COMMENTARY: The State Of Manned Spaceflight
dan...@airmail.net
This is a commentary I wrote last year. I though some of you might be
interested in reading it.
Sorry for the negative tone, but it's the way I see it.
Shane Johnson
It seems that there is an incredible lack of knowledge out
there concerning America's space adventure of the 1960s ("What's this
movie called Apollo 13? I never saw the first twelve!"). Before you
can truly appreciate the current status of American manned
spaceflight, you must first realize what you've lost.
I know a great many of you have no personal knowledge of
NASA's efforts outside of the space shuttle program, for you were born
too late to have witnessed firsthand our incredible landings on the
lunar surface. You have seen no live manned launches other than those
of Atlantis, Columbia, Endeavour, Discovery, or Challenger. As a
result, you've pretty much come to think of the shuttle as the
ultimate in twentieth-century manned spaceflight.
It isn't.
I still remember that Sunday night. I was sitting on the
floor in a darkened room, with the only light spilling from the black
and white images that filled the 26-inch screen of our old RCA. As I
sat there, transfixed, enthralled, and as awed as a ten-year-old can
get, I watched the ghostly white forms that bounced joyfully from one
side of the screen to the other, awash in a sea of electronic snow.
Those rounded, balloon-like forms were men -- men who were walking on
the surface of another world. They were the first to do so. And I
was able to share in their adventure by watching the faint signal they
sent home to all of us, via television.
You don't know what you missed. I can't make you understand.
There aren't the words.
I sat, and watched, and dreamed. I had seen ‘2001: a space
odyssey’ only the year before. Excitedly, I had done the math. I
would be 42 years old when the wondrous marvels on that movie screen
became reality, and official NASA estimates stated that those things
would indeed become a reality, possibly even sooner than 2001. In
school, we were taught that there would be bases on the moon by the
late 1970s and manned landings on Mars by 1980. Our first permanent
orbital space station (America's first, that is) would be completed no
later than 1985, built primarily from materials lofted into orbit by
our space shuttle system, which would begin operation by our
bicentennial year of 1976.
The 1990s would see us head out toward the outer planets, with
commercial flights to the moon in full operation. In fact, even as
Apollo 11 landed on the moon, Pan American Airlines was offering
first-come, first-served reservations for the first commercial lunar
flight. They issued special coupons to those who wanted them, which
could be redeemed when the time came (along with cash) for a reserved
seat on that flight.
The future was so very bright, then, and America so proud.
But, to borrow a line from Arthur C. Clarke, the future isn't what it
used to be.
I know that our race for the moon came as a result of less
than pure motives. We were not simply exploring space for the sake of
knowledge or adventure -- we were beating the Soviet Union at it. We
wanted the high ground, should the feared future war take place. That
was the driving force. But that beginning, whatever sparked it, was
an incredible springboard that should have carried us to the stars.
Dreams of space that man had never even hoped to dream flared to life
for so many of us. I was only ten, but I had those dreams, too.
What I didn't know was that those dreams were already being
unraveled. As early as 1969, the year of the first lunar landing,
President Richard Nixon was already doing everything in his power to
dismantle the American space program. Public apathy following the
first landing only fueled his attempts -- 'Those millions are way too
much to spend on space, when we have so many things down here on Earth
to take care of! We could be feeding the hungry, or sheltering the
homeless,' the American people said. Yet no one was willing to take
the millions upon millions of dollars they were spending on tobacco
and alcohol and use THAT money to fill those lofty needs, were they?
During the same period, far more was spent on those two things alone
than was spent on the entirety of the US space program. You always
have the resources for what you put first, folks.
Imagine the countless lives that have been improved and even
saved because of space-spinoff technology. If not for NASA's lunar
program of the 1960s, America's technological level would still be
little changed from what we had in the 1950s. Computers half as
powerful as the one I am writing this commentary on would still fill
whole rooms. Surgical procedures and communications would still
largely be what they were then -- no satellites, no cellular phones,
no CAT scans or MRIs or miniature lasers or laboratory computer
analysis. The list of what we gained because of the leaps made
between 1961 and 1972 is far too lengthy to be covered here.
NASA's budget was cut again and again, forcing the
cancellation of programs which had been accepted as sure to take
place. At first, these programs were simply pushed back as the
timelines were relaxed. But soon, they were not to happen at all.
Nixon was a man who knew how to hold a grudge. He hated John
Kennedy -- he had lost to him in the 1960 Presidential race -- and
wanted to remove every trace of Kennedy's administration from the face
of the planet. Programs such as the Peace Corps and NASA, along with
others, were attacked. His hatred of Kennedy ran so deeply that,
shortly before the successful landing of Apollo 11, the most petty
decision ever made by an American president took place.
The Apollo 11 command module was scheduled, like all returning
Apollo spacecraft, to splashdown in the Pacific and be retrieved by a
Naval aircraft carrier. As a tribute to JFK -- the man whose drive
and determination had created NASA in the first place -- the Navy
decided months in advance to assign the USS John F. Kennedy to recover
the men. When Nixon heard of this decision, he immediately ordered
that the Kennedy would NOT pick up those men. Period. Get another
ship. Any other ship.
The USS Hornet was sent in its place.
In late 1970, the budget ax fell again. Apollos 18, 19, and
20 were canceled, despite the fact that their hardware -- command
modules, lunar modules, Saturn V boosters, everything -- had already
been built. There was so little money left to NASA that they could
not even afford the ground support necessary to fly those three
missions. What remains of their hardware -- what wasn't scrapped --
sits today, rusting and on display, relics of a time when we dared to
dream.
The space shuttle program was nearly canceled in the early
Seventies. Yes, canceled. The only reason we have a shuttle program
at all is because the US military saw merit in the system (we can
launch weapons on this thing!) and stepped in. Money was assigned,
with the shuttle program to be shared by NASA and the USAF. Designs
for the system came and went as funds continued to dwindle, with each
design a little cheaper and a little less safe than the one before it.
Apollo launch structures and support equipment at Cape Kennedy (sorry,
Dick) were dismantled and re-configured to create those needed by the
shuttle, and a second shuttle launch facility was planned for
Vandenburg AFB in California, where polar-orbital spy and weapons
system missions would be launched. Development proceeded, but too
slowly.
Then, a funny thing happened. New studies done by the USAF
determined that the shuttle launch system as it was being built would
result in a spacecraft failure ratio of 1:25. Those building the
shuttle and its boosters had been forced to cut so many corners that
it was likely one in every twenty-five launch attempts would result in
the total loss of the spacecraft and crew, probably as the vehicle
began lifting from the pad. The military decided that such a high
failure rate was unacceptable for such cargo as the nuclear payloads
they had planned to send into orbit, and recommended improvements be
performed. They weren't. The military abandoned the shuttle program,
and the Vandenburg launch facility was never realized. Once the NASA
launches began, there was so little money left to work with that NASA
was forced, on a rotating basis, to cannibalize parts from other
shuttles just to get a complete one it could send up.
The USAF was right, almost prophetically so. The twenty-fifth
shuttle mission launched was Flight 51-L. Challenger. After that, as
our nation's entire heavy-lift launch capacity sat grounded, the
long-needed improvements to the long-concealed flaws were finally made
to the system. But they came too late to save the crew we lost.
We built a pretty memorial to the seven astronauts who died.
How nice.
Other areas of the space program suffered, as well. Skylab,
the orbital space station we launched in 1973, had been left in a low
orbit after a flawed launch and was depending on an upper stage
booster to be delivered by the shuttle. That booster would push
Skylab into a higher, more stable orbit. The planned mission was
supposed to have happened in 1977-78, but delay after delay (largely
do to the increased lack of funding) pushed the first shuttle launch
into the early 1980s.
Despite all this, it was hoped that Skylab might survive long
enough that it could be reached in time. But intense sunspot activity
in 1978-79 created a slight expansion of Earth's atmosphere,
increasing the drag that the station was experiencing. Skylab
re-entered the atmosphere and disintegrated in July, 1979. Had things
gone as they should have, the station might still be up there today.
The shuttle, conceived as the means by which an American space
station would be built by 1985, has instead become a high-priced
truck. It primarily carries commercial payloads up. Then, it brings
them down. On occasion, it carries something (considered safe) for
the military or even takes a scientific payload into orbit.
In less than a decade, we went from having no manned space
program at all to walking on the moon. WE LEFT EARTH. WE WENT
SOMEWHERE. But for the past fourteen years, the stagnant shuttle has
been going around and around the Earth, going nowhere. Building
nothing.
None of what I am writing here is meant to belittle the
efforts of the many fine men and women who have worked so hard to keep
the shuttle fleet flying. But even Gene Kranz, the primary Flight
Director for the manned Apollo missions, admitted that NASA management
had dropped the ball concerning the shuttle -- they had let a fine
space effort be reduced to nothing more than a dead-end trucking
service. And now, after decades of delays and double-talk, we hear
talk of a new space station, to be named Alpha. Not an American
effort, but a global one. Rather than leading man's space adventure,
America is now a straggler, 'floundering in the backwash' of space
exploration, to quote Kennedy. Our leaders, their vision for the
future extinguished by public apathy, canceled America's Space Station
Freedom before it got off the drawing boards -- and today even Alpha
is in question.
We no longer have the desire to go into space. Just as we are
still flying mended B-52 bombers built almost fifty years ago, we'll
fly the shuttles we have until they finally break down so badly they
can't be patched up any more. We'll stop going into space at all, and
the worst part is we probably won't care. Then, we'll sit here,
earthbound on an overcrowded world, fighting and killing each other
over the last scraps of food.
At the earliest, assuming it is built at all, Alpha might be
completed by 2015. Any manned Mars mission we might embark upon -- in
conjunction with Russia and/or Japan, because we certainly won't do it
on our own -- won't happen until 2020. Commercial flights into space
are still a dream, one that couldn't possibly become a reality before
2040, if at all. Lunar bases aren't even on the drawing boards
anymore.
We are now, as of this writing, a full half-century behind the
schedule NASA had set in the late 1960s.
And here's a sobering thought -- after the manned lunar
landings were completed, this country's entire lunar flight capability
was scrapped. I spoke a few days ago with Jerry Bostick, a former
NASA flight controller (and technical advisor to Apollo 13). He
confirmed something I had heard elsewhere -- every shred of material
pertaining to the construction of Apollo hardware has been removed
from American industry. All of the blueprints, special tooling and
dies, and operations manuals for everything from the Saturn V rocket
to the lunar module to the spacesuits worn on the moon have been
DESTROYED. Our capability for building and launching such great
vehicles as the Saturn V are utterly gone. Jerry told me that he
called up his longtime buddies at Grumman during the pre-production of
Apollo 13, looking for reference materials from which the film's lunar
module mockups could be built. There were none to be found --
everything from design sketches to engineers' notes to blueprints had
been tossed between ten and fifteen years ago. We had the means for
reaching another world, and then we threw it all away.
All of our 'space' exploration eggs have been placed in the
aging space shuttle basket. And those of you who think the shuttle
could go to the moon, think again. The shuttle's three main engines
are used only for liftoff and have no fuel source once the external
tank has been jettisoned. The small OMS engines that remain are only
powerful enough for minor orbital corrections and re-entry retrofire.
They cannot boost the shuttle enough to attain escape velocity and
head toward the moon, nor do they have the fuel to try. Even if they
could, they couldn't then slow the massive shuttle enough near the
moon to put it into lunar orbit. The shuttle cannot land on the moon,
for like an airplane it needs an atmosphere in order to slow down (and
needs a runway, besides). And even if the shuttle magically found
itself safely on the lunar surface, it has no fuel for liftoff and no
way to break lunar orbit in order to head home.
To top it all off, the shuttle is not designed for the
re-entry speed a returning lunar craft would have to have in order to
break free of the moon's gravity. Shuttles normally hit the
atmosphere at 17,600 MPH, a much slower speed than the 25,000 MPH once
attained by returning Apollo command modules. Any shuttle that tried
would burn up in the atmosphere.
The shuttle's payload bay is not large enough to carry a
separate moonship into orbit, if you're wondering about that. And
such a craft would also be too heavy for the shuttle -- its cargo
lift capacity is 65,000 pounds, and, as an example, the Apollo
command, service, and lunar modules combined weighed in excess of
105,000 pounds. No conceivable lunar craft, given the requirements of
fuel and other factors, could weigh less than 80,000 pounds.
It is not impossible that, at some point in the future, a
moonship could be built in orbit. But if we had any intention of
dedicating the time and resources necessary for building something in
orbit, it would be a space station, not a moonship.
No, folks. To go to the moon again, we would literally have
to start over, from scratch. And that isn't likely.
We are no more capable of landing a man on the moon today than
we were during the Civil War. Your children will not know American
lunar exploration in their lifetimes. Think about it.
I have heard many people say that they hope the success of the
movie Apollo 13 (a wonderful film, about which I will have much to say
in upcoming issues) will help to create a new desire for space
exploration. I, too, wish it would.
It won't. The movie has almost completed its theatrical run,
and will soon go to video. But it will be quickly forgotten, replaced
in the mind of America by Terminator 3 or Halloween XXXVIII or Mortal
Kombat XII, take your pick. We have a short attention span, and it's
getting shorter all the time.
We watch television and dream of a future filled with warp
drive and phasers and transporters and the like, with huge starships
heading out across interstellar seas in search of knowledge. It's
certainly okay to dream -- it fills our daily lives with hope. And
it's okay to watch television, so long as we remember that such things
as Star Trek are entertainment, and nothing more -- we cannot let
fandom supplant real space exploration, nor real life in any context.
We can't let the adventures of Kirk and Spock and Picard and
Janeway serve as an acceptable substitute for the real thing. I have
heard many of you say that real spaceflight is 'too boring' or 'not as
cool as Star Trek,' and given a choice between the two you'd rather
have the television show. To those people, I say GET A GRIP. IT'S
MAKE-BELIEVE. Star Trek fans, of all people, should be out there
spearheading the demand for real live homegrown American spaceflight,
the kind they used to make when I was a kid. The kind they promised
me would still be happening today. I can only hope that, somehow, the
deep significance of those first footprints on the moon will sink in
out there and spark something in you couch-tribbles that gets you off
your 'I-always-watch-everything-with-Star
Trek-in-the-title-even-though-I've-already-seen-every-episode-and-every-movie-fifty-times'
Trekkie butts and out into the real world, where you can help make
real space travel happen again.
I once got into a discussion with a friend over holodecks. He
said that if the holodeck was ever really invented, mankind would
totally abandon spaceflight (and real life as a whole) and vegetate,
as a race, inside the holographic fiction it had created. At the
time, I said he was wrong -- I thought the need to explore and learn
and 'boldly go where no man has gone before' would prevail.
I was wrong. He was right. Hell, people, some of you are
already doing just that, and it's only television, not a fully
simulated interactive 'reality.' Throw in the capabilities of a
holodeck, and some of you -- you know who you are -- would grow old
and die in there without ever coming out.
