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, 12 Jul 1990 02:07:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4ab1C3a00VcJEIsE4W@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 12 Jul 1990 02:07:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #53 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 53 Today's Topics: Re: Grim Re: "Outreach Program" kit Re: Bush Approves Cape York Re: Inaccurate quotes (was: Re: More on NASA 91 Appropriation Vote) Re: Big Rock Watch Re: NASA Budget Re: Chinese Long March: curse or blessing? Re: NASA's lobbying on the net Re: man-rated expendables Re: Inaccurate quotes (was: Re: More on NASA 91 Appropriation Vote) Re: Nasa's budget not enough scientists/engineers/technician types Re: Titan boosters Re: Titan HLV Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration -- support robotics 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: 11 Jul 90 22:31:49 GMT From: hao.hao.ucar.edu!dlb@handies.ucar.edu (Derek Buzasi) Subject: Re: Grim In article <9007102207.AA00980@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes: # #>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 A car with a slight misadjustment of the ignition system is a poor analogy to the HST. After all, the HST is only within about 10% of spec -- in perfect analogy to the car I describe. If HST put 90% of the light into a 0.1 arc sec circle (which is about 90% of specified performance), that would match your analogy. However, instead it puts only 10% of the light into that circle -- which matches mine. -- ****************************************************************************** Derek Buzasi * "History is made at night. High Altitude Observatory * Character is what you are in the dark." dlb@hao.ucar.edu * -- Lord John Whorfin ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 90 16:19:05 GMT From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: "Outreach Program" kit In article <7247@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes: >>... the word "manned" is in >>the basic specifications for that project, and they are not soliciting >>proposals for changes in those specs... > >1) To correct an impression, no, Truly's letter says manned and unmanned ... Note that it says "and", not "or". -- 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: 11 Jul 90 19:49:34 GMT From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Subject: Re: Bush Approves Cape York In article <1990Jul11.053636.9785@melba.bby.oz.au>, gnb@bby.oz.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes: > >U.S.) will have to pay like anyone else. And there is _NO_ role in >space for the Australian military. I guess they wouldn't want to put up a com-sat or an observation sat (spy sat just doesn't fit the Aussie frame of mind), huh? ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 90 22:08:51 GMT From: ox.com!itivax!vax3.iti.org!aws@CS.YALE.EDU (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Inaccurate quotes (was: Re: More on NASA 91 Appropriation Vote) In article web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes: >If you want to know more about what Andy thinks can call him at >602/329-9205. Just in case anybody does wish to call, this number is incorrect. The correct number is: 602/ 327-9205. This is his home number but his answering machine gives you his work number. Allen | | In War: Resolution | | Allen W. Sherzer | In Defeat: Defiance | | aws@iti.org | In Victory: Magnanimity | | | In Peace: Good Will | ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 90 00:34:05 GMT From: uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU!gsh7w@mcnc.org (Greg S. Hennessy) Subject: Re: Big Rock Watch Nicholas J. Szabo writes: #The rock was tracked by several Earth-based telescopes. With a good mirror #Hubble might have gotten some nice pictures :-(. Nope. Even if the mirrors were free of spherical aberration, the telescope has not been checked out enough, and certainly the tracking is not debugged enough to follow a rapidly moving asteroid. Tracking the planets is a hard enough goal for HST. -- -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 90 14:24:18 GMT From: thorin!homer!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: NASA Budget In article <5458@itivax.iti.org> aws@vax3.iti.org.UUCP (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >One of the things we should do in this three year period is to design a >small incrimentally growable space station. Oliver Harwood had one 5 years ago. And got dumped on by Rockwell for it. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``Are there any more questions, besides the ones from the liberal communists?'' - George Uribe, natl. director of "Students For America" ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 90 15:54:30 GMT From: thorin!homer!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Chinese Long March: curse or blessing? In article Ted_Anderson@TRANSARC.COM writes: >3. Dumping is only a real concern if the producer is underselling with a >competitive product. The product being sold is launch services, not rocket hardware. I doubt that accountants care if LM uses "third world technology", whatever that might be, as long as it gets their comsats into orbit. