Space Digest                Fri, 30 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 946

Today's Topics:
              >Manned space flight reference literature
                            Budget figures
                      CFV: sci.astro.planetarium
Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist) (7 msgs)
                   Consoldiation of NASA stations!
               Cost of Shuttle (was Re: Budget figures)
    Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India
          Hubble solar arrays: how'd they foul up? (2 msgs)
 In article 876@access.digex.net, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
              NASA's planned project management changes

	Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
	"space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form
	"Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
	(BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
	(THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 19:52:09 GMT
From: gregb@tosgcla.den.mmc.com
Subject: >Manned space flight reference literature
Newsgroups: sci.space

>I have *started* a list of reference literature for manned space flight.
>I would also like to supplement this list with films and video.
>Please send additions, updates/corrections to:
>        gregb@tosgcla.mmc.den.com

Opps - I posted the wrong return address. Use the folowing address:
--
Use this address: gregb@tosgcla.den.mmc.com, NOT the other one.

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 16:44:52 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Budget figures
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1993Jul29.123418.13195@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1993Jul28.193013.7955@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>>There is no discrepancy. The half billion $$ per flight figure assumes
>>>that no development, construction, NASA overhead, or interest in included.
>>>In other words, it pretends the Shuttle was developed for free.
>
>>No, of course it doesn't. It assumes that bill is already marked paid,
>>which it is. Congress wanted Shuttle developed, they got it, they paid
>>for it. Whether Shuttle ever fiies again or not, that cost is sunk.
>
>That doesn't make it a valid way of doing things. We would be much better
>off if we ran it like a buisness.
>
>>The government is the ultimate customer. It's not a business, it doesn't
>>work by business rules.
>
>Therein lies the problem. The difference between us is that I think that
>is a system in need of change and you think it is a system to defend.

No, in fact I'd prefer the government not be involved with space at
all. However, it is, and we have to accept that because the market
demand for space is insufficient to generate adequate private activity. 
We have to accept that government works under different rules and 
assumptions than private business because government is a fundamentally
different entity than private enterprise. Trying to get government to
act like private enterprise is a bit like trying to teach a pig to sing.
The results aren't good, and it annoys the pig. Government, by definition,
is supposed to do things that private enterprise won't.

>>Exactly which commercial launcher offers Shuttle capabilities at
>>1/4th the cost?
>
>Atlas, Mir, Titan, Delta, Soyuz, Proton....

Nonsense. None of those offer Shuttle capabilities, and MIR isn't
even a launcher. Your litany is becoming so automatic you don't
even read the question.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary 
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | 

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

Date: 29 Jul 93 20:08:05 GMT
From: Ron Asbestos Dippold <rdippold@qualcomm.com>
Subject: CFV: sci.astro.planetarium
Newsgroups: news.announce.newsgroups,news.group,sci.astro,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.physics.

		      CALL FOR VOTES (1st of 3)

Creation of the unmoderated group sci.astro.planetarium

Newsgroups line: 
sci.astro.planetarium			Discussion of planetariums.

Votes must be recieved by: Thursday, Aug 26, 1993 11:59:59 GMT

This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party.  For voting
questions only, contact rdippold@qualcomm.com.  For questions about
the proposed group, contact Davin Flateau <davin@telerama.pgh.pa.us>.

This CFV will also be posted to the "Planetarian Electronic
Newsletter" mailing list by Davin Flateau.



STANDARD VOTING INFO

You should send MAIL (posts to a group are invalid) to
      voting@qualcomm.com
(just replying by MAIL to this message should work).  Your mail
message should contain one and only one of the following statements:

      I vote YES on sci.astro.planetarium
or
      I vote NO on sci.astro.planetarium

You may add a comment, but anything other than a definite statement
involving the group name and "yes", "no", "for", or "against" on a
single line may be rejected by the automatic vote counting program.
If you later change your mind you may also use send in an "abstain"
vote in the same manner, using "abstain" in place of "yes" or "no".
Additional CFVs will include mass acks.