It may already be too late for us to convince our government
that some of us really do want to go to the stars, after all. But you
and I have to try, because the truth is that mankind as a whole
doesn't want to go. We complained when our soaps and sporting events
were pre-empted by coverage of lunar landings. And as recently as
twelve years ago, we complained so hard that no one carried live
coverage of shuttle launches any more. When Challenger exploded, not
a single network had covered the launch and there was a half-hour
scramble to get something on the air. Again, today, now that the
shuttle program is back to 'normal,' there's so little press coverage
we usually don't even know when there's a shuttle up and when there
isn't.
We who want real spaceflight, we who thrill at the sound of
that little beep during ground-to-spacecraft communications, we who
remember the wonder of Apollo -- are an overwhelming minority.
Unless man undergoes a wholesale change in what he is and what
he desires -- something that hasn't happened in his thousands of years
upon this planet -- the kind of space efforts seen in such shows as
Star Trek will remain nothing but fiction. We'll always find a reason
to expend our time and resources on earthbound things. We'll have
neither the will or the drive to go into space, and our government
won't supply the funds to make it possible.
And don't think that, once things here get bad enough, our
dwindling resources will finally 'kick us out of the cradle' and force
us into space. When the resources get low, the last thing mankind is
going to do is devote the last of what it has to a pipedream like
space travel. Our final efforts will go into making more weapons and
whatever else it takes to steal the last bits of food or fresh water
away from someone else. That's what happened to the vanished people
of Easter Island, and it will happen again. That's what man is.
That's what he'll always be.
I was supposed to be only forty-two. We were supposed to go
to the stars.
Well, it just isn't going to happen, folks. Not ever. You
heard it here first.
Bruce "B-chan" Lewis
Thanks for posting such a moving and heartfelt essay, danafox. Although you
got a fact wrong here or there, it's the SPIRIT of what you were saying that
counted--and it's with that spirit I totally agree.
dan...@airmail.net wrote:
> I once got into a discussion with a friend over holodecks. He
> said that if the holodeck was ever really invented, mankind would
> totally abandon spaceflight (and real life as a whole) and vegetate,
> as a race, inside the holographic fiction it had created. At the
> time, I said he was wrong -- I thought the need to explore and learn
> and 'boldly go where no man has gone before' would prevail.
>
> I was wrong. He was right. Hell, people, some of you are
> already doing just that, and it's only television, not a fully
> simulated interactive 'reality.' Throw in the capabilities of a
> holodeck, and some of you -- you know who you are -- would grow old
> and die in there without ever coming out
God, I hope so. I hope the human race turns into a race of holodeck-lapping
sacks of crap, spending 24 hours a day, every day, living in their so-called
"virtual worlds." I really, really, want this to happen.
Why? Because if it does, then the few of us who refuse to live a simulated life,
even if that simulated life is indistinguishible from reality, will have a field
day. Let the losers sit around with their digital thumbs up their cyber-asses!
Me and my buddies will take over the world that much faster. I look forward
with zest to the day technology advances to the point that a "holodeck" is
possible, because then I'll use that VR technology to construct an Orion ship
and spend the following few days dropping gigaton nukes or asteroid bombs on
the hapless slack-jawed Netwits. "Simulate THIS!"
> I was supposed to be only forty-two. We were supposed to go
> to the stars.
>
> Well, it just isn't going to happen, folks. Not ever. You
> heard it here first.
Don't give up. Never, never, never give up. I want my goddamn future back.
Empty the Pocket,
Bruce "B-chan" Lewis
Manhattan Projects Multimedia
***************************************
Current project: writing/layout for
STAR BLAZERS: BE FOREVER YAMATO, a
four-part comics adventure beginning
in issue #9 of STAR BLAZERS:
THE MAGAZINE OF SPACE BATTLESHIP YAMATO.
Order it from your local comics shop or
call 800-704-4040.
***************************************
SEE YOU THERE! 2018 WINTER OLYMPICS
TYCHO CITY, LUNA, USA
Paul F. Dietz
dan...@airmail.net wrote:
> If not for NASA's lunar
> program of the 1960s, America's technological level would still be
> little changed from what we had in the 1950s. Computers half as
> powerful as the one I am writing this commentary on would still fill
> whole rooms.
This is utter nonsense. By the *start* of the Apollo program,
electronics technology was already advanced over the 1950s. It would
have continued to advance anyway -- after all, the first design win
for ICs was a military program, not Apollo, and defense spending has
always dwarfed space spending. At best, one could argue that Apollo
helped slightly accelerate IC development, by providing a larger
market during a period of a few years. However, ICs were invented
before Apollo and would have been continued to have been developed
even without Apollo; their advantages in situations requiring high
reliability (for example, avionics and naval electronics) were and are
overwhelmingly important.
Paul
Rocky and Mugsy
dan...@airmail.net wrote:
>This is a commentary I wrote last year. I though some of you might be
>interested in reading it.
>
>Sorry for the negative tone, but it's the way I see it.
>
>
>Shane Johnson
Excellent work, Shane.....I, too, remember that night as if it were just
yesterday.
Buzz Aldrin wrote in his book "Men from Earth" of the time he was at the
Smithsonian Institute, where there is a lunar module on exhibit.
He remembers a young family staring inquisitively at it...but none of
them knew what it was, and they hadn't seen the explanation panel.
"What's that thing, Dad?" one of the kids asked.....
"The father replied "I don't know, Jason, but I think it goes up on the
shuttle."
Pretty sad indeed...You also mentioned the fact that people became irate
when telecasts of moon-walks pre-empted their TV programs. This sense of
apathy goes back just a little further than this....
When Neil Armstrong and David Scott were forced to bring their Gemini
spacecraft back and make an emergency landing, the telephone switchboards
of the major TV networks were jammed with hundreds of complaints from
people whose favourite programs ("Batman" and "The Virginian") were
interrupted due to network coverage!!
An entire generation of people has come of age since that enthralling
Sunday night back in 1969, and, sadly, they care nothing of the past, and
have no desire to learn.
"What? There's an Apollo documentary on TBS? Nah, couldn't be bothered-
Now, what channel is the monster-truck-pull on?"
God help us all. Thanks for posting your article.
R&M
Jim Kingdon
> From the book "Computers in Space" (1994, Alpha Books), pages 188-189: . . .
> NASA's influence of the computing industry was monumental
Well, does the book cite references?
All I see there are a bunch of unsupported and dubious claims. They
even give NASA credit for the internet, which is nonsense. The
internet grew out of (first) ARPANET and (later) BITNET, UUCP and
various other networks only a few of which had anything at all to do
with NASA.
I'm with the skeptics, unless someone can produce some real evidence
instead of just the usual Public Relations BS which we have all seen
ad nauseum.
Dwayne Allen Day
: In <32d2de8a...@news.airmail.net>, dan...@airmail.net writes:
: >All of the blueprints, special tooling and dies, and operations manuals
: >for everything from the Saturn V rocket to the lunar module to the
: >spacesuits worn on the moon have been DESTROYED.
Nope. You are repeating yet another common myth about the space program
(your second--the first one being the one about Apollo's contributions to
computers).
This is not true by a long shot. The special tooling is long gone, but no
one will pay to store several warehouses of equipment to build equipment
that no one else wants. The special tooling for the 1971 Corvette is also
long gone.
As for the blueprints, the statement that they were destroyed is totally
false. The most important information concerns the engines, and
Rocketdyne was actually PAID by NASA to make a special effort to preserve
this material. Not only does the company have several flight qualified
engines, plus all the blueprints, it also has an extensive audio archive
of interviews with the engineers on production techniques, problems and
solutions, etc. Blueprints for most major systems for the Saturn V were
also preserved. The key issue in reviving the Saturn V (assuming that you
wanted to) would be dealing with systems and materials which haven't been
manufactured for three decades now. But virtually all the technical
documentation was preserved.
DDAY
--
The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant.
Alex Mericas
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
>
> dan...@airmail.net wrote:
>
> > If not for NASA's lunar
> > program of the 1960s, America's technological level would still be
> > little changed from what we had in the 1950s. Computers half as
> > powerful as the one I am writing this commentary on would still fill
> > whole rooms.
>
> electronics technology was already advanced over the 1950s. It would
> have continued to advance anyway -- after all, the first design win
> for ICs was a military program, not Apollo, and defense spending has
Perhaps it is just PR. Given the political/social landscape in the 60s
and 70s, it would have been easier to say we owe it all to Apollo than
to say we owe it all to Vietnam/Cold War.
--
dan...@airmail.net
On 8 Jan 1997 12:44:24 GMT, JHOLL4@ wrote:
>In <32d2de8a...@news.airmail.net>, dan...@airmail.net writes:
>>All of the blueprints, special tooling and dies, and operations manuals
>>for everything from the Saturn V rocket to the lunar module to the
>>spacesuits worn on the moon have been DESTROYED.
>
> I'm pretty certain this is NOT true. The tooling is gone, but
>the blueprints aren't.
>
> --Cathy Mancus <man...@vnet.ibm.com>
>
I'm certain it is. You guys seem to think I made this stuff up.
As I said --
I spoke with Jerry Bostick, a former NASA flight controller (and
technical advisor to Apollo 13). He confirmed something I had heard
elsewhere -- every shred of material pertaining to the construction of
Apollo hardware has been removed from American industry.
All of the blueprints, special tooling and dies, and operations
manuals for everything from the Saturn V rocket
to the lunar module to the spacesuits worn on the moon have been
DESTROYED. Our capability for building and launching such great
vehicles as the Saturn V are utterly gone. Jerry told me that he
called up his longtime buddies at Grumman during the pre-production of
Apollo 13, looking for reference materials from which the film's lunar
module mockups could be built. There were none to be found --
everything from design sketches to engineers' notes to blueprints had
been tossed between ten and fifteen years ago.
I also heard this directly from Space Works, who built the LM and CM
interior sets for the movie Apollo 13. They told me the same story --
no matter where they turned for research material, there was NONE to
be found. Nothing was saved. We weren't going to do Apollo again, so
everything was pitched. It was saved up until the early 1980s, but
that was all.
There are plenty of NASA documents at Rice University, but these are
not the industrial construction materials used by the major
contractors in the building of the Apollo spacecraft, the Saturn V
rocket, and the smaller components of the program.
Call them if you don't believe me. I'm not happy about this fact.
I'm just reporting it.
Dwayne Allen Day
dan...@airmail.net wrote:
: from the mid-fifties until then, military or no. Had our accelerated
: moon program -- Mercury, Gemini, and the culmination of Apollo -- not
: occurred, computer science and much of technical science as we know it
: would be FAR behind where it is now. The miniaturization of computers
: and other electronics came primarily as a result of the constant need
: to miniaturize for spacecraft systems, where size and weight were
: critical.
Okay. Prove it. Please cite a source. I'll provide a nice source on
Apollo and computers (written under NASA contract, even) which states that
the Saturn and Apollo CSM computers were NOT terribly impressive by the
day's standards.
And, as Mr. Dietz said, miniaturization was not the primary
need--reliability was.
Dwayne Allen Day
Paul F. Dietz (di...@interaccess.com) wrote:
: > If not for NASA's lunar
: > program of the 1960s, America's technological level would still be
: > little changed from what we had in the 1950s. Computers half as
: > powerful as the one I am writing this commentary on would still fill
: > whole rooms.
: This is utter nonsense. By the *start* of the Apollo program,
: electronics technology was already advanced over the 1950s. It would
: have continued to advance anyway -- after all, the first design win
: for ICs was a military program, not Apollo, and defense spending has
Yep. The computer myth is one of the biggies from the Apollo program.
NASA did a book on the computers on Apollo which acknowledged that the
computers used on the LM and CSM were not very advanced at all. A few
other computers used for guidance for the upper stages of the Saturn V
were more advanced, but Apollo did not have much impact on computer
technology at all. ICBMs certainly did, but I bet that nuclear weapons
research had an even bigger impact. At some point, commercial needs
surpassed military ones, and drove the system, although I don't know
enough about the business to say with confidence when this happened. My
guess is that it happened in the early seventies.
Bill Higgins
In article <5b0n2m$55a$1...@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>, wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Dwayne Allen Day) writes:
> dan...@airmail.net wrote:
> : Had our accelerated
> : moon program -- Mercury, Gemini, and the culmination of Apollo -- not
> : occurred, computer science and much of technical science as we know it
> : would be FAR behind where it is now. The miniaturization of computers
> : and other electronics came primarily as a result of the constant need
> : to miniaturize for spacecraft systems, where size and weight were
> : critical.
>
> Okay. Prove it. Please cite a source. I'll provide a nice source on
> Apollo and computers (written under NASA contract, even) which states that
> the Saturn and Apollo CSM computers were NOT terribly impressive by the
> day's standards.
I have a strong feeling that Dwayne is referring to James Tomayko's
history, which fits this description. It's obscure-- I've never seen
a copy-- but it seems likely that one could find one or more copies
lying around GWU's library or Space Policy Institute.
By the time I read his posting, Shane Johnson had responded to the
thread by quoting a hunk from the book *Computers in Space*, a book
for the layman on the history of NASA computers, also by James
Tomayko.
It will be interesting to see you guys duke it out over this question
by quoting extensively from the same scholar.
"Me, I just want to destroy | Bill Higgins
all of the computers and start over." | Fermilab
--Kevin Nickerson (kevin.n...@hal9k.com) |
on compatibility and The Right Thing To Do | hig...@fnal.fnal.gov
JHOLL4
>for everything from the Saturn V rocket to the lunar module to the
>spacesuits worn on the moon have been DESTROYED.
I'm pretty certain this is NOT true. The tooling is gone, but
dan...@airmail.net
On Wed, 08 Jan 1997 01:05:43 GMT, di...@interaccess.com (Paul F.
Dietz) wrote:
>dan...@airmail.net wrote:
>
>> If not for NASA's lunar
>> program of the 1960s, America's technological level would still be
>> little changed from what we had in the 1950s. Computers half as
>> powerful as the one I am writing this commentary on would still fill
>> whole rooms.
>
>This is utter nonsense. By the *start* of the Apollo program,
>electronics technology was already advanced over the 1950s. It would
>have continued to advance anyway -- after all, the first design win
>for ICs was a military program, not Apollo, and defense spending has
>always dwarfed space spending. At best, one could argue that Apollo
>helped slightly accelerate IC development, by providing a larger
>market during a period of a few years. However, ICs were invented
>before Apollo and would have been continued to have been developed
>even without Apollo; their advantages in situations requiring high
>reliability (for example, avionics and naval electronics) were and are
>overwhelmingly important.
>
> Paul
Thanks, Paul.
The 'start' of the Apollo program came in 1962. Little had changed
from the mid-fifties until then, military or no. Had our accelerated
moon program -- Mercury, Gemini, and the culmination of Apollo -- not
occurred, computer science and much of technical science as we know it
would be FAR behind where it is now. The miniaturization of computers
and other electronics came primarily as a result of the constant need
to miniaturize for spacecraft systems, where size and weight were
critical.
Utter nonsense? Nice, Paul. Real nice. You must be a diplomat.
Shane
Paul F. Dietz
dan...@airmail.net wrote:
>The 'start' of the Apollo program came in 1962. Little had changed
>from the mid-fifties until then, military or no.
