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 ; Sun, 22 Jul 1990 01:40:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 22 Jul 1990 01:39:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #108 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 108 Today's Topics: Re: Nasa's budget Re: Nasa's budget Re: Hubble Trouble Re: Titan boosters Discussion on engineering education newsgroup Polar Orbits General Dynamics statement on postponement of CRRES launch (Forwarded) 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: 22 Jul 90 01:21:46 GMT From: ox.com!itivax!vax3.iti.org!aws@CS.YALE.EDU (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Nasa's budget Mark Perew writes: >>There is nothing wrong with the Shuttle concept. Had they used >>available technology instead of pushing the envelope everywhere; >>The shuttle was premature. >>At any rate, it doesn't matter what others do. > >So the shuttle was premature then, but not now. OK, if we hadn't built >the shuttle then how would anyone have the technology to do it now? Well, if NASA was doing it's job it would have built a small research vehicle. This vehicle would have been a testbed for several concepts like SSME's, ceramics, reusable SRB's ect. Instead, NASA made the Shuttle everything to everybody while pushing every technology which added to risk. NASA them compounded the problem by deliberately destroying all alternatives forcing us into an unworkable alternative. >But you keep comparing NASA vs. Arianespace and KSC vs. Kourou. Seems >to me that what others do is an important part of your position. No, I am not comparing to any foreign body. I am only pointing out that we can in three years have an alternative which is cheaper than the Shuttle and also provides all the Shuttle's capabilities. What I can't understand is why the chance to save billions, accomplish more science, and build a real infastructure is so painful to you. >>>>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. >>That is a factor but not a major one. ... 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. > >Seems to me that you just proved my point. Congress wouldn't give a >funding commitment so NASA had to oversell the project. No. NASA sold Freedom to Congress as a microgravity research facility and Congress was very willing to fund that. The problem was that NASA used the station to force through lots and lots of other stuff which added to cost, risk, and even made it impossible to accomplich it's mission. These actions made political sense but not engineering sense. >If Congress >had given the space station the funding it needed when it needed it >then NASA would not have needed to resort to politcal games to get the >money the project needs. The station routinely gets 90%+ of what they ask for. If a 10% reduction in funding forces them to throw everything out and start over then wouldn't you say somebody isn't doing their job? Allen | | In War: Resolution | | Allen W. Sherzer | In Defeat: Defiance | | aws@iti.org | In Victory: Magnanimity | | | In Peace: Good Will | ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 90 23:04:52 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!mvk@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Michael V. Kent) Subject: Re: Nasa's budget In response to Allen Sherzer, who does not like the Spacelab program because it flies "only 3 days a year." Allen, may I ask politely, have you looked at a manifest lately? Over the next 5 years, about one third to one half of the Shuttle flights will be Spacelab flights, most of which will last 10 to 13 days. With a few planned modifi- cations, several of these will extend to 16 to 28 days. In fact, 3 of the next 6 flights are Spacelab flights of about 10 days each. While using a Shuttle to play space station is not ideal, it is good enough for the next five years. By then, Freedom will (hopefully) be coming online and will be able to take much of the burden off of the Shuttle. Granted, Shuttle and Freedom seem to be having some problems right now, but do you honestly believe Heavy Lift Delta and your capsule won't either? While it is good to hear some new ideas on what could be done, let's not lose sight of what we are doing. Mike mvk@pawl.rpi.edu ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 90 00:24:39 GMT From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!kauel@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Kendall Auel) Subject: Re: Hubble Trouble I want to know: exactly what is wrong with the Hubble telescope? I have heard that one or both mirrors may have the "wrong curvature" causing "spherical aberration". But the error is tiny, something like a millimeter. Does anybody actually KNOW what is causing the problem? Assuming that noboby really has the answer, here is my optimisitic and naive guess: Water vapor from the telescope has collected around the main mirror and remains there due to static charge. This is causing a very slight amount of refraction, but enough to make the mirror look like it was ground incorrectly. Perhaps the vapor prefers to collect in the center more that the edges, causing a more pronounced effect. Okay, I know I am really reaching here for a pleasant resolution of the problem. So burst my bubble. What is wrong with this theory? -- Kendall Auel | Mentor Graphics Corporation kauel@mentor.com | Silicon Design Division ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 90 18:03:06 GMT From: ox.com!itivax!vax3.iti.org!aws@CS.YALE.EDU (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Titan boosters Charles Radley writes: >It is an expensive way to put a corpse into orbit. Titans? I know of a couple of dozen people who