Message-ID: <8aaLc0K00VcJQG4E4x@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 1990 02:47:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #41

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 12 : Issue 41

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Nasa's budget
		   Re: grim tidings for the future
			 Re: Magellan imagery
	   Re: grim tidings for the future (wasting money)
		   Re: grim tidings for the future
				F-117A
		     Re: Bush Approves Cape York
			 Re: HST down and out
	       Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing
			   Re: NASA Budget
		   Re: grim tidings for the future

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: 9 Jul 90 20:40:55 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!umeecs!itivax!vax3.iti.org!aws@ucsd.edu  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Nasa's budget

In article <713.26974B99@ofa123.fidonet.org> Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org (Mark Perew) writes:
>>The answer is that almost any goal readers of this net have would be
>>advanced by having these items dropped.
> 
>I don't see any commercial concerns being overly enthusiatic about a
>manned presence in space (LLNL doesn't count for reasons that should be
>obvious).

Manned space is only one goal people may have. People who don't want
manned space will see their goals advanced with cheaper launch rates.
The Shuttle is the most expensive booster we have with the (possible)
exception of Pegasus. Cheaper access will make the markets bigger and
promote infastructure.

When this infastructure reaches critical mass (helped along with some
government programs like the Great Exploration), space industry will
take off. This is how we will get large numbers of people into space.

The bottom line is that phasing out the Shuttle and replacing it with
a manned Heavy Lift Titan can save over $1.5 billion per year. That 
shuld be reason enough.

>What facilities?  You can't launch a CT or a Delta II from LC 39.  The 
>only launch facilities that they share in common are the O&C which seems
>to be handling things alright and the Eastern Test Range facilities for
>range safety which don't exactly seem over burdened

The test range is one of the major problems. It takes ~48 hours
to reconfigure for another launch. If the shuttle has a problem
and doesn't launch for a week, nobody else does either. If you have
a satellite waiting to go up and NASA takes your slot because they
have a problem, it costs you ~ $100K per day in interest alone.

Ariane doesn't kick paying customers out of their slots the way we
do. It should be no suprise companies perfer to launch there.

>Also, I'm wondering about these claims (from you and others) that the
>shuttle is an inefficient way to get to orbit.  

NASA will spend $3B on shuttle operations next year for about ten 
launches. That's $300M per launch. A Titan which can launch the
same weight costs half that. Ten launches per year using the Shuttle
over the cheaper Titan costs us $1.5B ($150M per flight, ten flights).

>Granted that I think
>it is normally silly to send people up to deploy a SynCom but look at
>the couple of times it was a good thing that we had people up there.

I strongly agree. What we should do is build the Heavy Lift Titan, buy
Soyuz capsule's (or build our own), and fund the LLNL Space Station.
This will cost about the $1.5B (pays for itself in one year of operations)
and give us a lot more capability than we have now. It could all be ready
three years from the word go.

By doing this, we will have ready and cheaper access to space for both
people and cargo. After we pay for this, we can use the next 18
months of savings to deploy a lunar base. This will include facilities
for lunar processing of O2 and materials. With these, we can set up
a job shop in LEO. They will integrate and repair sattellites thus
building the basis for space manufacturing.

>And, if the shuttle is so expensive why are Saenger (how ever it is 
>spelled) and Hermes being built (yes I know the difference between a 
>taxi and truck) and why did Glavkosmos build Buran?

There is nothing wrong with the Shuttle concept. Had they used available
technology instead of pushing the envelope everywhere; had they designed
from the beginning for reliability and low operational cost, it may
well have worked. The shuttle was premature.

At any rate, it doesn't matter what others do. The fact remains that
we can have cheaper alternatives for flights where people are needed and
where people aren't needed. Let's use them.

>>As to Freedom, that program is totally out of control....

>It would help if our Congresscritters would decide once and for all just
>how much money we will spend on this and leave it alone.  One reason the
>requirements keep changing is that no one knows how long the project 
>will have to be dragged out.

That is a factor but not a major one. The management structure of the
program is abysmal. NASA never had any requirements for the thing when
they started. NASA (like with the shuttle) changed it from a small 
research station to everything to everybody. They made every project
use it just so funding would be protected. It 'worked' for the shuttle
(much to our shame) but it isn't working for Freedom.

