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 ; Fri, 6 Jul 1990 03:03:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 6 Jul 1990 03:03:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #21 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 21 Today's Topics: Payload Status for 07/05/90 (Forwarded) Re: grim tidings for the future Re: grim tidings for the future (Abberated) Reflections on the Hubble Space Telescope Re: Nasa's budget Re: Nasa's budget Re: realities of testing HST Hubble Q&A 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: 5 Jul 90 18:18:32 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Payload Status for 07/05/90 (Forwarded) Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 07-05-90. - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at OPF) - Experiment monitoring continues. Preps in work to support BBXRT battery removal tomarrow. - STS-37 GRO (at PHSF) - Test batteries will not be discharged today; awaiting possible manifest/schedule impacts. - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) - GTA pressure monitoring, MLI installation and installation of flight caps on experiment subsystem computers continues today. - STS-41 Ulysses (at Hanger AO) - At the VPF, prechecks of electrical test equipment and software validation continue today to support CITE testing. - STS-42 IML-1 (at O&C) - Rack, floor, and module staging is continuing. - Atlas-1 (at O&C) - Temperature sensors and cables will be installed today. - STS-46 TSS-1 (at O&C) - EMP paper closure continues. - STS-47 Spacelab-J (at O&C) - Rack staging continues. - HST M&R - Work off PR'S scheduled for today. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jul 90 22:41:16 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!csd4330a!newsserv!wright@ucsd.edu (Tim Wright) Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future In article <11053@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: Oh, we have plenty of launch capacity...go to any of the commercial rocket manufacturers here in the U.S., and they'll sign you up in no time. I firmly believe that we are well past they days of the many cheap probe tactic...we've done a lot of the easy science now, and it's the co-ordinated findings from several instruments simultaneously that we're looking for. Perhaps if our planetary program was in the situation of the Soviets, (probes break a lot more than they work) this would make sense, but I have no qualms with the way we do our probes. It would be nice if we could rework the funding process for them, but that's not NASA's fault. Unfortunately, as I understand it, NASA has the launching facilities. So they control who goes. When the shuttle is delayed that pushes back all other launches. It takes days to reconfigure the system for new launches. So how can a company run an effective launching business if their success depends so much on NASA? People go to other countries more reliable, cheaper launching systems. -- Tim Wright ERIM Ann Arbor, MI wright@sed4330a.erim.org ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jul 90 19:04:17 GMT From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future In article <14997@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, leech@homer.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes: >>Funny how all those projects were successful on economy budgets rather than >>deluxe class "big science" tickets. > > You think Galileo is on an economy budget? Try again. Compared to what? Hubble? ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jul 90 22:18:46 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!servax0!Sol27!jonea@uunet.uu.net (Jones A G) Subject: (Abberated) Reflections on the Hubble Space Telescope How to make your own Space Telescope ------------------------------------ To create your own working Space Telescope, just following these simple steps: 1. Design a Little Space Telescope. 2. Send the Little Space Telescope up into Space. 3. Look through it. What do you see? Please choose your answer from the following options: a) A lot of pretty stars. b) A lot of not-very-pretty, blurry stars. c) A large, angry gorilla beating its chest and making strange, unearthly faces. 4. If your answer was 'a', you may now make a Big Space Telescope and proceed into the wonderful world of astronomy. If your answer was 'b', go back to stage 1 and try again until you understand all the problems. If your answer was 'c', you didn't follow the instructions properly - instead you constructed a Little Spaced-out Telescope. You may now apply for a senior post at NASA, where strange men in white coats will look after you and cater for your every wish - no matter how much it costs. _______________________________________________________________________________ Alun. PS If you want to flame me, my address is fred@hell.and.back, and if you don't, its jonea@essex.ac.uk. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jul 90 15:46:26 GMT From: xanth!xanth.cs.odu.edu!paterra@mcnc.org (Frank C. Paterra) Subject: Re: Nasa's budget In article <5436@itivax.iti.org> aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: thorin!grover!beckerd@mcnc.org (David Becker) writes: >>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. Expendible may be cheaper, but without any sort of space station currently, the shuttle is our only way of performing manned experiments in space. One could argue that manned experiments are a waste of time and money, but if they are really needed, then we need the shuttle. Of course we could design a man-rated re-entry vehicle that could be launched on an expendible, but that won't be cheap either >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). Totally out of control. -- Frank Paterra paterra@cs.odu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jul 90 20:07:17 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!umich!ox.com!itivax!vax3.iti.org!aws@ucsd.