Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_4/V9_432.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/8YOz:8m00UkZ1dn04Q>;
          Sat, 13 May 89 05:16:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 13 May 89 05:16:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #432

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 432

Today's Topics:
           Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness
      Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)
          using Enterprise for braking tests
      Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)
               Re: more 747 drop tests?
             Re: Magellan update
             Re: Magellan update
        Re: funding large scale space hardware
            Re: Phobos replacement
            Re: Citizens in Space
          Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST
                Re: Semiotics
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 May 89 20:22:09 GMT
From: dinl![e-mail]  (kevin w. holroyd)
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Katz) writes:
            stuff deleted
|        If it was known that there was a problem with the rivet, and
|        that fact was concealed from the pilot/commander of the
|        aircraft for political gain, I see nothing wrong with seeking
|        compensation.
|            stuff deleted
|        I think that the above opinions are confusing two issues, so
|        I'll add my two cents.  The manned space program, and the
|        shuttle program in particular, has rules governing the design,
|        test, operation, certification, etc.
            stuff deleted
|
|        However, the Challenger disaster was not an accident.  There
|        were many things wrong.
            stuff deleted...  I doubt that the
|        shuttle astronauts and passengers were aware that the SRBs
|        were not qualified.
|
         Second, there was a known (to some) problem with the SRBs.
|        The astronauts were unaware of this, too.  Also, flying with
|        this problem required a waiver.  Signing the waiver allowed
|        the launch to be attempted.
            stuff deleted
|
|        If the crew was aware of all the signed waivers, then ok, it
|        was a concious decision to take the risks.  If not, then their
|        families actions are justified, the courts can decide the
|        issue according to law, and hopefully this will cause people
|        to think about "breaking the rules" for political gain.
|
|        rich katz
|        hewlett packard
|        p o box 7050
|        colorado springs, co
|        80933-7050
|

First of all my point about Chris Colombus was that in todays society,
that trip would have never come off.  We have developed a legal system
that attempts to make life risk free, or allows you take take risks only
if you know ALL the facts.  My point there, was that being HUMAN, it is
impossible to know all the ramnifications and risks involved in any large
program.  My third point is that the same type of people who write the
laws (Congress...many of whom are lawyers) are the same type of people
who interpret the laws in court (lawyers again) to be judged by the same
type of person again (Judges  aka former lawyers).  These people all receive
monetary gain, in fact, their livlihood depends on these "rules".  I hardly
think any lawyer is unbiased when it comes to a large damage suit that he
is charging (20%? 50%?) of recovered damages for.  The sad thing is that
society believes this is their just due from life.  What guarentees has life
ever given?

Robert Heinlein had the right idea in several of his books regarding lawyers.

As for me, (a pilot, flight instructor and an engineer)  I'm
not expecting any absolute guarentees about the things I do.  When I go up
in a plane, I take the risk; not my lawyer.  Let the ones who are willing to
take the risks reach for the skies, the rest of you can stay on the ground
and argue about the legal aspects.


--
*******************************************************************************
Kevin W. Holroyd            *
CFI Aspen Flying Club            * Got tired of last .signature file
Denver CO.                *
*******************************************************************************

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

Date: 7 May 89 10:48:11 GMT
From: shlump.dec.com!jfcl.dec.com!imokay.dec.com![e-mail]  (Doug Borsom)
Subject: Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>They compete for funding priority.  Once priorities are set, money taken
>out of high-priority projects doesn't get put back into lower-priority
>projects.  One may argue about NASA's current set of priorities, but as
>long as they remain, attacking manned spaceflight is a pointless waste
>of time for the unmanned-spaceflight advocates:  it will not put more
>money in their budgets.
>
I should think the whole point of promoting the unmanned program over
manned spaceflight program was to get NASA to change it's priorities.

A few weeks back I posted a request for arguments in favor of the
manned space program. I received one reply, which directed me to a
Scientific American article by Dr. James Van Allen, and which stated
the Van Allen article was against the manned space program (or at
least against the manned space station program).

