Hubble Marching orders

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
wrote in
oups.com:

Why not insist on 1 gee at 1 RPM? Not many (if any) tests of
spin-generated 'gravity' have been done but the consensus seems to
be
that 1 RPM won't induce nausea in most people while 3RPM might.

The astronauts who will fly the early Mars missions will be a tightly

selected lot. I figure that adding RPM tolerance to the list of
selection
criteria will not narrow the field down too far.

Maybe so but another factor to consider is a space version of
'sea-legs'; if astronauts become adapted to the severe Coriolus effects
of a rapidly spinning ship, it may dangerously interfere with their
responses/movements once they land at Mars, at least during the
critical times of landing and setting up a base.

Also,
if we give the crew 1gee for the transit to/from Mars, they'll only
be
exposed to 0.38gee for the time they're on the surface (a few
months?).
We know people can take zero-gee for a year. Why waste a year or
two
testing people in LEO at Mars-gee?

I see the early Mars missions as precursors to a permanent presence,
so we
might as well find out now whether people can handle 0.38 g for
extended
periods.

The best place to do that is on Mars. Our (US and Soviet) experience
with zero-gee is enough to let us take that chance.

All the other long-term obstacles to Mars settlement - atmosphere,
water, radiation - can be solved, but we can't do anything about the
surface gravity.

Well, we could on a local scale but it would be expensive and a pain: a
mile-diameter toroidal city riding on a magnetic levitation track and
spinning at 300 km/hr would provide 1 gee. If you mean to settle the
entire surface then, yes, we might need a medical solution to the
problem.

If 0.38 g turns out not to be tolerable for long periods,
manned Mars missions will never be more than "flags and footprints",
and
therefore probably aren't worth doing at all.

I disagree: the data collection a crew could do in one year is much
more than "flags and footprints".

The cost to design, build, and test a 1 mile tether system won't be
significantly greater than the costs for a 76m system.

I agree, but a shorter tether gives you more mission flexibility. For

example, midcourse correction burns after TMI will almost certainly
be
necessary. The dynamics of performing the burn with the tether
extended
will be worse with a longer tether, requiring more sophistication in
the
control system. Also, retracting/re-deploying the tether becomes much
less
of an ordeal.

Anyway, we're both arguing nits here, relatively speaking -
regardless of
the details of tether length, this is going to require far fewer
breakthroughs than relying on nanotech.

For that matter, using faster propulsion to shorten the trip time
would
also probably be easier than nanotech.

Which brings to mind another use for a tethered ship: using
electrodynamics, current running through the tether to interact with
the Sun's magnetic field. This might be useful to propel or at least
course-correct the ship. If possible, then a longer tether would be an
advantage.

George William Herbert ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: George William Herbert ) wrote:
: : : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : : Ever since the Republican takeover in Congress NASA HQ seems to have less
: : : clout and JSC more. Just an observation.
: [bunch of 90s stuff deleted]

: If Bush is serious about his new space initiative, then some of the
: traditional work that centers do should change and allow the centers other
: than manned missions, planning (MSFC), launch (KSC) and operations (JSC)
: in, and now.

: If you had made your post two years ago, I'd be agreeing
: with you, but times they are a changin'.

: At the risk of repeating myself:

: : Office of Exploration Systems is not at JSC. It's at HQ.
:
: : No JSC managed manned space project has future growth planned.
: : Shuttle is being retired, and ISS is going to be built out
: : and operated, period.
:
: : OExS could get moved to a center... there's always a risk of
: : that happening. But it hasn't and shows no sign of happening.


: O'Keefe stuck OExS at HQ. Steidle hasn't done any different.

: And there it remains.

: Unless something catastrophic happens, in the NASA world,
: OExS is the future. The direction has changed.

The problem is that each center's role in the manned space program focus
hasn't been clear. JPL is just doing too well with the recent successes to
not continue to get work. The three southern centers, who's main focus is
manned spaceflight, will fair well, too.