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``God is more interested in your future and your relationships than you are.'' - Billy Graham ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 90 18:24:58 GMT From: skipper!bowers@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) Subject: Re: NASA's lobbying on the net In article <15655@bfmny0.BFM.COM> tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: >One might like to be >able to say "only factual postings you humps," but in practice I think >NASA people would just clam up completely, and that'd be no fun. Most of us have. There are about 8 or 10 of here at Dryden that either read this group or post to it. You will notice that Dryden is the _airplane_ research facility for NASA. We don't get money for _space_ research. Just the same many of them are unwilling to get beat over the head and shoulders just for speaking up. Maybe I'm just stupid, I keep coming back for more... ;-) >So, although I wish some of these people would take a break from the net >and use the time to finish remedial 6th grade spelling, on the whole I >want to hear from EVERYONE, including people at NASA. The ones who >aren't afraid to take up the cudgels for the agency in *this* crowd are >actually the good guys. It's the silent paper pushers I worry about. Thanks for the vote of confidence Tom, I think... Unfortunately, we all end up pushing paper more than any of us would like, except those guys who _like_ to manage. They usually end up with the job. Ever think about that? The guy who doesn't like the engineering gets to mange the engineering. Scary thought... Another opinion... -- Albion H. Bowers bowers@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!bowers ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 90 20:36:40 GMT From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Subject: Re: man-rated expendables In article <1990Jul11.163252.18325@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>And you'll look like hamburger if anything goes wrong....me thinks I'll wait >>til the successors of the X-30 go up. > >You may spend the rest of your life on the ground if you wait for that. Fat chance, unless I die within 10-15 years. >Incidentally, what makes you think the X-30 is less vulnerable to "major >malfunctions" than rockets? At least the rocket technology is something >vaguely resembling mature. A) It's not SRB powered, B) It'll have an ejection seat C) It's more likely to be able to "fly back" in some way, shape, or fashion in the event of bad things happening. You lose power in Pegasus, you drop like a rock. You lose power in the X-30, you'll slow down and become a glider. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 90 14:18:21 GMT From: thorin!homer!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Inaccurate quotes (was: Re: More on NASA 91 Appropriation Vote) In article web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes: >If you want to know more about what Andy thinks can call him at >602/329-9205. His opinions have been discussed in fora like this at >various times in the past, but nobody has ever bothered to call and talk >to him about his views. What I'd like to know is why, as a petition candidate for the NSS Board, he didn't submit a statement. Does he expect people to vote for him based solely on his name? -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ "Opossums ran amok in Chapel Hill this weekend..." _The Daily Tar Heel_, 11/1/88 ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 90 16:12:23 GMT From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!pbs!pstinson@ucsd.edu Subject: Re: Nasa's budget In article <14978@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, beckerd@grover.cs.unc.edu (David Becker) writes: >(DELETED) > Congress critters will be aware from now on that space can humiliate them > just as well. > (DELETED) For starters let's stop calling them "critters". I don't care how low an opinion you may have of individual members of Conress, or of Conress as a whole, until our form of government changes we still have to deal with them. Continually calling them "critters" does not help our cause one iota. ------------------------------ From: bwebber@NMSU.Edu Date: Wed, 11 Jul 90 16:46:12 MDT Subject: not enough scientists/engineers/technician types I think the largest contributing factor to the bureaucracy that has clogged up our space efforts in the last 20 years stems from the lack of emphasis on real skills and more emphasis on 'management', accounting, etc. I know this is a common belief, but what brought it home to me was another one of those random statistics you run into from time to time. This one stated that in Japan the ratio of Engineers to lawyers is 10:1, in America it is 1:10. If this keeps up, I might start to agree with those on the net here that want to wipe the slate clean (NASA, etc.) and start from scratch. What we need, I think, is another creative and productive genius like W.VonBraun to come around and inspire his peers and others to do their best and get results. Get the OMB and other micromanagers out of the day to day work and let them oversee from a large distance. Every person working in this field should be in it for not only the money, but for personal enjoyment of occupation. Then the best efforts would be put forth and the risks acknowledged and minimized, but not allowed to freeze progress. Just howling at the moon, wishing we were there. K.MacArthur (not bwebber@charon.nmsu.edu) Temp. at NMSU for the summer "Those who are willing to sacrafice a little essential liberty for security deserve neither." --- paraphrase of B.Franklin (I think) ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 90 01:26:13 GMT From: usc!samsung!umich!ox.com!itivax!vax3.iti.org!aws@ucsd.