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, 5 Jul 1990 01:40:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 5 Jul 1990 01:40:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #15 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 15 Today's Topics: Re: grim tidings for the future Re: grim tidings for the future Re: grim tidings for the future Re: HST Focus problem Re: The end of Hubble Re: Bringing the HST down -- even possible? Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing Re: Nasa's budget Avation bbs's Re: Inaccurate quotes (was: Re: More on NASA 91 Appropriation Vote) Problems in building telescope - a lesson Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Jul 90 05:13:54 GMT From: uoft02.utoledo.edu!fax0112@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future > reducing the entry-level cost to orbit by a factor of 5, > and spending only 1/5 of 1% what NASA spent to develop > the Shuttle? > Who built a prototype of a coil gun that could reduce the cost > to orbit by a factor of 100? > Who is building a prototype of a laser launcher that could also > greatly reduce cost to orbit? > Who built a prototype gas gun launcher, ditto? > Who is building a prototype of inflatable space stations that could > reduce the cost of putting astronauts on the Moon and Mars? I always have problems withe these type fo statements. REmemeber the Shuttle was supposed to be 'greatly reduce the cost' but after buget cuts, dealys, etc that is not the case...I think these are others are unrealistic in regards to cost (and practical methods). > > Who has kept people in space, doing a wide variety of studies, > almost continuously for the last 10 years? > Who has launched the most satellites into space over the last > 10 years? > Who set the record for human duration in space? > Who has an operational, permanent micogravity furnace? > These are much too easy. Aren't they? I mean everyone does know the answer don't they? > > > Nearly all of the breakthroughs in space technology during the last 10 years > have been accomplished by somebody other than NASA, despite the fact that Depends on how you define things. Yeah other have set indurance records etc but in many subtle ways NASA has blown them away. It is a hrad thing to measure when different groups concentrate in different areas. > NASA has spent more money on space than any other agency (over $100 billion > The space program can certainly survive without NASA; it would > likely thrive. > Just like the private space effort in america has just been blazing across the sky? How do you suppose it would thrive? I agree we should not be in the business of launching comercial payloads but since the private sector is unwilling to take things like a space station on them selves (too high an outlay over too long with the rewards too far down the road - typical american ideas that are killing us). Recall also that there is a large flux back into the economy from the money invested in NASA. Robert Dempsey Ritter Observatory > ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jul 90 15:06:19 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future In article <1990Jul3.231917.1601@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> ih@deimos.caltech.edu writes: > 3) What organization has launched the largest space station in > history? I'm afraid you're behind the times, Irwin; the answer to *this* one is "Glavkosmos". With the latest expansion module, Mir is bigger than Skylab. (It also has an order of magnitude more operating experience, already.) -- "Either NFS must be scrapped or NFS | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology must be changed." -John K. Ousterhout | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jul 90 17:30:04 GMT From: thorin!grover!beckerd@mcnc.org (David Becker) Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future In article <9007032002.AA23483@ibmpa.paloalto.ibm.com>, szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nicholas J. Szabo) writes... " " Time for a little quiz: " " [ Quiz on current space activity and accomplishments of the 80s ] In article <1990Jul3.231917.1601@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> ih@deimos.caltech.edu writes: "How about another quiz... " " [ Asks who did Apollo, planetary probes and Skylab. ] " " Granted your quiz above does point out a number of "areas that NASA has not been the leading contender, but to expect that "NASA is going to be the leader in everything is not only unrealistic, but "is also insulting to those other organizations which are working hard to "push the limits of technology. Nick neglected to add "when?" to his quiz. Granted, the fruits of NASA's labors of the 60s were amazing. They also culminated 20 years ago. As Congress cut funding, NASA managed to launch a few more feats until 75 or so. These can easily be classified as remnants of the agency of the 60s. NASA has managed to push the state of the art only in white elephants the last twenty years (with regard to new space activity). Spinoffs and better scientific instrucments don't add up to exploration. NASA is NOT where the action in space explotation has been the last 20 years. We can only hope that until private enterprise can take the lead, Glavkosmos remains a going concern during the USSR's restructing . David Becker Gotta love a machine that hangs on beckerd@cs.unc.edu your every word. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 90 19:36:07 GMT From: swrinde!emory!