Conference 7.286::space

A headline-type news item on this morning's Today show said the Janes
report said the US was 10 years behind, and that there was little chance
for the US to catch up before the turn of the century.

(Somehow this is much more believable since the events of the last 6 months.)

Bob

    I also heard ten years, and I tend to agree.  When you consider
    the fact the Soviets have had a manned presence in space aboard
    their space stations (Salyut and Mir) for the past several years,
    you start to wonder where we missed the bus.  Considering the
    recent setbacks NASA has suffered, combined with the fact their
    budget still isn't more than a quarter of the amount the Soviet
    Union spends on their space effort, it scares the heck out of me.
    
    I keep hoping the President will commit himself to supporting the
    funding necessary to put the space program back on track.  We need
    an effort like was launched by John F. Kennedy when he started the
    race to the moon.  (Admittedly mostly politically motivated, but
    it sure helped get the bucks when everyone thought the Russians
    would have bombs in space before we did!)
    
    The U.S. still has a lead in technology, but we're YEARS behind
    in practical experience.  Unless a LOT of bucks are forthcoming
    in the next few years all those folks who booked rides to the moon
    aboard Pan Am will have change their reservations to Aeroflot.
    
    If anyone has any brilliant ideas on how to motivate the politicians
    to spend the bucks, PLEASE share them.
    

One of the annoying (to me) aspects of the news coverage of this is that
repeated references to the Challenger disaster make it sound like that
was a substantial cause (instead of possibly being a symptom).  Even
factoring in a 2 year launch delay, plus resuming operations with 3/4 of
the previous shuttle capacity, plus diversion of a couple of billion for a
new orbiter, it would have been reasonable to judge us as just about as
screwed up before the accident.  Having recently chugged this entire file,
I have to wonder whether the "space station by 1990(?)" predictions were
just as bogus as the "24 shuttle launches per year" goal that NASA was
striving for.  I say this based on the oft-heard lament of NASA's problems
of too few bucks chasing random short-term goals.

A 59 line AP article relating to this assertion about a 10 year gap
has been entered into note 130.4 in NY1MM::FORUM.  And a lot of it is of
questionable conception or expression, even though I agree with many of the
conclusions.  But I'm wary of going at it hot and heavy it in *THAT*
conference; the debating team would eat me for breakfast.
				/AHM

    re: .2--You could try the Kennedy method: be a very popular President,
    issue a public challenge, then get yourself killed.  Congress didn't
    dare turn off the money until after Apollo 11.
        John Sauter

    One thing to remember in all this debate over how much the Soviets
    spend vs how much we spend is that NASA is not the only agency spending
    money on space.  To make a fair comparison, you should probably
    add in all the development work done on military boosters/satellites
    and SLC 6 at Vandenberg.  That, I suspect, would easily double the
    figure.

    Burns
    

    I don't think another 'moon race' is a good idea. NASA funding dried
    up real fast after the initial lunar landing was made.
    
    The US needs good public support of a long term space program rather
    than short term extravaganzas. In addition, I beleive that NASA
    and the aerospace industry need some form of independant technical
    review. Looking back, I think that an enormous amount of money has
    been wasted when I look at the variety of launch vehicles, satellite
    vehicles and manned spacecraft that the US has developed. Whenever
    a new project starts the reaction of the NASA engineers seems to
    be to look for new technology to develope in preference to using
    existing technology. This leads to systems with overlapping
    capabilities (e.g. Saturn 1B and Titan IIIC) being developed. This
    needs to be monitored.
    
    The USSR on the other hand seems to prefer slower, evolutionary
    development of their hardware. They have used the same basic launch
    vehicle (with continued improvements) for all of their manned launches.
    As a result, their technology has lagged but their space program
    has progressed and surpassed the US program. Areas they have been
    lacking (heavy lift launchers, reusable vehicles) will shortly be
    addressed with their new medium and heavy lift launchers, the shuttle
    and the spaceplane. And continuing with their reuse of technology,
    the medium lift launcher doubles as the strapons for the heavy lift
    launcher which is also the shuttle launcher.
    
    In retrospect, NASA pushing most of its funding into a completely new
    launch system was a bad move. At the time it was at best extremely
    risky. Coupled with NASA's continued obstruction of the privatisation
    of space by companies wanting to use and market existing launch
    vehicles it has crippled the US' launch capability 	(I think the
    Titan and Delta failures were random events that would appear less
    disasterous if there had been a steady launch schedule of expendables
    in the past couple of years).
    
    The US has the technology NOW (or maybe had) to mount a realistic
    space program but, as a country, lacks to will to do so.
    
    gary
        

You also have to remember why the moon race got started.  As has been alluded to
in earlier replies, it was to a degree politically motivated.  I think Tom Wolff
does an excellent treatment of this subject in The Right Stuff.  All B.S. in the
book aside, he hit the nail on the head.  The race started in the late 1950's, 
when the specter of McCarthyism as still present, and the Soviets were having 
success after success while the US had few.  Folks like Lyndon Johnson helped
the hysteria, with lines about 'going to sleep under a Red moon'. 