ROTFL! Between the mid-50s and 1962, integrated circuits wthemselves
were invented and first marketed (invented 1957 through 1959; marketed
1961.)
> The miniaturization of computers
>and other electronics came primarily as a result of the constant need
>to miniaturize for spacecraft systems, where size and weight were
>critical.
Also wrong. Integrated circuit development was *not* driven by
the need to miniaturize circuits. This was a welcome side effect (as
was reduction in power use), yes, but it was not the driver. The
driver was reliability. Every connection between components in a
system is a source of unreliability. For the Minuteman I guidance
computer, made with discrete components, the necessary reliability was
achieved by heroic testing of components and subsystems. It was
estimated that if the same level of testing had been applied to the
rest of the military electronics system, the cost would have exceeded
the US GNP. This was why they went to ICs for Minuteman II; the
on-chip connections were much more reliable.
This high reliability was becoming crucial for non-space applications,
in particular miliary avionics and naval electronics, where a
substantial fraction of aircraft (for example) were down at any time
due to electronics failures.
Paul
Craig Ligon
> >>>for everything from the Saturn V rocket to the lunar module to the
> >>>spacesuits worn on the moon have been DESTROYED.
I am afraid that I am going to have to back Shane on this one. I have been trying
for quite a long time to obtain blueprints on both the Saturn V and the gantry and NO
ONE has been able to give me documents or sources.
>Chuck Buckley wrote:
>
> And everyone has a tendency to contact the contractors, not the owners.
> Did *anyone* think to check with NASA? Did anyone think to contact
> the National Archives? (I am not sure which would store the info).
> Did you contact the National Air and Space Museum? Or the Kansas
> site? They are the locations that actively restore Apollo hardware. Where
> do they get their documentation?
>
I have tried the contractors, Kennedy, Johnson, NASM, Rice, private collectors and
several others and I just get nothing. If these blueprints do exist, either in paper
or microfiche form, no one can find them or give me any idea where to get them. If
they do still exist they must have been sealed with the Kennedy assassination
documentation and later destroyed in the name of "national security" :)
If anyone can tell me of some sources I would be quite thankful for any leads at this
point. As it is, I cannot find any evidence to sugest they still exist, however, I
would love to be proved wrong.
Thanks,
Craig Ligon
--
*************************************************
Cacyl Enterprises
-------
What really interests me is whether God had any choice
in the creation of the world.
Albert Einstein
dan...@airmail.net
On 8 Jan 1997 04:13:21 GMT, wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Dwayne Allen
Day) wrote:
>Paul F. Dietz (di...@interaccess.com) wrote:
>: > If not for NASA's lunar
>: > program of the 1960s, America's technological level would still be
>: > little changed from what we had in the 1950s. Computers half as
>: > powerful as the one I am writing this commentary on would still fill
>: > whole rooms.
>
>: This is utter nonsense. By the *start* of the Apollo program,
>: electronics technology was already advanced over the 1950s. It would
>: have continued to advance anyway -- after all, the first design win
>: for ICs was a military program, not Apollo, and defense spending has
>
>Yep. The computer myth is one of the biggies from the Apollo program.
>NASA did a book on the computers on Apollo which acknowledged that the
>computers used on the LM and CSM were not very advanced at all. A few
>other computers used for guidance for the upper stages of the Saturn V
>were more advanced, but Apollo did not have much impact on computer
>technology at all. ICBMs certainly did, but I bet that nuclear weapons
>research had an even bigger impact. At some point, commercial needs
>surpassed military ones, and drove the system, although I don't know
>enough about the business to say with confidence when this happened. My
>guess is that it happened in the early seventies.
NASA’s effect on the computer industry is no myth.
From the book ‘Computers in Space’ (1994, Alpha Books), pages 188-189:
“NASA began -- almost the day it was founded in 1958 -- to push the
state of computing art in many ways: new uses (simulations, flight
control), new components (integrated circuits), new system
architectures (networking, redundancy). The pressure of the
politically-driven 1960s carried this momentum until the moment of the
moon landing. After that, NASA’s role as a big driver of computer
technology diminished with its budget and influence.
“The 1960s marked the era of great synergy between the needs of NASA
and the expansion of computing into all walks of life. NASA needed
lightweight, low-power, reliable components, so the agency sparked
chip production and the design of new integrated circuits. NASA
needed high-speed processing of large amounts of data, so the industry
(notably IBM) responded with families of mainframes -- and sold NASA
the high-end models in each case. NASA needed ultra-reliable
software, so research labs like Draper had to adopt new verification
and validation methods; these are used to test software in embedded
systems to this day.
“This synergy (between NASA and the computer research industry)
generated spinoffs readily apparent in the 1990s. They include: safe,
computer-based flight-control systems, embedded systems in
automobiles, stereos, and nearly every other product that can be
helped by a processor, and worldwide networks forming the ‘Informstion
Superhighway.’ All these uses were pioneered in the late 1950s and
1960s, when NASA was one of the main players making demands on
computer science and software engineering.”
Those of you who think that today’s computer industry would be
ANYWHERE NEAR where it is today if not for NASA of the 1960s are just
wrong. NASA’s influence of the computing industry was monumental, and
I GUARANTEE that home PCs, in any form such as that we know, would not
exist today had NASA not been involved back then.
Shane Johnson
Chuck Buckley
In article <32d50a2d...@news.airmail.net>, <dan...@airmail.net> wrote:
>On 8 Jan 1997 12:44:24 GMT, JHOLL4@ wrote:
>
>>>for everything from the Saturn V rocket to the lunar module to the
>>>spacesuits worn on the moon have been DESTROYED.
>>
>>the blueprints aren't.
>>
>> --Cathy Mancus <man...@vnet.ibm.com>
>>
>
>
>
>As I said --
>
>technical advisor to Apollo 13). He confirmed something I had heard
>elsewhere -- every shred of material pertaining to the construction of
>Apollo hardware has been removed from American industry.
>All of the blueprints, special tooling and dies, and operations
>manuals for everything from the Saturn V rocket
>to the lunar module to the spacesuits worn on the moon have been
>DESTROYED. Our capability for building and launching such great
>vehicles as the Saturn V are utterly gone. Jerry told me that he
>called up his longtime buddies at Grumman during the pre-production of
>Apollo 13, looking for reference materials from which the film's lunar
>module mockups could be built. There were none to be found --
>everything from design sketches to engineers' notes to blueprints had
>been tossed between ten and fifteen years ago.
>
he was quite correct. The last copy was donated to the Huntsville Boy Scout
Troop in their paper drive. However, every shred of that was placed on
microfilm prior to the disposal of the docs. If you have ever worked on
a government project, you would know how difficult it is to obsolete
anything out of the inventory. Individual companies only keep records
for a few years after the prduct is obsoleted. (HP keeps these for 5 years, I
believe). You friend basically went looking for the wrong sources. Items
built under contract by the US has to supply copies of the documents to
the US government as the US government is the owner of the blueprints.
>
>
>I also heard this directly from Space Works, who built the LM and CM
>interior sets for the movie Apollo 13. They told me the same story --
>no matter where they turned for research material, there was NONE to
>be found. Nothing was saved. We weren't going to do Apollo again, so
>everything was pitched. It was saved up until the early 1980s, but
>that was all.
>
And everyone has a tendency to contact the contractors, not the owners.
Did *anyone* think to check with NASA? Did anyone think to contact
the National Archives? (I am not sure which would store the info).
Did you contact the National Air and Space Museum? Or the Kansas
site? They are the locations that actively restore Apollo hardware. Where
do they get their documentation?
>There are plenty of NASA documents at Rice University, but these are
>not the industrial construction materials used by the major
>contractors in the building of the Apollo spacecraft, the Saturn V
>rocket, and the smaller components of the program.
>
>Call them if you don't believe me. I'm not happy about this fact.
>I'm just reporting it.
Incorrectly.
--
Charles Buckley |
cbuc...@swttools.fc.hp.com | "What we have here is a failure
(970) 229-7607 | to assimilate"..
I definately do not speak for HP | --Cool Hand Locutus
Dwayne Allen Day
Bill Higgins (hig...@fnald.fnal.gov) wrote:
: By the time I read his posting, Shane Johnson had responded to the
: thread by quoting a hunk from the book *Computers in Space*, a book
: for the layman on the history of NASA computers, also by James
: Tomayko.
Computers in Spaceflight:
The NASA Experience
James E. Tomayko
Page 32
"When MIT switched to ICs, it kept the Apollo computer as 'state of the
art' at least during its design stage. It would be hopelessly outdated
technologically by the time of the lunar landing 7 years later, but in
1962, using the new microcircuits seemed to be a risk."
That's just one example. Note that the author states that the MIT people
working on the Apollo computers chose not to use the riskiest and most
leading-edge technology. This has always been the case for NASA (and it
is an argument that has been fielded here by Mr. Spencer, who has noted
that JPL scientists don't like using unflown hardware for their space
probes). When it comes to computers, NASA wanted what worked, not
something that was razzle-dazzle and pushed the edge of the envelope.
Those kinds of things killed astronauts and were to be avoided.
Brett Holman
dan...@airmail.net wrote:
>
> On 8 Jan 1997 12:44:24 GMT, JHOLL4@ wrote:
>
> >In <32d2de8a...@news.airmail.net>, dan...@airmail.net writes:
> >>for everything from the Saturn V rocket to the lunar module to the
> >>spacesuits worn on the moon have been DESTROYED.
> >
> >the blueprints aren't.
> >
> > --Cathy Mancus <man...@vnet.ibm.com>
> >
>
> I'm certain it is. You guys seem to think I made this stuff up.
Well, I (as well as the alt.folklore.urban crowd) had written this
off as an urban legend. Now though, I'm not so sure. I did a little
digging around. From the sci.space FAQ at
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/sci.space.tech/Space_FAQ_10_13_-_Controversial_Questions
<start quote>
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SATURN V PLANS
Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, the Saturn V blueprints
have not been lost. They are kept at Marshall Space Flight Center on
microfilm. The Federal Archives in East Point, GA also has 2900 cubic
feet of Saturn documents. Rocketdyne has in its archives dozens of
volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program. This effort was initiated
in the late '60s to document every facet of F-1 and J-2 engine
production to assist in any future re-start.
The problem in re-creating the Saturn V is not finding the drawings, it
is finding vendors who can supply mid-1960's vintage hardware (like
guidance system components), and the fact that the launch pads and VAB
have been converted to Space Shuttle use, so you have no place to launch
from.
By the time you redesign to accommodate available hardware and re-modify
the launch pads, you may as well have started from scratch with a clean
sheet design.
Other references:
Several AIAA papers delivered in recent years discuss reviving the
Saturn V. For example, AIAA paper 92-1546, "Launch Vehicles for the
Space Exploration Initiative". This paper concluded that a revived
Saturn V was actually cheaper than the NLS vehicle.
An overview of the infrastructure still available to support production
of a 1990s Saturn V and how that vehicle might be used to support First
Lunar Outpost missions can be found in the December 1993 issue of
_Spaceflight_, published by the British Interplanetary Society.
<end quote>
There is nothing about the records on the Marshall (www.msfc.nasa.gov)
nor the Rocketdyne (www.rdyne.rockwell.com) websites, which proves
nothing in itself. From the National Archives and Records Administration
web (www.nara.gov), you can get to a listing of records held from
NASA at
gopher://gopher.nara.gov:70/00/inform/guide/200s/rg255.txt
This is from the 1995 edition of the "Guide to Federal Records in
the National Archives of the United States". I won't quote it all,
but I can't see any reference to anything which could be construed
as being blueprints for Saturn V or Apollo components. Can ANYBODY
provide AUTHORITATIVE references on this to settle it one way or the
other? (Much as I liked Apollo 13, the production staff thereof is
not a valid reference.:)
--
______________________________________________________________________
Brett Holman bho...@physics.unimelb.edu.au
School of Physics http://astro.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~bholman/
University of Melbourne * I can't believe that I, let alone the Uni, *
AUSTRALIA * would hold the opinions expressed here. *
Stop quoting the laws to us. We carry swords. - Pompey the Great
Nothing happens in contradiction to nature - only in contradiction to
what we know of it. -- Dana Scully
Brett Holman
Dwayne Allen Day wrote:
> Note that the author states that the MIT people
> working on the Apollo computers chose not to use the riskiest and most
> leading-edge technology. This has always been the case for NASA (and it
> is an argument that has been fielded here by Mr. Spencer, who has noted
> that JPL scientists don't like using unflown hardware for their space
> probes). When it comes to computers, NASA wanted what worked, not
> something that was razzle-dazzle and pushed the edge of the envelope.
> Those kinds of things killed astronauts and were to be avoided.
Indeed. (Can anybody say HAL 9000? ;) I suspect (but can't prove) that
a better case could be made for NASA's ground based computing (for
simulations, orbital calculations, etc) driving computer technology
more than computers on the spacecraft themselves. I wouldn't
have thought that even this exceeds the effect of military and
commercial needs.
dan...@airmail.net
On 9 Jan 1997 00:29:07 GMT, cbuc...@fc.hp.com (Chuck Buckley) wrote:
>In article <32d50a2d...@news.airmail.net>, <dan...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>I spoke with Jerry Bostick, a former NASA flight controller (and
>>technical advisor to Apollo 13). He confirmed something I had heard
>>elsewhere -- every shred of material pertaining to the construction of
>>Apollo hardware has been removed from American industry.
>>All of the blueprints, special tooling and dies, and operations
>>manuals for everything from the Saturn V rocket
>>to the lunar module to the spacesuits worn on the moon have been
>>DESTROYED. Our capability for building and launching such great
>>vehicles as the Saturn V are utterly gone. Jerry told me that he
>>called up his longtime buddies at Grumman during the pre-production of
>>Apollo 13, looking for reference materials from which the film's lunar
>>module mockups could be built. There were none to be found --
>>everything from design sketches to engineers' notes to blueprints had
>>been tossed between ten and fifteen years ago.
>>
>
> Well, if he was referring to the *paper* copies of the Saturn V blueprints,
>he was quite correct. However, every shred of that was placed on
>microfilm prior to the disposal of the docs.
What is your source for this?
I cannot believe that Mr. Bostick, as well as those at the
Cosmosphere, who are experts at acquisition and know where to look for
such things, could not have located these materials if they were there
to be found.
I believe what Mr. Bostick told me -- the plans for the Apollo
hardware were not archived after the early 1980's in any way because
the technology was obsolete, we would not be returning to the moon in
the foreseeable future, and if we ever did the Apollo technology would
be so much more antequated by then as to be of no use.
>>I also heard this directly from Space Works, who built the LM and CM
>>interior sets for the movie Apollo 13. They told me the same story --
>>no matter where they turned for research material, there was NONE to
>>be found. Nothing was saved. We weren't going to do Apollo again, so
>>everything was pitched. It was saved up until the early 1980s, but
>>that was all.
>>There are plenty of NASA documents at Rice University, but these are
>>not the industrial construction materials used by the major
>>contractors in the building of the Apollo spacecraft, the Saturn V
>>rocket, and the smaller components of the program.