Standard Guidelines for voting apply - one vote per person (not per
account).  100 more YES votes than NO votes and 2/3 of all votes being
YES are the requirements for group creation.


Charter
-------

   sci.astro.planetarium will be a newsgroup that provides a common forum
for patrons of planetaria, planetarium professionals, planetarium
audio-visual developers, and anyone interested in astronomy education to
come and exchange their ideas, news, and calendar events.  Major topics
of discussion that this newsgroup will cover include:

 *  Planetarium presentation techniques and show production discussions by
    planetarium professionals.

 *  Technical discussions relating to the production of planetarium
    presentations (Digistar programming, A/V equipment maintenance, automation
    system discussions, etc.).

 *  News and announcements of upcoming planetaria events from
    planetaria all over the world (workshop announcements, star-parties,
    special showings, etc.). 

 *  General public discussion about the institution of planetaria,
    including items of historical interest, and new planetaria being opened.

 *  Upcoming astronomical, space events and alerts concerning planetarium
    professionals, and the general public.

 *  Astronomical education topics and general discussion by both
    planetarium professionals, developers and the general public.

 *  Educate others in topics of astronomy and space exploration.


Rationale
---------

   For the last 70 years, planetaria have been the world's source for
astronomical education, and public astronomy information.  Many
educational institutions such as high schools and universities have
planetaria on campus for just this purpose.  With most universities
connected to the internet, and many more science centers and museums
connecting every day, sci.astro.planetarium will provide a central
place for discussion of astronomy education and the special issues
concerning planetaria themselves.

   More and more planetarium enthusiasts and professionals are making
use of the great capabilities of the internet - the recently formed
"Planetarian Electronic Newsletter" has gained explosive support, and
now reaches many people. sci.astro.planetarium will be an essential
step in connecting these people and institutions, and help astronomy
education greatly.

Summary
-------

   sci.astro.planetarium will be an important step in linking everyone
interested in planetaria together.  Professionals can exchange
technical information, production ideas, news, events, techniques, and
get feedback from people interested in astronomy.  Everyone interested
in astronomy can also get up-to-date information about local public
shows, astronomical events, organized astronomical gatherings, and
more.  The huge success of the Planetarian Electronic Newsletter has
shown these topics to be of great interest to many people (in fact,
the Newsletter has so many subscribers and is so large in content, it
is moving to regional distribution).  To accomplish all of these goals
with thousands of planetaria professionals all over the globe, the
creation of sci.astro.planetarium is essential.
-- 
Usenet Volunteer Votetakers: The Knights Who Say ACK

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 19:09:51 GMT
From: Mark North <north@watop.nosc.mil>
Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

01jlwile@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:

>Firstly, we know that cold fusion does occur-whether it is in the
>Palladium/heavy water cells aka Pons and Fleischmen or whether
>it is muon-induced, the question is one of rate.  

Who's this "we"? There is absolutely no evidence that nuclear reactions
occur in so-called cold fusion beyond the level of fracto-fusion which
has a mundane explanation (large accellerating electric fields
produced in stress cracks of many materials). Fracto-fusion is hot
fusion, there is no tunnelling involved. Muon induced fusion is a well 
studied and real effect and
has nothing to do with Pons and Fleischmann (or vice versa). It really
does deserve the name 'cold fusion'.

>Cold fusion is simply
>an example of quantum tunneling:  There is an energy barrier
>resisting fusion, but sometimes particles tunnel through that barrier.
>The bigger the barrier, the less likely the tunneling.  

Yes, and in this case the barrier is about 70 orders of magnitude
less likely.

>What was
>startling about Pons and Fleischman's claim is that the RATE at which
>they claimed to observe the tunneling (the fusion) was incredibly
>larger than anything expected.

What is startling about P&F's claim is that anyone still takes them
seriously. For one thing, F&F's claims of nuclear reactions have been
totally discredited. For another, their ability to do calorimetry is
in serious question. 

>For those who still are researching cold fusion, the entire question
>is still about RATE.  The faster you can make the fusions occur,
>the more power you can generate.  So, the size of the cell and the
>amount of power it can generate will not be determined until someone
>can give us some reproducable experiments that measure the rate of
>cold fusion.