did go up on Titan's who look very good for corpses. BTW, the Titan has a better operational record than the Shuttle. In addition, the Shuttle costs more than Titan so it seems that the Shuttle is the expensive way to put a corpse into orbit. Allen | | In War: Resolution | | Allen W. Sherzer | In Defeat: Defiance | | aws@iti.org | In Victory: Magnanimity | | | In Peace: Good Will | ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 90 19:48:37 GMT From: eagle!news@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Ronald E. Graham) Subject: Discussion on engineering education newsgroup This posting is in response to requests from Ian Hawthorn and Richard Miller, contributors to misc.education, that some discussion be carried out on the subject of problems in engineering education, and how they relate to (or, how they differ from) problems in any other educational realm. Their point (and I think it's valid) is that discussion outside of e-mail will better measure the interest in the proposed group (talk.engineering.education was the original title, but look for that to be changed before a call for votes) than e-mail alone. Let me kick off the discussion by describing a couple of problems I believe we have at the NASA Lewis Research Center that have piqued my personal interest in this subject: (1) the way things work; and (2) communications skills. Regarding (1): Russell Lawrence, one of the respondents to the call for discussion, stated: "I've met dozens of people who were able to perform intricate tasks by means of complex symbols or procedures while having no understanding whatsoever of the underlying problem." This is a good summary. We sometimes come out of school knowing how to use the book, especially if the book has the equations highlighted or boxed or listed in an Appendix, but we don't understand the physics of the problem. My mother continually is on my case for being a mechanical engineer who can't fix his own car. In my work area, a new hire is limited as to what s/he can accomplish on the job until some sense of the way the thing that is in question (generally a rocket, satellite, or the Space Station Freedom) works. But even that knowledge is based on the way simpler mechanisms work, and we sometimes have a limited understanding of that as well. Regarding (2): The Government continually states in its job descriptions that it is looking for personnel with "good oral and written communications skills". Where do you get these skills, in an engineering curriculum? In my own background, I was required two quarters of English and one of Speech as an undergraduate, and that wasn't enough to prepare me for the amount of, and the varied nature of, the communications I am expected to provide as part of my day-to-day duties. (About 60 to 75 percent of my job is reports, memos, bean-counting, meetings, phone calls, and teaching.) This problem is aggravated by the influx of internationals in the job-force. The internationals are great engineers, but, depending on the country of origin and on the length of stay in the USA, they may be simply terrible at communication. We have managers who hire internationals (they are easier to hire than white Americans), and then, faced with a communication gap that takes some work to overcome, just let them go to do their own thing. Then they actually wonder why the results are not what they want. Harry, a Chinese gentleman in my area, is also frustrated at this situation. In his previous position, he tells me all he had to do was "do analysis, get result". Now he has to do all the same paper-pushing as most of the rest of us. And it takes him that much longer, because we don't understand what he is saying on the first, or second, or third, try. Now, the Government offers ample training opportunities for its employees. How are the opportunities chosen? It's every one for him/her self, in most cases. I am interested, for myself, in finding out how to remedy (1) and (2) without turning all of Lewis upside-down to do it. (The Government would never put up with it anyway.) Are these kinds of things due to shortcomings in the university educational process? Or is the Government doing something wrong? For my own situation, did I do all I could? This is the sort of thing I am interested in, at least. Others will have to speak for themselves. RG "The scientific method is holy." - M. Scott Peck ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 90 05:09:04 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!rick@ucsd.edu (Rick Ellis) Subject: Polar Orbits SDF> or not it can launch into a polar orbit? I know that you can polar SDF> launch from Vanderburg but not from Cape Canaveral, but I don't SDF> understand what the crucial difference between the two is. It's considered to be VERY impolite to launch over populated areas. A polar launch from the Cape would do just that. -- Rick Ellis Internet: rick@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 90 20:27:10 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: General Dynamics statement on postponement of CRRES launch (Forwarded) GENERAL DYNAMICS STATEMENT ON POSTPONEMENT OF CRRES LAUNCH: During the countdown of AC-69, a liquid helium leak was dis- covered in the Centaur upper stage. This caused chilling of the liquid hydrazine to unacceptable levels. The launch team will troubleshoot the problem. The rescheduled launch of AC-69/CRRES will be announced as soon as possible. This infomation will be available on the codaphone at Kennedy Space Center, phone: 867- 2525 or by calling Jack Isabell, General Dynamics at 783-9222. July 20, 1990 4:15 p.m. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #108 *******************