henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (12/04/90)
Editorial urging NASA to decide what its priorities for the space station
are, rather than trying to keep everybody happy on a steadily shrinking
station... especially since the international "partners" are getting fed up.
The coincidence in timing with the Ulysses launch is noteworthy: "The
12-year story of [Ulysses] is littered with broken US promises, including
eight changes in boosters, multiple launch postponements, and reneging on
a deal to build a companion US spacecraft. Small wonder no one beyond its
borders seems to take US plans for a settlement on the Moon and trips to
Mars very seriously..."
*Another* engine fire in development work for the H-2 booster.
Investigation underway after 30kg work-platform support beam is left inside
Atlantis as the orbiter is moved to a vertical position Oct 3. All the
paperwork indicated the beam had been removed. [Isn't it wonderful how
much reliability NASA gains by having everything checked three times?]
Senate committee recommends killing the Milstar strategic comsat, saying
it is overdesigned against a diminishing threat of nuclear war and largely
useless for tactical purposes.
GAO finds that a NASA effort to get private industry involved in financing
space hardware scored six failures out of seven, and predictably so, because
the projects were too far along or had no commercial market. This will
contribute to hard times for NASA, because its FY90-94 budgeting was based
on the assumption that this effort would succeed. The only success out of
seven was private funding for the orbiter long-mission cryogenic fuel pallet.
The ASRM plant, a free-fall training pool, space station docking and tele-
robotic systems, space-station payload processing facilities, and some
instrument development for unmanned probes were the failures.
Images from the Soviet Almaz radarsat show clear pictures of the ocean
bottom hundreds of feet down, confirming (at greater depths and with better
resolution) the experience with Seasat in 1978. The radar itself is not
penetrating, but currents and tides flowing over the bottom apparently tend
to make surface features reflect bottom features. The big question is
whether submerged submarines leave similar traces. Nobody is talking;
even when Seasat data was being analyzed, discussion of antisubmarine
applications was taboo. Almaz is a prototype civilian remote-sensing
craft rather than a military program. The Soviets say they have also
been able to see buried pipelines in the radar images, indicating some
limited ability to penetrate earth (another technology with military
applications, too...). Almaz is a heavily modified Salyut space-station
core with long radar arrays along its sides. Space Commerce Corp. of
Houston is marketing Almaz data worldwide, with launch of the first
operational Almaz set for Nov 25-31. Two relay satellites for passing
the data to the control center in Moscow are already up.
Configuration for the X-30 selected: basically a lifting body with small
wings and twin vertical stabilizers. The crew are located in a blister
just aft of the nose, and at the moment have side-looking windows. The
scramjet propulsion system will be augmented by a 50-75klb rocket engine,
for the final push into orbit, orbital maneuvering, and emergency propulsion
in the event of scramjet failure during tests.
SDI notifies Congress of plans to drastically cut funding for the ground-
based free-electron laser project, citing budget constraints. Congressional
reaction is expected to be hostile, given the feeling there that SDIO is
increasingly sacrificing promising long-range projects in favor of more
money for the politically-doomed effort at near-term deployment. [This
may not sound space-relevant, but the FEL is possibly the single best
laser for a laser launcher.]
Picture of the Soviet payload-return capsule incorporated in the modified
Progress freighter, slated for first use in November.
The Molniya Scientific and Industrial Enterprise is looking for partners
to develop a reusable suborbital spaceplane, capable of carrying 50 or so
passengers in a suborbital flight with altitude reaching 160km.
Pictures of the next two Mir modules, Spektr ("Optical") and Piroda,
respectively optical remote sensing and environmental monitoring, both
under construction for launch around a year from now.
NASA orders hiring freeze at space-station contractors, probably in
anticipation of Yet Another Redesign -- largely inevitable given the
likely budget cuts.
Planetary Soviety invitation-only meeting to "critique" the current space
station concludes that the current design is not viable even if nothing
goes wrong with the shuttle, citing persistent reliance on unrealistic
shuttle launch rates, inflexibility due to trying to meet too many users'
needs, and inadequate consideration of alternatives. (On the other hand,
some of the attendees commented that the deck was stacked: the choice
of participants seemed to be deliberately aimed at such a conclusion.)
Marshall is looking at the possibility of dividing the two big US modules
into four, making it possible to launch them fully equipped.