: What centers OExS draws upon, and allows to be part
: of the new activities, is still up in the air as far
: as I know. There is no sign that they're slotting into
: the old mold, and lots of indication that OExS is staying
: independent to NOT fall into the old center-based organizational
: and structural traps.

: The particular claim you started with... JSC having gained
: clout relative to HQ, etc... was true in the90s. But then
: it stopped being true about when OExS was set up, which
: has been almost a year now. Regardless of who was responsible
: for the JSC focus in the 90s (and 80s, and...), it's not
: true anymore. O'Keefe seems to have understood what was
: wrong, set up a structure for Steidle to run the
: Exploration branch completely outside the old broken
: structure, and let Steidle run with the ball.

: And they're running.

: I expect that, 20 year from now, we'll look back on O'Keefe's
: tenure and remember three things:
: - He was the poor SOB at the helm when Columbia was lost
: - He helped lead NASA into the Exploration Initiative and chart that
: - He set up Exploration Systems separate from the Centers and let it go

: My hope is that the latter two will be very positive memories.
: Despite his short tenure, I think that time and the tide of history
: will show that the changes he was able to make have probably been
: what allowed NASA a fighting chance at reform to stay relevant
: in the 21st century, and that he will be remembered as one of
: NASA's premiere administrators of all time.

Okay, all that aside what is your prediction about GSFC's role in the new
space initiative era?

Eric

: -george william herbert
:

Michael Kent ) wrote:
: Christopher M. Jones wrote:

: Fafnir wrote:

: No, I blame the cancellation of Hubble on Bush.
:
: He is, after all, president.

: Fair enough. Though, strictly speaking, he's not entirely
: responsible for Hubble being 15 years old.

: Please note that 15 years was always the nominal mission lifetime of the
: Hubble Space Telescope. That HST is now expected to be de-orbited after
: 17 or 18 years respresents a mission extension, not a contraction.

Fine, IUE was only to last 5 years but they managed to get 20 out of it.
If Hubble can be repaired, actually it is really maintenance was we aren't
fixing anything that is broken per se; shouldn't we keep it going?

: (Don't take that to mean I approve of the recent Hubble nonsense, because
: I don't.)

Now I'm confused. I think you have a career in politics...

Eric

P.S. I'll trade you 100 Apple IIs for one Apple I. Deal?
P.S.S. Don't think I can get 100 Apples IIs? You get one Apple I and I'll
get 100 Apple IIs!!

: Mike

: -----
: Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
: St. Peters, MO
:

Michael Kent ) wrote:
: Thialfi wrote:

: In article
: "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
: wrote:

: It's ultimately a matter of political will. If enough folks
: really wanted a
: manned mission to Mars, the money would have been found.

: It's a matter of leadership.

: Kennedy had it, Bush doesn't.

: One of these presidents set the exploration of outer space as the official
: mission of NASA and proposed a far-reaching program accordingly. The
: other saw outer space only as a political battlefield in a global war.
: Can you guess which one is which?

Both gave us speeches. One led to actually landing on the moon. The other
has simply given speehes.

Eric

: Mike

: -----
: Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
: St. Peters, MO
:

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On 27 Jan 2005 02:06:20 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Jorge R.
: Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:

: Sander Vesik wrote in
: :
:
: Precicely how does that reflect on leadership? Anyways, what he got
: through congress was the budget for one year, not a sustained change.
:
: If that's your standard for "leadership", *no* US president could legally
: meet it.

: At least not in real time, so as I said, it sets an impossible hurdle
: for a current president (which of course, from these leftist loons,
: given the current current president, is the intent).

....says a rightist loon.

Rand Simberg wrote in part:



We landed on the moon in June, 1962? Who knew?

01) Mrs. Carolyn Presky, 30102 East RISD Terrace, Lodi, CA

02) Ralfe Simberg (evil twin of Rand), whereabouts unknown.

03) Marilyn Monroe, actress (died due to alleged "overdose" several
weeks later)

04) Ed Stubbs, Owner/Manager, Stubbs Small Engine Repair, Greenup, KY

05) My pet turtle [NAME REDACTED]

06) Fuzzy Thurston, OG, Green Bay Packers

07) U Thant, UN Secretary General (now known to have been an
extraterrestrial)

08) Miss Taylor's 2nd grade class, Stuart Elementary, Cleveland, TN

09) Chris Kraft

10) Numerous stagehands, Universal Studios, Burbank, CA (all deceased)

Hope this helps.

