND STAR WARS In refernce to complaints about effect on endangered species of proposed Hawaii spaceport: In article <9917@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >To reiterate what my coworker said, take a look at Cape Canaveral/Kennedy >Space Center. It's been the busiest space center in this country for >thirty years, and it's also a prime example of how high technology and >wildlife can coexist in peace. A launching facility may have little effect on some species. KSC may well have helped some endangered species by excluding their habitat from development. However KSC undoubtedly had some environmental impact. I believe its construction was one of the reasons for the extinction of the Dusky Seaside Sparrow (a subspecies of the Seaside Sparrow). Environmental impact of a development is very difficult to assess. I can illustrate this an example on a smaller scale. One of only three breeding colonies of little terns (small ground-nesting seabirds) in NSW was found in Sydney next to a major industrial site. Amazingly despite the light and noise from the refinery and additional disturbance from 4wd vehicles, joggers and dogs the colony was still successfully fledging some young each year. The refinery installed a lighing pole on its perimeter next to the colony. This reduced the colony's breeding success to zero because it provided a perch for a Kestrel to hunt from. The moral being that small modifications to the environment can have unexpected drastic effects. I'd guess from what little I know of the endangered species mention that they could, if due care was taken, co-exist with a spaceport but very careful consideration of the environmental impact is needed to ensure this development does not add to the long list of Hawaiian extinctions. ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 90 17:51:15 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!nereid!white@ucsd.edu (Harold Peter White) Subject: Radiation Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Radiation Summary: Earth's radiation belts Expires: Sender: Reply-To: white@nereid.ists.ca (Harold Peter White) Followup-To: Distribution: sci.space Organization: Institute for Space and Terrestrial Science Keywords: Van Allen belts There was a discussion a while back talking about low Earth orbit (LEO) and high Earth orbit (HEO). Do space agencies have `hard' facts to say `Lets stay out of the radiation belts because ...' or have they stayed away mostly because they don't really need to go there since its probably going to be a trouble area? I've found references on this subject hard to find, and those I do find contradictory. Any suggested refences? H. Peter White * There's no proof that life was meant * white@nereid.sal.ists.ca * to be serious * ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 90 17:49:33 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Launch Advisory for 05/30/90 (Forwarded) Jim Cast May 30, 1990 Headquarters, Washington, D.C. (Phone: 202/453-8536) Michael Braukus Headquarters, Washington, D.C. (Phone: 202/453-1548) George H. Diller Kennedy Space Center, Fla. (Phone: 407/867-2468) ROSAT LAUNCH ADVISORY NASA will proceed with the scheduled June 1 launch of the Roentgen Satellite (ROSAT) aboard a Delta II launch vehicle from Complex 17, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla. The launch window for Delta/ROSAT opens at 5:35 p.m. EDT and extends for 1 hour. The prelaunch news conference will be held as planned on Thursday, May 31 at 1 p.m. EDT at the KSC News Center. ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 90 17:50:14 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Payload Status for 05/30/90 (Forwarded) Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 05-30-90. - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at Pad-A) - Launch countdown and scrub/turnaround support continue today. - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) - CITE MUE and S/W verifications continue to support CITE testing. MVAK VAS training continues. Closeouts of level III/II and preps are in work to support move to CITE on 31 May. - STS-41 Ulysses (at ESA 60) - CITE MUE installation continues. - STS-42 IML-1 (at O&C) - Module pyrell foam replacement, floor staging, and rack staging continue. - STS-45 Atlas-1 (at O&C) - Orthogrid installations will continue today. - STS-46 TSS-1 (at O&C) - The coldplate hoist beam assembly will be proofloaded today. - STS-47 Spacelab-J (at O&C) - Rack frames will be unloaded today. - STS- 55 SL-D2 (at O&C) - No work is scheduled for today. - STS-LON-3 HST M&R (at O&C) - No work is scheduled for today. ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 90 21:54:26 GMT From: davidc@umd5.umd.edu (David Conrad) Subject: Re: Hawaii and Launching rockets Perhaps it wasn't apparent, but I am not an 'eco-terrorist', and in fact would support a launch facility in the state of Hawaii (just not on the big island). I simply get annoyed when someone tries to dismiss out of hand a subject which I feel is worthy of some discussion From article <9005300910.AA28964@zit.cigy.>, by jcp@cgch.UUCP (Joseph C. Pistritto): >> >From article <9903@hydra.gatech.EDU>, by dsm@prism.gatech.EDU (Daniel McGurl): >> > In article <1050400017@cdp> jhanson@cdp.UUCP writes: >> > Great! I tell you what, I'll take the aluminum and HCL dispersed over >> > the ocean, >> Oh, please. Weather patterns can blow from Ka Lae towards the Puna >> district of Hawaii where a good number of people live or towards the >> resort town of Kailua-Kona where a good number of other people live. > Let's get some data here. Weather patterns around Kennedy can blow in > all sorts of directions, but there are some pretty hard statistics > behind the environmental assessments done there. My point was the aluminum and HCL do not necessarily go out to ocean as the previous poster had supposed. And yes, as some other poster indicated, the trade winds blow from east to west, but the existance of a couple of 13,000 ft mountains I assume have some effect on wind patterns (but I'm not a meteorologist, so I could be wrong). With that said, I feel the whole issue of the amount of aluminum and HCL generated by the