Message-ID: <sabJnw200VcJ0K8U4V@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 1990 01:32:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #56

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 12 : Issue 56

Today's Topics:
		  Solar System Exploration Committee
			  Re: buying Soyuzes
	Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration -- support robotics
			  Re: buying Soyuzes
	 Re: not enough scientists/engineers/technician types
		  Re: LOOK FOR (SOVIET) UNION LABEL
		      Re: man-rated expendables
		    Re: NASA's lobbying on the net
			  Re: buying Soyuzes

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: 12 Jul 90 04:13:48 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Solar System Exploration Committee

Several people have asked about references to the Solar System Exploration
Committee reports I alluded to.  They've produced several over the years
(e.g. a recent one, that I haven't read yet, on planetary astronomy), but
the biggie is the first one:

	Planetary Exploration Through Year 2000
	A Core Program
	part one of a report by the Solar System Exploration Committee of
		the NASA Advisory Council
	US Government, 1983

No ISBN, the US government doesn't believe in them.  No, I don't have a
price, I got mine free (and the price would be years out of date anyway).
Order (if it's still in print) from

	Superintendent of Documents
	US Government Printing Office
	Washington, DC 20402

This is a remarkable report, and makes thoroughly depressing reading now.
It sketches out what *should* have been done to reform the planetary
program in the wake of Galileo (the Project That Ate Everyone's Lunch).
In case you haven't guessed, lip service was paid to most of it but
essentially none of it was implemented.
-- 
NFS:  all the nice semantics of MSDOS, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
and its performance and security too.  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 17:15:04 GMT
From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: buying Soyuzes

In article <11242@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>
>And then this large, unproven (total of two flights to date, I believe) 
>rocket blows up, taking half your space station with it.

A) I mentioned this, and 
B) If they trust Buran and their cargo with it, why shouldn't we? I guess
   it's cuz they're Foreigners, eh?

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 17:24:00 GMT
From: usc!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!apollo!rehrauer@ucsd.edu  (Steve Rehrauer)
Subject: Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration -- support robotics

In article <1990Jul10.181209.2729@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> jerry@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Jerry Anderson) writes:
>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.

I beg to disagree with your disagreement. :-)

The majority of Americans are interested in being entertained, and little
else.  "People In Space" will be entertaining for a limited time, until
something flashier competes for the public attention-span.  The Apollo
program trailed away because it became non-entertaining to the majority.
Programs which don't entertain or get someone re-elected or line someone's
pockets have no political reason to exist.

There will always be some amount of money available for that most
non-entertaining of endeavors, "pure science"; usually because it's
relatively cheap by U.S. budgetary standards.  (I.e.: it seems to more
or less slip through the cracks -- too small to be worth the effort to
kill.)

Anyone who proposes an American manned space-presence should, I think,
be willing to guarantee steady financial profits, or failing that, to
have a detailed script for how the program will entertain.  Entertainment
must be continuous; promises of One Big Entertaining Event 20 years from
now wouldn't wash.  One uniquely entertaining event per month would suffice,
I think.  If either profits or entertainment could be guaranteed, then
political backing of the high cost of the program would be assured.

On the other hand, a steady stream of relatively unambitious, small,
"boring pure science" programs can probably be funded essentially forever,
with much less risk of cancellation, and at much lower overall cost.  The
data is obtained, sci.space readers are more/less happy, the politicrits
can concentrate on getting re-elected or lining someone's pockets, and the
masses can be guaranteed of finding entertainment without paying $400B for
it.

Note the above diatribe isn't how I wish matters were, just how I perceive
them to be.  Need I add that I'm a cynic?
--
   >>"Aaiiyeeee!  Death from above!"<<     | (Steve) rehrauer@apollo.hp.com
"Spontaneous human combustion - what luck!"| Apollo Computer (Hewlett-Packard)

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 21:34:30 GMT
From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: buying Soyuzes

In article <11279@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>
>It's the only choice they have for Buran, in the manner that the ET/SRB
>assembly is the only choice we have (now...I am aware of various other 
>schemes in the past) for launching the shuttle.  After two flights of the 
>shuttle, would you have trusted several billions of dollars of equipment 
>to it?  When there's enough flights of Energia to get at least a crude 
>statistical sample of reliability, I'll consider supporting sending up 
>U.S. stuff on it...but not until.

