Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.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, 21 Feb 91 02:13:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 21 Feb 91 02:13:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #182 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 182 Today's Topics: Re: The Moon => Existance of God...? (was Re: SPACE Digest V13 #102) Burr named GSFC Deputy Director (Forwarded) Re: ONE SMALL STEP - REPLY Space Station Processing Facility construction contract awarded (Forwarded) Re: Pioneer Venus Update - 02/18/91 Galileo Update - 02/18/91 NASA Advisory Council letter to Vice President (Forwarded) Re: Martian mystery? Re: SPS, Shuttle, Gaia Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Feb 91 00:11:05 GMT From: optilink!cramer@uunet.uu.net (Clayton Cramer) Subject: Re: The Moon => Existance of God...? (was Re: SPACE Digest V13 #102) In article <1991Feb14.205936.23926@lonex.radc.af.mil>, andrewsh@lonex.radc.af.mil (Harold G. Andrews II) writes: > In article <2011C22560000062@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU> 18084TM@MSU.BITNET (Tommy Mac) > writes: > >Perhaps the proof of God is our moon. > >Consider: > >The moon inspired Newton's idea's for gravitation > This, I won't touch. I'm not entirely familiar with Newton's thought processes > concerning his theories of gravitation. I suspect that, the genius he was, > he could have deduced the laws by looking at the planets and how they moved > in the sky. I've read that Newton became interested in, and used the Moon's orbit for first approximations of the law of gravity. Of course, that's not particular evidence for the evidence of God. (I found the rest of Tommy Mac's posting similarly unpersuasive). I understand that Newton expected to be best remembered not for _Principia_Mathematica_, but for a commentary he wrote on the book of Revelation. (Said commentary now seems difficult to find!) > >Tommy Mac -If God wanted us to travel in space... > * Harold G. "Andy" Andrews II, 1Lt, USAF * "Man the man whose punctuality * -- Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer "Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist with whom I work. You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine! ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 91 21:14:00 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Burr named GSFC Deputy Director (Forwarded) Paula Cleggett-Haleim Headquarters, Washington, D.C. February 19, 1991 (Phone: 202/453-1547) Jim Elliott Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. (Phone: 301/286-6256) RELEASE: 91-28 BURR NAMED GSFC DEPUTY DIRECTOR Peter T. Burr has been named Deputy Director of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., Center Director John M. Klineberg announced today. The appointment is effective immediately. Burr, 56, has been Director of Flight Projects at Goddard since August 1989. In that position, he had responsibility for the overall direction, development and management of a large number of satellite projects, including the Hubble Space Telescope, the Cosmic Background Explorer, ASTRO-1, the Tracking and Data Relay Satellites, NOAA and GOES weather satellites and the forthcoming Gamma Ray Observatory, scheduled for launch on the Space Shuttle in April. An electrical engineer and graduate of the University of Virginia, he came to Goddard in 1960 when he began work as a research engineer with the Satellite Applications Systems Division. Subsequently, he held positions as Head of the Information Systems Engineering Section in the Tracking and Data Systems Directorate; Assistant Project Manager, then Project Manager, Test and Training Satellite; and Spacecraft Manager, Synchronous Meteorological Satellite. From 1975 until its successful launch in 1980, he was Project Manager, Solar Maximum Mission, and, from 1980 until April 1988 when he was named Deputy Director of Flight Projects, he served as Project Manager, Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite. Burr has received numerous awards, including the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics' Goddard Astronautics Award in 1981 and the NASA Outstanding Leadership Medal in 1983. The new Deputy Director is married and has four children. Pending a permanent selection, Dr. Dale Harris, currently Deputy Director of Flight Projects, will serve as Acting Flight Projects Director, Klineberg said. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 91 11:07:51 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: ONE SMALL STEP - REPLY Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: In article : >It appears that the commercial procurement system, as used for the so >called 'Zenith Star" proposal of sending a payload into LEO was >successful because it allowed a commercial contractor to come up with a >solution for a HLV that would cost less than the proposed 10B dollars >NASA is proposing. First of all I should point out that this vehicle has not been developed and has never flown. It could also be that dispite McDonnell Douglas's willingness to sign a fix price contract that complications will develop. However, this effort works for two reasons. The first (and most important) is that is is focused on getting a job done. Unlike ALS the heavy lift Delta variant is not a goal unto itself. They made maximum use of what works and designed it to lower costs, not push technology. The second reason is the commercial procurement. SDIO went to the contractors and just said: 'here's the payload, this is the orbit we need, do it'. This approach outside the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR's) saves thousands of hours of labor and millions of $$. >Why can't NASA put more of its projects into the >commercial procurement system? The main problem is control. If your a contract officer and your project fails but you followed the FAR's, your ass is covered. If it fails and you didn't, then your ass is hanging out in the open. However, at least as far as launch services goes NASA must now buy commercial. The problem here is making NASA follow the law. There are a number of payloads going up on non-comercial vehicles over the next few years. Not all of these are on the Shuttle. >Would this not stimulate commercial interests into getting into space and >make getting into space less expensive over the next 10-20 years? IMHO, yes it would. GD has said that commercial acquisition of launch services would cut prices almost in half. >PS. If this sounds like a good idea, how do I forward this to NASA?? First, do a little research on these vehicles and Shuttle C. The Sept. 1990 issue of Aerospace America has a good article on the HL Delta and Titan. Then, write and visit your represtentative and senators. Tell them about the Zenith Star launchers and Shuttle C. Ask why we are spending billions on what we could have for millions. If you need help getting a meeting, let me know; I can help. Allen -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: | |aws@iti.org | "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!" | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 91 21:11:16 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Space Station Processing Facility construction contract awarded (Forwarded) Mitch Varnes Feb. 19, 1991 407/867-2468 KSC Release No. 18-91 SPACE STATION PROCESSING FACILITY CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARDED KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla. -- NASA's Kennedy Space Center has awarded Metric Constructors, Inc. of Tampa, Fla. a $56,215,000 contract to construct the Space Station Processing Facility (SSPF). Under the terms of the fixed price contract, Metric Constructors will build the 457,000-square-foot facility to be used as the central pre-flight checkout and processing point for Space Sta- tion Freedom elements. The SSPF, which will be located in the KSC Industrial Area, just east of the Operations & Checkout Building, will be a KSC- operated facility occupied by about 1,000 NASA and contractor employees. The three-story SSPF will include communications and electrical control areas, laboratories, logistics staging areas, operational control rooms, office areas and a cafeteria. The SSPF will have over 63,000 square feet of dedicated payload processing space, which includes a high bay and intermediate bay. A 5,000-square-foot airlock will be adjacent to the primary processing area. Both the airlock and processing area will be 100,000 parts-per-million-rated clean rooms. A visitor viewing window, which will allow NASA tour guests to view Space Station Freedom's pre-flight operations, has also been designed into the building's processing area. "This is the biggest new construction facility undertaken at KSC since the Apollo era," remarked SSPF Project Manager Walt Stampley. "The design of this building makes it a remarkable facility," Stampley continued. "The fact that all of the processing area's work stands will be air-bearing compatible and that there will be no fixed objects on the floor gives us almost infinite flexibility." Air-bearing systems allow for easy move- ment and positioning of large work stands and structures. KSC's Space Station Program Manager Dick Lyon was pleased with the contract award announcement. "This is a real milestone for Space Station Freedom and America's future in space," said Lyon. "We've been working hard developing what we feel is a solid and viable program, and the announcement of this construction award is definitely a big step in the right direction." Construction of the SSPF is set to begin on or about April 1, 1991, and the building should be ready for occupancy within 1,080 days of the SSPF ground breaking. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 91 17:33:53 GMT From: pa.dec.com!hollie.rdg.dec.com!ryn.mro4.