>>
>>Call them if you don't believe me. I'm not happy about this fact.
>>I'm just reporting it.
> Incorrectly.
Please prove it.
Until I see other proof, I'm taking the word of Mr. Bostick, the
archivists at Grumman, the Kansas Cosmosphere, and Space Works.
You're all free to believe whatever you want. I didn't come in here
to start an argument. I just felt I needed to speak out.
Last time I post a heartfelt concern around here, folks. For those
who sent along kind words by e-mail and shared my concerns, thank you.
Your words are appreciated.
Scott Lowther
In <32D489...@dallas.net> Craig Ligon <li...@dallas.net> writes:
>
>
>I am afraid that I am going to have to back Shane on this one. I have
been trying
>for quite a long time to obtain blueprints on both the Saturn V and
the gantry and NO
>ONE has been able to give me documents or sources.
It depends on how detailed you want your blueprints. As I sit here, I
can see a six-foot long NASA Marshall diagram of the Saturn V taped to
my office wall. The story on this one: I got this copy from a former
coworker, who got it from a friend, who pulled it out of the NASA
Marshal trash bin. It was in pieces, but has been restored (still has
some spurious page overlap lines though). This drawings is scaled at
something like 1/65 scale... and it's obviously greatly reduced from
the original (by a factor of two at least).
I't detailed enough for model work, but if you actually want to BUILD
the Saturn V, you need more than this.
As for the gantry, there is hope. I have been in contact with someone
who has apparently over 5000 copies (mostly from microfilm) of the
launch facilities. So that stuff is out there.
Henry Spencer
In article <32d50a2d...@news.airmail.net> dan...@airmail.net writes:
>I spoke with Jerry Bostick, a former NASA flight controller (and
>technical advisor to Apollo 13). He confirmed something I had heard
>elsewhere -- every shred of material pertaining to the construction of
>Apollo hardware has been removed from American industry.
Why is this a surprise? Industry is not in the business of preserving
historical material, for the most part. The documentation on the
Saturn V and Apollo hardware has been preserved (largely) by NASA, not
by industry. NASA *is* in the business of serving the public interest,
and often manages to do so moderately well.
By the way, Rocketdyne would dispute the assertion that every shred of
material has been removed. They've had a long-standing interest in the
possibility of renewed production of the F-1 and J-2 engines, and have
studied the matter in considerable detail (sometimes with NASA funding).
>...Our capability for building and launching such great
>vehicles as the Saturn V are utterly gone...
Well, this is certainly true, but they're gone in the same sense that our
capability to build shuttle orbiters is gone: it could certainly be done
again, but the cost would be high. Even when Endeavour was built,
*before* the orbiter production line was closed, it cost a good deal more
than the earlier orbiters, because various subcontractors were gone by
that time and Rockwell had to reconstruct their contributions.
>Jerry told me that he
>called up his longtime buddies at Grumman during the pre-production of
>Apollo 13, looking for reference materials from which the film's lunar
>module mockups could be built. There were none to be found --
>everything from design sketches to engineers' notes to blueprints had
>been tossed between ten and fifteen years ago.
Again, yes, so? This is reasonably normal behavior for a commercial
company, responsible to its stockholders for the expenses it incurs.
(Even storing things costs money.) A bit shortsighted, yes, but far
from surprising.
>There are plenty of NASA documents at Rice University, but these are
>not the industrial construction materials used by the major
>contractors...
The tooling was expensive to store -- it was big -- and NASA was not
willing to pay for its preservation. And without the tooling, a good
bit of the specialized knowledge relating to production was of no
particular use -- it would have to be re-established for new tooling
anyway, especially since new technology would be used. (Rocketdyne
would *not* build the F-1 or J-2 the same way they built the originals;
the modern methods are a lot better.) However, it's simply not true
that everything was tossed out; rather, the preservation of knowledge
was (mostly) aimed at things which would indeed be of value if the
effort was made again. Once you decide not to spend quite substantial
sums of money forevermore to store the tooling and preserve the
industrial capabilities, that sharply reduces the value of the more
detailed industrial documentation.
David Woods
In article <32d50a2d...@news.airmail.net>,
<URL:mailto:dan...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> On 8 Jan 1997 12:44:24 GMT, JHOLL4@ wrote:
>
> >In <32d2de8a...@news.airmail.net>, dan...@airmail.net writes:
> >>for everything from the Saturn V rocket to the lunar module to the
> >>spacesuits worn on the moon have been DESTROYED.
> >
> >the blueprints aren't.
>
>
> [SNIP]
> everything from design sketches to engineers' notes to blueprints had
> been tossed between ten and fifteen years ago.
>
> that was all.
>
> not the industrial construction materials used by the major
> rocket, and the smaller components of the program.
In another posting, Dwayne Allen Day wrote:
> As for the blueprints, the statement that they were destroyed is totally
> false. The most important information concerns the engines, and
> Rocketdyne was actually PAID by NASA to make a special effort to preserve
> this material. Not only does the company have several flight qualified
> engines, plus all the blueprints, it also has an extensive audio archive
> of interviews with the engineers on production techniques, problems and
> solutions, etc. Blueprints for most major systems for the Saturn V were
> also preserved. The key issue in reviving the Saturn V (assuming that you
> wanted to) would be dealing with systems and materials which haven't been
> manufactured for three decades now. But virtually all the technical
> documentation was preserved.
I'm intending to look into the technical aspects of Apollo in the near
future (out of my own interest) and I'd really like to know if I'm going
to be wasting my time.
Is good quality, detailed information available on all Apollo flight
systems or not? If 'yes,' where can it be accessed or will snippets have
to be culled from disparate and second hand sources (subsequent books,
interviews and the like)?
If noone has yet compiled a comprehensive technical account of Apollo
hardware and systems then perhaps its time for one. Perhaps something
like theShuttle technical reference manual. Hmm, I wonder what I'm up to
for the next year or two. :-)
Cheers.
--
-----------David Woods, Bearsden, Glasgow.-----------
-----------email da...@wdwoods.demon.co.uk-----------
---------WWW http://www.wdwoods.demon.co.uk/---------
Rich Wielgosz
In <1997Jan...@fnald.fnal.gov>, hig...@fnald.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins) writes:
>> Okay. Prove it. Please cite a source. I'll provide a nice source on
>> Apollo and computers (written under NASA contract, even) which states that
>> the Saturn and Apollo CSM computers were NOT terribly impressive by the
>> day's standards.
>
>I have a strong feeling that Dwayne is referring to James Tomayko's
>history, which fits this description. It's obscure-- I've never seen
>a copy-- but it seems likely that one could find one or more copies
>lying around GWU's library or Space Policy Institute.
It sounds to me like Dwayne might be referring to Contractor report
182505, written by Tomayko called COMPUTERS IN SPACEFLIGHT.
>By the time I read his posting, Shane Johnson had responded to the
>thread by quoting a hunk from the book *Computers in Space*, a book
>for the layman on the history of NASA computers, also by James
>Tomayko.
COMPUTERS IN SPACE is (as Tomayko himself told me) kind of one of those
"Idiots guide" books, since it was released by Alpha books. I don't have
the Alpha books release, but I do have report Contractor's report 182505
and it would be interesting if they contradicted one another.
Rich Wielgosz...
___________________________________________________________________
Richard V. Wielgosz <wiel...@servtech.com>
http://www.servtech.com/public/wielgosz
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chuck Buckley
In article <32D46F...@physics.unimelb.edu.au>,
Brett Holman <bho...@physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>Dwayne Allen Day wrote:
>
>> Note that the author states that the MIT people
>> working on the Apollo computers chose not to use the riskiest and most
>> leading-edge technology. This has always been the case for NASA (and it
>> is an argument that has been fielded here by Mr. Spencer, who has noted
>> that JPL scientists don't like using unflown hardware for their space
>> probes). When it comes to computers, NASA wanted what worked, not
>> something that was razzle-dazzle and pushed the edge of the envelope.
>> Those kinds of things killed astronauts and were to be avoided.
>
>Indeed. (Can anybody say HAL 9000? ;) I suspect (but can't prove) that
>a better case could be made for NASA's ground based computing (for
>simulations, orbital calculations, etc) driving computer technology
>more than computers on the spacecraft themselves. I wouldn't
>have thought that even this exceeds the effect of military and
>commercial needs.
>
You could argue that, but it would not match NASA's purchasing philosophy.
They bought pretty much off the shelf as they had a deadline and have
only upgraded when absolutely forced to. At work here, we heard a report that
they were looking for Apollo DN100 series computers that were obsoleted
a long time ago... And will reach the end of the epoch on 2 Nov 97 and
crash in spectacular style...
Most of the high end computing that I have heard of was driven by
the needs of weather forecasting. Most of Cray's early purchases were by
different weather organizations. (World Meteorological Organization, the
USAF Global Weather Service, etc, etc). Once these machines were out there,
different numerical models were developed for sociological, economic,
and whatever... The other use of computers was in business, and those
requirements greatly pushed the reliability and data storage requirements far
in excess of the relatively meager market that is NASA.
The military was also big on pushing the reliability side of the equation.
They could not afford for a computer to go down. The random targeting
of our missiles daily would have taxed any computer system of that time.
Simulations may have pushed the envelope, but trajectory analysis probably
did not. It does not take much of a computer to do a trajectory analysis.
Dwayne Allen Day
Scott Lowther (lex...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >I am afraid that I am going to have to back Shane on this one. I have
: been trying
: >for quite a long time to obtain blueprints on both the Saturn V and
: the gantry and NO
: >ONE has been able to give me documents or sources.
: It depends on how detailed you want your blueprints. As I sit here, I
: can see a six-foot long NASA Marshall diagram of the Saturn V taped to
: my office wall. The story on this one: I got this copy from a former
: coworker, who got it from a friend, who pulled it out of the NASA
: Marshal trash bin. It was in pieces, but has been restored (still has
Yep. The same blueprint is at the Air & Space Museum. The material
exists. You just need to know where to look.
DDAY
Chuck Buckley
In article <32D489...@dallas.net>, Craig Ligon <li...@dallas.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>In <32d2de8a...@news.airmail.net>, dan...@airmail.net writes:
>> >>>All of the blueprints, special tooling and dies, and operations manuals
>> >>>for everything from the Saturn V rocket to the lunar module to the
>> >>>spacesuits worn on the moon have been DESTROYED.
>
>for quite a long time to obtain blueprints on both the Saturn V and the gantry and NO
>ONE has been able to give me documents or sources.
>
>>
>> And everyone has a tendency to contact the contractors, not the owners.
>> Did *anyone* think to check with NASA? Did anyone think to contact
>> the National Archives? (I am not sure which would store the info).
>> Did you contact the National Air and Space Museum? Or the Kansas
>> site? They are the locations that actively restore Apollo hardware. Where
>> do they get their documentation?
>>
>
>several others and I just get nothing. If these blueprints do exist, either in paper
>or microfiche form, no one can find them or give me any idea where to get them. If
>they do still exist they must have been sealed with the Kennedy assassination
>documentation and later destroyed in the name of "national security" :)
>
>If anyone can tell me of some sources I would be quite thankful for any leads at this
>point. As it is, I cannot find any evidence to sugest they still exist, however, I
>would love to be proved wrong.
>
>Thanks,
>Craig Ligon
>
>
Well, if you are interested in interior drawings of an Apollo Block I,
I would suggest the following NARA record:
Material: Architectural
and
engineering
drawings
Control Number: NNSC-255-AP204
Title and Date: Apollo 204 Review Board
Investigation Configuration
Drawings,
01/30/1967-04/05/1967.
Arrangement
Arranged numerically by exhibit number.
Access
Unrestricted.
Related Records
Related textual records are in the custody of the Textual Reference Division.
Items
272 drawing(s)
Containers
10--10-drawer Hamilton (TH)
Cubic Feet
9.240
Accession Number
NC3-255-77-1
Contact
Cartographic and Architectural Branch (NNSC), National Archives at College Park,
8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001 PHONE: 301-713-7040 FAX:
301-713-7488
This was from a 5 minute search on the NARA homepage. They started cataloguing
the motion picture and still photo sections first, so they are not yet
complete. But, in a couple minutes, I was able to find a specific
record of the interior of the CSM without much effort. And, this does comprise
of a related technology - which the first poster said was not availble.
Poking thru another site, I found the following entry:
Architectural and Engineering Plans (500 items): Drawings and
specifications, from Skylab Project research and development
files, 1962-74.
The list of what those 500 items are is not available, but I have made a
request for a listing. Should it include the Saturn booster, I will be sure
to order it.
Another listing in the same sub-entry as the Skylab info mentioned that
the NARA had archived all the papers relating to the Apollo 13 investigation.
(Text based).
On yet another page, I found the following breakdown of the number of records
maintained by the NARA for NASA:
(This is Record Group 255):
255 Records of the National Aeronautics Science & Technology
and Space Administration
2NS 0 cu. ft. 60 images
3NS 350 cu. ft.
4NS 1,368 cu. ft.
4NS 273 cu. ft. 181,066 images
4NS 5 cu. ft. 500 arch & engrg plans
5NS 163 cu. ft.
7NS 646 cu. ft.
9NS-L 195 cu. ft.
9NS-S 853 cu. ft.
NNTA-CP 4,260 cu. ft.
NNSC 6 cu. ft. 272 arch & engrg plans
NNSM 1 cu. ft.
NNSM 113 cu. ft. 1188 mopix
NNSM 9 cu. ft. 850 sound recordings
NNSM 20 cu. ft. 600 video recordings
NNSP 82 cu. ft. 37,153 images
NNSP 0 cu. ft. 10 posters
NSXA 0 cu. ft. 3 data sets
TOTAL: 8,344 cu. ft. 221,702 items
The 500 listings, I have already mentioned earlier in this post as being
connected to Skylab. That still leaves that other group of 272 engineering
plans that looks to be the Apollo I investigation.
So, once again.. did *any one* of these credible sources check
the National Archives?
I do not expect an engineer to know what happened to docs after the project
is finished. Generally, doc searches are best done by people who do
doc searches for a living.
Dwayne Allen Day
Chuck Buckley (cbuc...@fc.hp.com) wrote:
: Most of the high end computing that I have heard of was driven by
: the needs of weather forecasting. Most of Cray's early purchases were by
: different weather organizations. (World Meteorological Organization, the
Well, that and code-breaking and nuclear weapons simulations. I betcha
that a good percentage of Cray's early sales went to the NSA.
William H. Wright
Henry Spencer wrote:
>
> In article <32d50a2d...@news.airmail.net> dan...@airmail.net writes:
> >I spoke with Jerry Bostick, a former NASA flight controller (and
> >technical advisor to Apollo 13). He confirmed something I had heard
> >elsewhere -- every shred of material pertaining to the construction of
> >Apollo hardware has been removed from American industry.
A quick search of The Boeing Company Technical Libraries returns
hundreds of documents like this:
Name: Boeing Co- Aerospace Group,
Huntsville.
Title: Range safety data Saturn 5 SA-506 thru
SA-510.
