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 ; Wed, 11 Jul 1990 01:35:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 11 Jul 1990 01:34:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #43 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 43 Today's Topics: Re: grim tidings for the future Re: NASA Budget Re: grim tidings for the future Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration -- support robotics Re: Investing in NASA expendables vs shuttle Re: Orbital Elements Bulletins Re: Grim Re: Soviet Space Policy Re: Red Shift Soviet Space Policy Re: man-rated expendables 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 01:19:52 GMT From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a684@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Nick Janow) Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future KLUDGE@AGCB8.LARC.NASA.GOV writes: > I don't have the numbers on the amount of pure research being done by NASA > versus the amount of engineering, but I do have a five-foot shelf of > catalogues of abstracts of NASA technical papers on aviation alone (and I > might point out that NASA does not manufacture aircraft). [Examples of valid > pure research--inexpensive relative to space megaprojects--done by NASA.] Thanks for the reminder that NASA has activities other than the big-news items which are controlled by military/political interests. It's sometimes easy to forget about the parts that don't get mentioned by the media. > And if NASA is so completely overfunded, then why are we still using *&$^%! > Cyber machines in our flight simulators? Is it underfunding, or mis-application of funding? ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 90 12:58:42 GMT From: ox.com!itivax!vax3.iti.org!aws@CS.YALE.EDU (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: NASA Budget mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes: >>>For that matter, what will we do for a capsule? Buy a Soyuz? (half :-) ) >> >>For starters why not? With the man-rated Titan HLV and a Soyuz we wouldn't >>need the Shuttle anymore. > >So how do we bring things back from space, such as satellites? Shouldn't be too hard to design a box wiht a heat shield. In it we put the object to be returned and send it back just like the capsule. However, I point out that we don't return all that much stuff right now. If we take 1/3 of the yearly savings of my proposal, we can build the LLNL space station. For a bit more, we could build a large inflatable "dry dock" where satellites are repaired (or even built). With this, there wouldn't be a need to return satellites. This should last until somebody gets around to building a shuttle which is in fact cheap to operate. In the meantime, we will save billions. >Like it or not, Shuttle has its place in the world. Now that is true. However, this is only because of politics. In three years we could have an alternative which only costs half as much. Why not go for it? >I think the Sovs won't sell just a Soyuz; they'd want to sell the whole >sheebang, from capsule to booster. I suspect they would sell, they need the money. Besides, I suspect (but could be proven wrong) that the capsule has the bulk of the value added. This makes it the most profitable. However, if you are correct then why not buy the whole thing from them? After all, it would save us $4.5B and in three years we would have our own capablitiy. >However, we did have this design called "Apollo" which worked really well. Yeah it did didn't it! Pity it was thrown away to protect the shuttle. >Maybe someone (and I think the Laser-Launching people are doing this) will >give us an Apollo '90, using the best of composites, advanced design materials >and electronics. OR, maybe not, but an Apollo '90 which is engineered to >be "mass-produced." With a special emphasis on a Cargo-Apollo (When in >doubt, borrow an idea from the Comrades!) Now you got it. Allen | | In War: Resolution | | Allen W. Sherzer | In Defeat: Defiance | | aws@iti.org | In Victory: Magnanimity | | | In Peace: Good Will | ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 90 02:58:07 GMT From: eagle!news@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Teddy Fabian) Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future In article <9007091800.AA10613@ibmpa.paloalto.ibm.com> szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nicholas J. Szabo) writes: > > >BTW, somebody posted saying that he hasn't seen anybody use NASA equipment >to promote NASA. Leaving aside all the factual, valuable, but naturally >biased NASA PR regularly posted, this is at least the third posting in a >week with pure, blatant pro-NASA lobbying coming out of NASA. I am sure >this is not official NASA policy and that these folks are posting without >their manager's knowledge, but that doesn't make it any more ethical. >I encourage opinions from NASA employees with regards to their employer, >but please use your own time and equipment to originate the postings, not >NASA's. well guess what.. another reply from a NASA employee.. and probably without my manager's direct knowledge, although he know I read "USENET".. but I must point out, being typed from my own home computer at 10:51 PM and then transmitted to a NEWSSERVER at Lewis Research Center, and from there, to the world at large... you've got to realize that we (I) are not abusing anything.. we're interested in space related topics... if we (I) weren't, we (I) would not spend our free time reading the opinions of thousands.. maybe I'm wasting my time.. yes, my own time.. no one, not even NASA, pays me to work at 10:51 PM... before you jump on folks, and make assumptions, think about the other possibilities... because if you continue, that "factual" information you so thirst for, will dry up... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * Thanks, * * Ted Fabian NASA Lewis Research Center * * Cleveland, Ohio * * * * phone: 216-433-6307 FTS 297-6307 | disclaimer: * * email: tpfabian@nasamail.nasa.gov | my opinions * * tfabian@earth.lerc.nasa.gov | are my own * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ---------------------------------------------------- Thanks, Ted Fabian NASA Lewis Research Center tpfabian@nasamail.nasa.gov *my opinions tfabian@mars.lerc.nasa.gov *are my own.. -- ---------------------------------------------------- Thanks, Ted Fabian NASA Lewis Research Center tpfabian@nasamail.nasa.gov *my opinions tfabian@mars.lerc.nasa.gov *are my own.. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 90 18:12:09 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!matt.ksu.ksu.edu!jerry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jerry Anderson) Subject: Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration -- support robotics In article <33656@ut-emx.UUCP> rdd@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes: > This is not an "automation vs. humanity" debate. The >issue is what we can accomplish with a given number of dollars. I strongly disagree. It is not a question of what can be done with the money available, it is a question of fighting for more money. As long as there is no manned presence in space, the space budget will dwindle year after year. Nobody gets excited when a vacuum cleaner lands on Mars. If you want money, get a live TV broadcast of Colonel Joe Middleamerica planting the U.S. flag on Mars - in living color and during prime time. -- Are you the Q-104 Elvis? Jerry J. Anderson Computing Activities BITNET: jerry@ksuvm Kansas State University Internet: jerry@ksuvm.ksu.edu Manhattan, KS 66506 ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 90 17:01:58 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Investing in NASA In article <721.2698F7A2@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org (David Anderman) writes: >If investing NASA is not a good idea, where should we invest? Orbital Sciences and Hercules would be a good place... :-) -- NFS is a wonderful advance: a Unix | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology filesystem with MSDOS semantics. :-( | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 90 17:01:25 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: expendables vs shuttle In article <009396CD.219BFF00@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >>... With the man-rated Titan HLV and a Soyuz we wouldn't >>need the Shuttle anymore. > >So how do we bring things back from space, such as satellites? I don't think >a communications satellite will fit in the air lock of a Soyuz... We bring very little back from space at present. I am not, personally, in favor of killing the shuttle -- too many ongoing programs depend on it in some way -- but payload return from orbit is a fairly weak justification for it. For the rare heavy item that does need to come down, developing a large cargo capsule should not present great difficulties. -- NFS is a wonderful advance: a Unix | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology filesystem with MSDOS semantics. :-( | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 90 19:35:11 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!David.Anderman@ucsd.edu (David Anderman) Subject: Re: Orbital Elements Bulletins I cannot answer why NORAd issues bulletins for all the individual components of the Mir space station; however, I can tell you that it comes in handy. Often, when there I want to be sure that my data for Mir is correct, I will run predictions for not just Mir, but all the individual spacecraft, resulting in predicted passes several minutes apart. At that point, the average of all 5 predicted passes is generally correct. (Actually this is becoming less and less important as Mir seems to be maneuvering less and less as it becomes more massive, and is placed in a higher orbit). Also, as to why the orbital elements are different, I believe it is due to A) NORAD's data has a signficant margin or error, and B) the bulletins are issued at different times for different Mir components. -- David Anderman Internet: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 18:07:42 EDT From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Re: Grim >From: hao.hao.ucar.edu!dlb@handies.ucar.edu (Derek