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Titan boosters In article <3243@td2cad.intel.com> jreece@yoyodyne.intel.com (john reece) writes: >> For a savings of $150 million per launch and the need for fewer >> launches, they can get shaken up a bit. >The vibration is not simply a matter of personal convenience for the crew. >Once vibration exceeds a certain threshhold they are effectively incapacited >until several minutes after it stops. Lots of people have gone up on Titans and they did OK. However, if vibration is a big problem, I'm sure it can be fixed. At a savings of $150M per launch, we can spend a lot of money to do it. If I am wrong and it can't be fixed, (which I doubt) then we have lost nothing. Allen | | In War: Resolution | | Allen W. Sherzer | In Defeat: Defiance | | aws@iti.org | In Victory: Magnanimity | | | In Peace: Good Will | ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 90 15:27:39 GMT From: usc!wuarchive!mailrus!uflorida!mephisto!prism!dsm@ucsd.edu (Daniel McGurl) Subject: Re: Titan HLV In <23346@boulder.Colorado.EDU> serre@boulder.Colorado.EDU (SERRE GLENN) writes: >Allen refers to the development of the Titan HLV as taking three years from >ATP (Authorization To Proceed). IMHO this is hopelessly optimistic. This >timeline is probably a product of some marketing dog who is trying to >get more business for Martin Marietta. The Titan HLV is currently only a >concept (or concepts). Just how optimistic is it? I seem to recall that Pegasus went from development to launch in about 2 years. Now, granted that the Titan HLV is a more complex launcher, and new launch facilities may take time, but the fundamental concepts are in place. At any rate, 3 years may be optimistic, but maybe not as much as you may think. Pegasus has a design fairly different from any commercial rocket currently in use. Titan HLV could just be a scaled up from from the Titan 4. >To wrap up, I think a Titan V (HLV) is a good idea and a logical evolution, but >the advertised (by Allen) three year timeline should be taken with a grain of >salt. Maybe we could get OSC to design and develop it, then I'd be willing to bet on three years (of course, they'd need money, but otherwise...) >--Glenn Serre >serre@tramp.colorado.edu -- Daniel Sean McGurl "If you are not part of the solution, Office of Computing Services and you *are* the problem." Information and Computer Science Major at: Georgia Institute of Technology ARPA: dsm@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 90 16:44:48 GMT From: vax8530!njzy@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (T. Joseph Lazio, Cornell University) Subject: Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration -- support robotics In article <6252@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM>, decomyn@penguin.uss.tek.com writes: > In article <1990Jul10.173441.11630@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pcp2g@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Philip C. Plait) writes: >>In article <1990Jul10.025524.10669@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us> russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (Russ Cage) writes: >>>In article <10516@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> davidra@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (David Rabson) writes: >>>Half of the worthwhile results of a manned mission are surprises. >>>Because human beings are "in the loop", these things can be noticed >>>early on and more attention paid to them. We have seen this yield >>>excellent results on the Moon, and we are still many years away from >>>making a robot with the *observational* smarts of Homo Sapiens. >> >>>Robots cannot do anything near what human beings can. Remember that. >> >>I disagree. Robots can and have gone to every planet in the solar system >>except for Pluto. We as humans (and Americans!) lack the knowhow to get >>a man back to the Moon in less than 10 - 15 years. >> > Perhaps, but you miss the point. Robots do not have the ability to react to > the *unexpected* that might be encountered on such a mission. They have only > minimal interpretive abilities, and no real creativity (no real AI yet). What do you mean by *observational* smarts? We can produce robots which have instruments to observe from the radio to the UV. Humans are remarkably limited outside the visual and even within this limited range, are not that good at providing hard data. Robots do have the ability to react to the unexpected, thanks to human controllers on the ground. Further, I think that if you examine the record, particularly of Voyager, you will see that most things to which the probes had to react were equipment failures. While it is easy to reroute instructions or shut down instruments, it is a bit more difficult to shut down life support. Perhaps now would be a good time to ask the oceanographers how they explore the ocean bottoms. After all, the bottom of the ocean is a hostile environment to humans, admittedly in somewhat different aspects than outer space but hostile nonetheless. -- T. Joseph Lazio Cornell University (607) 255-6420 lazio@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu lazio@pulsar.tn.cornell.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #53 *******************