It's my firm belief that Vietnam had something to do with the decline of the 
space race in the US, in that it was a government-connected operation that spent
huge sums of money for little apparent return (just like the military), not to 
mention the fact that we had been in an apparent 'life-or-death' struggle 
against the USSR in space (that's what Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson had 
portrayed it as).  The American people by and large lost their respect (awe?) of
space, and simply grew a) bored and b) complacent with the whole thing.  In
fact, the networks even received hundreds of complaining calls about the time
they spent covering the Apollo 13 near-tragedy! 

10 years behind?  In experience, yes and no - we have a great deal more 
experience in deep-space and interplanetary navigation than the USSR does.  I'm 
not totally convinced that time spent in orbit around the Earth is a good 
indicator of anything other than how much time has been spent in orbit around 
the Earth.  I still think that the overall US technical lead is still strong, 
and that the USSR has a way to go.  I think I would call the game right now in 
favor of the USSR, although only by a couple of years.

Dan

    Motivation not withstanding, setting a short term goal by itself
    rather than making it part of a longer term program was a mistake.
    Changing social values certainly didn't help either but the attitude
    of 'well now we've gone to the moon we can forget this space stuff'
    was planted from the very outset.
    
    These factors combined (and probably a few others) lead to the doldrums
    of the seventies and reduced funding etc.
    
    The Soviets went through similar problems early on. Many of the
    Vostok flights and both Voskhod flights were politically motivated.
    Things like the first multiple spacecraft flight, the first woman
    in space, the multiperson spacecraft were politically motivated
    and did not return as much data as they could have. Before anyone
    flames at me about the first woman in space, the flight returned
    very little biodata as there was not enough time to redesign sensors
    etc.
    
    The Soviet program changed dramatically when Kruschev lost power
    and changed again just after Apollo 11. The difference being that
    it changed direction instead of almost stopping.
    
    I still maintain that setting a short term major goal that is not
    part of a long term program will be counter productive.
    
    gary

    
    10 years?!  Sounds a little high to me....
    
    After all, a space program is very much dependent on computer
    technology.  All indications are that the Soviets are at least 10
    years behind the U.S.  in this area.  Only within the last few years
    has a line of fourth generation computers emerged in the Soviet
    Union and these have not entered production yet.  Since the space
    program is heavily tied with the military in the Soviet Union (at
    least probably moreso than in the U.S.), it probably has access
    to more high technology than the civilian sector.  The soviets have
    not had much success with "reverse engineering", i.e. duplicating
    (never mind enhancing) western computers and are plagued by bureacratic
    squables and lack of quality electronics manufacturing in producing
    their own lines of reliable systems.
    
         Granted they could run their space program with big, bulky
    (yet reliable) third generation systems but this gap in computer
    technology is sure to be a limitation in future, more sophisticated
    endeavors.  It seems to be much the same story with their launch
    vehicles, relying on the proven old technology rather than constantly
    going for the latest technology as the U.S. space program does.
    Of course using new, untested technology is risky and its development
    is time consuming and expensive.  Long term benefits, however, can
    be gained from this course of action.
    
    /brian
    

    Since relying on the latest in technology has grounded our space
    efforts and the Soviets are still running strong. Sincwe we haven't
    even begun the battle for funding for a permanent space station
    in orbit and the soviets have one operating, since we haven't even
    any reasonable short term goals other than the placement of survallance
    sattelites (and others). it seem sto me that NASA and the US is
    in very bad shape compared to the Soviets. They are capeable of
    placing large payloads in space, we are not. They will be in a position
    to launch missions to the moon and mars and wherever and we aren't.
    
    I'd say we're way behind. Not that I consider this a "race".
    technology is nice but progress is better. If we do not begin to
    examine to requirements for mining and exploration on a larger scale
    we will not be doing it later. As quality ores become harder to
    find this could be the leading edge of trade in the 1990's. The
    harder we push into space the more return on the investment we will
    get, in terms of spinnoff technology as much as anything else.
    Unfortunately many of the same people that criticise the space program
    use teflon coated pots and pans, and recieve health care that is
    a direct result of the medical research that NASA funded, they just
    don't see that.
    
