Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_3/V10_313.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/AZT=ByC00VcJQ=BE4C>;
          Wed,  6 Dec 89 01:36:46 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <kZT=Bdq00VcJA==[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  6 Dec 89 01:36:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #313

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 313

Today's Topics:
               Re: shuttle/mir rescue?
         Re: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format
        Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars
        Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars
        Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars
        Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars
  CHI '90 Workshop: Computer-Human Interaction in Aerospace Systems
           Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars
               re: Gary Hudson
         NASA Headline News for 12/05/89 (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 89 11:37:24 GMT
From: nis!viper![e-mail]  (David Messer)
Subject: Re: shuttle/mir rescue?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nicholas Gloor / Database Support) writes:
 >Given that the shuttle cannot reenter safely (lost tiles or
 >one of the wings fell off) would it be possible to transfer
 >the shuttle crew to mir via the new eva unit the russians are
 >putting up at Mir and wait for the next taxi home?

Generally the shuttles orbital inclination is much less than
that of Mir.  It is highly unlikely that it would be able to
match orbits.
--
Remember Tiananmen Square.           | David Messer       [e-mail] -or-
                                     | Lynx Data Systems  ...!bungia!viper!dave

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

Date: 5 Dec 89 00:04:04 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!hutto![e-mail]  (Henry Melton)
Subject: Re: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format


Could someone supply a short viewing guide for spotting satellites?  I
have a tracking program, but I have no idea of the brightness of the
objects I am looking for.  What are some prime targets for a novice at
satellite spotting?  Which are too faint to be bothered with?


--
Henry Melton ...!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!hutto!henry
1-512-8463241 Rt.1 Box 274E Hutto,TX 78634

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

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 12:00:32 PST
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars

All this talk of which to fund, manned missions or unmanned, reminds
me of what Ben Bova called the "Either/Or Fallacy".  Somehow, we
have allowed ourselves to be conned (presumably by the people
holding the purse strings) that we can't have *both*.  When you
look at the costs involved, there's no immediate reason why we
shouldn't.  The fact that unmanned missions can (for the sake of
argument) yield ten times as much scientific return as unmanned
is not a reason why manned missions should be scrubbed.  Unmanned
mission enthusiasts look at the money that manned missions cost
and say, "but we could do so much more science with that money".
Why not look at the amount of money we spend on other things?
For heaven's sake, Americans spent enough on board games last year
to pay for the Voyager missions; there are plenty of places to get
the money from.

"Ah," they say, "but the money for unmanned missions *is* distributed
from the same source as manned missions."  That's the problem.  They're
forced to compete against each other for the wrong reasons.  Hey, the
same source of money also pays for HUD, and we compete with them for
funds, why don't I hear unmanned mission folk railing against HUD
inefficiency and expenditure?

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

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

Date: 5 Dec 89 18:29:24 GMT
From: thorin!homer![e-mail]  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (daniel mocsny) writes:
>anywhere soon. That gives an automated Mars mission something
>like a 20-year technological advantage over our earlier generation
>of probes. Won't that amount to something?

    Such an increase in complexity, of both the mission and the
hardware, may provide many new and fascinating failure modes.
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])    __@/
    ``God is more interested in your future and your relationships
      than you are.'' - Billy Graham

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

Date: 5 Dec 89 23:41:22 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars

A refinement on my proposal to keep the manned crew in Mars orbit and let
it teleoperate rovers on the surface, would be to "land" the men on Phobos.
This is little more than a free floating EVA from a propulsion/structural
standpoint, and lets you do super-interesting science "manually."

Phobos' orbit is low and fast, poorly suited for rover teleoperation,
so an areosynchronous relay satellite would be called for.
--
Canada -- a few acres of snow.    ^v^v^    Tom Neff
                 -- Voltaire      v^v^v    [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Dec 89 23:25:59 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>>Let's see.  We add the cost of developing Titan-Centaur to the Voyager
>>bill, or else deduct the cost of the Saturns from Apollo's.
>
>Fair enough, but let's not neglect the fact that manned flights require
>larger boosters by their very nature because humans (as opposed to say
>remote sensing experiments) make a very bulky, ineficient cargo.

You're still making the mistake of comparing small, unambitious unmanned
missions to big, ambitious manned ones.  There were unmanned missions,
notably the original Voyager project (whose shrunken remnants became
Viking), that were planning to use the Saturn V because nothing else was
big enough.  For that matter, the Mars sample-return/rover mission people
today clearly are badly cramped by the limitations of Titan/Centaur.