<roll eyes> This isn't worth a flame war. If they're going to stick men
and expensive machinery on their booster, that's not trustworthy enough for
you? 

Fine. You want to do the statistics on the number of Shuttle flights
it's going to take to put up Freedom piece-by-piece? The GAO has predicted
that another shuttle *will* be lost in the next 100 flights of the STS "system,"
leaving Freedom hanging and unassembable/unmaintainable with 3 Shuttles.

At least if Energina goes down, it won't take men with it.

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 22:43:45 GMT
From: hpcc01!hpdmd48!sritacco@hplabs.hpl.hp.com  (Steve Ritacco)
Subject: Re: not enough scientists/engineers/technician types

Hah!!!!

You expect someone to actually enjoy their work?

I'm in the computer science field because I enjoy it, and
what has it gotten me.  Employers are reluctant to hire anyone
for a job that hasn't done the same job before.  Otherwise,
could you imagine the risk.  Time after time I've seen the
same thing.  Bored disgusted engineers doing the same thing
they have done for years, doing it again.  I want new challenges
and new things to do but I will never get them.  It makes me
sick.  All the management and accounting solely concerned with
safety.  No one is doing anything new!

Give me a chance to work on a space program related project.
Of course no one would, I haven't done it before.
Corporate America is set up to discourage people like me, and
turn me into people like them.  It hasn't worked so far,
and I hope it never does.  I push on, and will continue to
work toward creating opportunities for myself, but the
system stinks!

Sorry, but I had to get that off my chest.

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 17:46:52 GMT
From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: LOOK FOR (SOVIET) UNION LABEL

In article <90193.071857GIPP@GECRDVM1.BITNET>, GIPP@gecrdvm1.crd.ge.com writes:
>    SERIOUSLY FOLKS, BUY SOYUZ?  GET REAL. I'D LIKE TO HEAR MY
>CONGRESSPERSON TRY SAYING:  WE CAN'T DO IT, THEY CAN, SO WE'RE
>BUYING FOREIGN. THE HECK WITH THE TRADE DEFICIT, THE HECK WITH
>JOBS CREATED BY RESEARCHING AND BUILDING OUR OWN. 

Ah, but what a wonderufully elegant way to provide hard cash to the Soviet
Union. And we aren't "loaning" them anything, but getting reasonable
goods for our dollars. Sounds decent to me. Beats the hell out of throwing
dollars at them. And we'd save money through competition between Soviet
and U.S. companies (you think Heavy Lift Titan/Delta is cheap now...)

>    MORE REASONS WHY WE CAN'T BUY SOYUZ:
>        WHO KNOWS IF THE USSR IS GOING TO BE AROUND IN A COUPLE
>YEARS, OR IF THEY ARE STILL GOING TO BE IN THE SPACE BUSINESS.

They will be. It's one of the few things they do well at, and have more
experience than the U.S. in. 

>        NOT TOO LONG AGO, WHEN SOVIET BASHING WAS IN (AND NASA/
>SHUTTLE BASHING NOT YET BIGTIME) THE BIG PROPAGANDA WAS THAT
>EVERYTHING THEY DID WAS CRUDE AND UNRELIABLE (BEFORE I GET A
>MILLION RESPONSES, 

Crude, yes. The electronics aren't as nice, the interiors aren't as
pretty, but they work.

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 16:52:00 GMT
From: usc!wuarchive!mailrus!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: man-rated expendables

In article <00939854.70264EE0@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes:
>>>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. 

Um, not to be rude or anything... but *what* have you been smoking?

There is *no* chance that the X-30's successors will be flying in that
time span.  None, zero.

If the X-30 were on its original schedule, there would be an outside
chance of it.  But its schedule has slipped drastically and its funding
has slipped even worse.  DoD has completely lost interest.  NASA is
interested but does not give it a high priority.  That program is hanging
on by its fingernails... and this is as a study program, before the big
funding jump to start bending metal.  I would give the program only a
50-50 chance of ever flying anything, and very little chance of doing
so this decade.  Even if there are no further schedule slips and all
the necessary money comes through, first flight won't be much before
the end of the decade.  Given the plan for gradual working-up during
flight tests, it will be several years after first flight before anyone
is confident enough to seriously contemplate a Mark Two, even assuming
that the X-30 works!  And then there will be the questions of schedule 
and funding for the Mark Two.