Call numbers:
D5-15497-6
Doc.Release: Kent Doc Rel
D
Notes: Date : September 1,
1968
ABSTRACT: Contains radiation patterns, system power levels, antenna
drawings,
and locations for the radio frequency antenna systems on the
Saturn 5
launch vehicles SA-506 through SA-510.
David E. Pearce Jr.
Brett Holman wrote:
> Wouldn't these have to do with the Skylab module itself? I mean,
> Saturn V and Apollo were NOT developed as part of, or for, the
> Skylab project. Skylab utilized the existing technologies of
> Saturn V and Apollo. Still, it's worth a look.
One thing I noticed years ago at the Skylab in the NASM in D.C. was an
access door in the skylab. It had exactly the same shape and even the
window if memory serves me as the doors on the Gemini spacecraft. While
not exactly the same door design, I bet they used a lot of the existing
Gemini design and tooling.
David Pearce
Thomas Tanita
Brett Holman <bho...@physics.unimelb.edu.au> writes:
>dan...@airmail.net wrote:
>>
>> On 8 Jan 1997 12:44:24 GMT, JHOLL4@ wrote:
>>
>> >In <32d2de8a...@news.airmail.net>, dan...@airmail.net writes:
>> >>All of the blueprints, special tooling and dies, and operations manuals
>> >>for everything from the Saturn V rocket to the lunar module to the
>> >>spacesuits worn on the moon have been DESTROYED.
>> >
>> > I'm pretty certain this is NOT true. The tooling is gone, but
>> >the blueprints aren't.
>> >
>> > --Cathy Mancus <man...@vnet.ibm.com>
>> >
>>
>> I'm certain it is. You guys seem to think I made this stuff up.
>Well, I (as well as the alt.folklore.urban crowd) had written this
>off as an urban legend. Now though, I'm not so sure. I did a little
>digging around. From the sci.space FAQ at
okay, I work at the Rockwell (Now Boeing North American) Downey plant
where the CMs and Capsules were built and it is safe to say that a lot of
the tools and jigs and stuff are still here....hell they're right next
door to me. You guys really do just crack me up sometimes :)
thomas
--
log...@primenet.com
_____________________________________________________________________
Strands of silver in the wind, eyes like emeralds brings me in
Feeling the warmth of her embrace, I see the world in silver grace
dan...@airmail.net
On 9 Jan 1997 21:18:15 GMT, wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Dwayne Allen
Day) wrote:
>Scott Lowther (lex...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: >I am afraid that I am going to have to back Shane on this one. I have
>: been trying
>: >for quite a long time to obtain blueprints on both the Saturn V and
>: the gantry and NO
>: >ONE has been able to give me documents or sources.
>
>: It depends on how detailed you want your blueprints. As I sit here, I
>: can see a six-foot long NASA Marshall diagram of the Saturn V taped to
>: my office wall. The story on this one: I got this copy from a former
>: coworker, who got it from a friend, who pulled it out of the NASA
>: Marshal trash bin. It was in pieces, but has been restored (still has
>
>Yep. The same blueprint is at the Air & Space Museum. The material
>exists. You just need to know where to look.
So, if it was in a trash bin, and was in pieces, does this mean that
anything still out there was recovered from trashbins nationwide by
some caring soul who just happened to discover it before the trash
truck came?
I've found no evidence of a mass microfilming of the Saturn/Apollo
Spacecraft materials. I wish there were.
Rich Wielgosz
In <32d49a9f...@news.airmail.net>, dan...@airmail.net writes:
>Until I see other proof, I'm taking the word of Mr. Bostick, the
>archivists at Grumman, the Kansas Cosmosphere, and Space Works.
>
>You're all free to believe whatever you want. I didn't come in here
>to start an argument. I just felt I needed to speak out.
>Last time I post a heartfelt concern around here, folks. For those
>who sent along kind words by e-mail and shared my concerns, thank you.
>Your words are appreciated.
While I agree that some people went for your thoat with respect to your
post (perhaps they didn't realize that it was written more from the heart
than from a technical standpoint), but a few of those people DO know a lot
about the history of spaceflight, and Apollo in particular. In fact one of
them might know more than the rest of the group COMBINED! So you might
want to give them a chance, and see if they're not actually correct.
Loyalty to your friends is fine, but wouldn't you be happy and even
EXCITED to find out that your friends are wrong, and the Saturn V plans are
indeed on microfilm, and not lost for the ages? I know I would.
Dwayne Allen Day
dan...@airmail.net wrote:
: So, if it was in a trash bin, and was in pieces, does this mean that
: anything still out there was recovered from trashbins nationwide by
: some caring soul who just happened to discover it before the trash
: truck came?
: I've found no evidence of a mass microfilming of the Saturn/Apollo
: Spacecraft materials. I wish there were.
Okay. I'm assuming that "danafox" is short for "Dana Scully" and "Fox
Mulder." So we can assume that you're a fan of the X-Files, right? Now,
using deductive logic, we can also probably assume that you are somewhat
conspiratorially minded. Now a number of people have replied to your
original post that the Apollo/Saturn records were NOT destroyed and a
number of others have even provided indexes of records both in the
National Archives and in industry libraries which indicate that large
amounts of Apollo/Saturn technical data DOES INDEED EXIST.
So, let me just propose for a second that the reason that you still refuse
to believe that Saturn and Apollo technical information exists is NOT
because you know what you're talking about, but because you suspect some
kind of massive conspiracy.
Ladies and gentlemen, "danafox" is starting to look like a troll.
om
On 10 Jan 1997 02:23:37 GMT, wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Dwayne Allen
Day) wrote:
>dan...@airmail.net wrote:
>: So, if it was in a trash bin, and was in pieces, does this mean that
>: anything still out there was recovered from trashbins nationwide by
>: some caring soul who just happened to discover it before the trash
>: truck came?
>
>: I've found no evidence of a mass microfilming of the Saturn/Apollo
>: Spacecraft materials. I wish there were.
....From research done on my own and by two other acquaintances, I've
found that not -everything- was fiched, but significant portions were.
Much of the ground control support systems documentation was
reportedly excluded on the grounds that future equipment could easily
fill in for the support systems actually used. Considering that we now
have a new mission control center, this has essentially taken place as
predicted.
[D's kettle-pot-conspiratorial arguements deleted]
>Ladies and gentlemen, "danafox" is starting to look like a troll.
....D, I have to strongly disagree here with your assessment of Shane.
He is -not- a troll, and happens to be an officially sanctioned and
published author/historian for both the Star Trek and Star Wars
genres. I have first hand seen significant portions of his research
materials, and can verify that he does understand research principles
very well. Based on what I've gathered of late, the Apollo program
might be the next historical project in his schedule, which would
explain much of his line of questioning.
....Also, for the record, my verification of his identity is due to the
fact that while Shane and I have never met face to face - something I
hope to rectify someday - we have a mutual acquantance that has
allowed such verification to occur through reasons that are too long
to discuss here. However, D, I'll be glad to give an overview in
e-mail if you're that hard up for proof.
....Bottom line is this: He's not trolling, kids. Just because someone
sticks by their beliefs and refuses to back down to "net.god thunder"
does -not- mean they are a troll. If he's wrong on his beliefs, rather
than act like an anal-retentive pedantic refugee from
rec.arts.comics.* or some other group plagued with egotistical
claptrap, why not simply -politely- give a counterpoint and cite
sources and URLs. Remember, the key issue here is to get the
information out and eradicate disinformation, not to play Lonesome Joe
and go "I know something, I won't tell! I won't tell! I won't tell!"
Otherwise, you're going to wind up looking more like Beaky Buzzard in
the end, "Buh-Doop!" and all.
OM
--------------------- OMnicom Has Moved! ---------------------
Note the NEW URL:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/4061/OMnicom.html
------------------------------------
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength
of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of
the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects,"
- (c) 1996, Judges Dolores K. Sloviter,
Ronald L. Buckwalter and Stewart Dalzell
Rocky and Mugsy
"David E. Pearce Jr." <dpe...@den.mmc.com> wrote:
>One thing I noticed years ago at the Skylab in the NASM in D.C. was an
>access door in the skylab. It had exactly the same shape and even the
>window if memory serves me as the doors on the Gemini spacecraft. While
>not exactly the same door design, I bet they used a lot of the existing
>Gemini design and tooling.
>
>David Pearce
I believe this door was actually scavenged *from* a Gemini craft, and was
not a custom-built piece of equipment...
R&M
Brett Holman
Chuck Buckley wrote:
<snip>
We seem to have done the same work at the NARA!
> The 500 listings, I have already mentioned earlier in this post as being
> connected to Skylab.
Wouldn't these have to do with the Skylab module itself? I mean,
Saturn V and Apollo were NOT developed as part of, or for, the
Skylab project. Skylab utilized the existing technologies of
Saturn V and Apollo. Still, it's worth a look.
Also, it's hard to believe that the Saturn V/Apollo (which,
according to a possible UL I heard, is the most complex machine
ever constructed), could be specified in any detail in only 500
"plans".
> That still leaves that other group of 272 engineering
> plans that looks to be the Apollo I investigation.
Again, these would probably involve only those Apollo subsystems
which were investigated as possibly contributing to the fire,
wouldn't they? Certainly not Saturn V, and also not eg, the heat
shield.
> So, once again.. did *any one* of these credible sources check
> the National Archives?
It seems easy enough to find, doesn't it?
Alex Mericas
Craig Ligon wrote:
>
> >
> > >>In <32d2de8a...@news.airmail.net>, dan...@airmail.net writes:
> > >>>All of the blueprints, special tooling and dies, and operations manuals
> > >>>for everything from the Saturn V rocket to the lunar module to the
> > >>>spacesuits worn on the moon have been DESTROYED.
>
> for quite a long time to obtain blueprints on both the Saturn V and the gantry and NO
> ONE has been able to give me documents or sources.
What level of detail are you interested in? I bought a set of Saturn 1B and
Saturn V blueprints from NARTS (National Association of Rocketry Technical
Technical Service) for $10. See http://www.nar.org:80/NARTS/ . They are
NOT original size. They are dated 1964-1967. They are external features
only (including paint schemes) and are suitable for use in scale models.
--
Alex Mericas Processor Performance Mer...@vnet.ibm.com
(512) 838-2522
Chuck Buckley
In article <32D58B...@physics.unimelb.edu.au>,
Brett Holman <bho...@physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>Chuck Buckley wrote:
>
><snip>
>We seem to have done the same work at the NARA!
>
I worked my way through college in the engineering library digging out
specs. Did a lot of freelance searches for local companies looking for
info about certain projects. I tagged the NARA early as a good place to
look that was totally underutilized.
The weakness to my search is that the filesets for a lot of the
microfilm is not detailed. There were 772 items in storage in blueprint and
drawing form., but there are literally hundreds of thousands of feet of
microfilm that I have no idea what is included.
>> The 500 listings, I have already mentioned earlier in this post as being
>> connected to Skylab.
>
>Wouldn't these have to do with the Skylab module itself? I mean,
>Saturn V and Apollo were NOT developed as part of, or for, the
>Skylab project. Skylab utilized the existing technologies of
>Saturn V and Apollo. Still, it's worth a look.
>
Worth a look. If nothing else, you will have the items that connect
to the mount points on the Saturn Rocket. That will give a very good
idea about the Saturn hookups and mountpoints as well as other aspects.
>Also, it's hard to believe that the Saturn V/Apollo (which,
>according to a possible UL I heard, is the most complex machine
>ever constructed), could be specified in any detail in only 500
>"plans".
>
Not likely. I saw a ref a few years back about the computer system
aboard the Saturn. Nothing personal about the Saturn V types, but I see
no need to try to reproduce a memory system based upon 500,000 bits comprised
of magnetic core memory. If we don't have the GN&C for the Saturn V, it
really does not strike me as being that big of a deal. I want a flying
piece of hardware, mot a fully restored museum piece.
>> That still leaves that other group of 272 engineering
>> plans that looks to be the Apollo I investigation.
>
>Again, these would probably involve only those Apollo subsystems
>which were investigated as possibly contributing to the fire,
>wouldn't they? Certainly not Saturn V, and also not eg, the heat
>shield.
>
No. I got the impression from the full item listing that this was
the internal electronics, console layouts, and that sort of thing. Also,
some specific drawings were from the investigation. (ie, this person
was standing here.. that one was there.. the fire extinguisher was over
there).
>> So, once again.. did *any one* of these credible sources check
>> the National Archives?
>
>It seems easy enough to find, doesn't it?
>--
And, if you give good pointers, they have people there who do this for a
living and can find the info...
Dwayne Allen Day
om (o...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: sources and URLs. Remember, the key issue here is to get the
: information out and eradicate disinformation, not to play Lonesome Joe
: and go "I know something, I won't tell! I won't tell! I won't tell!"
That was my point, wasn't it? Essentially that a number of people had
indicated that there was indeed LOTS of Apollo technical documentation
sitting around in archives and such and this person was "refusing to back
down" despite being provided much of this information. I didn't need to
provide the URLs--someone else did. The old "bastards destroyed the
Apollo blueprints so that we cannot go back to the Moon!" bit is a little
thin. But it still persists and I've even seen historians who should know
better use it in their essays.
It's also a very weak logic at work, since it essentially implies that the
most important thing for returning to the Moon is a full set of
Apollo/Saturn blueprints. In reality, there are lots of things more
important than that, starting with the political willpower to do it and
including more mundane things like availability of vendors and materials.
Like I said, you wouldn't want to build a Saturn V the same way again even
if you could.
I was wrong about this being a troll. I never saw the original post and
just looked it up on DejaNews and realize that the assertion that the
technical information was destroyed was merely part of a much larger
argument (not all of which was off-base). But as I and others pointed out
here, the assertion that the technical information no longer existed (or
that it was deliberately destroyed) is false.
Paul Michael Brown
: Most of the high end computing that I have heard of was driven by
: the needs of weather forecasting. Most of Cray's early purchases were by
: different weather organizations. (World Meteorological Organization, the
: different numerical models were developed for sociological, economic,
: and whatever... The other use of computers was in business, and those
: requirements greatly pushed the reliability and data storage requirements far
: in excess of the relatively meager market that is NASA.
IIRC, the crypto boys at the Natl. Security Agency were (are?) still
pushing the state of the art in high-end computing. Doesn't Jim Bamford's
book discuss this?
Kurt Montandon
dan...@airmail.net wrote:
>This is a commentary I wrote last year. I though some of you might be
>interested in reading it.
>Sorry for the negative tone, but it's the way I see it.
>Shane Johnson
> I know a great many of you have no personal knowledge of
>NASA's efforts outside of the space shuttle program, for you were born
>too late to have witnessed firsthand our incredible landings on the
>lunar surface. You have seen no live manned launches other than those
>of Atlantis, Columbia, Endeavour, Discovery, or Challenger. As a
>result, you've pretty much come to think of the shuttle as the
>ultimate in twentieth-century manned spaceflight.
> It isn't.
<mega-schnip of lamenting over the Golden Days of the
Space Age>
During the mid-eighties, while I was in elementary
school, I remember hearing about the Challenger
explosion in class. Our teacher cried when she heard
the news, and I was stunned (understanding the
signifigance of the tragedy even at that age), while
the rest of my class viewed it as just another
punctuation in their greedy little lives.