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Nasa's budget In article paterra@cs.odu.edu (Frank C. Paterra) writes: >>Yes. The shuttle is the high cost way to space. Expendables can provide >>the same service for far less cost. >Expendible may be cheaper, but without any sort of space station >currently, the shuttle is our only way of performing manned experiments >in space. Agreed. In a few years we could design a Apollo like Command Service Module. Let's say that costs $500M to build (I suspect it could be done for less). Then we spend another $500M to produce a heavy lift vehicle (Martin Marietta has already proposed to do this) which can lift 100,000 pounds. Finally, we spend another $500M building the LLNL space station. We would then have the needed capability for $1.5 billion. Each launch would cost $150M which is half the cost of the shuttle (and would get lower as the learning curve is traversed). This entire system would be paid for from the savings of not using the shuttle. It would take about a year to pay for itself. >One could argue that manned experiments are a waste of time >and money, Which I would not. Indeed I would like to see affoardable systems so we can fly more manned experiments. As long as the shuttle is there, it won't happen. >Of course we could design a man-rated re-entry vehicle that could be >launched on an expendible, but that won't be cheap either See above. How long did it take to design and build the Apollo CSM? Allen | | In War: Resolution | | Allen W. Sherzer | In Defeat: Defiance | | aws@iti.org | In Victory: Magnanimity | | | In Peace: Good Will | ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jul 90 03:51:49 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: realities of testing HST In article <269351E3.6A88@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>"Can you please tell us why you awarded a contract for several hundred >>million dollars to a contractor that you now feel you cannot trust?" > >Trust but verify. "If you trust them, sir, why do you need to spend money verifying that they have done what you claim you trust them to do?" I understand the distinction; my point is that J. Worthless Congressthing doesn't. (As witness some of the imbecilic pronouncements now coming out of Congressthings on the subject of HST.) And you'd better believe that on a program suffering from serious cost overruns in a time of very tight NASA budgets, NASA cared about that viewpoint. -- "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: 6 Jul 90 04:14:19 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Hubble Q&A In article <9007051334.AA29826@alw.nih.gov> AZM@cu.nih.gov writes: > * The error is in the primary mirror. > * There IS ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY no backup primary mirror. > * Kodak produced a backup primary mirror. > * The problem is in the secondary mirror. > * The problem is in BOTH the primary and secondary mirrors. > * The problem is in the relative alignment of the mirrors. I don't recall anybody saying it was an alignment problem, not after the true situation started to become apparent. (There were early hopes that the persistent focusing trouble *was* just a question of needing better alignment, but nobody believes that now.) Nobody knows for sure whether the problem is in primary or secondary or both, although last I heard there was reason to suspect the primary. There is no primary backup in the sense of a complete, finished, ready- to-fly mirror. Kodak did early work on a backup, and I think it still exists somewhere, but I don't think that went as far as final figuring and polishing. In any case it's irrelevant, since replacing the primary in orbit is clearly impossible. (I haven't seen a proof that replacing the secondary is impossible, although this definitely was not provided for in the design.) Compensating for the problem in the instruments is probably easier, given that a visit will be needed to do anything anyway. > * The Hubble primary mission is SOMEWHAT impaired. > * The "circle of confusion" produced by the primary > Hubble mirror is considerably worse than that found > in a $50. Sears toy telescope. Hubble is worthless. I don't know where you heard the latter. The imaging part of the mission is in big trouble except in the ultraviolet. The non-imaging instruments (4 out of 6) are not hurt as badly, although opinions vary on just how severe the impact is on them. There should still be enough worthwhile work for Hubble to keep it fully occupied, given how massively over- subscribed it was before. > * NASA has already shceduled a repair mission for 1993. > * Neither the primary mirror, nor the secondary, can be > repaired or replaced in orbit. > * The repair mission is scheduled for 1994. > * There will be NO repair mission of any kind. Again, where did you hear that last? That is the one that can definitely be ruled out, barring the faint possibility that imbeciles in Congress get the project killed based on stupid misconceptions. Neither the primary nor the secondary is *designed* to be replaced in orbit. (You can forget about repairing them except in a high-tech optics shop on the ground.) Replacing the primary looks impossible. Replacing the secondary is certainly difficult and perhaps impractical. Dealing with the problem in the instruments is easier. There was a 1993-4 visit scheduled for routine maintenance and installation of an upgraded WFPC. This may or may not be rescheduled now. > * The cost of testing the mirror on Earth would have been > "millions," "tens of millions," "hundreds of millions." > * A simple foucalt tester, that every kid who has ever ground > a mirror could build for a few bucks, would have easily > detected this unbelievably huge error. > * The mirror was not tested for reasons of economy. > * The mirror was not tested for reasons of technological > inadequacy (inability to simulate orbital zero-grav > conditions). > * The mirror was not tested because it was ground and > polished so precisely that testing was deemed unnecessary. > * The miror was tested, but the tests failed to reveal the > error. The mirror was tested, using tests that did not reveal the problem because they were based on the same faulty specifications. (You can't grind a mirror without testing to see how you're doing, whether you are Perkin Elmer in a billion-dollar optics shop or Joe Doakes in his basement.) Testing the mirror precisely enough to reveal the very small errors that were expected would have been very expensive. Tests that could have caught *this* error would have been easier, but nobody thought it very likely to be worth the trouble. It is not unheard-of to build a telescope without doing an "all up" test on the entire optical system beforehand; none was done for Europe's New Technology Telescope. > * The Hubble sat on the ground ready for launch for the > better part of 6 years waiting for launch, but was not > tested for want of time. > * The mirror was completed barely in time for launch, and > testing was foregone to facilitate on-time launch. There was ample time for mirror testing during the various delays, and the various schedule slips occurred well in advance, so nobody was ever racing against the clock, that I know of. There *has* been a lot of work done during the delays, some of it very important as it turned out, but the optics haven't been messed with lately. >To my nose, the whole thing is beginning to stink like some kind of >coverup, but if so, just what the h**l are they trying to cover up? There is always somebody screaming "coverup" when all the facts are not instantly apparent. Have some patience; mama can't bring you the Moon right away, she's got to figure out how to get there first. -- "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 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #21 *******************