My view on this is that the entire question is one of MONEY. The faster
you can wave your arms the more money you can generate from the
gullible. Ah yes, reproducible experiments...

>My personal interpretation of the data is that the rate of cold
>fusion is no larger in the Pons/Fleischman type cells than one
>would calculate based on Nuclear Physics and Quantum Mechanics,
>indicating that the power output is essentially nil and
>there is no new physics going on.

Well, this is sure true.

>Jay Wile
>Prof. o' Chemistry

Mark North
Prof. o' Physics

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 19:45:18 GMT
From: Mark North <north@watop.nosc.mil>
Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

01jlwile@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:

>`]In article <26JUL199314161671@csa3.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>> I can't agree that it's "just a matter of rate."  That answer seems 
>> to hide a more fundamental truth.  I presume that the rate of 
>> cold fusion according to standard QM tunnelling calculations at 
>> room temperature is so incredibly small that you could never hope
>> to actually measure it in a real experiment on the desktop.  

>True, traditional QM measurements do say just that, but, listening
>to Pons at his Indiana University talk shortly after his press
>sonference and also reading the Conressional Committee's report, all
>CF people aren;t claiming a fundamentally new process, they are
>mereyl saying that the chemical activity present in such a cell
>can be though of as pressure which pushes the two nuclei closer
>together than their normal equilibrium distances.  

Yes, and when that was shot down they came up with many-body reactions
and when that was shot down they came up with 'cooperative phenomenon'
and when that was shot down they came up with shrunken H atoms (no lie)
and when that was shot down.... ad nauseum.

>QM tells you
>that the fusion rate is dramatically dependent on distance, so
>the only new process being postulated is something that pushes
>the nuclei closer, increasing rate.  The only new thing they proposed
>was fusion without the emission of gammas and netrons, since they
>couldn't measure enough.  Thus, they propose new DECAY mechanisms, not
>new FUSION mechanisms

Pons? The electrochemist who measures neutrons with a survey meter
is proposing new nuclear decay mechanisms. Sheesh! Better he should
go back and find the error in his calorimetry.

Mark









  

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 19:53:16 GMT
From: Mark North <north@watop.nosc.mil>
Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>In article <1993Jul26.144727.21019@bsu-ucs> 01jlwile@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
>>
>>
>>Firstly, we know that cold fusion does occur-whether it is in the
>>Palladium/heavy water cells aka Pons and Fleischmen or whether
>>it is muon-induced, the question is one of rate. 

>    Actually, if the rate calculated for Pd-D processes is 1 in 10^4000,
>    I'd say that it was *not* actually occurring.

>                           dale bass

Aw you're way way off. The rate is MUCH higher than that -- more like
1 in 10^70. See, it's not so bad after all 8^). 

Mark

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

Date: 29 Jul 1993 20:17:45 GMT
From: Jacob M Callcut <pacific!callcutj>
Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

  I thought this topic was long dead in the science world.  Give it up
and move on: Cold Fusion is for the sci-fi writers!

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 19:59:40 GMT
From: Mark North <north@watop.nosc.mil>
Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>   It seems to me that if we discuss cold fusion in the
>   Pd-D system, we must include only those things that are actually
>   the result of there being a Pd-D system about, as opposed to 
>   a big vat of D_2.  It seems to me that the 'special' nature of the 
>   Pd-D system is implicit in any such discussion.

>                          dale bass

The 'special' nature of the Pd-D system is the Pd metal electrode which
can, in principle at least, exhibit fracto-fusion due to stress cracks
in the material. 