Corry
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

Of course I went to law school. - Warren Zevon, "Mr. Bad Example"

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:21:03 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: It's ultimately a matter of political will. If enough folks
: really wanted a
: manned mission to Mars, the money would have been found.

: It's a matter of leadership.

: Kennedy had it, Bush doesn't.

: One of these presidents set the exploration of outer space as the official
: mission of NASA and proposed a far-reaching program accordingly. The
: other saw outer space only as a political battlefield in a global war.
: Can you guess which one is which?

Both gave us speeches. One led to actually landing on the moon. The other
has simply given speehes.

We landed on the moon in June, 1962? Who knew?

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:11:42 GMT, in a place far, far away, Unclaimed
Mysteries theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysterie s.net
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate
that:

Rand Simberg wrote in part:



We landed on the moon in June, 1962? Who knew?

01) Mrs. Carolyn Presky, 30102 East RISD Terrace, Lodi, CA

02) Ralfe Simberg (evil twin of Rand), whereabouts unknown.

03) Marilyn Monroe, actress (died due to alleged "overdose" several
weeks later)

04) Ed Stubbs, Owner/Manager, Stubbs Small Engine Repair, Greenup, KY

05) My pet turtle [NAME REDACTED]

06) Fuzzy Thurston, OG, Green Bay Packers

07) U Thant, UN Secretary General (now known to have been an
extraterrestrial)

08) Miss Taylor's 2nd grade class, Stuart Elementary, Cleveland, TN

09) Chris Kraft

10) Numerous stagehands, Universal Studios, Burbank, CA (all deceased)

Hope this helps.

Not much.

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
So, explain to me again why Kennedy's speech was a commitment...
but that Bush's speech a year ago is not, when he's
moved forward with it, and got his budget for it passed with a veto
threat?

Kennedy gave far more attention to his commitment *after* that first
speech, mentioning it repeatedly and emphasizing its importance. He knew
that he had to sell it to Congress and the public, and keep it sold year
after year, if it was going to happen.

Bush has been strangely silent on the subject, as if he was reluctantly
talked into it and doesn't want to push it except when its real backers
give him a "back it now or else" ultimatum. He has quite visibly *not*
sold Congress or the public on the idea, and sooner or later that lack is
going to be felt, especially since all the real action in his plan happens
after he leaves office.

Bush is president, not god-emperor -- his wishes are not irrevocable law.
Congress can and will find a way to deny funding if he doesn't do more of
a sales job.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

Henry Spencer ) wrote:
: In article ,
: Rand Simberg wrote:
: So, explain to me again why Kennedy's speech was a commitment...
: but that Bush's speech a year ago is not, when he's
: moved forward with it, and got his budget for it passed with a veto
: threat?

: Kennedy gave far more attention to his commitment *after* that first
: speech, mentioning it repeatedly and emphasizing its importance. He knew
: that he had to sell it to Congress and the public, and keep it sold year
: after year, if it was going to happen.

: Bush has been strangely silent on the subject, as if he was reluctantly
: talked into it and doesn't want to push it except when its real backers
: give him a "back it now or else" ultimatum. He has quite visibly *not*
: sold Congress or the public on the idea, and sooner or later that lack is
: going to be felt, especially since all the real action in his plan happens
: after he leaves office.

: Bush is president, not god-emperor -- his wishes are not irrevocable law.
: Congress can and will find a way to deny funding if he doesn't do more of
: a sales job.

Yes Rand, what Henry said!

Actually, Bush's father made a similar speech while he was president and
absolutely nothing became of it. I'm not convinced either Bush has a real
commitment space, and are only just committed to placating the NASA
folks in Houston. I really wish I am wrong on this but based upon results
thus far it doesn't look like it.

Eric

: --
: "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
: -- George Herbert |