And *then* there will be the question of whether you and I can fly on
the Mark Two.  Don't bet on it.  Given lack of military interest, odds
are good that there will be only a handful of them, operated by NASA,
much like the current shuttle fleet... and while NASA is determined to
stay in the trucking business, they have made it quite clear that they
are *not* in the passenger business.

>>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"...

A. There is far more flight experience with SRBs than with the weird things
the X-30 will be using for propulsion.  In case you haven't noticed,
high-performance aircraft crash a lot.  Even fairly mundane jet fighters
are routinely bought in numbers which include allowances for "attrition".

B. The best current ejection seats are good up to about Mach 3.  None of
them is rated for Mach 5, much less Mach 20.  If you listen to the tapes
of the first few shuttle flights, quite early in the SRB burn you'll hear
ground control say "negative seats".  That means "the warranty on your
ejection seats is void if you use them after this point".  (In case you're
wondering, Columbia had ejection seats for its two-man crew during the
official "test" flights, the first four.)

C. You obviously haven't heard of "black zones".  Once the shuttle sheds
its SRBs, its worries are over, right?  Wrong.  There are portions of
post-SRB flight where, if more than one main engine fails, the crew is
dead.  The orbiter hits atmosphere at too steep an angle and burns up.
Lose power in an X-30 and the same thing might well happen.

Max Hunter (designer of the Thor/Delta, the man behind SSX) has observed
that fighting aerodynamic forces in the atmosphere is *much* harder than
simply climbing up out of it and doing your accelerating in vacuum.  The
X-30 gets the worst of both worlds:  high speed in significant air.  As
Challenger showed, going out of control at hypersonic speed can be fatal
very quickly.  (The orbiter broke up from aerodynamic forces, not from
the "explosion".)
-- 
NFS:  all the nice semantics of MSDOS, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
and its performance and security too.  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 21:56:22 GMT
From: voder!dtg.nsc.com!alan@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Alan Hepburn)
Subject: Re: NASA's lobbying on the net

In article <SHAFER.90Jul12082440@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>In article <9007112052.AA24159@ibmpa.paloalto.ibm.com> szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nicholas J. Szabo) writes:
>
>   Look, I am not trying to be a grinch here, I just want to point out
>   that this is an unfair situation for other government agencies and
>   private companies, and that some (only a small fraction, actually,
>   but NASA posts quite a lot) of the posts have been legally and ethically
>   questionable.  I certainly don't want to discourage Ron Baalke et. al.
>   from their informative, valuable postings.  A agree with Tom Neff that
>   it would be a great loss if sci.space lost these postings.  But I
>   strongly disagree that NASA equipment should be used for promoting the
>   agency.
>
>Fine.  That's it, I'm out of here.
>
>Those of you who want to see the Shuttle land, ask Nick for passes.
>He's the authority, apparently.
>
>--
>Mary Shafer  shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov  ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
>           NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
>                     Of course I don't speak for NASA
> "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all"--Unknown US fighter pilot


I sincerely hope you continue your postings, Mary.  I for one have
enjoyed them and have learned a lot from them.  I wonder if Nicholas
has problem with using IBM equipment for his postings.  If he were to 
only post from his home, I could see (almost) his point about using
company equipment.  But when his path includes a "ibm.com", I find
it hard to take him seriously.  Besides, what's wrong with a little
bit of "horn-blowing" if you're proud of the company you work for?

Don't desert us, Mary.  Just put good ole Nick in a kill file.


-- 
Alan Hepburn                 "The little I know I owe to my ignorance."
mail: alan@spitfire.nsc.com   
                                         - Sacha Guitry

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 22:55:11 GMT
From: mephisto!prism!ccoprmd@rutgers.edu  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: buying Soyuzes

In article <00939925.AED37600@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes:
><roll eyes> This isn't worth a flame war. If they're going to stick men
>and expensive machinery on their booster, that's not trustworthy enough for
>you? 

I will say this one last time; *when* they demonstrate that it is reliable, 
I will be happy enough to trust my multi-billion dollar load of equipment 
to it.  They have yet to send people up on it, via Buran.  When I see them 
do that, I will believe that they have some faith in their system.  When 
it flies a dozen times or so, I will believe it is reliable.  Until then, 
no.  If you don't understand what I am saying, please contact me via 
e-mail.

-- 
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology      Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, 
Office of Information Technology     for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #56
*******************