    Quality long range planning is a must for NASA, politics must be
    removed from the process and then we will step forward into the
    future (again).
    
    dave

    I READ A BOOK NOT TOO LONG AGO CALLED "THE NEW RACE FOR SPACE" OR
    SOMETHING LIKE THAT (IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY TODAY).  THE AUTHOR IS
    AN MACDONALD DOUGLASS ENGINEER WORKING FOR NASA.  HE GRAPHICALLY
    DESCRIBES THE SOVIET PROGRAM BY MISSION.   THE IMPRESSION THAT I
    GOT FROM THIS READING IS THAT THE SOVIET FLIGHT SYSTEMS ARE QUITE
    OUTDATED.  THEY ARE VERY DEPENDANT ON GROUND SUPPORT.  THE SOYUZ
    T IS MORE SIMILAR TO THE GEMINI THAN APOLLO.  IT'S GOOD READING.
    I'LL TRY TO GIVE YOU THE RIGHT NAME OF THE BOOK.
    
    WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE CENTAUR CANCELLATION?

Many people still think the Soviets are behind us especially when it
comes to computers and micro electronics.  Maybe they are in the '
manufacturing  of such device , but you can buy anything you want off 
the self from many different manufactures.  I have included  a sample
timeline of the MIR space station for an example of how far the Soviets 
have come. The MIR space station has over 5 microprocessors on board. 
They have a new computer control Soviet space capsule Soyuz called Soyuz-TM. 
The Soyuz_TM can dock under 100 percent computer control from a non-palallel
orbit. There deep space activity include trips to Halyey comet , they have
dropped WX balloons on Venus, they have now on the way to MARS a very complicate
satellite that include miniature 'Starwar' type weapons that will be used
to blast pieces of the surface of one of Moons of Mars to find out what
it is made of. By December there MIR space station will have many more
complex modules connected to it.  They have the largest group of train
Cosmonauts, the only group with enough space time to go to Mars and 
back.  They have been quite open with there experiment on the space
station and I am sure we will get a lot of valuable information
form the Soviets the big lag will that of a large group of experience
Astronauts with 100 of hours log in space.  Our Astronauts are starting
to retire , as they will be to old for the next shuttle launch, we can
only train a few handful of new Astronauts each year.  Yes we are behind
an the first trip to Mars will most lilkly be American Technology piloted
by Soviet Cosmonauts.




MAR  30  MIR            MIR conducted new Radio test       	day 86-089
                        Radio MOSCOW annoced an new radio
                        system was tested to allow over 
                        horizon radio communication

MAY  04  RADIO MOSCOW   Announced transfer of MIR Crew to       day 86-124
                        Salyut-7 would happen on 5 May
MAY  05  SOYUZ T-15     Crew leaves MIR in 'space taxi'         day 86-125
                        Soyuz T-15 leave MIR with supplies
MAY  06  SOYUZ T-15     Crew arrives at SALYUT-7 at 16:58 UTC   day 86-126
                        Tuesday completed an 1,875-mile journey 
                        in a ``space taxi'' from the MIR  to
                        Salyut-7 space station,  The two cosmonauts 
                        were scheduled to replace equipment aboard 
			Salyut-7, and transferred equipment, supplies 
			and even plants cultivated in space.
MAY  21  SOYUZ TM       an unmanned version of a new model      day 86-141
                        of the Soviet space capsule Soyuz
MAY  23  SOYUZ TM       docks with MIR at 2:12P.M. MOSCOW time  day 86-143
                        50 hours and 10 minutes after launch.
MAY  28  SPACEWALK      Leonid Kizim and Vladimir Solovev took  day 86-150
                        pieces of material out of a cylinder
                        and clipped it together, then attached 
                        it to a platform  above the Salyut 7 
                        space station, gave one dimension of 
                        the structure as being nearly 50 feet, 
                        Tass said the spacewalk began at 9:43 
                        a.m. MOSCOW time (5:43 UTC) and lasted 
                        3 hours and 50 minutes.
MAY  28  SOYUZ-TM       Radio MOSCOW, SOYUZ-TM separated from 	day 86-150
                        MIR at 13:23 MOSCOW time (09:23 UTC)
			and is schedule to land on FRI 86-150
                        on the steeps of Kazakhstan republic.
                        It was the first time that a SOYUZ TM
                        did a complete computer controlled NAV
                        and docking and undocking of an UN-MAN
                        SOYUZ. Welcome to the computer age.
MAY  31  SPACEWALK      Two cosmonauts spent five hours outside	day 86-151
                        their space station welding parts onto
			the tower. Instruments were mounted on 
			the 40-foot-high tower to monitor its 
			vibrations and other data. A low power 
			laser beam relayed the information to
			the Salyut 7 capsule, Tass said. Soviet 
			TV carried 15 minutes of the spacewalk, 
			which boosted the cosmonauts' total time 
			outside an orbiting spacecraft to 31 
			hours and 40 minutes. 
JUN  06  SPACEWALK      Tass said Friday that the cosmonauts carried 	86-157
			out experiments on the performance of structural 
			materials with the help of instruments on the outer 
			surface of the Salyut. It also said they were 
			analyzing the effects of artificial gravity on 
			lettuce seeds, examining the density of aerosol 
			layers in space and conducting other scientific work.
JUL  25  SALYUT_7       Cosmonauts Leonid Kizim and Vladimir Solovev 	86-176
                        are scheduled to leave the Salyut 7 space station 
                        Wedneday and board the Soyuz T-15 spacecraft, which 
                        is to take them to MIR. The two cosmonauts, who flew 
                        a record 237 days in space in 1984 and have been aloft 
                        for more than 100 days on their current mission,
		        first went to MIR two days after they blasted into 
                        space aboard the Soyuz T-15 on March 13. On May 5, 
                        the two transferred to Salyut 7. Tass said Tuesday 
                        the two cosmonauts ``are in good health and feeling 
                        well.''  It is expected that SALYUT_7 will be 
                        deorbited in JULY over the Pacific.
JUL  26  T-15/MIR       Cosmonauts Return to MIR Station		86-177
			Two Soviet cosmonauts docked their Soyuz T-15
			spacecraft late Thursday with the MIR orbital 
			station. Tass announced the docking at 11:46 p.m.
			(19:36 p.m. UTC). Bringing with them over 400Kg
                        of material from SALYUT-7.
    