Buzasi) >Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future >>And another thing, HST has not failed!!!!!!!! I am tired of hearing >>this. We have every reason to beleive in the end most if not all >>of the science will be done. >Tell me -- do you regard everything that doesn't perform to within even >10% of specifications to be a potential future success. Would you buy >a car that got 3 miles to the gallon and had a maximum speed of 8 miles >per hour based on the promise that eventually it would achieve 30 mpg >and 80 mph -- after three years or so in the repair shop! There's a difference between a problem which is certainly a considerable nuisance and a total failure. Failure implies no remaining value. To match your analogy, you would junk your new car if it ran poorly due to a slight misadjustment of the ignition system. (After all, it would be out of spec.) Most people would regard the new car as still having some value, and see what could be done to repair it. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 90 03:29:38 GMT From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!xanth!xanth.cs.odu.edu!paterra@ucsd.edu (Frank C. Paterra) Subject: Re: Soviet Space Policy In article <1990Jul10.153934.4863@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (Brian or James) writes: >The USSR seems to have a successful space program, despite a political >system as prone as western ones to political infighting between bureaucracies. >how do they arrive at their overall policies WRT their space program? Are >any of these tactics applicable to dealing with the doldrums the US space >programs seems to be in at the moment? > JDN The soviets have had their share of success stories -- like their probes to venus and the moon -- but they have also had their share of failures. Remeber all those early failled probes to mars and the recent problems with Phobos. The basic fact is this is tough stuff to do. When you build something and launch it, its gone and there is very little chance to fix hardware failures later. I'm kinda tired of people saying that NASA is full of incompentents and that they can no longer do any right or the the only reason that magellan and galileo are only products of "the old NASA". NASA has to deal with public oppion problems that LLNL does not have to worry about, and they have to deal with this at the congressional budget level. Maybe LLNL has the right idea and NASA is all wrong about the station (70+ launches and 30+ billion does seem kind of impractical), but NASA had to make the station work well for everybodies needs, and thats a tough thing to do. Why do we have to protect turf and throw all kinds of political bull around when ever a new idea is introduced? How about NASA and LLNL working together? Rambling thoughts ... where did I put my yoyo? Frank Paterra paterra@cs.odu.edu -- Frank Paterra paterra@cs.odu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 90 17:09:57 GMT From: hpfcso!hpfcdj!goris@hplabs.hpl.hp.com (Andy Goris) Subject: Re: Red Shift > It seems to me that everyone is pretty much agreed that the universe is > expanding. Dr. Hubble and his collegues showed that there is a Red shift > that can be observed. This dopler effect is believed to be caused by > the universe expanding. I have always been suspicious of the theory that the observed red-shift of distant objects is caused by an expanding universe for the following reason: It seems unlikely that a photon could travel millions (and billions) of light-years (both time and space) without being affected in at least SOME way by all the forces and particles that it would encounter on its journey. Has anyone ever proposed that photons do lose energy over long periods of time/distance, and perhaps this is where the 3-degree background radiation comes from? Andy Goris ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 90 15:39:34 GMT From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll@ucsd.edu (Brian or James) Subject: Soviet Space Policy The USSR seems to have a successful space program, despite a political system as prone as western ones to political infighting between bureaucracies. How do they arrive at their overall policies WRT their space program? Are any of these tactics applicable to dealing with the doldrums the US space programs seems to be in at the moment? JDN ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 90 19:31:42 GMT From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Subject: Re: man-rated expendables In article <1990Jul10.032701.25727@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>You going to launch midgets into orbit, George? ;-) > >There's plenty of people who'd be willing to scrunch up a little for >half an hour for the sake of getting into orbit...! I thought about >this briefly when I first saw the Pegasus specs -- the space is tight, >the payload is small, and the accelerations looked a bit high, but it >did not look impossible. And you'll look like hamburger if anything goes wrong....me thinks I'll wait til the successors of the X-30 go up. Doug ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #43 *******************