Station EVA needs seem to be under control, but many are unhappy about the
increased reliance on relatively inflexible remote-controlled devices, and
say that a high-pressure spacesuit would be a better approach.
--
"The average pointer, statistically, |Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
points somewhere in X." -Hugh Redelmeier| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henrymae@vygr.Eng.Sun.COM (Mike Ekberg, Sun {DSGG.DGDO.Mid-Range Graphics.Egret(GS)} MS 8-04) (12/05/90)
Note the two completely opposite development approaches of the Soviet and NASA space programs. (Here the Soviets are still re-using stuff >10 years(?) old) In article <1990Dec4.025945.15482@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >Almaz is a heavily modified Salyut space-station >core with long radar arrays along its sides. > and ... (We are building yet another from scratch design) >NASA orders hiring freeze at space-station contractors, probably in >anticipation of Yet Another Redesign -- largely inevitable given the >likely budget cuts. > >Planetary Soviety invitation-only meeting to "critique" the current space >station concludes that the current design is not viable even if nothing >goes wrong with the shuttle, citing persistent reliance on unrealistic >shuttle launch rates, inflexibility due to trying to meet too many users' >needs, and inadequate consideration of alternatives. (On the other hand, >some of the attendees commented that the deck was stacked: the choice >of participants seemed to be deliberately aimed at such a conclusion.) > >Marshall is looking at the possibility of dividing the two big US modules >into four, making it possible to launch them fully equipped. > -- # mike (sun!mae), M/S 8-04 "The people are the water, the army are the fish" Mao Tse-tung
szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) (12/05/90)
In article <1990Dec4.025945.15482@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >Planetary Soviety invitation-only meeting to "critique" the current space >station concludes that the current design is not viable even if nothing >goes wrong with the shuttle, citing persistent reliance on unrealistic >shuttle launch rates, inflexibility due to trying to meet too many users' >needs, and inadequate consideration of alternatives. (On the other hand, >some of the attendees commented that the deck was stacked: the choice >of participants seemed to be deliberately aimed at such a conclusion.) Isn't "invitation only" also true of NASA commitees, the Space Council, NSS commitees, etc.? Your biases are showing, Henry. :-) It is about time the man-in-space people started listening to the Planetary Society folks. While NASA has wasted most of its money on earth-orbiting manned projects, the Planetary Society (many of them ex-Voyager and Viking project people) have quietly pushed the continuation of our U.S. program that has explored most of the planets and moons in the solar system, with only a tiny fraction of NASA's budget. This, and the development of the first and largest commercial space industry (unmanned communication satellites) have put the U.S. far ahead of any other country in space, yet we squander this with attention and money lavished on dead-end manned projects. Nobody wants "Fred" anymore. The microgravity scientists want to get off of Fred to save their labs from vibration. The astronauts and deep space mission planners think Fred is useless as a "staging base". The Fred engineers are tired of developing a reputation for bad design that will haunt them the rest of their careers (would you hire an engineer who got paid for ten years of making nothing?). The taxpayers don't want to waste more billions on paper redesigns and fancy graphics. We are coming to the realization that the "space station" concept is an obsolete 19th-century idea that has nothing to do with successful 20th- and 21st-century space exploration and industry. The sooner "Fred" goes, the sooner the U.S. can devote its attention to the real space program, the real business of exploring space and developing industries that pay for themselves.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (12/07/90)
In article <20634@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >>some of the attendees commented that the deck was stacked: the choice >>of participants seemed to be deliberately aimed at such a conclusion.) > >Isn't "invitation only" also true of NASA commitees, the Space Council, >NSS commitees, etc.? Your biases are showing, Henry. :-) "I don't make the news, I just report it." The comment was in the original. Committee-stacking is a venerable tradition in the government, but the Planetary Society only undermines its position as a source of honest advice by such tactics. >Nobody wants "Fred" anymore.... >We are coming to the realization that the "space station" concept is an >obsolete 19th-century idea... Nonsense. We are coming to the conclusion that trying to build a space station that is all things to all people -- most notably, a reliable source of income for the NASA centers and their contractors -- is a lousy way to explore space. That in no way indicates any fundamental failing in the concept of a space station as a useful resource. Even -- dare I say it -- the Planetary Society has proposed a suitably designed space station as an important part of their headlong-race-to-Mars project. -- "The average pointer, statistically, |Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology points somewhere in X." -Hugh Redelmeier| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
price@chinet.chi.il.us (Doug Price) (12/07/90)