  Allen

|                          |      In War: Resolution                      |
| Allen W. Sherzer         |      In Defeat: Defiance                     |
|   aws@iti.org            |      In Victory: Magnanimity                 |
|                          |      In Peace: Good Will                     |

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 22:15:09 GMT
From: uc!shamash!timbuk!sequoia!gbt@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Greg Titus)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

In article <009396C5.149B1D20@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes:
>In article <1990Jul6.185731.1001@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, fax0112@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>
>>...  We have every reason to beleive in the end most if not all
>>of the science will be done.
>
>Sure it will. After more money is put into it. Ok, this isn't QUITE fair,
>since the upgrades were preplanned. Except now they're called "bug fixes"
>instead of upgrades.

Even that could be made slightly more accurate: they're "bug
fixes" _in addition to_ upgrades.  Putting another lens on the
front of WF/PC II isn't the biggest design mod ever, even if
it's also not the sort of thing one wants to be _forced_ to do.

Strictly speaking, we wouldn't even have to put more money
into it to get good (i.e., both useable and novel) data out
of it throughout its lifetime.  As it was, the margin by
which the demand exceeded the supply of observing time
would have meant more studies were left out of the schedule
than were left in it.  Even with the aberration problems,
HST isn't going to be spending any time sitting on its ass
over the next 3 years.

greg
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Titus (gbt@zia.cray.com)             Compiler Group (Ada)
Cray Research, Inc.                               Santa Fe, NM
Opinions expressed herein (such as they are) are purely my own.

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 22:28:58 GMT
From: space.mit.edu!pgf@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (Peter G. Ford)
Subject: Re: Magellan imagery

In article <714.26974B9A@ofa123.fidonet.org>,
Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org (Mark Perew) writes:
> Will there be any imagery type files available of the Magellan data?
> A co-worker would like to get 3-D radar imagery or data files that
> he can convert to imagery of the Venus surface.

With luck, Magellan will go into Venus orbit on August 10. The first
sample photo images should be released between 10 and 15 days later,
depending on whether an orbit correction burn is required, or if some
other problem shows up. The actual radar mapping won't start until the
end of August, at the earliest. Magellan should generate a HUGE quantity
of image data, about 300 Gbytes per year. Much of it will be written to
CD-ROM and will be available through the National Space Sciences Data
Center in Greenbelt MD, sometime in the first half of 1991. Photoproducts
will be distributed to NASA'a Regional Planetary Imaging Facilities.

Most Magellan data will be 2-dimensional images of radar brightness,
but altimetry information, at a somewhat coarser resolution, will be
distributed in separate image files. Unlike optical images, all Magellan
radar images will be reduced to a common latitude/longitude coordinate
system, making their browsing and inter-comparison particularly easy.

Peter Ford
MIT and Magellan Project

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 16:18:37 GMT
From: eagle!news@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Gregory Fedor)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future (wasting money)

In article <9838@pt.cs.cmu.edu> dep@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes:
>projects seem almost doomed to fail on the last two counts (witness
>the push for the shuttle over either keeping the Saturn-V lines running
>or building the big, dumb booster).

Don't forget that the Shuttle of today is not what was originally proposed.
Political and defense strategies changed the plan (inside as well as from the 
outside).

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 12:56:36 GMT
From: thorin!grover!beckerd@mcnc.org  (David Becker)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

Michael V. Kent writes:
>IMHO, we on the net (and the general public) tend to forget that spaceflight
>is a risky business, and we expect perfection.  If you've forgotten how far
>we've come, go rent *The Right Stuff*.  Pay close attention to all of the
>American rockest blowing up on the pad.

When _was_ the last time NASA blew up an experimental rocket or engine?

(Challenger was defined as operational)

--
David Becker		Gotta love a machine that hangs on
beckerd@cs.unc.edu		your every word.

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

Date:         Mon, 09 Jul 90 08:55:29 EST
From: WHITEMAN%IPFWVM.BITNET@vma.cc.cmu.edu
Subject:      F-117A

 The F-117A 'stealth fighter' will arrive Wittman Field,
 Oshkosh Wi on 27 July and be on static display until
 29 July. It will fly only on arrival and departure.
    source: EAA Experimenter July 1990

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 16:47:58 GMT
From: usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!gap!palmer@ucsd.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: Bush Approves Cape York

tgumleyle@cc.curtin.edu.au (Liam E. Gumley) writes:

>In article <2623@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU>, zik@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Michael Saleeba) writes:
>> BTW: Does anyone know why the Cape York site was chosen?

>As I understand it, the Cape York site was chosen as it is closest to the
>equator, thus making for the most efficient launches as you have a big
>assist from the earth's rotational speed.

In the time I spent in Australia, (10 months in Alice Springs), I got
the impression that the government of Queensland (Cape York's state)
was rather 'malleable'.  A suitcase of money in the right place would
modify a lot of expensive regulations.