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!crash!orbit!quest!viper!dave@ucsd.edu (David Messer) Subject: Re: HST Focus problem In article <1990Jun29.173850.927@uoft02.utoledo.edu> fax0112@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes: > >A couple of brief comments on the problem. First of all I have >plots of the PSF, it looks fairly well behaved, but indeed most >of the light is concentrated outside of 0.6 ". If you can determine just how the light is scattered, wouldn't it be possible to run a filter over the data to restore the image? I know this can be done to take an out-of-focus image and put it into focus. Does someone who is an expert in image processing have a comment? -- Remember Tiananmen Square. | David Messer dave@Lynx.MN.Org -or- | Lynx Data Systems ...!bungia!viper!dave ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 90 19:45:35 GMT From: swrinde!emory!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!crash!orbit!quest!viper!dave@ucsd.edu (David Messer) Subject: Re: The end of Hubble In article <1232@berlioz.nsc.com> andrew@dtg.nsc.com (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head ) writes: > >So I would say the reaction would be amazement that mirror testing of >some sort was not done in the 6-ish *YEARS* available to ground crews. Just think how bad it would've been if the thing had launched on-time! :-) -- Remember Tiananmen Square. | David Messer dave@Lynx.MN.Org -or- | Lynx Data Systems ...!bungia!viper!dave ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 90 19:31:56 GMT From: swrinde!emory!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!crash!orbit!quest!viper!dave@ucsd.edu (David Messer) Subject: Re: Bringing the HST down -- even possible? In article <1990Jun30.035609.16946@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1990Jun29.222812.24303@efi.com> tim@efi.com (Tim Maroney) writes: >>Everyone seems quite sure that the HST will not be brought down to the >>ground for repair. >>My question: Can it be done? Does the >>HST have the standard shuttle satellite-retrieval handles? ... > >Yes. There is no problem, in principle, with the actual retrieval. > >>...what would be the estimated cost of the whole repair >>operation? > >Two dedicated shuttle missions. (You won't be able to piggyback another >payload for a maximum-altitude mission, and HST fills the *whole* payload >bay for all practical purposes.) [+ other costs] You could wait for the HSTs orbit to decay before retreiving it. Depending on how long this would take would determine the cost-effectiveness of this option. -- Remember Tiananmen Square. | David Messer dave@Lynx.MN.Org -or- | Lynx Data Systems ...!bungia!viper!dave ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jul 90 11:06:04 GMT From: agate!agate!web@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (William Baxter) Subject: Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing The NSS is supported largely by the Aerospace Industry Advisory Council. NSS president Charles Walker is a former McDonnell-Douglas representative to the AIAC. To the best of my knowledge he remains a paid employee of McDonnell-Douglas. NSS executive director Lori Garver is an ex officio member of the AIAC. The corporate members of the AIAC stand to lose business to the Chinese. The NSS is simply one of their lobbying tools. -- William Baxter ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jul 90 15:15:12 GMT From: usc!samsung!umich!umeecs!itivax!vax3.iti.org!aws@ucsd.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Nasa's budget thorin!grover!beckerd@mcnc.org (David Becker) writes: >How would NASA fare if Congress dropped NASA's Big Space items >(ie. shuttle and Freedom)? Or cut flights to 1 or 2 a year (that is if >the hardware doesn't force that anyway). Wrong question. The correct question is: How would our space goals fare if Congress dropped NASA's big space items? The answer is that almost any goal readers of this net have would be advanced by having these items dropped. >Could cutting the Shuttle and cancelling Freedom actually help space >explotation? Yes. The shuttle is the high cost way to space. Expendables can provide the same service for far less cost. In addition, the Shuttle wiht it's first say on facilities makes it a lot harder to launch commercial expendables which would reduce costs even more (mass production and learning curve). If we ran access to space the way Ariane does, the cost of getting to LEO would be cut in half almost overnight. As to Freedom, that program is totally out of control. Tim Kyger told me earlier this week that the number of shuttle filghts to do assembly (not counting resuply) is about to double. They are about to start another rescoping and redesign. (I'll post details later). These programs cannot be defended. By defending these programs, we are playing into the hands of people who do want to kill the entire thing. >Perhaps forcing NASA to make do with a much smaller >allowance will stimulate the cost-effective launchers that all us >netters are dying for. Or would the red tape survive as hardware is cut? So far, red tape has shown to be stronger than engineers. NASA gets 1/3 the funding it did in the 60's (adjusted for inflation). Yet it has 2/3 the same number of staff. If this happened in a private company you would say their productivity has been cut in half. Currently, NASA can't find it's rear end with both hands. They haven't done anything well in 15 years and I don't think it can be corrected. Allen | | In War: Resolution | | Allen W. Sherzer | In Defeat: Defiance | | aws@iti.org | In Victory: Magnanimity | | | In Peace: Good Will | ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 90 02:30:00 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!tmsoft!masnet!f734.n250.z1.fidonet.org!mick.winestone@ucsd.edu (mick winestone) Subject: Avation bbs's DOes anyone know of any Avation bbs's. I know One called the Avation bbs but i can't log on. Does anyone know any of any others. --- QuickBBS 2.64 (Eval) * Origin: THE EAGLE'S NEST "Fun For Everyone" (416)532-6587 (1:250/734) ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jul 90 15:49:04 GMT From: usc!samsung!umich!umeecs!itivax!vax3.iti.org!aws@ucsd.