Mark

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 20:11:51 GMT
From: Mark North <north@watop.nosc.mil>
Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

<U16072@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>In article <1993Jul28.123338.21058@bsu-ucs>, 01jlwile@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu says:
>>
>>True, traditional QM measurements do say just that, but, listening
>>to Pons at his Indiana University talk shortly after his press
>>sonference and also reading the Conressional Committee's report, all
>>CF people aren;t claiming a fundamentally new process, they are
>>mereyl saying that the chemical activity present in such a cell
>>can be though of as pressure which pushes the two nuclei closer
>>together than their normal equilibrium distances.  QM tells you
>>that the fusion rate is dramatically dependent on distance, so

>Not that dramtically. That is untill you reach the point where
>the nucei overlap. Then the rate goes sky high. This is what happens
>in muon catalysed fusion. But I seem to remember calculations that
>in a D2O cell the distancews actually increase.

I think what you mean to say, which is the case I believe, is that
the D nuclei are closer together in a D2 molecule than in the
Pd-D system.

Mark

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 21:10:07 GMT
From: bearpaw <bearpaw@world.std.com>
Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

callcutj@pacific.uucp (Jacob M Callcut) writes:

>  I thought this topic was long dead in the science world.  Give it up
>and move on: Cold Fusion is for the sci-fi writers!

Sounds more like you're long dead in the science world.  There is still a 
very active debate going on about the topic with lots of real-life 
scientists (and others) arguing pro, con, and damned-if-I-know.  Just 
because you're not keeping up with a subject doesn't mean it's not 
worth keeping up with.  

And *if* it was "long dead in the science world", it would be for the 
*fantasy* writers, not the SF writers.  If you're gonna be snide, you 
should at least do it right.

bearpaw

 ====================================================================== 
 |  bearpaw@world.std.com              Loyal Defender of the Grey Areas
 |  "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it.
 |   I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against.
 |   I'm a human being first and foremost, and as such I am for whoever
 |   and whatever benefits humanity as a whole."  - Malcolm X
 ====================================================================== 
   

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 17:14:16 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Consoldiation of NASA stations!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1993Jul29.045026.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>HEre is an idea in the current vein of US military base closes.
>
>CLOSE soem of those space related bases that have no real reason to exist (I
>know there is soem) and consolidate the rest into since either regional or a
>central location space base..

While this makes sense, it's politically improbable. NASA has deliberately
spread itself over many Congressional districts so that the flow of pork
keeps the necessary votes for funding coming in Washington. The current
military base closure commission shows how difficult it is to deal with
this issue. Congress couldn't bring itself to close bases in their home
districts, but they were under intense pressure to cut the defense budget. 
So they created the base closure commission and limited themselves to 
approving or disapproving the entire list. That gave them the political 
out with the folks back home, but they sure don't like it. They're unlikely 
to do it again over the piddling sums involved in NASA. The heat was too
great.

>Mayeb deactive the Air Force base at white sands, and make it the main
>base/launch site for all further NASA launches.. I have seen a few times in the
>past that Cape Kennedy/Cannaveral  is actually one of the worst places for a
>space launch, and is only there cause it is closest to the equator int he
>continental US.. What benefits does White Sands or another alternate base
>provide? any suggestions? and such..

The Cape is the worst spot for launches, except for any other spot in
the continental US. It's not just that it's close to the Equator, it's
not as close as Miami or Brownsville Texas for example. What it does
offer is thousands of miles of open water over a large launch arc.
That allows spent stages, or malfunctioning launchers, to fall harmlessly
over open ocean rather than the downtown of some major city.

>Someone said earlier that we have let the congress dictate the space program.
>Well its about time WE THE PEOPLE took it back and decided what WE WANT, and
>not what THEY want, they meaning congress and the US Military..
>
>I wonder if Perot is or has heard of this idea..

Thomas Jefferson said that our form of government is the worst possible,
except for all the others. Congress exists to temper the mob's passions.
Along with the Executive, the Judicial, and the Constitution itself,
the deliberative body is supposed to take the views of it's constituents
and temper them with the judgement of informed debate and consideration.
We elect people to Congress to make the judgements we don't have the
time or knowledge to make, taking into consideration other issues that
we may not appreciate, such as other worthy programs demanding limited
funds, or political implications due to international affairs or agreements. 
If we find their judgements flawed too often, we elect someone more closely 
aligned with our views to replace them. We don't resort to mob rule.

