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 ; Sat, 11 May 91 01:41:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 11 May 91 01:41:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #523 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 523 Today's Topics: Acronyms posting - do diffs seem useful? Saturn V DDT&E costs (was: SPACE Digest V13 #494) Re: SPACE Digest V13 #485 Re: Why the space station? Eight firms named George M. Low trophy finalists (Forwarded) Re: Why the space station? Re: Terraforming Mars? Why not Venus? Re: Why the space station?y Astronaut Puppets Re: Why the space station? Re: Why the space station?y 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: 29 Apr 91 18:11:21 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!rpi!uupsi!nstn.ns.ca!clyde.concordia.ca!altitude!matrox!uvm-gen!kira!emily!wollman@decwrl.dec.com (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Acronyms posting - do diffs seem useful? I'm thinking of makiung a posting of diffs for TLA UP, to start with next month's edition. Does anyone out there thing that this is a really good idea? By contrast, does anyone out there think that this is a really bad idea or otherwise a waste of bandwidth? [I've started to keep the acronyms file under RCS just in case.] -GAWollman Garrett A. Wollman - wollman@emily.uvm.edu Disclaimer: I'm not even sure this represents *my* opinion, never mind UVM's, EMBA's, EMBA-CF's, or indeed anyone else's. ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 91 16:59:55 GMT From: hela!aws@uunet.uu.net (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Saturn V DDT&E costs (was: SPACE Digest V13 #494) In article <9105062230.AA00326@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> space+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@msu.edu writes: >If anyone does know of more solid figures, please, post them. (Mary?) According to a NASA presentation to the House Science Committee we spent $13.81 billion on the stages, engines, and vehicle integration. An additional 2.37 was spent for facilities for a total of $16.19B. This estimate is in 1991 dollars. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | Allen's tactics are too tricky to deal with | | aws@iti.org | -- Harel Barzilai | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 91 04:57:19 GMT From: ogicse!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary@ucsd.edu (Gary Coffman) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #485 In article DECB3421@vax1.centre.queens-belfast.ac.uk (AMON) writes: > >Re: Tethers > >The analysis of tethers stating problems with angular momentum and saying >it wouldn't work, TAANSTAFL, missed the point. > >The purpose of tether climbing is not that you gain anything for free, but >that you borrow energy when climbing and return it, less entropies bill >when you leave. You save on the fuel required to get to the higher orbit >and fuel required for reentry, which translates into payload and lower >per pound costs. > >If the payload UP exceeds the payload DOWN, there is a net loss which can >also be made by using the tether to steal energy from the Earth's magnetic >field. Charged tethers can act as either generators or motors depending on >how you use them, and allow you to move up or down in orbit at will, albiet >slowly. > >This is no more a violation of physical principles than the use of flywheels >for spacecraft positioning in place of thrusters. Surprise, I agree that tethers used this way in orbit would indeed work, however, TAANSTAFL does still apply. There is always the requirement for a net energy balance over the long term. Like the flywheels, desaturation must be done periodically. If the net payloads UP exceed the net payloads DOWN, then the tether will need to be periodically boosted back up into it's proper orbit. Stealing energy from the Earth's magnetic field doesn't really occur, what is stolen is orbital energy causing the tether's orbit to decay. Such energy theft still requires the tether to be reboosted periodically or it will decay and burn up in the atmosphere. If net payloads DOWN exceed net payloads UP by more than entropy's burden, then energy must be dissipated somehow or the tether's orbit will increase. Using the tether as an electrical generator in this case would allow the gravitational energy gained by the tether from the decending payloads to be converted to electrical energy rather than increased orbital energy. Now the problem becomes one of what to do with the excess electrical energy. This is the kind of problem we all like to have. :-) Gary ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 91 04:28:37 GMT From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!life.ai.mit.edu!guest@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Guest Account) Subject: Re: Why the space station? >well, yes, If you mean a few guys in clown suits running around on >the surface >of whatever body doing fairly nonproductive (from the >standpoint of geosciences) >things principly for the benefit of >taxpayer sponsored tv shows. I suppose that >sort of "exploration" is >best done by something besides titan IV's. Basically >what I mean by >exploration is discovering the story of the origin of planets of life, >the nature of the mantle and accretion on other solar system bodies, >how >the earth was formed, how it works. If you want to define science >as non-exploration I suppose lots of people in NASA with degrees in PR >have been payed very > well to make that distinction plausible. Well, there's a limit to how certian knowledge can be when the knowledge of a whole world is based on orbital survey maps and 5 kg. of rocks from various places around the target planet (7, 8 sites max, as long as they're close to where the robotic sample return mission touches down). And saying that that level of exploration allows sweeping characterizations to be made about the origin of the solar system would be sheer unadulterated bull. Most models of the origin have not changed drastically since the start of the space age. This may change soon. ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 91 00:23:21 GMT From: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Eight firms named George M. Low trophy finalists (Forwarded) Dwayne C. Brown Headquarters, Washington, D.C. May 7, 1991 (Phone: 202/453-8956) RELEASE: 91-70 EIGHT FIRMS NAMED GEORGE M. LOW TROPHY FINALISTS Eight finalists have been chosen for the 1991 George M. Low Trophy -- NASA's Quality and Excellence Award. The finalists are: * EG&G Florida, Inc., Kennedy Space Center, Fla. * Grumman Technical Services Division, Titusville, Fla. * Honeywell Inc., Space and Strategic Systems Operations, Clearwater, Fla. * Computer Sciences Corp., Applied Technology Division, Houston * Cray Research, Inc., Manufacturing Division, Chippewa Falls, Wisc. * Thiokol Corp., Space Operations, Brigham City, Utah. * TRW Space and Technology Group, Redondo Beach, Calif. * Unisys Space Systems Division, Houston The award recognizes both NASA's prime contractors, subcontractors and suppliers for outstanding achievements in quality and productivity improvement and total quality management (TQM). Key goals of the award are to internalize quality and productivity practices and TQM processes throughout NASA and the agency's contractors and to transfer performance improvement methods of the award recipients to others. George A. Rodney, NASA Associate Administrator for the Office of Safety and Mission Quality, announced the finalists after a 6- month application and review process. The award process now advances to the third phase in which validation teams visit finalists' facilities to verify performance achievements and process attainments. Following the review and recommendations of the Low Trophy Evaluation Committee, NASA's TQM Steering Committee, composed of Center Directors and Headquarters Associate Administrators, will make the final selection of the the award recipient(s). NASA Administrator Richard H. Truly will announce the award recipient(s) at the eighth annual NASA/contractor conference on Nov. 6, 1991. There is no limit to the number of awards which can be given among the finalists. "The award applications are more numerous and getting better each year, making the job of the committee very difficult. Awards are made in two categories, large and small business. There are no small business finalists this year," said Rodney. Truly announced last October that the NASA Excellence Award be renamed the George M. Low Trophy to honor one of America's outstanding space pioneers. "George M. Low represented quality and excellence like few others and if NASA is synonymous with excellence, George Low is synonymous with NASA", said Truly. The award is administered for NASA by the American Society for Quality Control, Milwaukee, Wisc., a professional association and a worldwide leader in development, promotion and application of quality and quality-related technologies. The recipients of the 1990 George M. Low Trophy, NASA's Quality and Excellence Award, were Rockwell Space Systems Division, Downey, Calif., and Marotta Scientific Controls, Inc., Montville, N.J. Marotta was the first recipient of the trophy in the newly established small business category. Previous recipients of the award have been Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Co., Houston; Rocketdyne Division, Rockwell International Corp., Canoga Park, Calif.; Martin Marietta Manned Space Systems Co., New Orleans; and IBM's Systems Integration Division, Houston. ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 91 12:38:05 GMT From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!mintaka!think.com!rpi!crdgw1!gecrdvm1!gipp@bloom-beacon.mit.edu Subject: Re: Why the space station? In article <1991May7.181938.9006@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) says: > >In article >yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: > >>Why not put together a small (!) team of experts (technical personnel, >>not bureaucrats) from the various NASA centers (and perhaps other >>labs, companies, and universities, as well) to design a space station >>with clear goals in mind (orbital support of lunar/planetary exploration) >>-- with the only constraints being engineering, cost, and time? > >Well, for microgravity work this has already been done. Space Industries >Industrial space Facility would suite most needs for a small fraction of >the cost of Freedom. It almost got funded a few years ago but NASA managed >to kill it. > > Allen Gee, isn't this what got us into the Freedom mess, (not to mention the shuttle)? One person's clear cut goal is not the same as another's: Brian is thinking exploration waystation, and Allen mentions, if not endorses, microgravity work. Congress says, gee I can get both their votes if I say sure it'll be both! > ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 91 05:50:32 GMT From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!ptimtc!rdmei!icspub!astemgw!kuis!rins!will@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (will) Subject: Re: Terraforming Mars? Why not Venus? In article <9666@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL>, lev@slced1.nswses.navy.mil (Lloyd E Vancil) writes: >acomplishments. It would be safer for the race, if we didn't stay on this >little planet. > Ok, fine. Now, who makes the decision, on who stays and who goes? It can't be the political partys, because then space will be screwed up. I mean imagine some congressman meeting an alien, he would get the whole human race exterminated just by his stupidity. It can't be the military those guys are nuts, they would probably bomb the earth with meteors to help their particular country. So, who's left, the common people of the world. Are you nuts, they probably don't even have the intelligence to know where space is. So, I guess that leaves only the scientist to decide. Most likly this is going to get me in trouble again. Oh well. Will.... ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 91 03:18:02 GMT From: stanford.edu!agate!headcrash.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@decwrl.dec.com (Frank Crary) Subject: Re: Why the space station?y In article <1991May8.132202.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> kent@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes: >They docking method planned for the space station and the orbiter is not a >"slam-em together scheme." It involves using the shuttles RMS arm to pull the >shuttle in gently. I was talking about the difficulties of manuvering into close proximity to the station (or any large, open structure). While the RMS will do fine for the final docking, that arm is only 15 meters long. Alot of effort may be needed to get within 15 meters of the dacking adaptor without hitting the trussd, solar pannels or heat radiators. This is a particular problem is there is a docking failure. For example, due to a damaged radar beacon the Progress M7 resupply craft almost rammed the Mir space station. A ground controlled noticed in time, and aborted the docking. As the Progress passed the station (after failing to dock) it nearly hit a solar pannel. I feel this sort of accident is a much greater risk for Freedom, with so many things sticking out in so many directions. Frank Crary UC Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 91 15:02:52 GMT From: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu!skywalker@tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) Subject: Astronaut Puppets A year ago I did a posting about my search for the 'moonwalk' puppets used during the apollo program. I have found them and I am trying to get the owner to sell me one. It's seems that there are only 4 to 6 of them left in one piece. I would like to thank everyone that gave me tib-bits of information and those who remembered what I was talking about ( the networks told me I was crazy) when I ask them for info....Thanks again to all of you who gave me some leads.... Tim -- Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not HHMI's or Baylor College of Medicine ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "And we stand and watch the gods and idols fall, as the blameless ones go blindfold to the wall" Robin Trower.... ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 91 02:59:39 GMT From: unmvax!uokmax!rwmurphr@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Robert W Murphree) Subject: Re: Why the space station? henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1991May7.024811.8157@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> rwmurphr@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree) writes: >>... I see no signs that the >>exploration of the solar system is really limited by the lack of an >>orbital base. There is an IMMENSE amount of science that can be done >>with present technology... >You are assuming that "science" and "exploration" are synonymous; care to >explain this? well, yes, If you mean a few guys in clown suits running around on the surface of whatever body doing fairly nonproductive (from the standpoint of geosciences) things principly for the benefit of taxpayer sponsored tv shows. I suppose that sort of "exploration" is best done by something besides titan IV's. Basically what I mean by exploration is discovering the story of the origin of planets of life, the nature of the mantle and accretion on other solar system bodies, how the earth was formed, how it works. If you want to define science as non-exploration I suppose lots of people in NASA with degrees in PR have been payed very well to make that distinction plausible. ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 91 03:44:35 GMT From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) Subject: Re: Why the space station?y In article <1991May9.031802.15344@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >I was talking about the difficulties of manuvering into close proximity to the >station (or any large, open structure). While the RMS will do fine for the >final docking, that arm is only 15 meters long. Alot of effort may be >needed to get within 15 meters of the dacking adaptor without hitting the >trussd, solar pannels or heat radiators. This is a particular problem is >there is a docking failure. For example, due to a damaged radar beacon >the Progress M7 resupply craft almost rammed the Mir space station. A >ground controlled noticed in time, and aborted the docking. As the >Progress passed the station (after failing to dock) it nearly hit a solar >pannel. I feel this sort of accident is a much greater risk for Freedom, >with so many things sticking out in so many directions. The risks may be somewhat greater, with the extra 'junk' in the are, but keep in mind that the Shuttle should be able to do a far better job of docking (granted, it's never been tried) than a Soviet unmanned spacecraft. With human operators on the scene, a situation similar to the Progress incident could never arise; the crew in the station, the crew on the orbiter, and the ground controllers could all catch the situation in time and do something about it...one of the advantages to man in space. Also, I wouldn't put a lot of trust in Soviet docking abilities; they've been notoriously deficient in this area for thirty years. -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their Office of Information Technology P.O. box." - Zebadiah Carter, Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu _The Number of the Beast_ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #523 *******************