henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (07/21/89)
Soviets talk to managers for both NASP and Sanger, indicating interest in joint hypersonic programs. The US is interested in joint efforts between NASP and Sanger, but German engineers say the US is too secretive about its program. A number of European companies are interested in NASP work, but there are concerns about US technology-transfer restrictions. Europeans tell US that they consider the inter-government agreements on the space station to be promises, which should be kept or there will be serious repercussions. The Europeans, unlike many in the US, think maintaining the content of the station is more important than maintaining its schedule, if push comes to shove. Lockheed and Aerospatiale team up to (among other things) propose a modified Hermes as the space-station rescue vehicle. Successful first launch of Titan 4 on June 14, carrying a missile-warning satellite to Clarke orbit. Successful Delta 2 launch June 10, carrying a Navstar. The Delta and the Titan 4 changed places in the Cape launch schedule several times as minor technical problems delayed each. Columbia mission, set for launch July 31, will carry two low-orbit DoD satellites, one 20600 lbs and one 275 lbs. NASA issues yet another long-range shuttle manifest. This one forecasts a rather more gradual climb in launch rate, reaching 13-14 in 1993 as space station activity begins. It includes several reserve slots, being held open in hopes of accommodating future delays without requiring another major revision. Several expendables are included, notably a Titan 4 for CRAF in 1995. SDI sounding-rocket neutral-particle beam experiment delayed to at least mid-July after they pushed the button and nothing happened! The failure of the Aries sounding rocket to ignite on command is being investigated. More on Buran's appearance at Le Bourget. Photo from above showing Buran on Mriya; Buran looks tiny compared to the US orbiters on 747back. The orbiters are almost exactly the same size -- the difference in appearance is because Mriya is so bloody enormous. Yuri P. Semyonov, chief designer of Buran, says "Anyone who says Buran is a copy of the US shuttle is a fool". Despite the general similarity in shape, the systems are very different. Semyonov revealed that Buran was battery-powered during its flight last fall, as its fuel cells are not yet ready for flight. (The USSR does not seem to be giving Buran a very high priority at present.) What surprised US observers most was the Soviet decision to fly Buran in during rainy weather. The US shuttle carrier is never flown through rain or even damp-looking clouds, and a weather aircraft precedes it to be sure. But Buran/Mriya came in for a landing at Paris through wet clouds and visible rain, with no escort. Semyonov says: "We are not afraid of rain." The Soviet tiles seem to be rather more durable than the US ones, although apparently they are less heat-resistant, and may need replacement after only 10 missions. Semyonov did not discuss the specifics of the tile design. US observers were generally impressed with the appearance of Buran's tiles; there is little sign that Buran had flown a reentry. Some of this may be just weather exposure: photos just after Buran's landing showed more upper- surface blackening than was visible at Paris, and the difference may be because Buran has been sitting outside at Baikonur. There was a bit of streaking in some areas on the wings where filler material between tiles had apparently melted; the same thing happens on the US orbiters. Buran's propulsion systems are a bit different from the US ones. Notably, Burans attitude-control and maneuvering engines burn LOX and kerosene rather than hypergolic fuels. There are general similarities in overall thruster placement, but many detail differences. An important internal difference is that the shuttle's nose jets run off tanks in the nose, whereas Buran puts all its major tankage in the tail, with only small supplementary tanks in the nose. Unlike the US orbiters, no tailcone fairing is used for ferrying Buran on Mriya. Anatoli Bulanenko, deputy chief designer at Antonov, says that such a fairing was used when carrying orbiters on smaller aircraft, but Mriya's wide-span horizontal tail has no central vertical fin and there were no turbulence problems with it. [Mriya's tailspan exceeds the wingspan of WW2 heavy bombers.] Bulanenko says "...it was very simple for us... it was just another payload." Arianespace explores the idea of marketing small-satellite launch services for Pegasus. Frederic d'Allest, Arianespace chairman, says "We are intrigued with Pegasus..." but cautions that the idea is only being explored, with no specific agreement yet being negotiated. Arianespace reports net profit of about $20M for FY1988. Internal NASA review underway on Shuttle-C. The definitive design takes the shuttle tail section, minus fin and minus one SSME, with a cylindrical payload section instead of the orbiter, plus existing ET and SRBs. In addition to the space station, SDI's Zenith Star is another possible payload, and various other groups are interested. The payload envelope is 81x15 ft, with growth