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, 6 Jul 91 03:33:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8cRL96W00WBw8LQU4J@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 6 Jul 91 03:33:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #792 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 792 Today's Topics: Shuttling to the Cape Magellan GIF Images NASA Headline News for 06/25/91 (Forwarded) Re: NASA Budget Re: Hermes (was Re: (none)) Re: USF Reply from Rick R. Dobson ( Founder) Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED Not "The Face" Again! Aaaaaaaah!!! Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated NASA technology development vs. utilization 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: 25 Jun 91 20:33:17 GMT From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu!larsenp@purdue.edu (Paul Larsen) Subject: Shuttling to the Cape I recently heard on the radio that NASA finally has determined that it would be cost effective to land the Space Shuttle at Cape Canaveral. This would replace the need to land it at Edwards Air Force Base and then fly it to Florida. Supposedly this will save one million per flight. That's a lot of taxpayers' money that they have been wasting for the past 10 years. I know when the program first started NASA said that landing at EAFB would only be temporary. Does anyone know why this practice lasted for as long as it did? Paul Larsen larsenp@mace.cc.purdue.edu ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jun 91 03:24:07 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Ron Baalke) Subject: Magellan GIF Images ====================== MAGELLAN GIF IMAGES June 25, 1991 ====================== I've placed 16 more Magellan images in GIF format at the Ames SPACE archives, bringing the Magellan GIF total to 62 images. All of the images are obtainable via anonymous ftp from ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3), and are in the pub/SPACE/GIF directory. The new GIF files and their sizes are: alcott.gif 201,831 bytes alcott1.gif 237,110 bytes alcott2.gif 242,533 bytes ammavaru.gif 121,035 bytes ammavar1.gif 204,651 bytes ammavar2.gif 182,678 bytes ammavar3.gif 236,200 bytes ammavar4.gif 228,600 bytes ammavar5.gif 198,536 bytes arachcom.gif 266,802 bytes gulamons.gif 250,132 bytes gulamon1.gif 335,488 bytes gulamon2.gif 321,321 bytes pandora.gif 177,163 bytes pandora1.gif 274,967 bytes sifflows.gif 157,810 bytes I've converted the images from the VICAR images I placed at the Ames site last week. All of the GIFs are in a 640x480, 256 color resolution. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 301-355 | "Imagination is more /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | important than knowledge" |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | Albert Einstein ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 91 17:30:44 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!news.arc.nasa.gov!usenet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA Headline News for 06/25/91 (Forwarded) Headline News Internal Communications Branch (P-2) NASA Headquarters Audio Service: 202 / 755-1788 This is NASA Headline News for . . . Despite heavy winds and constant lightning which struck Cape Canaveral late last night, Atlantis was rolled out to the pad following a slight delay and reached pad 39-A at 7:09 am today. Work on the vehicle today includes hooking up the launch pad connections. The Tracking and Data Relay Satellite-E will be installed into Atlantis' payload bay tomorrow. Payload electrical connections will be made during the weekend. The STS-43 terminal countdown demonstration test currently is set for next week. The flight readiness review for the mission will be held July 11 and 12 at Kennedy. In the orbiter processing facility, work to remove the Spacelab from shuttle Columbia is expected to begin tomorrow and conclude Friday. The Spacelab should be back in the operations and checkout building by the weekend. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tomorrow, at 1:00 pm EDT, the STS-43 crew will hold their pre- flight press briefing at the Johnson Space Center. On Thursday, the mission flight director's briefing will be held at 9:00 am EDT. That briefing will be followed by a series of briefings on the TDRS, its inertial upper stage rocket, and the three secondary payload experiments on the STS-43 flight. On Friday, at 2:00 pm, the STS-40 crew will hold their post-mission press conference. All briefings will be televised on NASA Select TV. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The first mirror for the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility was completed by Hughes Danbury Optical System and shipped to the Eastman Kodak Rochester facility for assembly. This first mirror will be paired with another mirror, now in the final stages of polishing at Danbury, expected to be shipped by June 30 to Rochester. The shipment of the two mirrors marks the culmination of the first phase in the AXAF development program -- which was to produce a set of mirrors and validate the manufacturing process, including the sophisticated measurements taken of the mirrors' shape. The process has included the use of multiple cross checks and self-consistency tests, as well as end-to-end testing. The AXAF is another of NASA's Great Observatories, and will be deployed late this decade to explore the world of celestial X-ray sources. The telescope uses six pairs of grazing incidence mirrors to focus incoming X-rays. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Stennis Space Center officials will break ground for a North Wing addition to Building 1100 this afternoon. This is the main administrative building at Stennis. Groundbreaking ceremonies are set for 2:00 pm EDT. The center also reports that 2,693 visitors toured Stennis exhibits last week, including more than 500 students from 15 different schools. Here's the broadcast schedule for Public Affairs events on NASA Select TV. Note that all events and times may change without notice, and that all times listed are Eastern. indicates a program is transmitted live. Wednesday, 6/26/91 1:00 pm STS-43 flight crew briefing, from JSC. Thursday, 6/27/91 9:00 am STS-43 flight director mission briefing, from JSC. 10:00 am Tracking and Data Relay Satellite briefing, from JSC. 11:00 am Inertial Upper Stage briefing, from JSC. 11:30 am STS-43 SHARE payload experiment briefing, from JSC. 12:00 pm STS-43 BIMDA payload experiment briefing, from JSC. 12:30 pm STS-43 Protein Crystal Growth experiment briefing, from JSC. 1:00 pm Total Quality Management Colloquium, from NASA HQ. Friday, 6/28/91 2:00 pm STS-40 post mission flight crew briefing, from JSC. This report is filed daily at noon, Monday through Friday. It is a service of NASA's Office of Public Affairs. The contact is Charles Redmond, 202/453-8425 or CREDMOND on NASAmail. NASA Select TV is carried on GE Satcom F2R, transponder 13, C-Band, 72 degrees West Longitude, transponder frequency is 3960 megaHertz, audio is offset 6.8 MHz, polarization is vertical. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 91 18:20:07 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!hela!aws@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: NASA Budget In article jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes: >...growing realization within the real science community that the pseudo >science community is their natural ENEMY. For those of you who are new to the net, "real science" is composed of projects which Mr. Bowery likes. "Pseudo science" is composed of projects Mr. Bowery does not like. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. | | aws@iti.org | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 91 16:26:24 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Hermes (was Re: (none)) In article la_carle@sol.brispoly.ac.uk (Les Carleton) writes: >Does this mean that Hermes is actually being funded by ESA. I thought >it had been killed by lack of finance... Hermes is in both technical and financial difficulties but its official status is still "full speed ahead". Germany has been arguing for putting the brakes on hard. Many people seem to agree that the current plan is a little too optimistic, although the German position is seen as extreme. None of this has reached the level of official ESA decision-making, yet. -- "We're thinking about upgrading from | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 91 19:13:27 GMT From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu!hrubin@purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) Subject: Re: USF Reply from Rick R. Dobson ( Founder) In article <2ldl51-@rpi.edu>, strider@acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes: > In article <13837@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: > >In article <1991Jun20.164412.5626@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>, usf@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: ................... > Ah, Herman, ever hear of Checks and Balances? A concept used in our > government. You see, we have a body that proposes laws, (Congress) and one > who can disapprove them, the President. > > Of course you want a body to disapprove projects, not every project > proposed will be worthwhile to do. You do not seem to understand. Our science is already greatly suffering from centralized funding in each country separately. If we are really to explore and utilize space, it must not be centrally directed or funded. A project is worthwhile to do if a group of individuals, corporations, etc., think it is, and we should pressure our government to remove the restrictions on this NOW. Without the Cold War driving it, I see space activity shrinking to almost nothing. Without the Cold War, I doubt that we would even have reached the stage of weather satellites. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet) {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP) ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 91 16:44:56 GMT From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED In article <12136@hub.ucsb.edu> 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley) writes: >You say that aerospace companies prefer to be spoon fed instead >of risking their own money. > The reason is simple, aerospace companies do not have anything >like the sums of money needed for large scale space devlopments. It depends on what you mean by "large scale". Boeing sees nothing very unusual about spending two or three *billion* dollars of *its own money* (not even borrowed from a bank) on developing a new airliner or two. It's done that repeatedly. Done properly, without government pork barrel and red tape, that amount of money could fund almost any conceivable project in cislunar space. (Art Dula once estimated a respectable space station, built by construction companies and launched by Soviet boosters, at $500M.) The problem is not lack of money, but lack of reliable customers. Boeing doesn't start