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!habs11.enet.dec.com!mason@decwrl.dec.com (Gary Mason) Subject: Re: Pioneer Venus Update - 02/18/91 > The Pioneer project has declared the Pioneer Venus spacecraft over as >of 3:45 PM (PST) on February 15, and normal support for the spacecraft >has resumed. The spacecraft is configured to the High Gain Antenna and What does "over...and normal support...has resumed" mean??? I am interested, because in 1976 (this IS the right spacecraft?) I designed, built, and managed the Data Analaysis Lab for the GSFC contingent. Cheers...Gary mason@habs11.enet.dec.com ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 91 03:42:25 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@decwrl.dec.com (Ron Baalke) Subject: Galileo Update - 02/18/91 GALILEO STATUS REPORT February 18, 1991 The Galileo spacecraft health continues to be excellent. Today, the VE-12 (Venus-Earth 12) stored sequence ends and the VE-14 sequence begins. Activities planned for today consist of: o disabling the AACS (Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem) sun gate function and its associated fault protection now that the spacecraft is beyond a 1 AU solar distance o performing a planned sun acquisition to maintain a thermally safe sun pointed attitude o commanding to reset the Command Loss Timer to 240 hours o performing a USO (Ultra Stable Oscillator) test There are no spacecraft activities are planned for tomorrow. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | Is it mind over matter, ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ M/S 301-355 | or matter over mind? /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | Never mind. |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | It doesn't matter. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 91 04:15:43 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA Advisory Council letter to Vice President (Forwarded) Jeff Vincent Headquarters, Washington, D.C. February 12, 1991 (Phone: 202/453-8369) N91-10 NOTE TO EDITORS: NASA ADVISORY COUNCIL LETTER TO VICE PRESIDENT In a letter to Vice President Quayle, the NASA Advisory Council has praised NASA Administrator Truly and his management team "for taking quick, decisive and promising action" to implement the Report of the Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program. The NASA Advisory Council will continue to review the agency's efforts in this regard. The NASA Advisory Council comprises 25 members who are leaders in industry, government or academia. They are appointed by NASA for 1-year terms and normally are not appointed for more than three years in succession. The Council provides its advice and counsel directly to the NASA Administrator. It reviews NASA's policies, programs and strategies and considers the degree to which the agency meets its objectives. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 91 22:57:44 GMT From: gauss.rutgers.edu!math.rutgers.edu!cromar@rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) Subject: Re: Martian mystery? In article <9102181901.AA04798@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> TPM4017@PANAM.BITNET writes: > photo of the Martian surface. The photo appeared to show a huge face > and a pyramid. Of course he claimed that they were not natural features Actually, such pictures do exist. Most really good collections of Viking photographs have these pictures in them precisely because of the sort of discussion you have described. Of course, you can computer enhance anything to look like just about anything else, but these pictures do really look like a face and a pyramid. As for what they are, they're just rocks sculpted by erosion. If you think that those shapes are wierd, you might try looking at pictures of Goblin Valley in southern Utah some time. (Southern Utah is, of course, another dry environment where a lot of erosion is done by the wind and expansion cracks in the rock--much like Mars.) I am not suggesting that aliens landed in southern Utah, of course, but who knows? ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 91 22:52:41 GMT From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5!szabo@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Nick Szabo) Subject: Re: SPS, Shuttle, Gaia In article <9102181425.AA21496@iti.org> aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes: >>This is program cost. > >No it is my estimate of flyaway cost for a Shuttle mission. This figure >does not include ANY costs associated with the development of the Shuttle >or any costs associated with procurement of orbiters or structural spares. I admire Mr. Sherzer for his attempts to ferret out launch prices. However, even he is underestimating Shuttle costs. The proper costs to use are the entire program costs, including interest, amortized over historical and expected Shuttle flights. Unfortuntealy, NASA and its supporters use accounting practices that are illegal in the private sector, not to mention just plain lacking in economic common sense, and it is therefore difficult to compare costs, and easy to generate false claims. >>The figures you give for the Titan are flyaway costs. > >Actually, the figures I give for Titan are flyaway price. However, if the >Titan is to make money then the flyaway price must be above flyaway cost. Flyaway price will be: flyaway cost, plus any _program costs_ that were not spent on another company product, plus time cost of money and return for share and debt holders. This debate illustrates just how tough it is get rid of economic illiteracy in the space community. But unless we undertake this task, the exagerrated claims, broken promises and false accounting will continue. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #182 *******************