potential to 96 ft. The reference mission is 100 klbs into 220nm orbit from KSC. Second-generation improvements could include recovering the tail section and increasing payload diameter to 24ft. A decision on further work is expected in late summer. [This being the 20th anniversary of Apollo 11's landing on the Moon -- landing at 1617 EDT, Armstrong's "one small step" at 2256 EDT -- it seems an appropriate time to editorialize a bit...] YOUR CHOICE ----------- In all the fuss about lunar bases and Mars missions, it is easy to lose track of one big, unpleasant, nasty fact that has gone from unlikely to certain in the last 20 years. Unless something changes radically... None of us is going. Ever. Remember the early days of the shuttle program, when weekly launches were seriously planned, and the shuttle was going to open up space? Remember "routine access to space"? Well, you and I may remember it, but as far as NASA is concerned, it's dead, buried, and forgotten. And most of the other players in the business never believed in it in the first place. (For reasons that shouldn't be hard to think of, I'm talking here about spaceflight in the "free world", and ignoring the fact that the USSR *has* routine access to space, for anyone they feel like sending up.) Oh, there are a few "crazies" here and there who disagree... but they aren't making much progress against entrenched Expert Opinion, and consequently they may never get a chance to try for real. Remember when Jerry Pournelle said "we're going if we have to walk!"? Did you agree? Did you think you meant it? I did. Of course, we never really thought we'd have to walk. All we had to do was wait for a few years, contributing a bit of cheerleading here and there, and we could thumb a ride. Or, if worst came to worst, buy a ticket. But that's not the way it worked out. The "No Riders" signs on the trucks not only haven't come off, they've been joined by new signs, paint still wet, saying "Teamsters Union Only -- No Non-Union Personnel Allowed On This Vehicle". You can ride the bus, but you have to pay in Swiss francs and learn Russian first... and the driver inspects your baggage before deciding whether to let you on. Put your thumb, and the rest of your hand, back down by your side and give it a rest; nobody is paying attention. You can stand there FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, and nobody will pick you up. Is space *important* to you, worth time and effort and sacrifice, or just a spectator sport? Remember "we're going if we have to walk!"? Did you say that? Did you *mean* it? If so, why aren't you putting on your walking shoes? Or are you still waiting for the ride that isn't going to come? Yes, I know... It's one ghodawful long walk, and the odds are you won't make it. Do you really think the odds are better if you don't try? There are 168 hours in a week. After deducting sleep and some minimal survival necessities, most people have about 100 hours for activities they have some choice about. Is space *important* to you? Does it matter enough to spend, say, one whole hour a week doing something to slightly increase your chances of getting up there someday? *DOING* something, mind you, not reading a book or scanning Usenet or something else quiet and easy and pleasant, but going out and taking trouble and making an effort and spending time that could be more enjoyably spent on something else? One hour out of a hundred? Then why haven't you done it lately? And please don't try to claim there's nothing you can do. Go harass your Congressman about the Space Launch Services Purchase Act, HR2674 -- ask him whether he supports it, and if not, why not. (Don't just pick up the phone, go VISIT him -- it only takes an hour or so, and it has much more impact. If you don't know who he is or where he is, FIND OUT.) Find and start putting some effort into a group that is *doing* something in space, like Amsat or SSI or WSF. (Not just a bunch of cheerleaders, like some we could name -- walking shoes, remember?) If you *really* think those signs are going to come off those trucks in your lifetime, start badgering the right people about NASA funding. (The word is "badgering", not "watching".) If, like me, you think those signs are there to stay, find out who else is working on building trucks and what you can do to help. Or get together with some like-minded friends and start working on how to make better truck mudguards, or something like that -- you'd be amazed at how little work is really being done, and how much a few determined people can help. There are lots of ways to stop putting wear on your behind and start putting it on your shoes. Or you can just go back to watching TV and dreaming about that ride that might come someday, maybe. Like you've been doing for 20 years now. Your choice. -- 1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo. | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) (07/21/89)