putting big bucks into the 7*7 until it's pretty damn sure that it can sell a whole bunch of them. With the marginal exception of comsats, putting big bucks into a space project has historically been a good way to go broke. The only major customer is the US government, which has an unequalled record of snubbing, disregarding, and out-and-out shafting attempts at private space development. -- "We're thinking about upgrading from | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 10:22:37 PDT From: greer%utdssa.dnet%utadnx@utspan.span.nasa.gov X-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::AMES::"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" Subject: Not "The Face" Again! Aaaaaaaah!!! Aaaaaaaaaaaah! I can't believe the "Face On Mars" is still getting such mileage. Repeat after me: "There is no face on Mars, there is no face on Mars, there is no face on Mars, etc., etc." Okay, okay. I'm calm now. There. It's really quite simple to convince yourself that this feature on Mars is not an artificial construct, if you have access to the raw data and even the most rudimentary image processing software. All you have to do is adjust your gray levels to bring out the shadow detail, and you find that there is no symmetry between the dark side and the bright side, and the dark side doesn't look like a face at all. Also, there is a hole in the dark side which is much darker than the rest of the dark side. Of course, most of the published pictures of the face are printed so as to maximize detail in the bright areas. Since printed materials can't handle the contrast of the original, the dark parts go black, and the mind, extrapolating detail into the darkness, constructs a virtual face where no real face exists. _____________ Dale M. Greer, whose opinions are not to be confused with those of the Center for Space Sciences, U.T. at Dallas, UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER "Mars is essentially in the same orbit. Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe." -- J. Danforth "just-a-heartbeat-away" Quayle, 11-AUG-1990 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 09:06:15 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated Doug Mohney writes: >There is a VERY REAL difference between informational postings given to us by >the NASA folks and the frothing at the mouth which sci.space readers have had >to endure by People With Agendas. That depends on whether the information postings are scientific in nature or not. If they are really scientific in nature your statement is true. However, if they are about engineering of space systems, they are inseparable from the politics that fund the engineering. Lest we forget, engineering is the art of getting things done within a budget. NASA just loves to make all debate in terms of things like O-rings as opposed to accountability for past actions. Those of us who dislike seeing hundreds of billions and decades go down the drain have a problem with this world-view. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Bowery 619/295-3164 The Coalition for PO Box 1981 Science and La Jolla, CA 92038 Commerce ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jun 91 01:16:59 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!freedom!avdms8!jpc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (J. Porter Clark) Subject: NASA technology development vs. utilization In this newsgroup the following opinions are often expressed: (1) NASA should develop new technology; spinoffs are part of its reason for being. (2) NASA should use off-the-shelf technology and existing industry and government standards as much as possible to reduce costs. I find it difficult to reconcile these opinions. I have often heard (1) espoused, both in and out of NASA. There is a lot of emphasis on (2) at NASA. It may be that one's attitude depends on one's particular field. That is, if your area of interest (whether it is financial or intellectual) is hypersonic transport, nearly anything NASA does in support of technology development in hypersonic transport is a good idea, but NASA should "go cheap" and not develop other technology areas such as computers. Are there technology areas that NASA shouldn't develop? In the flight avionics world that I'm a part of--admittedly a very small part of the overall picture--it seems that NASA almost always goes for (2). During the early Space Station Freedom development, the computers and communications for SSF were pretty much state-of-the-art or even past that. As time went on and money ran out, things went backwards, until there was a lot of emphasis on using old Orbiter designs. IMHO, most of the old Orbiter avionics equipment uses obsolete, not current techology. The difficulties of developing flight equipment seem to be beyond the comprehension of people outside NASA--sometimes inside NASA, too. (Our contractors consistently underestimate what it takes.) It is surprisingly expensive and manpower-intensive to space-qualify a new design. In general, a single program, even a big one like SSF, will balk at developing new techology in what it considers to be a "support" area. I don't see much co-operation between programs to co-develop this type of equipment either. All of this is strictly my opinion, not NASA's. I would say, "flames > /dev/null" as so many others have, but these days one should perhaps say, "drag all flames to the trash"--Wuggh! -- J. Porter Clark jpc@avdms8.msfc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #792 *******************