All politics is ultimately local. We can only influence our little
part of the whole. This limits the scope of demagoguery in swaying
national decisions. That's good because it demands consensus be
reached before government acts precipitously, and ultimately unwisely.

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary 
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | 

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 19:11:10 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <dietz@cs.rochester.edu>
Subject: Cost of Shuttle (was Re: Budget figures)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1993Jul27.211942.25159@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

 > Dennis, Space News said that if you include all that, the costs goes to
 > something like $1.5 billion per flight. But let's forget the article and
 > look at the budget. According to the 1994 budget Shuttle costs are $4.193
 > billion which comes out to $524 million per flight assuming you use the
 > optimistic rate of 8 flights per year. If we add a pro-rated share of
 > NASA overhead, we get a cost of roughly $575M per flight.

See also the July 26, 1993 AvWeek, pages 57-58.  There is a two
page forum article by Roger A. Pielke, Jr., a political scientist
who has analyzed the cost of the shuttle program.  

In the following, dollars are adjusted to 1992 dollars using the GNP
price deflators in the 1993 Economic report to the President:

    As of fiscal 1992, the shuttle program had cost $79.2 billion.

    At the current rate of spending, the adjusted cost of the shuttle
    program will exceed that of the Apollo program ($95 B) by 1996.

    If the program achieves 8 flights/year through 2010 with steady
    funding, then the total cost per flight (including development
    cost) averaged over the program is $825 M.  At four flights/year,
    $1.2 B.

    If all costs preceeding the 5th flight are ignored as development
    costs ($32.4 B), then the average operational cost per flight
    through 1992 was $1 B.

    Pielke says:  "If the program continues to average the same number
    of flights, policymakers' best estimate of future costs per flight
    -- based on program experience -- is $1 billion.  Estimates suggesting
    a higher (or lower)  flight rate or lower (or higher) cost per flight
    should be prepared to justify their claims."

This estimate is larger than NASA's ($414 M/flight);  NASA's number
assumes projected flight rates will be met (they often have not), and
uses data only from the current fiscal year, not historical data.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

	"Absolute stupidity of the worst sort"
		-- Freeman Dyson commenting on the space shuttle

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

Date: 29 Jul 1993 19:44:39 +0100
From: Mike C Holderness <mch@doc.ic.ac.uk>
Subject: Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <233gin$avp@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
>In article <stephens.743777554@ngis> stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson) writes:
>>I thought that the Polaris motors for the British Nuclear Submarines
>>had that dubious honour. [of being the oldest solid propellants around]is
>
>I thought the Chevaline program re-engined
>the Polarises, to  essentially poseidons.
>
Uh -- no. Chevaline was supposed to be a re-design of the bus. Not that I as

a Brit would know anything. They managed to spend around G$1.5 on it without
letting Parliament know. 

When it finally leaked out, I never saw any mention of the propellants.

There are also deep dark suspicions that the bus design never worked: it 
was originally supposed to be whichever is the smarter of MIRV and MARV
and ended up as the other. 

 ... and a big hello to the guys at Menwith Hill. Don't worry, you'll
be back at Ft Meade soon...

--
mch@doc.ic.ac.uk
Anyone wants me to have opinions on their behalf, they pay by the word.



C
--

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

Date: 29 Jul 1993 14:12 CDT
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Hubble solar arrays: how'd they foul up?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <238l0c$8op@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes...
>In article <28JUL199319281313@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>>
>>This is done pat. The ACTS satellite flying on the shuttle next week is an
>>example of a completely new communications technology (Including componets,
> 
>Actually ACTS is a 12 year old completely new communications
>technology.
> 

So what? I merely proves the paridgm that commercial entities won't do it
until it is provedn in government missions.

>ACTS is nice,  but we do need more and faster  experimental
>test beds.
> 

No argument from anyone there.


>>operational methodologies, and a new bus) that will be tested along with
>>their ground based compliments. The STRV satellite being built by BMDO and
> 
>I don't know about STRV.  But we do
>need to get more testing and qualification 
>programs.