In article <1989Jul21.031420.1292@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In all the fuss about lunar bases and Mars missions, it is easy to lose >track of one big, unpleasant, nasty fact that has gone from unlikely to >certain in the last 20 years. Unless something changes radically... > >None of us is going. If "us" means everyone reading article <1989Jul21.031420.1292@utzoo.uucp>, this has a fair chance - not 100% (=84%) - of being true. Primarily because the hustling overachievers who WILL be in space in the next 15 years know better than to fritter away their time on Netnews! >Remember the early days of the shuttle program, when weekly launches were >seriously planned, and the shuttle was going to open up space? Remember >"routine access to space"? Well, you and I may remember it, but as far >as NASA is concerned, it's dead, buried, and forgotten ... Look, let's put this in perspective. They fly B-1 bombers *daily*. Has anyone reading this newsgroup ever flown one? "Routine access" is not the same thing as "outdraws Disneyworld." Most *Soviets* won't go, either, yet we blithely grant them the "routine access" label. >Remember when Jerry Pournelle said "we're going if we have to walk!"? >Did you agree? Did you think you meant it? I did. ... No aspersions on Henry whatsoever, but anyone who lets the author of JANISSARIES do his prognosticating for him, deserves the letdown. :-) > ... You can ride the bus, but you have to pay in Swiss francs >and learn Russian first... The UK will be sending a cosmonaut up in 1991 (oooh, where are you Eric Blair!), they are not paying in SFr and although, with 13,000 applicants[!], HMG has the luxury of making an acquaintance with Russian a requirement, I don't believe the Soviets themselves impose it on visitors. and the driver inspects your baggage before >deciding whether to let you on. Also true on Air Canada. :-) The most dangerous fallacy in this editorial is the equation of *conquering space* with *you [the reader] going.* It's pointless to cheerlead a guaranteed non-starter. None of us will go to Mars, unless someone's kid is reading this. But we could put a rover and sample return mission there before your present lawn mower gives out if we wanted to. How about some space activism about THAT. >1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo. | >1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| Tell it to the boys at Taurus Littrow... to Skylab... Viking... IRAS... Solar Max... Mir... Voyager... HST... Magellan... and please, don't forget to tell Christa. -- "My God, Thiokol, when do you \\ Tom Neff want me to launch -- next April?" \\ uunet!bfmny0!tneff
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (07/23/89)
In article <14479@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >> ... You can ride the bus, but you have to pay in Swiss francs >>and learn Russian first... > >The UK will be sending a cosmonaut up in 1991 (oooh, where are you Eric >Blair!), they are not paying in SFr and although, with 13,000 >applicants[!], HMG has the luxury of making an acquaintance with Russian >a requirement, I don't believe the Soviets themselves impose it on >visitors. I was exaggerating a little bit for effect; payment in "hard currency" is what's wanted. Rubles are specifically not included (!). (I don't know how they feel about US$... :-)) I believe the official price is stated in Swiss francs. As for speaking Russian, my understanding is that that is a non-negotiable safety requirement, and yes, the British cosmonaut will have to either know Russian or learn it damn fast. In any case he's got to spend a while (one year?) in training at Star City, and that will undoubtedly require Russian as a practical matter. >The most dangerous fallacy in this editorial is the equation of >*conquering space* with *you [the reader] going.* We have not realistically "conquered" space, in the sense that we have conquered the oceans, until anyone with a good reason or a good credit rating can go. *Without* waiting years, *without* begging permission from 57 layers of bureaucrats, and *without* having to justify it to anyone except himself. >It's pointless to >cheerlead a guaranteed non-starter. None of us will go to Mars, unless >someone's kid is reading this. Some of us disagree... the odds are not good but not zero. >But we could put a rover and sample >return mission there before your present lawn mower gives out if we >wanted to. How about some space activism about THAT. If cheerleading is what you want to do, by all means do so. But robot missions that are not part of any sort of ongoing plan for expanding exploration are a spectator sport for all but a handful of scientists. I can't get too excited about supporting spectator sports any more. I'll watch the results, for sure, but invest effort? No. >>1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo. | >>1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| > >Tell it to the boys at Taurus Littrow... to Skylab... Viking... IRAS... >Solar Max... Mir... Voyager... HST... Magellan... and please, don't >forget to tell Christa. After discounting a bit for poetic licence in the signature -- obviously Apollo and its brethren did not drop dead at the end of 1969 -- nearly all of the programs you cite are remnants from those days. Some of them have had a very long wait in the queue. The queue after them looks pretty bare. Voyager, on the other hand, is very much the sort of thing I was talking