launches is an attempt to drum up popular support against the spaceport on emotional grounds. I would imagine the big island has enough other crap in the air from Kilauea to make the added amount of chemicals from any launch facility to be insignificant health wise. But I feel the idea of a launch facility on the big island to be a bad idea for other reasons. >> I guess you believe star wars will work and it will reduce the >> likelihood of 'nuclear warheads exploding on your doorstep'. Sad. > Uh, this argument doesn't seem to make any sense here. Where precisely > are these nuclear weapons coming from, Russia, or are they part of the > 'Star Wars' system you are referring to? If from Russia, then I'll > clue all you Hawaiians in, you're already a high value target out > there. (Ever hear of Pearl Harbor?, notice the Navy is still nearby?) > Hawaii is still quite strategic, even without Star Wars nearby. (Note: I'm not Hawaiian (and I don't play one on TV), I just used to live there and my parents live in Kailua-Kona) Let me clue you in: the big island of Hawaii is probably one of the safest places to be in the United States in the event of a nuclear war. Oahu (where Pearl Harbor, Hickam AFB, Wheeler AFB, Bellows AFS, Kaneohe MCAS, etc are located) is a couple of hundred miles to the east and unless the trade winds shift, the big island shouldn't receive much of the fallout. The only targets on the big island would be Hilo (General Lyman air field and the largest city on the island) and Kailua-Kona if the airport there is expanded enough to be suitable as an airbase and they would probably only be hit in a full spasmodic exchange. The one military base on the island that I know of (Pohukoa (sp?)) is an army training base and has (I assume) little or no strategic importance. Also, I don't see how a star wars launch facility would add to the island's strategic importance, since the facility is supposed to launch space based interceptors which I assume are supposed to be in space when the war starts. But that wasn't my point. I was trying to point out that star wars even if by some miracle it works (at some point in the undefined future) wouldn't keep 'nuclear weapons from exploding on your doorstep' (unless, of course, your doorstep happens to be an ICBM silo). > Hawaii has unique characteristics that make it especially suitable for > space launches, among them, that it is surrounded by water, so launches > in a variety of directions can be made within range safety constraints, > and proximity to the equator, (compared with other possible US launch sites). The big island of Hawaii is also among the most geologically active locations on earth. Kilauea has been erupting for 7 years now and its lava flows have destroyed several communities and earthquakes are not uncommon. Additionally, the winds in Ka'u are quite strong and constant (there are wind power generators there) and clouds and rain usually build up on the side of Mauna Loa that Ka'u is located. The big island has other problems as a launch facility: the only deep water ports on the island are about 100 miles away on roads that aren't currently capable of supporting the type of transports necessary for shipping rockets like we are talking about and most locals on the island are in significant opposition to additional development of military factilities (actually additional development period). On a more personal side, the Ka'u area is very pretty and has some fantastic diving. If Ka Lae is used as a spaceport (in particular a star wars oriented spaceport), it is likely that the area would be destroyed and/or civilians would be restricted from the area. I always thought the island of Kahoolawe would be a much better choice as a launch facility: it has no people or endangered species on it, it has fairly constant good weather since the mountains on the island aren't high enough to cause local weather and it is useless for almost any other purpose since the military has used it as a target since WWII, so almost no one will complain when it is paved over for launch fields. Also, since the government already 'owns' the island and no one lives there, the government wouldn't have to pay off the people who are displaced by the construction. Even security would be easier since the island is only reachable by a 3 hour (or so) boat ride. But I suppose all this is beside the point, since the DOD has decided it wants an SDI launch facility on the big island. It appears the only recourse people on the big island have to stop the development is to use environmental concerns (which may or may not exist, in politics is doesn't seem to matter). -drc ------------------------------ ReSent-Message-ID: Resent-Date: Wed, 30 May 90 10:44:23 EDT Resent-From: Harold Pritchett Resent-To: Space discussion group Date: 29 May 90 14:14:41 +0200 From: S88406001%HSEPM1.HSE.NL@vma.cc.cmu.edu Subject: info-request X-Envelope-To: space@finhutc.BITNET ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- This message was originally submitted by S88406001@HSEPM1.HSE.NL to the SPACE list at FINHUTC. If you simply forward it back to the list, it will be distributed with the paragraph you are now reading being automatically removed. If you edit the contributions you receive into a digest, you will need to remove this paragraph before mailing the result to the list. Finally, if you need more information from the author of this message, you should be able to do so by simply replying to this note. ----------------- Message requiring your approval (14 lines) ------------------ I have been reading SPACE for some time now [with great interest I must add] and have a request. Is there anyone who can give me some info about NASA and/or ESA. In perticularly contact adresses to which I can write for further info. Any info will be greatly appreciated. _____________________________________________________________________________ | Rene "FLOYD" Ketelaars | "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE" | | S88406001@HSEPM1.HSE.NL | highlander | |________________________________|__________________________________________| ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #469 *******************