Two follow-up postings (one of them from Henry) commented that the
Van Allen article was very biased. Neither of these postings bothered
to state why they believed the van Allen article was biased, and
neither refuted the article nor presented any argument for the manned
program.

In fact, not one person responded to my original posting with an
argument in favor of the manned space program.

Maybe the subject of my posting simply isn't of interest to
subscribers to this news group.  But the appearance is that there
are no good arguments for a very expensive manned space program.

I have read (in A&AW) a transcript of a recent (past three weeks)
Congressional testimony in which a NASA administrator stated that the
purpose of the manned space station was to make Americans proud and to
create greater interest in students to pursue studies in engineering
(this is a paraphrase, but I believe it to be faithful in meaning to
the actual testimony). Anyone out there have other arguments they
would like to present?

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

Date: 11 May 89 20:19:19 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: using Enterprise for braking tests

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>A related question - how consistent has NASA been in upgrading the steering
>and braking systems of Enterprise? ...

I expect that using Enterprise for such testing would probably require a
complete refit of brakes at least, and possibly landing gear as well.  It
would not be free, but I suspect it would be worthwhile.
--
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 11 May 89 20:46:29 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Borsom) writes:
>... Neither of these postings bothered
>to state why they believed the van Allen article was biased...

Have you tried reading it critically?

>In fact, not one person responded to my original posting with an
>argument in favor of the manned space program.

Have you considered the possibility (reality, actually) that the issue
was debated ad nauseum not too long ago and everyone, including potential
responders, is sick of it?  If you can't think of arguments yourself,
please go read any good book on manned spaceflight.  If what you want is
not information but debate, please go somewhere else.
--
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 11 May 89 23:39:31 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Alan Larson)
Subject: Re: more 747 drop tests?

Does anyone actually know the risk level involved in drop testing the
shuttle?  How does that compare with the risk of landing with the
shuttle on the back on the 747?

Why not just dump the thing off the 747 in the vicinity of KSC on
the return trip, allowing a drop test, a shuttle landing at KSC,
and delivery, all in one trip.

(There may be some problems with keeping the shuttle powered up
for the duration of the trip across the country -- did the drop
tests use the APUs, or just batteries?)

    Alan

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

Date: 11 May 89 20:29:33 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Magellan update

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Borsom) writes:
>Can anyone tell me what advantages were gained by launching Magellan
>from the space shuttle?  Is there any (nonpolitical) reason why
>Magellan couldn't have been launched by an expendable (assuming
>we had some) vehicle?

About the only advantage to doing the Magellan launch from the shuttle was
that some of the abort modes permitted bringing the bird back instead of
losing it.  (For example, in-orbit checkout of the IUS was done before
shuttle separation, so it could be brought back if something was wrong.)
This is not an entirely trivial issue when there is no backup hardware.

Otherwise, an expendable would have been fine, assuming that a sufficiently
large one was available.  I believe that at the moment none are, since the
USAF owns the Titans and is not willing to release any just now.  (There was
an inquiry as to whether a Titan 4 could be made available for Magellan
if it had to be postponed to the next launch window; the answer was "no".)
--
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 11 May 89 14:44:28 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx![e-mail]  (Marc Bonin)
Subject: Re: Magellan update

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Doug Borsom) writes:
> Can anyone tell me what advantages were gained by launching Magellan
> from the space shuttle?  Is there any (nonpolitical) reason why
> Magellan couldn't have been launched by an expendable (assuming
> we had some) vehicle?

   (1)  It's a bit heavy for anything else

   (2)  If all systems on Magellan are not go at deploy time, you bring it
        back,fix it, and try again.  With a Titan/Centaur, tough luck

                      Marc Bonin
                    University of Texas at Austin

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

Date: 11 May 89 21:49:30 GMT
From: concertina![e-mail]  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Doug Borsom) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>
>>Boeing spent $1 billion of its own money on the 747.  (Note:  not even
>>borrowed money, *its own* money.)  And did the same thing again with
>>$2 billion for the 757 and 767.  Airliners have payback periods somewhat
>>longer than three months.  Nobody has yet mounted a takeover attempt.
>>
> While this refutes the statement in the posting Henry was replying to, it
> shouldn't make anyone optimistic about the prospects of Boeing or any
> other private company spending billions (or semi-billions) on projects
> for which the market prospects are *very* questionable.  Compared with
> the payback chances for a space plane or shuttle-type vehicle, the
> chances for the 7(456)7 were a sure thing.