>But even ignoring this, the point is that on a per-flight basis, any given
>manned flight to, say, Mars is going to be vastly more expensive than any
>given remote-sensing flight.  With minimal gain in output.

More expensive, yes.  But I think if you look at the numbers, "minimal"
is a gross underestimate of the difference in return.  You'd need a massive
unmanned effort, much bigger than anything currently planned, to equal the
return from one manned mission.

>>...Then add
>>multiple outer-planet sample return missions ($$$$$!!!) to the Voyager
>>budget, and the Ranger/Surveyor/LunarOrbiter missions ($) to the Apollo
>>budget, so we're comparing apples to apples instead of apples to oranges.
>
>I'm afraid I don't understand this point.  Presumably proposed manned
>flight to Mars would have return missions?  ;) In any case it wasn't simply
>the necessity for return flights that made Apollo so much more expensive
>than comparable unmanned flights.

The point is, comparing a robot that does nothing but snap pictures from
a distance to a complex multi-instrument onboard-intelligence mobile sample
return mission is ridiculous.  Compare apples with apples, please.  Or
explain why the push for a Mars sample return is ridiculous because remote
sensing could tell us everything anyway.
--
1233 EST, Dec 7, 1972:         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
last ship sails for the Moon.  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Dec 89 01:00:11 GMT
From: ssbell!mcmi![e-mail]  (Steve Armstrong)
Subject: CHI '90 Workshop: Computer-Human Interaction in Aerospace Systems


Call for Position Papers

CHI '90 Workshop:
Computer-Human Interaction in Aerospace Systems

A limited attendance, invitational workshop on Computer-Human Interaction
in Aerospace Systems is being organized for the CHI '90 conference in
Seattle, Washington, 1-5 April, 1990.  The workshop will be 1-2 April
1990.

The purpose of the workshop is to
explore issues facing designers and users of decision support systems in
real-time, high-risk aerospace systems.  The workshop will focus on the
following issues:  how do we model the user/operator in complex
time-critical environments; how do we design the human-computer
interaction (displays, controls, and aids) to ensure that the user is
integrated into the decision process; what comprises an intelligent
computer interface for a supervisory controller; how do we provide
timely, context-sensitive information in real time without overloading
or distracting the human operator; how do we design operator aids/tutors
using knowledge-based technology that enhances the human-computer
interaction and overall system effectiveness rather than replacing the
human decision maker.   Application domains include the design of
human-computer interaction (e.g., displays, controls, aids, tutors) in
satellite ground control systems, shuttle and space station control
systems, and advanced aviation in both the cockpit and air traffic
control.

Workshop participation is limited to twenty people.  Individuals wishing
to attend the workshop may request an invitation by submitting a 3-5
page position paper discussing their experiences or research in the area
of human-computer interaction in real-time complex dynamic systems
(particularly aerospace applications).  We encourage both human factors
and systems designers, as well as other knowledgeable individuals to
participate.  We wish to obtain a balanced
university/government/industry representation and interaction.  The
position papers of the invited attendees will be reproduced and
distributed to the attendees prior to the workshop.  Selected papers may
be submitted for publication in the SIGCHI Bulletin.  Also, workshop
results will be reported in the Bulletin.

Participants will be charged a $50 workshop fee to help defray the costs
of coffee breaks and A/V equipment.

Position papers are due no later than January 30, 1989.  Three copies,
double-spaced, should be sent to:

  CHI '90 Workshop on Computer-Human Interaction in Aerospace Systems
  Christine M. Mitchell
  Center for Human-Machine Systems Research
  School of Industrial & Systems Engineering
  Georgia Institute of Technology
  Atlanta, GA 30332-0205

  Phone:  [phone]
  E-mail: [e-mail]
  Fax:    [phone]

Invited Participants will be notified by March 1, 1989, and will
also be sent copies of the selected position papers together with a
final agenda for the workshop.
--
Good health is merely the slowest rate at which one can die.

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

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 10:16:01 PST
From: mordor!lll-tis!ames!scubed!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: ames!lll-tis!mordor!angband![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars

Henry Spencer writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim
Bowery
>) writes:
>>>>... If you want to develop a propulsion system you do propulsion R&D.
>>>Except that if you don't have a specific mission to use that R&D on, the
>>>funds for it tend to get cut off.
>>
>>Uh.... Henry...  if you don't have a use for the propulsion R&D other than
>>the mission it is supposed to "spin off" from...  where is it supposed to
>>"spin off" to?
>
>The missions that can be flown *once the propulsion system is known to be
>available*.