It was the Challenger accident, in fact, that inspired
me to write to NASA, and to become deeply involved in
researching the space program from its origins on up.
I loved the sense of adventure it held, and looked
forward to the day when I, too, might walk on the moon,
or Mars, or in a space station. I was disillusioned in
later years, to say the least, at the real facts of the
modern space program.
But for a time, I was into it, fascinated by the whole
realm of space travel. A local ex-test pilot whose
name I can't remember (his first name was Chuck, and no
his last name wasn't Yeager, though he had met Chuck
Yeager on numerous occasions) helped me along with my
interest. He made some contacts, and soon my town and
school got a visit from Gordon Cooper. We dedicated a
memorial to the Seven outside of our High School, and I
dreamed of becoming an astronaut.
Now, the memorial has faded. You can't read the names.
Every time I walk by it, I remind myself that one day I
have to talk to someone about getting it replaced with
something newer. Today, I plan on writing back home
for that purpose (maybe I'll actually remember). I've
got a dusty old picture of me and Cooper with an
autograph, and a lot of memories and NASA information
packets. I've got a lot of ruined dreams, ruined by
the failure of our nation to look to the stars. Mabye
I can do something, some day, to help get us back to
the stars. I've got a long life ahead of me.
But for now, I must agree that our space program is
pathetic. The interest of the American people in the
space program is rivaled only by their interest in the
life-styles of various south-Pacific mollusks. The
only thing left to do is appeal to the youth, and hope
they can be inspired to dream of higher things. . .
And hope they hold onto those dreams until they are old
enough to do something about them.
Kurt Montandon
Dwayne Allen Day
Paul Michael Brown (pa...@mirror.his.com) wrote:
: IIRC, the crypto boys at the Natl. Security Agency were (are?) still
: pushing the state of the art in high-end computing. D
They've probably been surpassed by the nuclear weapons effects people at
DOE who just turned on the most powerful computer in the world (take that,
Japan!). Since we no longer blow bombs up, we have to simulate their
effects in a computer. So there is a greater requirement for sheer
processing power in that field than there was before and it is probably a
greater requirement than one would find in the spook field. It is also
rather odd to note that we can employ massively powerful computers to
design and simulate nuclear weapons and the story makes page 1 of the
Washington Post, but the computers used by the guys at the Puzzle Palace
are very deep black.
om
On 12 Jan 1997 08:19:37 GMT, wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Dwayne Allen
....Then again, Intel has announced the development of a Pentium
Pro-based parallel processing computer that finally breaks the
teraflop barrier. The DOE will reportedly use the 7000+ processors in
this supercomp for nuclear blast simulations, while two other
organizations have expressed interest for weather modeling.
....On a related note, the machine reportedly boots Windows 95 at just
under a minute.
Kurt Montandon
dan...@airmail.net wrote:
>This is a commentary I wrote last year. I though some of you might be
>interested in reading it.
>Sorry for the negative tone, but it's the way I see it.
>Shane Johnson
> I know a great many of you have no personal knowledge of
>NASA's efforts outside of the space shuttle program, for you were born
>too late to have witnessed firsthand our incredible landings on the
>lunar surface. You have seen no live manned launches other than those
>of Atlantis, Columbia, Endeavour, Discovery, or Challenger. As a
>result, you've pretty much come to think of the shuttle as the
>ultimate in twentieth-century manned spaceflight.
> It isn't.
<mega-schnip of lamenting over the Golden Days of the
Space Age>
During the mid-eighties, while I was in elementary
school, I remember hearing about the Challenger
explosion in class. Our teacher cried when she heard
the news, and I was stunned (understanding the
signifigance of the tragedy even at that age), while
the rest of my class viewed it as just another
punctuation in their narrow-minded little lives
(regrettably, there was then/ever after very few people
in my class with anything resembling vision or inspired
imagination).
life-styles of various south-Pacific mollusks. That,
and the American public, as you say, has a limited view
as to the capabilities of the current space program and
the possibilities of greater things. The only thing
left to do is appeal to the youth, and hope they can be
inspired to dream of higher things. . .
And hope they hold onto those dreams until they are old
enough to do something about them.
Kurt Montandon
"If the earth falls in the wilderness, does it make a
sound? Did a Beethoven ever make music, a Shakespeare
poetry? Out of darkness, into darkness. If you deny
the future its existence, did you exist?"
Henry Spencer
In article <5ba6qp$dag$3...@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu> wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Dwayne Allen Day) writes:
>: IIRC, the crypto boys at the Natl. Security Agency were (are?) still
>: pushing the state of the art in high-end computing. D
>
>They've probably been surpassed by the nuclear weapons effects people at
>effects in a computer. So there is a greater requirement for sheer
Actually, the weapons people have always been big supercomputer customers;
LANL and LLNL are famous for their tendency to have serial number 001 (and
often 002 through 004 or thereabouts) of new supercomputer designs. They
just haven't issued as many press releases about it lately as NSA has.
(The extent of NSA's actual role in supercomputer development is somewhat
controversial. There is room for suspicion that they have decided to
exaggerate as a way of getting good PR in a relatively harmless area.)
In particular, the early development of the hydrogen bomb desperately
needed all available computing power, because it was vital to *understand*
the processes involved before trying a bomb test. Unlike in fission
bombs, said processes are complex enough to make analytical solutions
infeasible, and just trying things isn't good enough -- with no insight
into the processes, if a test fails, you don't know *why*.
--
"We don't care. We don't have to. You'll buy | Henry Spencer
whatever we ship, so why bother? We're Microsoft."| he...@zoo.toronto.edu
Craig Ligon
Dwayne Allen Day wrote:
>
>
> Okay. I'm assuming that "danafox" is short for "Dana Scully" and "Fox
> Mulder." So we can assume that you're a fan of the X-Files, right? Now,
> using deductive logic, we can also probably assume that you are somewhat
> conspiratorially minded. Now a number of people have replied to your
> original post that the Apollo/Saturn records were NOT destroyed and a
> number of others have even provided indexes of records both in the
> National Archives and in industry libraries which indicate that large
> amounts of Apollo/Saturn technical data DOES INDEED EXIST.
> So, let me just propose for a second that the reason that you still refuse
> to believe that Saturn and Apollo technical information exists is NOT
> because you know what you're talking about, but because you suspect some
> kind of massive conspiracy.
>
>
I don't think that this news group is an arena suitable for personal
attacks. If you have something relevant for the group please post it.
I think this attack was uncalled for.
Craig.
--
*************************************************
Cacyl Enterprises
-------
What really interests me is whether God had any choice
in the creation of the world.
Albert Einstein
Dwayne Allen Day
Craig Ligon (li...@dallas.net) wrote:
: > original post that the Apollo/Saturn records were NOT destroyed and a
: > number of others have even provided indexes of records both in the
: > National Archives and in industry libraries which indicate that large
: > amounts of Apollo/Saturn technical data DOES INDEED EXIST.
: > So, let me just propose for a second that the reason that you still refuse
: > to believe that Saturn and Apollo technical information exists is NOT
: > because you know what you're talking about, but because you suspect some
: > kind of massive conspiracy.
: I don't think that this news group is an arena suitable for personal
: attacks. If you have something relevant for the group please post it.
: I think this attack was uncalled for.
I did not perceive this as an attack. But I did look up the original post
and see that it was not a troll and my assumption that "danafox" was
looking to start an argument was unfounded. I hereby apologise for that.
I stand by the rest of my comments, however.
Chuck Buckley
In article <5b8pm5$3...@news2.his.com>,
Paul Michael Brown <pa...@mirror.his.com> wrote:
>: Most of the high end computing that I have heard of was driven by
>: the needs of weather forecasting. Most of Cray's early purchases were by
>: different weather organizations. (World Meteorological Organization, the
>: USAF Global Weather Service, etc, etc). Once these machines were out there,
>: different numerical models were developed for sociological, economic,
>: and whatever... The other use of computers was in business, and those
>: requirements greatly pushed the reliability and data storage requirements far
>: in excess of the relatively meager market that is NASA.
>
>book discuss this?
Well, I concede not mentioning the other aspects. My background was
as a meteoroglogist, so I mentioned the weather aspects...
Chuck Buckley
In article <32d59ec0...@news.airmail.net>, <dan...@airmail.net> wrote:
>On 9 Jan 1997 21:18:15 GMT, wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Dwayne Allen
>Day) wrote:
>
>>Scott Lowther (lex...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>: >I am afraid that I am going to have to back Shane on this one. I have
>>: been trying
>>: >for quite a long time to obtain blueprints on both the Saturn V and
>>: the gantry and NO
>>: >ONE has been able to give me documents or sources.
>>
>>: can see a six-foot long NASA Marshall diagram of the Saturn V taped to
>>: my office wall. The story on this one: I got this copy from a former
>>: coworker, who got it from a friend, who pulled it out of the NASA
>>: Marshal trash bin. It was in pieces, but has been restored (still has
>>
>>Yep. The same blueprint is at the Air & Space Museum. The material
>>exists. You just need to know where to look.
>
>anything still out there was recovered from trashbins nationwide by
>some caring soul who just happened to discover it before the trash
>truck came?
>
>I've found no evidence of a mass microfilming of the Saturn/Apollo
>Spacecraft materials. I wish there were.
Well, I will provide what I believe to be evidence and you can take it
as you will..
Available from the following source:
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/RECONselect.html
Operations and maintenance manual uprated Saturn 1 and Saturn
5 vehicle stage pressurized lighting system, NASA-TM-X-60906,
Dec 30, 1967, KSC
The aeroelastic characteristics of the Saturn-IB and Saturn-V
launch vehicles, NASA-CR-75301, Mar 01, 1965
Apollo range safety destruct time delay, Saturn 1B and Saturn 5,
NASA-TM-X-64361, Jan 26, 1965, JSC
Saturn 1B and Saturn 5 computer programs, software,
NASA-TM-X-72901, Jul 05, 1972, KSC
Saturn 1B and Saturn 5 general aerodynamics model no. DSV-4B,
addendum, NASA-CR-113290, Jan 01, 1964
Saturn flight instrumentation., Nov 01, 1964
Saturn i launch vehicle sa-10 and launch complex 37b functional
systems description. volume xi- legend and composite schematic,
NASA-CR-62513, Sep 01, 1964
Saturn i, launch vehicle sa-8 and launch complex 37b functional
systems description. supplement- legend and composite schematic,
NASA-CR-62491, Sep 01, 1964
Uprated Saturn 1 and Saturn 5 configuration difference charts,
NASA-CR-154726, Sep 11, 1967
Generalized forces for Apollo spacecraft on Saturn 5 and Saturn
1B, NASA-CR-140256, May 01, 1966
Differences of configuration in successive Saturn 1B and Saturn V
vehicles, case 330, NASA-CR-156618, Nov 10, 1965
Minutes of the vehicle mechanical design integration working group
meeting no. 6, s-ivb stage /saturn ib/v/, NASA-TM-X-56359, Oct
14, 1964, MSFC
A qualitative description of the command module repeater system
for the ST124-M stabilized platform as used in Saturn 1B and
Saturn V vehicles, NASA-TM-X-53607, May 10, 1967, MSFC
Far-field acoustic environmental predictions for launch of Saturn
V and a Saturn V MLV configuration, NASA-TN-D-4117, Sep
01, 1967, MSFC
Saturn class launch vehicles., Jan 01, 1964
Static test qualification analysis for the uprated Saturn I and
Saturn V instrument unit structures, NASA-CR-149541, Oct 06,
1967
Stages to Saturn: A technological history of the Apollo/Saturn
launch vehicles, NASA-SP-4206, Jan 01, 1981
Saturn i electrical power and systems integration sa-5 through
sa-7, NASA-TM-X-56314, Mar 25, 1963, MSFC
Apollo experience report: Guidance and control systems. Mission
control programmer for unmanned missions AS-202, Apollo 4, and
Apollo 6, NASA-TN-D-7992, Jul 01, 1975, JSC
Digital autopilots for thrust vector control of the Apollo CSM and
CSM/LM vehicles., AIAA PAPER 69-847, Aug 01, 1969
Apollo LM and CSM S-band antenna tracking studies. CSM-HGA
interchangeability study error analysis of the monopulse
comparators, NASA-CR-92491, Dec 18, 1968
CSM measurement requirements specification for block 2 spacecraft
Apollo CSM system, NASA-CR-129867, Jan 01, 1969
Customer acceptance readiness review Project Apollo CSM 012,
phase 1, CSM-012, Jun 01, 1966
CSM end item specification. Part 1 Performance/design
requirements spacecraft 2TV-1 for Apollo CSM system,
NASA-CR-118574, Sep 22, 1965
Performance of the CSM RCS during the AS 506/CSM 107/LM 5
mission (Apollo 11), NASA-TM-X-68346, Dec 31, 1969, JSC
Abstract of proceedings for review of Apollo CSM Ground
Operations Requirements Plan (GORP), block 2 spacecraft,
SID65-308-1 and Apollo CSM Integrated Checkout Plan (ICP),
block 2 spacecraft, SID65-308-2, NASA-TM-X-67701, Sep 01,
1965, JSC
CSM digital autopilot testing in support of ASTP experiments
control requirements, NASA-CR-141694, Jan 15, 1975
Visibility of orbital assembly from CSM during rendezvous,
NASA-CR-119293, Jun 28, 1971
CSM fuel requirements for a LM rescue in lunar orbit,
NASA-TM-X-64384, Oct 30, 1967, JSC
Range data requirements for CSM active rendezvous. Apollo
program, NASA-TM-X-65024, Jun 06, 1967, JSC
Apollo CSM RCS DAP propellant studies - Project Apollo,