    Could somebody who has access to the report in .0 please expand
    on what the report said?  Are we supposedly behind in technology
    or operations or exactly what?
    
    The reason I'd like to see more of the original report is because
    I really take issue with this idea that we're 10 years behind the
    Soviets in space technology.  I would put us 10-20 years AHEAD,
    especially in the types of technology that the Shuttle uses.
    Unfortunately when we stretch technology as far as the shuttle did
    at the time it was built, we're bound to get bitten on occasion,
    and I suggest that we're going through that sort of phase now with
    the shuttle.  I don't mean to dismiss the current problems we have
    -- we're grounded and they're not, but we've got a lot further to
    fall before we're behind.
    
    The Soviets don't stretch technology when they build because doing
    so requires advanced research which they have always had trouble
    doing (although they're getting better and better as they steal
    more technology from the west).  Their design philosophy is to take
    what's on the shelf and use it wherever possible rather than try
    to develop something new and risky.  They build lower-tech vehicles
    which are cheaper, thus they can afford more of them (especially
    since their space program is part of their military and is funded
    as such) which gives them a greater PRESENCE in space than we have.
    
    Their new shuttle will be just such a combination of throw-away
    boosters and ablative shielding -- low-tech and relatively cheap,
    but great for PR.  Their Proteus (Proton? I forget its name) booster is
    a Saturn-V class booster.  It hasn't flown yet (at this time), whereas
    we flew our last Saturn V for Skylab, OVER 10 years ago.
    
    Do you see the Soviets building payloads like the Hubble Space
    Telescope?  I submit that they can't.  Also, they got a lot of great
    PR with the two VEGA's that intercepted Comet Halley.  How many
    remember that a week before that encounter the Voyager probe (which
    has been flying since the 1970's, boys and girls!) sent back the
    first pictures from Uranus, performed a gravity-assist flyby, and
    headed off to Neptune?   It was the third such flyby that spacecraft
    had performed, and it required all the precision of a Halley flyby,
    but MILLIONS of miles further away.    

    Now, I don't wish to seem like a hysterical flag-waver here, but
    you've got to do some more work to convince me that we're behind
    the Soviets in technology.  So please somebody expand on the Janes
    report so we can see exactly how we're being compared to the Soviets
    in this area.  If the comparison is in space technology, then I
    for one hold the report in utter contempt.

    I don't think anyone is implying we are behind the Soviets in
    space technology.  I believe the gist of the report was that
    we are behind in the development of space, or, if you wish, the
    practical use of space.
    
    If the US was to decide today to send a manned mission to Mars,
    we would have a TREMENDOUS amount of catch-up time compared to
    the Soviets.  They easily have an order of magnitude more time
    in space than we do, and are working at solving lots of the
    problems which such a trip would entail.
    
    Of course, we DID manage to send some chicken eggs into space
    on board the shuttle for Colonel Sanders.  Now if anyone wants
    some Kentucky McNuggets on the way to Mars they'll have to
    come to us, won't they!
    

    I think the point is that the US is behind the Soviets in their use
    of space technology, not necessarily the technology itself. Pushing
    aerospace technology to its limits and developing an economical
    and reliable (and I agree that we have no way of knowing just what
    the cost of the Soivet program is) space capability are different
    goals and possibly should the responsibility of different agencies.
    
    The Proton launcher is an old vehicle, first used to launch the
    Proton satellites, hence the name. Another nomenclature has it a
    sthe 'D' series launcher. It is roughly equivalent to the Titan
    III family in capabilities.
    