Oh, so prior to the start of any mission, you know of MORE THAN ONE
mission that needs the propulsion system once it is developed, and for
some reason, you choose to have the development paid for under the
funding of one of these missions rather than the other.  You then call
the propulsion system a "spin off" of that mission which enables the
other missions.

I get it.

So now I have an idea:  Since having ONE specific mission enables you
to get the propulsion R&D done without cut off, how about if you go ahead
and propose MORE THAN ONE specific missions that must use the developed
system?  That way, it will be even LESS likely to be cut off!

And just think, once you have come up with a justification for
developing such a system, all you need to do is get all those missions
funded ON THEIR MERITS AS MISSIONS (including within their budgets their
share of the amortized cost of development and operation of the transporation
system), let the PI's for those missions put the required transportation
services out to bid and BINGO, you have meritorious need funding competitive
development of the propulsion system.  That can free up your PI's to
concentrate on the real objectives of the missions!

Of course, this ignores alternative uses for that money -- for example,
flying the hundreds of vital missions that can use existing space
transportation systems which could come down in cost by a factor of 10
with some reasonable economies of scale.  That way, the
PI's would gather information on what they REALLY want to do in space,
providing SOLID justification for developing new transporation services
in a stochastic stream of missions provoding a stable market -- rather
than a BIG DEVELOPMENT PROJECT that invites every baboon on Capital Hill
to kick it around.
---
Typical RESEARCH grant ($ = 1million):
$
Typical DEVELOPMENT contract:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

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

Date: 6 Dec 89 00:08:55 GMT
From: milton!maven![e-mail]  (Games Wizard)
Subject: re: Gary Hudson

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Joseph  Brenner) writes:
> I just attended a talk by Gary Hudson (sponsored by the Stanford
> Libertarians).
>
> His current project is a company called Pacific American Launch
> Vehicles (soon to be re-named Pacific American Spaceship Company).
>
> The vehicle design he's working on (the Phoenix) is a
> version of the project that the National Citizen Advisory Council
> on Space was pushing to the government.  I noticed Pournelle
> dropping some hints about it in a "computer" column, but outside of
> that, I'd heard nothing about it.
>

Anybody know anything more about this?  Like a real address for him?
I would like to send him mail, and see if he has any flashy literature.
(Actually I would just like to see what they have going, and obviously
in order to do that, I have to be able to get ahold of them.)

        Thanx in advance,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trendy footer by:
            John Stevens-Schlick
            Internet?: [e-mail]
            7720 35'th Ave S.W. Seattle, Wa. 98126
            (206) 935 - 4384
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My boss dosn't know what I do.

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

Date: 5 Dec 89 20:43:22 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Headline News for 12/05/89 (Forwarded)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, December 5, 1989                     Audio: 202/755-1788
-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is NASA Headline News for Tuesday, December 5....


The Flight Readiness Review for the STS-32 mission concluded
today at the Kennedy Space Center.  Following the completion
of the review space shuttle officials selected December 18 as the
date for launch.

On the launch pad, workers have concluded the payload
verification test and are getting ready to begin closure of the
orbiter's payload bay doors.  The helium signature test of the
main engines has also been completed.

Meanwhile...the orbiter Discovery that arrived back at the Cape
yesterday morning has been detached from the 747 carrier aircraft
and was moved to the orbiter processing facility this morning.


The Huntsville Times reported yesterday that to help reduce
potential contamination to the Hubble Space Telescope, the
Kennedy Space Center has halted all burning-off of swamp areas
until after the STS-31 launch next march.  The huge telescope is
presently in a protective cover as it undergoes final checkout at
KSC's Vertical Processing Facility.


Cal Tech scientists say that the sonic boom created by the space
shuttle orbiter Columbia as it passed over Los Angeles last
August created ground motions that indicated earthquakes may
shake L.A. skyscrapers more severly that previously thought.  The
boom caused many buildings built on relatively soft ground to
sway and create small earthquake-like motions.


NASA has announced that on January 5 it will begin implementation
of a broad-based, "drug free workplace" program.  It places
strong emphasis on education, training and assistance coupled
with a limited amount of random drug testing of selected
"sensitive" positions.


Tass news agency reports that Soviet ground controllers have
freed a jammed solar array on its Kvant-2 re-equipment module,
but a malfunctioning automatic rendezvous system has delayed
docking with the Mir space station until tomorrow.  The module
carries a variety of supplies for the station and a manned
maneuvering unit.


              *             *            *             *


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA
Select TV.  All times are Eastern.



Thursday, December 7....

     11:30 A.M.          NASA Update will be transmitted.


All events and times are subject to change without notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon,
Eastern time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC), NASA
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #313
*******************