NASA-TM-X-64408, Sep 09, 1968, JSC
LM rendezvous procedures - G mission, AS-506/CSM-107/LM-5
Final report, NASA-TM-X-64410, May 16, 1969, JSC
Apollo CSM and LM onboard navigation system constraints,
NASA-TM-X-65079, May 01, 1968, JSC
Determination of LEM landing site inertial coordinates by CSM
landmark type sightings. Project Apollo, NASA-TM-X-64493,
Apr 08, 1966, JSC
Command module/service module reaction control subsystem
assessment, NASA-TM-X-68578, Jun 01, 1971, JSC
General Apollo Saturn 5 CSM launch abort analysis - Project
Apollo, NASA-TM-X-64367, Dec 04, 1968, JSC
Apollo spacecraft systems analysis program. Range coverage for the
CSM rendezous radar transponder. Antenna raised 4 in. and tilted
forward 15 deg, NASA-CR-92467, Sep 30, 1968
Calculation of signal margins for the CSM UNIFIED S-band
downlink channel Apollo AS-202 to aircraft NASA 432,
NASA-TM-X-55854, Aug 01, 1966, GSFC
Apollo CSM parts management - A legacy for future space
programs., Jan 01, 1966
LM rendezvous procedures - F mission, AS-505/CSM-106/LM-4
Final report, NASA-TM-X-64407, Apr 28, 1969, JSC
Apollo experience report: Structural loads due to maneuvers of the
command and service module/lunar module, NASA-TN-D-6719,
Mar 01, 1972, JSC
Apollo CSM modification and operation for lunar orbital science,
AIAA PAPER 71-821, Jul 01, 1971
Nondestructive testing of Apollo CSM spacecraft ordnance devices
by neutron radiography, Jan 01, 1969
CSM and LM configuration difference charts, NASA-CR-154645,
Aug 10, 1967
Performance capabilities of the Apollo CSM and LM downlink
communications, NASA-CR-116954, Dec 31, 19
Skylab: Command service module systems handbook, CSM 116 -
119, NASA-TM-X-68949, Apr 20, 1972, JSC
CSM ground system specification block 2, NASA-CR-115449, Jul
15, 1971
MPAD verification of Apollo 6 (A-2/CSM-020) flight mission
rules, NASA-TM-X-69647, Apr 03, 1968, JSC
Skylab hardware evaluation CSM rescue, NASA-CR-150950, Feb
08, 1974
CSM RCS requirements for inertial holds of the orbital assembly,
NASA-CR-153772, Feb 17, 1967
RTCC requirements for mission H program for computation of LM
IMU torquing angles with the LM and CSM in the docked
configuration, NASA-TM-X-69709, Oct 23, 1969, JSC
General description of Apollo up-data subsystem for the CSM, LM,
and SIVB/IU, NASA-CR-153732, Dec 29, 1966
Potential constraints on increasing the use of the CSM/LM
electrical power interface, NASA-CR-104049, Jan 31, 1969
CSM/LM hypergolic subsystem constraints on extended AAP
missions, NASA-CR-153797, Dec 02, 1966
Up-data to the CSM, LM and S-4B/IU space vehicle description
and processing delays, NASA-CR-96037, Jun 20, 1968
CSM/LM spacecraft operational data book. Volume 3: Mass
properties, NASA-TM-X-68968, Aug 20, 1969, JSC
Apollo CSM and LM electrical inspection criteria,
NASA-TM-X-60876, Dec 01, 1967
Evasive maneuver subsequent to CSM/LM ejection from the S-4B
in earth orbit - Project Apollo, NASA-TM-X-64368, Jun 13,
1969, JSC
CSM fuel requirements for a LM rescue in lunar orbit, Project
Apollo, NASA-TM-X-74703, Oct 30, 1967, JSC
The Apollo docking system, Jun 01, 1970
Navigation training for current space flights, Feb 01, 1971
LM performance variations from LM center of gravity movement,
NASA-CR-114030, Sep 24, 1970
CSM end item specification. Part 1 Performance/design
requirements spacecraft 2TV-1 for Apollo CSM system,
NASA-CR-118574, Sep 22, 1965
Abstract of proceedings for review of Apollo CSM Ground
Operations Requirements Plan (GORP), block 2 spacecraft,
SID65-308-1 and Apollo CSM Integrated Checkout Plan (ICP),
block 2 spacecraft, SID65-308-2, NASA-TM-X-67701, Sep 01,
1965, JSC
Launch pad to the moon: Construction bidding cost of Launch
Complex 39, part 1, NASA-TM-109269, Jan 01, 1968, KSC
Launch vehicle test and checkout plan. - Volume 2: Saturn 1B
launch vehicle Skylab R (rescue) and AS-208 flow plan and
listings, NASA-TM-X-69468, Aug 06, 1973, KSC
Estimation of fireball from Saturn vehicles following failure on
launch pad, NASA-TM-X-65199, Aug 03, 1965, JSC
Measurements in atmospheric electricity designed to improve
launch safety during the Apollo series, NASA-CR-115754, Jun 01,
1972
Saturn i launch vehicle sa-10 and launch complex 37b functional
systems description. volume iii- lh2 fuel system functional
description, index of finding numbers and mechanical schematics,
NASA-CR-62490, Aug 01, 1964
Dynamic testing of full-scale Saturn launch vehicles, Jan 01, 1968
Score: 613 Date: Jan 01, 1968 Size: 1164
Saturn 5 launch vehicle flight dynamics analysis, AS-502 /revision
B/, NASA-CR-98262, Mar 15, 1968
Far-field acoustic environmental predictions for launch of Saturn
V and a Saturn V MLV configuration, NASA-TN-D-4117, Sep
01, 1967, MSFC
Saturn V launch vehicle systems analysis application., AIAA
PAPER 67-248, Sep 01, 1967
Wind tunnel investigations of effects of ground winds on
Saturn-Apollo launch vehicles, Jan 01, 1965, LaRC
Contamination effects and controls in Saturn launch vehicle
hydraulic systems, Sep 01, 1967, MSFC
Saturn 5 launch vehicle digital computer and launch vehicle
adapter test equipment. Volume 4: Launch vehicle data adapter
manual exerciser (IBM Part No. 6942000), NASA-CR-124282,
Mar 05, 1965
Labortory maintenance instructions Saturn 5 launch vehicle
digital computer and launch vehicle data adapter test equipment.
Volume 3: Launch vehicle digital computer manual exciser (IBM
part no. 6902000), NASA-CR-124291, Oct 23, 1964
Identification of Saturn V launch vehicle support systems
requirements and establishment of baseline logic for vehicle
prelaunch processing simulation and systems optimization., AIAA
PAPER 67-248, Feb 01, 1967
Technical study for the use of the Saturn 5, INT-21 and other
Saturn 5 derivatives to determine an optimum fourth stage (space
tug). Volume 1: Technical volume, book 1, NASA-CR-103004, Feb
26, 1971
Saturn 5 launch vehicle emergency detection system analysis,
SA-503, NASA-CR-98317, Nov 15, 1968
Saturn 5 launch vehicle flight evaluation report: AS-506 Apollo 11
mission, NASA-TM-X-62558, Sep 20, 1969, MSFC
Instrument unit temperature control system for Saturn IB - Saturn
V Technical progress report, Jul. 1964 - Nov. 1966,
NASA-CR-81679, May 27, 1966
Burn pond and vent subsystem liquid hydrogen system launch
complex 39a nasa p/n 75m05753j, NASA-TM-X-61116, Feb 29,
1968, KSC
A logistics and potential hazard study of propellant systems for a
Saturn 5 derived heavy lift (three-stage core) launch vehicle, Sep
01, 1992
Apollo LM guidance computer software for the final lunar descent.,
Mar 01, 1973
Apollo 9 LM-3 ascent propulsion system, final flight evaluation,
NASA-CR-109943, Jul 01, 1969
Evaluation of the LM guidance system performance over the
approach terrain of five of the proposed Apollo landing sites -
Apollo program, NASA-TM-X-64381, Mar 06, 1968, JSC
Apollo flight crew vestibular assessment, Jul 01, 1975, JSC
Packaging and mechanical design of LM-Apollo rendezvous radar
and transponder electronic assemblies, Jan 01, 1970
Apollo experience report: Mission planning for Apollo entry,
NASA-TN-D-6725, Mar 01, 1972, JSC
Apollo experience report: Systems and flight procedures
development, NASA-TN-D-7436, Sep 01, 1973, JSC
Status report on the space radiation effects on the apollo mission. d-
operational procedures for apollo dose radiation, Jan 01, 1965
Computer-aided engineering writing - Test procedures for Apollo
spacecraft., Jul 01, 1967
Crew egress procedures for Apollo block 1 command module at sea,
NASA-TM-X-64311, Dec 07, 1966, JSC
Rendezvous procedures - Apollo 7, AS-205/101 Final report,
NASA-TM-X-64411, Sep 27, 1968, JSC
Basic equations and logic for the real-time ground navigation
program for the Apollo lunar landing mission - Project Apollo,
NASA-TM-X-64348, Apr 15, 1968, JSC
Film handling procedures for Apollo 17 lunar sounder,
NASA-CR-141922, Nov 08, 1972
Onboard cislunar navigation capability and procedures during
Apollo lunar missions, Jan 01, 1971
Preliminary abort and rescue procedures for Apollo mission F.
Volume 3: Time-critical procedure, NASA-TM-X-69838, Mar 10,
1969, JSC
Apollo-Soyuz test project. Operations handbook
command/service/docking modules (CSM 119/DM 1): Operational
procedures reference issue, NASA-CR-140311, Jul 15, 1974
Apollo flight readiness reviews. Apollo program directive no. 8A,
NASA-TM-X-66390, Dec 13, 1968
Apollo 10 /AS-505/ Apollo Saturn 5 space vehicle Technical
information summary, NASA-TM-X-62846, May 01, 1969, MSFC
Apollo operations handbook extravehicular mobility unit. Volume
2: Operational procedures CSD-A-789-(2), Apollo 15-17, revision
3, NASA-TM-X-69515, Jun 01, 1971, JSC
CSM measurement requirements specification for block 2 spacecraft
Apollo CSM system, NASA-CR-129867, Jan 01, 1969
Apollo CSM dynamic test program, Feb 01, 1969
Apollo CSM and LM electrical inspection criteria,
NASA-TM-X-60876, Dec 01, 1967
Apollo CSM 101 delta qualification test urine dump nozzle, Part no.
V16-611231-21, NASA-CR-128044, Jun 01, 1968
Apollo CSM 101 delta qualification test steam duct heater assembly
P/N V36-6100226, S/N 06362AAH0006, NASA-CR-128071, Jun
14, 1968
Apollo CSM 101 guidance and navigation filter box assembly
qualification test, P/N V36-442330, NASA-CR-129974, Aug 01,
1968
Apollo CSM 104 power factor correction box assembly qualification
on test P/N V37-440080, S/N 06362 AAG 9398 and P/N
V37-440080-101, S/N 06362 AAH 0001, NASA-CR-128041, Jan
01, 1969
Apollo mission J1, Csm 112 cryogenic storage system preflight
performance report, NASA-CR-115116, Jul 01, 1971
Command module/service module reaction control subsystem
assessment, NASA-TM-X-68578, Jun 01, 1971, JSC
A technique for monitoring the primary guidance system in the
LEM-CSM rendezvous, Program Apollo, NASA-TM-X-65128,
May 31, 1965, JSC
Apollo command module and lem guidance and navigation
systems., Jan 01, 1964
Apollo range safety service module and LEM adapter breakup,
NASA-CR-109664, Mar 19, 1965
Apollo block 2 CM and LEM guidance and control study,
NASA-CR-156606, Dec 17, 1964
LEM utilization study for Apollo extension system missions. Volume
VI - Schedule analysis Final report, NASA-CR-71461, Oct 15,
1965
Effect of terrain variations on primary LEM guidance equations
during phase 2 of powered descent, NASA-TM-X-64338, Dec 21,
1964, JSC
Apollo crew procedures, simulation, and flight planning, Mar 01,
1970
Apollo experience report: Systems and flight procedures
development, NASA-TN-D-7436, Sep 01, 1973, JSC
Apollo experience report: Crew station integration. Volume 1: Crew
station design and development, NASA-TN-D-8178, Mar 01,
1976, JSC
Roles of the ground and flight crew in Apollo operations., AIAA
PAPER 72-236, Mar 01, 1972
Improved heat-shield design procedures for manned entry systems.
Part 2: Application to Apollo, NASA-CR-108689, Jun 22, 1970
Characteristics of various types and shapes of aluminum honeycomb
for use in the head position impact attenuation strut of the apollo
crew couch, NASA-TM-X-65198, Sep 21, 1965, JSC
Qualification test of Apollo crew couch X-X axis foot cyclic impact
strut assembly, V36-571711-121, NASA-CR-129894, Jan 01, 1969
Life sciences 2: Physiological, psychological and training
considerations of the apollo crew, NASA-CR-136578, Jun 01, 1961
This is out about 10% of the items I found. These are just some of the
publically released materials. They include procedures, tests, analysis,
operations, pad systems, and a lot of other things. I believe that this is
evidence of "mass microfilming". Depends on what you want, I guess. The
National Archives group I have contacted is still pursuing the blueprinst
side of the equation.
Many of these will be multiple parts - I tried to not duplicate or report
more than one volume of a set, but there will be some errors on my part
in that regard.
All of these are microfilm and/or paper reports. They are available thru
instructions included on the search result page.
om
On 16 Jan 1997 23:40:13 GMT, cbuc...@fc.hp.com (Chuck Buckley) wrote:
>In article <32d59ec0...@news.airmail.net>, <dan...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>On 9 Jan 1997 21:18:15 GMT, wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Dwayne Allen
>>Day) wrote:
>
>>>Yep. The same blueprint is at the Air & Space Museum. The material
>>>exists. You just need to know where to look.
>>
>>So, if it was in a trash bin, and was in pieces, does this mean that
>>anything still out there was recovered from trashbins nationwide by
>>some caring soul who just happened to discover it before the trash
>>truck came?
....I think the point that Shane's been trying to make all along is
that while the materials may still exist, they're not 100% in one
place, and/or not 100% accessable to the public at large.
>>I've found no evidence of a mass microfilming of the Saturn/Apollo
>>Spacecraft materials. I wish there were.
....Actual evidence is questionable, as I've met people who claim it
was done, but hadn't actually seen the results.
> Well, I will provide what I believe to be evidence and you can take it
>as you will..
>
> Available from the following source:
>
>http://www.sti.nasa.gov/RECONselect.html
...Bookmarked! :-) I'll probably include this link in the FAQ as well
:-)
....Then again, some of these look potentially interesting:
>Operations and maintenance manual uprated Saturn 1 and Saturn
> 5 vehicle stage pressurized lighting system, NASA-TM-X-60906,
> Dec 30, 1967, KSC
"Pressurized lighting, dear?"
"Yeah, honey. That's for the corporate sponsorship gimmick that Jim
Webb's been battering around with Congress. He wants to sell
advertising on the sides of the rocket using neon signs. Coke,
Frito-Lay, and Gulf all want in on it, but some Japanese company
called Sony's holding out for using hundreds of big LEDs..."
>Saturn 1B and Saturn 5 computer programs, software,
> NASA-TM-X-72901, Jul 05, 1972, KSC
10 CALL LAUNCH
11 REM IF LAUNCH SUCCESSFUL, GOTO 15
15 CALL ORBIT_E
16 REM IF ORBIT_E SUCCESSFUL, GOTO 20
20 CALL TLI
21 REM IF TLI SUCCESSFUL, GOTO 25
25 LOAD MOONLAND
30 END
>Saturn flight instrumentation., Nov 01, 1964
Well, someone was talking about the Gemini and Mercury instruments...
>Differences of configuration in successive Saturn 1B and Saturn V
> vehicles, case 330, NASA-CR-156618, Nov 10, 1965
>Saturn class launch vehicles., Jan 01, 1964
....I can see Chuck Corway sending in the order form now :-) :-)
>Stages to Saturn: A technological history of the Apollo/Saturn
> launch vehicles, NASA-SP-4206, Jan 01, 1981
....I used to have a copy of this one. Yep, got horked by the roommate
from hell.
>Customer acceptance readiness review Project Apollo CSM 012,
> phase 1, CSM-012, Jun 01, 1966
....Hey, which one was 012?