    The Soviet shuttle is not as technologically advanced as the US
    shuttle. The more significant points are that the Soviets will also
    have a heavy lift capability which they have never had and that
    they appear to be using fairly well proven technology. They are
    also using common components for their new medium lift launcher,
    the heavy lift launcher and the shuttle. That should help control
    costs and increase reliability.
    
    The US probably could have used Saturn technology to build something
    like this a long ago, if it had wanted to.
    
    gary

    re: .-1 I agree, we are simply behind in usage. The soviet records
    held to date are indicative of the soviets "bigger hammer" approach.
    They don't tend to rely on new innovation as we do. So they've refined
    going in circles to an art form. Big deal. Technologically, we're
    way ahead. The soviets have never landed on another body and then
    brought a craft back, let alone a manned one. In the Apollo program,
    we used computer technology to aim a craft at the atmosphere from
    240,000 miles away in such a way that it bounced once and landed
    within a mile of an Aircraft carrier. We built the Voyagers, which
    are still going strong 11 years later after billions of miles of
    space travel. If you want endurance records, try that one. The Soviets
    are about to deploy their shuttle, which seems to be somewhat more
    expensive to launch than ours (they loose one of the liquid engine
    sets) and uses F-1 class engines, which they have very little
    experience with.
    
    Someone pointed out that one of their craft uses five onboard micros.
    Remember that the 4004 is a microprocessor, as well.
    
    About the only obvious place we're behind is the space platform.
    So let's build one.
    						-Brian
    

.16>The soviets have never landed on another body and then
.16>brought a craft back, let alone a manned one.

I thought the first Lunar material was retrieved by a Soviet probe, not by
Apollo-11.

.16>In the Apollo program,
.16>we used computer technology to aim a craft at the atmosphere from
.16>240,000 miles away in such a way that it bounced once and landed
.16>within a mile of an Aircraft carrier. 

Weren't there up to 3 midcourse corrections on the way back?
				/AHM/THX

    Luna 15 and Luna 16 were lunar soil return probes. Luna 15 was a
    failed attempt to return a lunar sample before Apollo 11. It was
    launched 13 Jul 1969 and remained in lunar orbit for most of the
    time Apollo 11 was approaching or near the moon. Two hours before
    Eagle left the moon, Luna 15 was commanded out of lunar orbit and
    began its descent ending in a crash in the Sea of Crises.
    
    Luna 16 was launched 12 Sep 1970 and landed in the Sea of Fertility
    Sep 20. The ascent stage left the moon 26 1/2 hours later and the
    return capsule was recovered 24 Sep.
    
    re .16
    
    The other big difference is that the Soviets are actively building
    and using their hardware, state of the shelf though it may be. It
    would probably take the US the better part of a decade to develope
    a heavy lift launcher. That is one 10 year gap.
    
    gary

    re .12
    
    The Soviet probe that will examine the martian moons is due for
    launch in 1988.
    
    I am not sure what the full significance of the Soyuz-TM (trademark?)
    really is. The Soviets have been using automated docking for sometime,
    I thought. In fact, the cosmonauts had very little control over
    the early Soyuz vehicles. I suppose ground control could have been
    used for these manouvers.
    
    Maybe what this new capability gives them is an automatic docking
    system that they trust with a manned spacecraft. There is a lot
    of evidence that suggests some of their earlier spacecraft control
    systems were not very error tolerant. I recall that they lost a
    planetary payload when one of six engines in the core of a Proton
    shut down early and they were unable to extend the burn of the other
    five, even though they share a common propellant supply. If that
    was the state of their Soyuz docking control, I wouldn't have trusted
    it.
    
    It may not be a great step, but it is a step.
    
    gary

    	I think the U.S. was foolish to ever have gotten into a "space
    race" with the U.S.S.R., primarily because it made us only look
    at the short-term goals in space, not the important overall picture
    of our very need for space exploration and colonization.
    	It was our rushing to land men on the Moon that caused us first
    to abandon a Shuttle-type manned spacecraft (Dyna-Soar) for the
    crudely simple Mercury capsule (Alan Shepard, when asked how he
    felt about riding in the Mercury vehicle, answered "How would you
    feel if you were flying a ship made by the lowest bidder?!"), then
    to build the relatively simple Apollo program, which did not need
    (and therefore eliminated) a large manned space station, and did
    not continue with the next logical step in lunar exploration - colonies
    on the Moon.
    	The US has always had better technology than the Soviets -
    unfortunately political panic caused us to go the fast way in order
    to try and beat the Russians, with the results that we are like
    the high school athlete who never went to collage, unlike his less
    socially active counterpart - the result is a lot of shiny trophies
    to show off, but has now fallen behind because he did not continue
    further in his education like his counterparts, who may not have
    been as "glossy" as the athlete, but are steadily advancing to more
    productive goals.
    	The Soviets too got caught up in this "space race" for a while
    and made their own mistakes; but they have not given up, despite
    some tremendous accidents (1960-rocket carrying Mars probe explodes
    on launch pad, killing @200 technicians, 1967-Soyuz 1 crashes, 1971-
    Soyuz 11 crew dies, 1975-Soyuz mission aborted, 1983-Soyuz T-10
    has rocket explode underneath ship, which barely escaped.).
    	Their technology is behind ours in many ways, but they have
    finally begun to explore space the way it should have been done
    long ago - first with Earth space stations, then with steady
    preparations for Moon and Mars bases for future colonization and
    mining purposes.
    	I would like to think that since controlling space IS such a
    powerful tool ("He who controls space controls the world."), we
    should cooperate instead of behaving on old political motivies by
    two leaders from an era of which all are now gone.  We should not
    keep wallowing in our past mistakes (including the Challenger),
    but plan more carefully this time.  If all we do is look at the
    short term goals of space, human civilization will become as defunct
    as the Apollo program.  These are not overblown statements - our
    resources are not infinite, and neither is Earth's land space -
    so planning now to colonize space peacefully is very practical.
    	America should not be panicking about what the Russians are
    doing in space - we should be copying them (NOT racing!) and
    cooperating.  I do not believe that either country would attack
    vehicles and colonies containing crews of both nationalities, neither
    are the crews likely to fight when the downfall of one would lead
    to the end of the other.          
    