Tell you what, why don't you quit whining about it. Why don't you go to a
nearby research university, start a research center, (It is real easy to do)
go for some grants and start raising money to do just that. Running your
mouth on sci.space does nothing for the future of spaceflight except tick
me off to do these very things so I can shove it down your throats.

In a less serious vein that is what we are doing here.

> 
>>
>>Also, on many shuttle flights now we are flying new stuff that is being 
>>qualified, such as our MacIntosh SI Experiment controller. This obviously will
>>help to lower the costs of experiment hardware flown on the shuttle. 
>>
> 
>WE are doing stuff on shuttle,  except  it's not a regular committed
>program  just to test  and qualify.  it's a loose ad-hox type thing.
> 
>A specific test program with test targets  is far better.
> 

Again, if you are so dang smart about this stuff why aren't you doing it?
This whole thread is akin to a beer drinking slob who watches monday night
football, telling everyone how he could have performed better than Joe
Montanna. If you belive in this enough DO IT!~

> 
>>is inherent in the "let the commercial people" do everything. Fear of failure
>>in government usually only gets you re-assigned. Often in the commercial
> 
>Failure in government has a tendency to get one promoted
>as long as the paper trail doesn't point back to you.
> 

And success in government gets you nothing quite frequently, but there are still
thousands of dedicated people who are giving there professional lives to do
a good job at a salary less than what they could get from the commercial world.

> 
>>be nowhere without it.  Many of the components of SEDSAT 1 are from 
>>military programs that either lost their flight or are giving these to us 
>>for the technology demonstration. Why? Because if we mess up it is not their
>>cookies in the fire.
> 
>All the more reason for a regular  flight test office.
> 
>If the test office breaks something,  why it's
>part of the mission.
> 
>pat
> 

Unfortunately any government office, unless it is staffed by very dedicated
people will eventually fall into the trap of no mistakes allowed.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 29 Jul 1993 20:21:13 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <mjensen@gem.valpo.edu>
Subject: Hubble solar arrays: how'd they foul up?
Newsgroups: sci.space

wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov wrote:
: >>is inherent in the "let the commercial people" do everything. Fear of failure
: >>in government usually only gets you re-assigned. Often in the commercial
: > 
: >Failure in government has a tendency to get one promoted
: >as long as the paper trail doesn't point back to you.
: > 

: And success in government gets you nothing quite frequently, but there are still
: thousands of dedicated people who are giving there professional lives to do
: a good job at a salary less than what they could get from the commercial world.

You know, something that people often fail to notice.. ;) most of those
working in the space program help every day to makeit more efficient
by accepting lower saleries and benifits just because they beleive in
what they are doing..

: Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Mike

--
Michael C. Jensen   Valparaiso University/Johnson Space Center
mjensen@gem.valpo.edu  "I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
jensen@cisv.jsc.nasa.gov  *WindowsNT - From the people who brought you edlin* 
---Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own... ---

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

Date: 29 Jul 1993 13:54 CDT
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: In article 876@access.digex.net, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <ab2M02tC4bA901@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, haw30@ras.amdahl.com writes...
>> 

>The DC-2 and DC-3 differ primarily in a larger cabin cross-section for the DC-3. 
>They were similar enough that during WWII, DC-2's were often canabalized to repair DC-3's, and on at least one occasion a DC-2 wing was mated to a DC-3 resulting in
>the rather well known DC-2 1/2 (there were slight differences in the wing).
> 
>---
>Henry Worth
>No, I don't speak for Amdahl... I'm not even sure I speak for myself.
>

Really pushing it here but that particular plane is still flying. Our Church
in Los Angeles bought that plane in China about 8 years ago. It still had
the DC-2 wingo attached. It was noticably shorter than the DC3 wing. We 
shipped it back and replaced the wing and it is still flying.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 29 Jul 1993 19:50:56 GMT
From: Pawel Moskalik <pam@wombat.phys.ufl.edu>
Subject: NASA's planned project management changes
Newsgroups: sci.space

Finally something sensible.

Pawel Moskalik

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 946