In the US, for instance, bribes must be filtered through PACs (companies
that provide bribery services, usually specialized to bribe only
in specific areas of interest.)  These bribes are distributed inefficiently,
wasting a lot of persuasive power in the process.  Also, regulations in the US
are made by bureaucracies.  Common sense does not sway a bureaucracy,
you need power, and so you have to buy power.

Australia also has fewer people, so there is less competition for politicians.
Queensland has fewer people still, and there are no specific conflicting
interests to the Cape York port.  Also, there are fewer states,
so anything at the federal level has fewer roadblocks.  It is impossible
to do anything in the US unless it spends money in the home districts
of 51 senators.

So, all of the major difficulties in access to space go away when
you do things in Australia instead of the US.  The simple matter
of launching rockets that don't blow up is handled by buying
rockets from Glavcosmos, which would also be impossible to do from
the US.  (The American govt worries too much about about technology transfer,
even when it is in the USSR->US direction).

Smilies in the above for those who are offended by the idea that
politicians have their snouts in the trough.  None are need for
those who are offended by the FACT that politicians have their
snouts in the trough. :-)

--
		David Palmer
		palmer@gap.cco.caltech.edu
		...rutgers!cit-vax!gap.cco.caltech.edu!palmer
	I have the power to cloud men's minds -- or at least my own.

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 22:13:21 GMT
From: uoft02.utoledo.edu!fax0112@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: HST down and out

In article <7924@ncar.ucar.edu>, steve@groucho.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) writes:
  The military routinely
> does this for its spysats.
> 
> Steve Emmerson       

I keep hearing this comparison for HST.  I wonder if this is valid
(I am not an expert in this field).  Even uncorrected, 2" seeing for
HST, at a much higher orbit than for spysats, is pretty good
resolution if turned toward the earth.  Plus it is easier to 
get information from an extremely
bright earth rather than a faint distant object.  I know it is classified
but I wonder how HST requirements compare to the keyhole sats.

Robert Dempsey
Ritter Observatory

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 22:10:08 GMT
From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing

In article <698.2694A891@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org (Wales Larrison) writes:

>    This indicates they are pricing to about 50% of their cost.  
>When asked why they can produce and sell a system at such a low 
>value, the PRC has provided no supporting information.  In fact, 
>they have stated that they are trying to earn hard currency more 
>than make money on their launch.  

And to get experience.

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 16:12:57 GMT
From: eagle!news@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Gregory Fedor)
Subject: Re: NASA Budget

In article <9007070115.AA03402@ibmpa.paloalto.ibm.com> szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nicholas J. Szabo) writes:
>The pro-NASA response so far has consisted of:
>
>* A flurry of articles from NASA employees using taxpayer's equipment 
>  to lobby for their employer's cause.  
>
>Nick Szabo
>uunet!ibmsupt!szabonj

Who's machine are you using?  If it's your own then I applaud your resolve to 
contribute by going to such an expense.

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 19:13:28 GMT
From: groucho!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (Steve Emmerson)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

In <~|R$TP|@rpi.edu> mvk@pawl.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>All three programs had problems, as do the Space Shuttle, Freedom, and the
>Hubble Space Telescope.  If they didn't, I'd be completely awed.  These are
>big, complicated projects.  They're attempting to do what has never been done
>before.  To expect perfection is to equate NASA with God.

Please learn to correctly restate your opponents position.  "Perfection"
is not the issue; diminishing returns is.

>NASA's promo's stated that Hubble was the most complex scientific instrument
>ever created.  Maybe they exaggerated a little, but not by much.  Complex
>projects have more problems -- it's the nature of the beast.  As for EOS,
>maybe you're right, but the argument behind NASA's thinking is that breaking
>the project up into many smaller ones lowers the probability for complete
>success as well as for complete failure.  It also drives up the cost because of
>redundancy.

EOS became a large, monolithic project over the objections of many 
scientists engaged in remote sensing.  Different sensing systems have
different optimal orbits.  Requiring all to share one platform degrades
individual performance and risks single-point failure.

However, having a single platform does have political benefits.  One of
which is that it can be forceably wedded to the space station -- with a
concomittant reduction in objections to the space station from the
scientific field (my hat's off to the bureaucrat who realized this).

>IMHO, we on the net (and the general public) tend to forget that spaceflight
>is a risky business, and we expect perfection.  If you've forgotten how far
>we've come, go rent *The Right Stuff*.  Pay close attention to all of the
>American rockest blowing up on the pad.

Please learn your opponents position before displaying impertinence.

Steve Emmerson        steve@unidata.ucar.edu        ...!ncar!unidata!steve

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #41
*******************