    	Larry
    

    re: .17,.18 Thanks for the correction, Gary. I didn't realize that
    Luna 16 had succeeded, only remembered 15 crashing.
    
    Yes there are corrections, but those are typically to minimize energy
    use, not because the course is off prediction.
    
    re: .-1 The U.S. really did not enter a "space" race with the soviets
    in the 1960s. It was an arms race disguised as a space race to make
    it pallatable (SP? where is that *&^ dictionary) to the american
    public. We honestly believed that the Russians were way ahead of
    us in ICBM technology and would attack at some point. The space
    race allowed the investment of billions of dollars in missile and
    related technologies without pointing out that we were developing
    bombs.
    						-Brian
    

<----(.17)
    
	When I sit here in a country which is not truely active in the
    "SPACE RACE" it becomes so obvious that the Americans national pride is
    placing blinkers over their eyes. The statement that the Americans are
    only behind in usuage is oh so true, at the present they really don't
    even have a lift vehicle which will reliably deliver payloads to an
    Earth orbit. The problem is that while the Americans are trying to
    catch up their "usuage" the Russians are developing expertise in space
    that will take years if ever to catchup.
	Why are the Americans technologically ahead, a better statement is
    that they are using equipment which is far more complex and therefore
    far more prone to error. This is so obvious with the shuttle where most
    launches have had hitches. The last lauch leading to the devastating
    explosion but which only appears to be a sympton of inherent errors in the
    design. The shuttle appears to be a classic example of over
    engineering, it is not suited to any one task and is therefore a half
    way solution for all.
	Although the Russians are using far simplier equipment they are
    able to deliver the results and far more reliabily. They where the
    first to place a satelite in orbit, the first to return a craft from
    the moon, the first to have a space station and now it appears the
    first to have a year round manned space station. In a very short time they
    will be the only nation with a vehicle tailored to fit any mission
    required, a heavy lifting body for those space station modules and
    other large payloads, medium lifting body, a shuttle craft for recovery
    of satellites and of course a small shuttle for transfering people to
    and from orbit. How long will it be before American catches up to this
    sort of flexability. Further to the point so what if the Russian
    shuttle costs more to launch, remember the Americans now have to bear
    the cost of building a new shuttle or the cost of lost of time in
    space, I think the Russian launches really aren't all that expensive.
	Yes America has been brillantly succesful in their long range
    missions but what is more useful, knowing about Saturn and Neptune or
    being able to use that space immediately above us?
    
					Barry
    
    PS. I'm hoping the shuttle launches will get going as soon as
    possible now that the causes are know.
    

    If simpler is truly better, why do we sell VAXes instead of PDP-8s?
    And why do people buy them?
    
    I would contend that it is NOT complexity which breeds unreliability,
    it is the first derivative of complexity, change. NASA as a whole
    is VERY conservative about change. So are the soviets. The complex
    systems of the shuttle were developed a little at a time by a lot
    of people. Remember, it wasn't the 5 way redundant multiprocessing
    system that caused the accident, it was a plumbing joint. We couldn't
    stick two pieces of steel tube together with a gasket and get it
    right. If that ain't simple, I don't know what is.
    
    Yes the soviets were first to launch a satellite. They didn't have
    quite enough motivation to make it a warhead on the first launch.
    They were also the first to lose an astronaut during service. By
    the way, here's a question for debate: Do you think that the soviets
    would stop their program for two years if a craft exploded? My guess
    is no. Odds are we could launch shuttles from now until the joint
    is fixed without another problem. We will not do that, however,
    They might. They tend to accelerate their program by taking much
    more risk with human life (witness Chernobyl).
    