about. I do take my hat off to the Rutans and Yeager. Oh, you meant the *space mission*? :-) Although I'm as eager as anyone to see what comes of the Neptune encounter, I can't help remembering that (a) Voyager is the leftovers from a rather more ambitious set of missions, (b) it is the second project to bear that name, and frankly I'd have preferred the first, and (c) it too is an Apollo-era leftover with *NO* planned followup. As for Christa... The saddest thing about her death is how *significant* it was that a non-astronaut was finally going up on the shuttle -- the system that was specifically meant to give non-astronauts access to space. Followed, as a close second, by the fact that her death has effectively ended that idea for the foreseeable future. (NASA would like to end it permanently, but so far hasn't quite dared to make that official.) -- 1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo. | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
leech@Apple.COM (Jonathan Patrick Leech) (07/23/89)
In article <1989Jul22.231302.24043@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >(Voyager) is an Apollo-era leftover with *NO* planned followup. What are Galileo and Cassini, chopped liver? -- Jon Leech (leech@apple.com) Apple Integrated Systems __@/
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (07/24/89)
In article <33400@apple.Apple.COM> leech@Apple.COM (Jonathan Patrick Leech) writes: >>(Voyager) is an Apollo-era leftover with *NO* planned followup. > > What are Galileo and Cassini, chopped liver? I hope not, they'll never meet Shuttle safety specs that way... :-) The two of them together are half a followup. Assuming Cassini ever gets off the ground, that is. Galileo at least seems pretty definite, assuming it works -- there is no backup, and that half-spinning design gives me the creeps. But what about the other half? Where are the Uranus and Neptune missions? (Answer: nowhere, not even on paper.) Where is the Pluto mission? (Answer: abandoned and forgotten.) For that matter, Galileo has been almost-ready-to-fly for a decade now -- where is *its* followup? (Answer: there isn't one.) I plead guilty to slight exaggeration for rhetorical purposes, but only slight. As I've said before, one major problem with the US planetary program -- what's left of it -- is its complete lack of any systematic plan for future missions. What comes after Cassini? "We'll study that when the time comes." -- 1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo. | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) (07/24/89)
I treasure Henry's acerbity, and would foot race him any day in the NASA critic dept., but I do think that in "stretching things to make a point" it is easy to cross the line into silliness, and this does no-one (nor the debate) any good. "20 years of nothing" is kind of an atrocious misstatement. "25 years of not enough, and 15 years of nothing useful" might be more on the mark. That is if you count things from the planning stage. If you are satisfied with the years in which things come to fruition (clearly NASA has been) then the program's still muddling along -- just you watch, Neptune will rival Saturn for awesome images. And HST, delayed as it is, will wow us within weeks of activation. What's missing is getting down and dirty on the inner planets, in my view. That's where the excitement lies. IMAX on a sample return and rover mission! How bout it! I just frankly think the other stuff, the "our generation is GOING" horse****, is just another regrettable 70's artifact of overenthusiasm, like Rolfing and est. Columbus's generation didn't "GO" either, in numbers any more significant than our space specialists have gone. That analogy is fairly flawed so I won't push it. :-) -- "My God, Thiokol, when do you \\ Tom Neff want me to launch -- next April?" \\ uunet!bfmny0!tneff
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) (07/24/89)
In article <14484@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >I just frankly think the other stuff, the "our generation is GOING" >horse****, is just another regrettable 70's artifact of overenthusiasm, >like Rolfing and est. Columbus's generation didn't "GO" either, in >numbers any more significant than our space specialists have gone. That >analogy is fairly flawed so I won't push it. :-) Maybe it depends what you mean by "our generation". Armstrong's generation may not go, but then Armstrong was 39 when Apollo 11 landed -- I was 3. I would guess the readership of newsgroups spans a number of generations. (Rolfing and est, what's that? -- Anything like golfing and ESP? :-) _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________
leech@Apple.COM (Jonathan Patrick Leech) (07/24/89)
In article <1989Jul23.215443.15698@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >(Answer: abandoned and forgotten.) For that matter, Galileo has been >almost-ready-to-fly for a decade now -- where is *its* followup? (Answer: >there isn't one.) How can you design a followup to a mission that hasn't flown yet? It would be silly to build something else and launch it before Galileo tells us the next questions to ask. -- Jon Leech (leech@apple.com) Apple Integrated Systems __@/