Every year, I receive my renewal notice from the Planetary Society, and I wonder why I bother doing it. The history of the Planetary Society has been checkered with a private fiefdom mentality. When I joined, I thought I was supporting an organization with the goal of the the exploration of our solar system within the context of the larger effort to explore the universe. How wrong I was. Instead, the Society quickly degenerated into a, "Let's do MY experiment next at the expense of everyone else." group. "Hey!", said Carl Sagan, "I can make this operation my anti-nuclear war platform using someone else's money, and I can bash the manned program for taking money away from MY favorite projects at the same time!" This was amply demonstrated by Sagan's anti-manned space editorial in the Planetary Report a few years ago. I was surprised by the abrupt about-face of the Society in support of a manned mission to Mars a few issues later. I suspect the hate mail was so intense that the Society figured out quickly that bashing manned space was probably a bad move from the membership point of view. I do not dispute that a lot of good science can be done for a lot cheaper for a few more years using robots. This zero-sum, "zap his budget so I can get my budget" stuff has got to go. -- Douglas H. Price price@chinet.chi.il.us price@vfrot.chi.il.us
szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) (12/09/90)
In article <1990Dec07.153442.14503@chinet.chi.il.us> price@chinet.chi.il.us (Doug Price) writes: > >I do not dispute that a lot of good science can be done for a lot cheaper >for a few more years using robots. This zero-sum, "zap his budget so I can >get my budget" stuff has got to go. The planetary explorers got a good lesson in this from the tin-can folks when our exploration funding was nearly destroyed by the Shuttle in the early 80's. I'm glad to see the discoverers are finally fighting back. What goes around comes around, astronaut fans. We are entering a new era where the funding proportions for "manned" stunts and real exploration and industry will be reversed, leading to a new Space Age, with an immense gain in knowledge of the solar system's every corner, and the blossoming of space industry. I eagerly await the death of Fred, Colombus, Hermes, and the other punch-card era throwbacks so that we can move forward more quickly into this new age of knowledge and commerce. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "We live and we learn, or we don't live long" -- Robert A. Heinlein The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any organization I may be affiliated with.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (12/10/90)
In article <20657@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >... What goes around comes around, astronaut fans. We are entering >a new era where the funding proportions for "manned" stunts and real >exploration and industry will be reversed, leading to a new Space Age... Not if the Planetary Society has its way, since one of their big priorities is the biggest and most short-sighted manned stunt in the history of space travel: the one-shot international manned Mars mission. -- "The average pointer, statistically, |Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology points somewhere in X." -Hugh Redelmeier| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) (12/10/90)
In article <1990Dec9.234706.9029@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <20657@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >>... What goes around comes around, astronaut fans. We are entering >>a new era where the funding proportions for "manned" stunts and real >>exploration and industry will be reversed, leading to a new Space Age... > >Not if the Planetary Society has its way, since one of their big priorities >is the biggest and most short-sighted manned stunt in the history of space >travel: the one-shot international manned Mars mission. Obvious observation #1: There is no way anybody is going to fund a $400 billion Mars mission when NASA can't even launch a lousy space station and the Soviet empire is crumbling. But talking about it makes for dramatic political rhetoric (and gives Dan Quayle something harmless to do :-) Obvious observation #2: The Planetary Society is dominated by the people who did Voyager, Viking, etc. that explored most of the solar system using the crumbs falling off of Apollo. Straightforward deduction: What a better way to get more crumbs than promote a Mars mission? NASA or LLNL (take your pick, LLNL hasn't gotten around to launching SDI either) take another 10 years to underestimate cost, misdesign and remisdesign a hopeless chemical Mars mission. Meanwhile, JPL gets to design and launch a new generation of probes, first to Mars, then everywhere else when folks start realizing what a failure the manned program is. A higher-tech repeat of Apollo, with the manned part cancelled before it leaves the CAD. With instruments orders of magnitude better than those on Voyager, we gather an unprecedently huge amount of data for a starving generation of planetary scientists. It's a perfect strategy, and hopefully the death of Fred will alleviate the need for this kind of politics. But until then, IMHO the Planetary Society is a group of geniuses trying to get the best they can out of a bloated, scientifically illiterate bureaucracy, and doing a pretty good job considering the odds. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "We live and we learn, or we don't live long" -- Robert A. Heinlein The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any organization I may be affiliated with.