    I contend we are well ahead technically and somewhat behind in some
    uses of space. Unfortunately, the media doesn't understand basic
    research and other forms of application of space from the previous
    24 shuttle missions. Flagpole sitting on a global scale they
    understand, so it makes sense to them that we're behind, and they
    spread the rumor.
    							-Brian
    

    Don't give that crap about VAXes being better than other machines
    because they are more complex!  The major reason the VAX architecture
    is a DEAD END is because of the incredibly complex instruction set
    which does not lead itself well to orders of magnitude increases
    in speed which is what is needed.  I still maintain my "simple"
    DEC-10 using 1970's technology can out-perform any VAX in terms
    of raw throughput.
    
    People buy VAXes because they have an extensive amount of software
    which will run on almost any machine in the family.  If DEC was
    to package a RISC machine with VAX software people would buy that
    IF THE PACKAGE AS A WHOLE WORKED AS WELL AS IT DOES TODAY.
    
    Your "simple" SRM joint is a good example of the problems involved
    in using complex technology.  The joint was based on the Titan joint,
    which the engineers understood very well.  No one who worked on
    the SRM joint expected the phenomenon known as "joint rotation".
    They predicted the exact opposite.  Numerous people interviewed
    in the Rogers Commission Report said plainly they didn't know what
    went on in the joint.
    
    I would recommend you read the report (it certainly sounds as if
    you haven't) before making any other brash statements.  I doubt
    you would find ANY member of the astronaut corps who would ride
    the shuttle with the existing SRM.  If you were to plot joint
    problems (erosion, primary blow-by, etc.) in the recent past you
    would get a curve with a steep upward slope.  That joint design
    is just an accident waiting to happen.  Let's ignore the other
    problems with brakes, etc., for now, even though NASA can't before
    they can fly shuttle again.
    
    If you use "leading edge" technology, which the shuttle WAS when
    it was in the design state, you are bound to encounter problems.
    I think the whole point of the Janes report and a lot of the notes
    in this file is that we abandoned a perfectly good expendable launch
    vehicle program because we thought the shuttle would do everything
    better.  It clearly can't, and the short-sightedness of the Nixon
    administration is to blame for the state we are in now; stuck on
    the ground watching the "other guy" fly.
    
    Don't get me wrong, I am an ardent supporter of the shuttle system,
    and hope I get a chance to fly on it some day.  I just feel it is
    much better suited to some tasks than others.  Launching satellites
    is NOT one of them.
    

Re: .21

I must take exception to your claim that the space race was simply a disguised 
arms race.  You state:

>The space race allowed the investment of billions of dollars in missile and 
>related technologies without pointing out that we were developing bombs.

We didn't need the space program to develop "bombs" (I assume you mean 
ICBMs).  In fact, the space program in the 1960s was the beneficiary of 
the missile related research of the 1950s.  Blunt body aerodynamics 
(re-entry vehicles), ablative heat shielding, inertial guidance, large 
liquid rocket engines/launch vehicles, geodetic mapping, and miniaturized 
computers were all products of our missile programs.  The whole Saturn 
launcher and Apollo programs had their roots in the Army Ballistic Missile 
Agency at the Redstone Arsenal under Medaris and Von Braun.  The Mercury 
and Gemini launchers were all modified missiles, as well.

In fact, one can argue quite convincingly that without the ICBM technology 
of the pre-space race period, we would have had a much more difficult time 
getting men and useful civilian payloads into orbit.  

BTW, the first US space program was the 413L system, the original 
spy satellite (launched by an Atlas-Able and named Discoverer).  This was 
started in mid-1954, well before Vanguard or Jupiter-C (Explorer).

    The was an 18 month gap in Soyuz flights after Soyuz-1 (Komarov
    died as a result of parachute failure). There was a gap of over
    two years after the cosmonauts of Soyuz-11 died.
    
    I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that they would carry
    on regardless if they had suffered a manned launch failure.
    
    As for Sputnik vs a warhead... The SS-6 that was used to launch
    Sputnik (and formed the basis of the A series launchers) was
    operational, i.e. in place with warheads, at the time of Sputnik-1.
    It was hardly the first launch of the SS-6.
    
    It is interesting to reflect upon the attitudes that led to the
    original 'booster gap'. The Soviets took what they had at the time,
    large bulky warheads, rocket technology directly descended from
    the wartime A-4, and built a system. The US looked at what it had
    at the time and decided to bet on the future with smaller, lighter
    warheads promised by the AEC. And to tinker with new ideas along
    the way for the Atlas missile. Attitudes haven't changed much in
    25 years.
    
    gary

    .26 was in reference to .23. I guess a couple of others got in before
    me.
    