Tell that to the AirBus people.  They should be greatly comforted.

>>....  Remember
>>that they (with Hughes) offered to build the Jarvis heavylift booster out
>>of their own pockets, if NASA and the USAF would guarantee a market.
>>....
>
> How daring of them. This usage badly stretches the notion of a privately
> funded space program. Did Boeing demand a similar market guarantee from the
> airline companies when it developed the 7(456)7?

No.  But there already exists a world-wide market for transport
aircraft.  (Which got a major boost in the beginning with government
guarantees through mail contracts.)  Those guarantees aren't around
anymore, but they were important.

Care to try again?

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

Date: 11 May 89 14:47:37 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250![e-mail]  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Phobos replacement

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Henry Spencer):
> It's pleasant to see that the Soviets are willing to consider using such
> hardware when it can no longer be of use to the original mission(s).
> The Smithsonian is full of the US equivalent, notably Viking 3 and
> Voyager 3.

I thought that Magellan was essentially made up of old Voyager etc. hardware?
Can anyone confirm which bits of Magellan are old engineering models?
Further back, we flew Mariner V using backup Mariner Mars 1964 hardware.

 .----------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell       |  phone : [phone]              |
 |  Center for Astrophysics | uucp: husc6!harvard!cfa200!mcdowell |
 |  60 Garden Street        | bitnet : [e-mail]        |
 |  Cambridge  MA 02138     |  inter : [e-mail]   |
 |  USA                     |   span : cfa::mcdowell              |
 |                          |  telex : 92148 SATELLITE CAM      |
 |                          |    FAX : [phone]              |
 '----------------------------------------------------------------'

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

Date: 11 May 89 20:18:04 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Citizens in Space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott Gibson) writes:
>... if NASA had asked for more volunteers for a launch the day after
>the Challenger incident, they would have had no problem filling
>shuttle seats with enthusiastic space travellers.

They'd have had no problem filling them with astronauts, for that matter,
if the mission was urgent.  Despite some official public claims otherwise,
there was no shortage of astronauts who were willing to take their chances
if there was a good reason.  (Say, getting Galileo off to Jupiter on time.)
--
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 11 May 89 20:22:43 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Casey) writes:
>I believe I once heard that Enterprise was damaged (bent frame? or something)
>and was not flightworthy.  Any truth to this?

No damage that I know of.  It's overweight and well below normal orbiter
specs, but that's another story.  If you did a thorough refit on it, you
could theoretically fly it into space, although payload would be low due
to the overweight structure.
--
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 10 May 89 14:36:11 GMT
From: nprdc![e-mail]  (Sean Malloy)
Subject: Re: Semiotics

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Firth) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>"Name calling -- giving an idea a bad label -- is used to make us reject and
>>condemn the idea without examining the evidence. Symbolized by the ancient
>>sign of condemnation used by the Vestal Virgins in the Roman Coliseum, a
>>thumb turned down."
>
>It wasn't the Vestal Virgins; the signal to the victorious gladiator could
>be given only by the magister ludi (though the crowd freely prompted him).
>And the signal for "kill the loser", as any true Roman knows, was what
>we now call THUMBS UP.

I have always seen the signal described (in serious work, not the
dubiously researched movies about the period) as the fist extended
with the thumb up, then rotated so the thumb was horizontal, and the
thumb brought back to touch the chest.


 Sean Malloy                    | "The proton absorbs a photon
 Navy Personnel Research & Development Center    | and emits two morons, a
 San Diego, CA 92152-6800            | lepton, a boson, and a
 [e-mail]                | boson's mate. Why did I ever
                        | take high-energy physics?"

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #432
*******************