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Inaccurate quotes (was: Re: More on NASA 91 Appropriation Vote) web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes: >>>[Andrew Cutler agrees with me that SEI a waste of money based on the >>>90 day report] Not a correct paraphrase. You stated that Andy thinks SEI is a waste of money. You didn't say this was based on the 90 day report. If I misunderstood, then we may not have a problem. I also agree that even thinking about the NASA 90 day study is a waste. However, as currently implimented, SEI is being run assuming the 90 day study won't work. >> Why did he >>tell me in a phone conversation (roughly): "At least they are doing it >>[SEI] right this time and taking a few years to study it and not just >>jump in".? > >I asked Andy about this. He says he never made any such statement to >you or to anyone else. In fact, he said that he has not discussed SEI >with you at all. You really should quote people accurately. I stand by the quote. It was an offhand remark and I'm not suprised he doesn't remember. It stuck with me because it wasn't the sort of thing I expected to hear from him. If you choose to take his memory over mine, suit yourself. I can't help but notice that you ignored two points and focused on a third. Can you tell us that if SEI is a waste, why is Dr. Cutler in his NSS campaign literature asking for support of the NASA outreach program which is funded under SEI? Why is he himself working on it? If he agrees with you surely he would have nothing to do with it. >Tim Kyger, whose name is commonly associated with your own in this >forum, also thinks that SEI is a waste of money. He calls it the "Staff >Expansion Initiative." Yep. We have talked a lot about that. If I agreed wiht his assumptions I would agree wiht him. If he agreed with my assumptions he would agree wth me. Being mature adults, we agree to disagree. He is going to send me an article which I will post on this subject. To parphrase, he thinks all the SEI money will go to NASA who will use it in an attempt to impliment the 90 day study. We both agree this will never work. I think that the Space Council is well aware of the situation at NASA. From what I have seen, the council is going to manage the program in a way similar to what the Marshall Institute proposed in their report on the Lunar and Mars initiative. If so, then NASA will have little control over the process and SEI money is going to the Space Council and not NASA. I am also concerned about political aspects. We are getting this far because of Bush's efforts. If he gets burned on this, he may decide to drop it next year. That would be a major blow. Tim, on the other hand, thinks that Bush will stay with it. We both agree that another agency is needed to maintain the infastructure developed in this program. This agency would facilitate commercial operations in space in the same way that the FAA facilitates air travel. Allen | | In War: Resolution | | Allen W. Sherzer | In Defeat: Defiance | | aws@iti.org | In Victory: Magnanimity | | | In Peace: Good Will | ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jul 90 05:24:09 GMT From: uoft02.utoledo.edu!fax0112@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Subject: Problems in building telescope - a lesson Some time back someone posted a request for observatories to discuss how things when they were setting themselves up. I meant to respond but never got around to it. In light of recent events this may even be more relavant. I was not around when the Ritter 1-m was being installed but I have heard the legend. It was behind schedule and they had difficulty in installing it because all the right equipment was also late in arriving. The installation story is an amazing (long) firside tale of hearty crfatsmen using 2x4s and chains to get the damn thing in. The people who were supposed to align it were not really qualified so months and months slipped by before any real progress was made. The image quality was poor and they could not figure out why. The a recent young PhD came here. Quickly he sized up the situation. he went to our sister telscope at Yerkes and studied it. He then realized that the mirror was incorrect!!! The blank had been ground correctly but the coating was wrong. Apparently, the company had put on a layer, tested and kept reiterating as things got better. However, in their rush after the last round (since things were improving) they did not run the final check again. It had to be redone. Now we have an awesome scope that has been in the forfront of astronomy for 20 years!!!! This was back in the day where then entire observatory cost $1million. I think there is a lesson there, perhaps. Just some thoughts.... Robert Dempsey Ritter Observatory ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #15 *******************