    Discoverer 1 was launched on a Thor Agena A. What became the Atlas
    Able was the USAF's original proposal for the US' first satellite
    that was defeated by Vanguard. It eventually launched a couple of
    Pioneers, but did not have a good record.
    
    I also do not think you can view the the 'space race' as a blind
    for ICBM development. The civilian space program has always tried
    to distance itself from the military program, probably too much.
    Although nearly all launchers are missile derivatives the space
    program was not able to use Atlas or Titan hardware early on for
    the fear that it might jeapordize the missile program. The Vanguard
    was chosen as the first US launcher because it did NOT contain missile
    components and could not be viewed as part of the ICBM program.
    The USAF approach was Atlas based and the Army wanted to use a Redstone
    based vehicle, the Juno 1, which ultimately launched Explorer 1.
    
    gary

    Soyuz_TM is a new design, it major benifit is that it can do off
    axis unaided docking , unloading, and return to earth, before this
    there was very little freedom for off axis alignment.  The MIR space
    station is not be updated to a new computer that will be installed
    this week, no idea what it will be used for.  By Dec the Space Station
    should be many times bigger then it is now as they keep adding Modules
    to it.  As for the return of Salyut_7 Radio Moscow keep saying it
    is
    only mothballed but Papers in Germany keep saying it will be deorbited
    by the middle of JULY
    
    The CCCP alread have a craft to the moons of Mars, it was the 2nd
    mission of the Commet Fly buy, if the Solar Panels are in good
    enought shape
    
    jb
    

    Say, now we're getting some activity :-)
    
    I didn't mean to imply that those involved in the space race itself
    viewed it as an arms race. My point was that the motivation of the
    administration (Kennedy's) which started the moon race was less
    than altruistic. 
    
    My comments re: VAX vs 8 were somewhat misinterpreted. VAXen aren't
    only complex from an ISP standpoint. The software has a fair bit
    of architecture as well. Users of systems always demand more as
    time goes on, and I contend that more function inevitably means
    more complexity, or a jump to a completely new technology.
    
    						-Brian

    I would also like to see a serious goal-oriented space program instead
    of a panicky space race
    
    but...
    
    I have a strong feeling that without the space race, neither USSR
    or USA would have gotten off the ground. If US was the only superpower
    in the world and the only nation capable of having a space program,
    we would not have one. It takes something like national prestige
    or fear of being left behind the 'others' to make the politicians
    approve those billions of dollars it takes to develop a space
    technology from scratch. It's not ideal from a scientific point
    of view but it's better than nothing. The world is run by politicians
    and accountants whether we like it or not.
    
    Whatever the reason, I'm glad there is a space program. US is
    falling behind now but one year from now we'll be out there again.
    With a shuttle that is safer than it ever was.
    
    The purpose of the shuttle was to make space flight cheaper and safer,
    as such that was a sound idea. I still think it is.
    It's true that the shuttle got more expensive than anticipated
    but what engineering project of that scale doesn't. Reusable spacecraft
    are necessary in the long run and I think the money were indeed
    better spent on the shuttle than just on bigger throw-away rockets.

        						Bjorn

    	NASA had originally planned to use a larger shuttle-type rocket
    to lift the Space Shuttle into orbit, where the lift vehicle would
    return to Earth like the Shuttle, thus the entire launch vehicle
    being saved in the process; THAT is a lot cheaper and probably safer
    than what is/was being used presently.
    	The old cliche, "You get what you pay for", has never been more
    appropriate.
    
    	Larry
    

    re: .24
    
    Your point about the joint is basically an argument that the complexity
    isn't the problem, but rather the familiarity of the engineers with
    the technology is. Simpler technologies typically have less learning
    curve, so the "first timer" mistakes are minimized. No where is
    that more evident than in DEC where some engineers change jobs whenever
    there's a lull in the conversation. An interesting question is how
    to solve that, so that you have engineers who want to stay on a
    project long enough to be experts.
    
    							-Brian
    
    P. S. Don't take the VAX comments so personally. I happen to like
    PDP-11s myself, but VAXes do seem to sell well. Perhaps understanding
    why would help unravel the technology questions in this note.
    

    A couple of weeks ago I bought the 1986 edition of Janes Spaceflight
    Directory. The introduction to this edition is what started the
    discussion about the 10 year gap. I thought I'd quote what they
    really said, which is not quite the same as that which appeared in the
    press.
    
    'For all NASAs brilliant interplanetary successes, the fact must
    be faced that, with the US Space Station receding into the mid-1990s,
    NASA are now 10 years behind the Soviets in the practical utilisation
    of what President Nixon so long ago dubbed "This New Ocean".'
    				Reginald Turnill, editor Janes Spaceflight
    				Directory, April 1986

    If you are enough of a nationalist to feel be interested in a rather
    negative view of Soviet technological prowess, see the current issue
    of Discover.
    
    Burns