>Visibility of orbital assembly from CSM during rendezvous,
> NASA-CR-119293, Jun 28, 1971
....Considering the discussions regarding the Arrow's cockpit of late,
this report might be of some tangential interest.
>CSM fuel requirements for a LM rescue in lunar orbit,
> NASA-TM-X-64384, Oct 30, 1967, JSC
....This one I need a copy of.
>Apollo CSM and LM onboard navigation system constraints,
> NASA-TM-X-65079, May 01, 1968, JSC
....Now, take these results and compare them to what was experienced
with A13, and...
>Apollo CSM parts management - A legacy for future space
> programs., Jan 01, 1966
....This title, of course, is a bit ironic when you think about it.
Tragic, too.
>LM rendezvous procedures - F mission, AS-505/CSM-106/LM-4
> Final report, NASA-TM-X-64407, Apr 28, 1969, JSC
....Lessee, the F missions were intended for...?
>CSM and LM configuration difference charts, NASA-CR-154645,
> Aug 10, 1967
....Gotta get this for Mark Wade for next Channukamasswanza :-)
>Performance capabilities of the Apollo CSM and LM downlink
> communications, NASA-CR-116954, Dec 31, 19
....And then there's the rumor that this became a core element of FCC
Part 95, which governed 11-meter CB :-P
>Skylab: Command service module systems handbook, CSM 116 -
> 119, NASA-TM-X-68949, Apr 20, 1972, JSC
....Now -this- could be fun. Even better still would be the A10
version, complete with Charles Shultz's _Peanuts_ sketches :-)
>Skylab hardware evaluation CSM rescue, NASA-CR-150950, Feb
> 08, 1974
....Ok, someone go get this and let's settle this "6-man Apollo" thread
once and for all :-(
>Evasive maneuver subsequent to CSM/LM ejection from the S-4B
> in earth orbit - Project Apollo, NASA-TM-X-64368, Jun 13,
> 1969, JSC
"Mike! Hard to port! Buzz! Raise shields!"
>CSM fuel requirements for a LM rescue in lunar orbit, Project
> Apollo, NASA-TM-X-74703, Oct 30, 1967, JSC
....Wow! A rerun! :-)
>The Apollo docking system, Jun 01, 1970
....Here's another I'd want a copy of. Guess I'll have to check out the
site and see what the availability options are.
>Estimation of fireball from Saturn vehicles following failure on
> launch pad, NASA-TM-X-65199, Aug 03, 1965, JSC
....Now -this- looks like fun. Of course, with my luck, it's nothing
more than an expanded version of Vern Estes' schpiel on why kids
should buy his SRMs instead of blowing their hands off using rockets
fueled by kerosene :-)
>Technical study for the use of the Saturn 5, INT-21 and other
> Saturn 5 derivatives to determine an optimum fourth stage (space
> tug). Volume 1: Technical volume, book 1, NASA-CR-103004, Feb
> 26, 1971
....Now -this- looks really promising. Interesting to see they were
still doing studies like this as late as 1971, what with all the
cancellations going on.
>Apollo LM guidance computer software for the final lunar descent.,
> Mar 01, 1973
10 CALL MOONLAND
11 REM IF MOONLAND SUCCESSFUL DO 15
15 CALL EVA
16 REM IF EVA SUCCESSFUL DO 20
20 COPY FINGER TO NIXON
21 GOTO 20
>Evaluation of the LM guidance system performance over the
> approach terrain of five of the proposed Apollo landing sites -
> Apollo program, NASA-TM-X-64381, Mar 06, 1968, JSC
....Now, somewhere there has to be a follow-up to this that dealt with
the 1201/1202 alarms and how the data exceeded the expectations.
Getting these two documents together might be good thesis fodder.
>Apollo flight crew vestibular assessment, Jul 01, 1975, JSC
....What? A study of the Astronauts' Vestibule? Mad Maddie O'Hare must
have had a cow over this waste of her tax dollars :-)
>Status report on the space radiation effects on the apollo mission. d-
> operational procedures for apollo dose radiation, Jan 01, 1965
....Considering that some of the speculation on why Storey Musgrave was
"retired" centered on some claims that he'd received too much
radiation over his carrer, I'd be curious to see what NASA expected
the Apollo guys to receive.
>Computer-aided engineering writing - Test procedures for Apollo
> spacecraft., Jul 01, 1967
....Ok kids, before there was MS Word, there was Wordstar :-)
>Crew egress procedures for Apollo block 1 command module at sea,
> NASA-TM-X-64311, Dec 07, 1966, JSC
....So, just how different were these from the block 2 models :-/
>Rendezvous procedures - Apollo 7, AS-205/101 Final report,
> NASA-TM-X-64411, Sep 27, 1968, JSC
....Anyone wanna guess whether this report mentions the "Mickey Mouse
manouvers" that Wally refused to do because they hadn't been worked
out previously in the sims?
>Apollo operations handbook extravehicular mobility unit. Volume
> 2: Operational procedures CSD-A-789-(2), Apollo 15-17, revision
> 3, NASA-TM-X-69515, Jun 01, 1971, JSC
....I'm assuming this is the CSM's EVA suit for going out and
retrieving the film cans from the SM bay?
>Effect of terrain variations on primary LEM guidance equations
> during phase 2 of powered descent, NASA-TM-X-64338, Dec 21,
> 1964, JSC
....Again, here's more 1201/1202 thesis fodder :-)
>Roles of the ground and flight crew in Apollo operations., AIAA
> PAPER 72-236, Mar 01, 1972
....You know, if this is online, then I'll definately add a link from
the FAQ. Every now and then you'll see kids asking what EECOM, FIDO,
METRO, etc. stand for.
>Life sciences 2: Physiological, psychological and training
> considerations of the apollo crew, NASA-CR-136578, Jun 01, 1961
"Chapter 1: How to deal with Pete Conrad and his sense of humor for
the duration of a circumlunar flight."
> This is out about 10% of the items I found. These are just some of the
>publically released materials. They include procedures, tests, analysis,
>operations, pad systems, and a lot of other things. I believe that this is
>evidence of "mass microfilming". Depends on what you want, I guess. The
>National Archives group I have contacted is still pursuing the blueprinst
>side of the equation.
....Keep us posted on this one, especially if they manage to come up
with paint scheme listings for the Saturns. Chuck Corway, again, would
eat that data up in a heartbeat, as would several others on this
group.
> Many of these will be multiple parts - I tried to not duplicate or report
>more than one volume of a set, but there will be some errors on my part
>in that regard.
....Well, you missed one, but considering how much you did post...:-)
> All of these are microfilm and/or paper reports. They are available thru
>instructions included on the search result page.
....somebody give that boy a cigar :-)
Dwayne Allen Day
Dwayne Allen Day (wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu) wrote:
: : >>So, if it was in a trash bin, and was in pieces, does this mean that
: : >>anything still out there was recovered from trashbins nationwide by
: : >>some caring soul who just happened to discover it before the trash
: : >>truck came?
: : ....I think the point that Shane's been trying to make all along is
: : that while the materials may still exist, they're not 100% in one
: : place, and/or not 100% accessable to the public at large.
: Well, this is why we have people called "historians."
Okay, that was too glib. My point was that material will be spread over
multiple locations in various states of completeness as a matter of
course. That's what they call research. And you will never find all of
what you want.
Dwayne Allen Day
om (o...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >>So, if it was in a trash bin, and was in pieces, does this mean that
: >>anything still out there was recovered from trashbins nationwide by
: >>some caring soul who just happened to discover it before the trash
: >>truck came?
: ....I think the point that Shane's been trying to make all along is
: that while the materials may still exist, they're not 100% in one
: place, and/or not 100% accessable to the public at large.
Well, this is why we have people called "historians."
DDAY
dan...@airmail.net
On 17 Jan 1997 02:58:42 GMT, wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Dwayne Allen
Day) wrote:
>: Last time I post a heartfelt concern around here, folks. For those
>: who sent along kind words by e-mail and shared my concerns, thank you.
>: Your words are appreciated.
>
>Uh, this is getting a little too emotional. First you're getting nasty
>e-mails, now you're getting expressions of concern. Let's just discuss
>and debate things instead of feeling each others' pain, okay?
Excuse me.
I got nasty e-mails, as well as some appreciative ones. Some people
totally missed the point of my commentary, latching onto, for example,
a single point (such as the debated availability of Saturn V
blueprints) and hanging on like rabid chihuahuas. Others saw the big
picture, and expressed to me their own concerns over what we have
lost. I wanted these folks to know I appreciated their words.
I wasn't aware that a general rule for this newsgroup was as follows:
'Any message posted to this board must be a dry litany of facts and
figures relevant to spaceflight history, with no expression of
humanity, humor or mutual concern whatsoever, while always (and
sarcastically, if possible) putting the poorly-informed message poster
(especially if young) in his/her place by showing him/her how much
spaceflight-related trivia and/or significa the more-enlightened of us
know, while answering as few sincerely-asked research questions as
possible and belittling those pathetic souls who ask, casting a
general pointer toward their local public library, which may or may
not contain a damn thing about manned spaceflight of the 1960s (I know
mine doesn't).'
And I also think it might do some people a bit of good to consider
others' 'pain' once in a while.
>The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant.
Sure seems that way.
Shane
Dwayne Allen Day
dan...@airmail.net wrote:
: You're all free to believe whatever you want. I didn't come in here
: to start an argument. I just felt I needed to speak out.
There have been numerous posts listing materials in the National Archives
and elsewhere. So it apparently depends upon what you're looking for.
Complete F-1 blueprints exist, for instance. Extensive Saturn blueprints
exist as well.
: Last time I post a heartfelt concern around here, folks. For those
: who sent along kind words by e-mail and shared my concerns, thank you.
: Your words are appreciated.
Uh, this is getting a little too emotional. First you're getting nasty
e-mails, now you're getting expressions of concern. Let's just discuss
and debate things instead of feeling each others' pain, okay?
DDAY
--
Chuck Buckley
In article <32e4db12....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
om <o...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On 16 Jan 1997 23:40:13 GMT, cbuc...@fc.hp.com (Chuck Buckley) wrote:
>
>> Well, I will provide what I believe to be evidence and you can take it
>>as you will..
>>
>> Available from the following source:
>>
>>http://www.sti.nasa.gov/RECONselect.html
>
>...Bookmarked! :-) I'll probably include this link in the FAQ as well
>:-)
>
Word of warning.. They have the Search Engine from Hell..
It only 150 max entries it can retrieve. It also has some wierd choices
for how it retrieves the info. It's calculation of how well to match
the entries to the search request is questionable, at best. For example
"Apollo CSM control layout" gave an answer for every GN&C conference that
NASA was involved in, but no Apollo CSM info. I prefer a search engine
that can weigh the answers by the order that I enter them into the form.
>
>>Saturn 1B and Saturn 5 computer programs, software,
>> NASA-TM-X-72901, Jul 05, 1972, KSC
>
>10 CALL LAUNCH
>11 REM IF LAUNCH SUCCESSFUL, GOTO 15
>15 CALL ORBIT_E
>16 REM IF ORBIT_E SUCCESSFUL, GOTO 20
>20 CALL TLI
>21 REM IF TLI SUCCESSFUL, GOTO 25
>25 LOAD MOONLAND
>30 END
>
:)
Well, it would more likely be assembly code for a defunct architecture.. :-/
>>Stages to Saturn: A technological history of the Apollo/Saturn
>> launch vehicles, NASA-SP-4206, Jan 01, 1981
>
>....I used to have a copy of this one. Yep, got horked by the roommate
>from hell.
>
Yeah.. I had a roomate like that... sold my first print Star Trek Log
books to buy cigarettes...
>>Customer acceptance readiness review Project Apollo CSM 012,
>> phase 1, CSM-012, Jun 01, 1966
>
>....Hey, which one was 012?
>
Not sure. But, they had a bunch of these for different vehicles.
>>Visibility of orbital assembly from CSM during rendezvous,
>> NASA-CR-119293, Jun 28, 1971
>
>....Considering the discussions regarding the Arrow's cockpit of late,
>this report might be of some tangential interest.
>
And would be useful for all those HLV vs on-orbit assembly arguments on
sci.space.policy.
>>CSM fuel requirements for a LM rescue in lunar orbit,
>> NASA-TM-X-64384, Oct 30, 1967, JSC
>
>....This one I need a copy of.
>
I did not really bother citing many of the rescue/abort references, but they
made the largest single block of info. They had pad aborts, Skylab rescues,
lunar aborts, etc, etc...
>>Apollo CSM and LM onboard navigation system constraints,
>> NASA-TM-X-65079, May 01, 1968, JSC
>
>....Now, take these results and compare them to what was experienced
>with A13, and...
>
Each of the missions had an analysis done of the trajectory during
that mission. I would think that severe deviations would be included in that.
Comparing back to this would be pretty interesting.
>>Apollo CSM parts management - A legacy for future space
>> programs., Jan 01, 1966
>
>....This title, of course, is a bit ironic when you think about it.
>Tragic, too.
>
I thought that too. But, you might want to consider the option that this
details the disposal of blueprints and other Apollo related items.
They were planning in 1966 to revive this series. This is an excerpt from
a conference in 1965 presented by some North American Aviation employees.
If nothing else, it will point the direction of the people who might just
know some more aspects of the question of what happened to the pieces of
the Apollo program.
>>LM rendezvous procedures - F mission, AS-505/CSM-106/LM-4
>> Final report, NASA-TM-X-64407, Apr 28, 1969, JSC
>
>....Lessee, the F missions were intended for...?
>
Not sure, but there were other manuals for D, G, and H that I can recall
off the top of my head. There might have been more, but after awhile they all
look alike.
>
>>Skylab: Command service module systems handbook, CSM 116 -
>> 119, NASA-TM-X-68949, Apr 20, 1972, JSC
>
>....Now -this- could be fun. Even better still would be the A10
>version, complete with Charles Shultz's _Peanuts_ sketches :-)
>
I did more searches than I care to think about looking for the Apollo
versions of this manual. It may, or may not, be there.. But a search on
CSM maxes out at 150 docs and using other keywords did not seem to help.
>
>>The Apollo docking system, Jun 01, 1970
>
>....Here's another I'd want a copy of. Guess I'll have to check out the
>site and see what the availability options are.
>
>>Estimation of fireball from Saturn vehicles following failure on
>> launch pad, NASA-TM-X-65199, Aug 03, 1965, JSC
>
>....Now -this- looks like fun. Of course, with my luck, it's nothing
>more than an expanded version of Vern Estes' schpiel on why kids
>should buy his SRMs instead of blowing their hands off using rockets
>fueled by kerosene :-)
>
There was another paper which I am not sure of including in my post that
covered the damage that a docking ring could survive in case of using
the range safety devices or an explosion of the booster..
>>Technical study for the use of the Saturn 5, INT-21 and other
>> Saturn 5 derivatives to determine an optimum fourth stage (space
>> tug). Volume 1: Technical volume, book 1, NASA-CR-103004, Feb
>> 26, 1971
>
>....Now -this- looks really promising. Interesting to see they were
>still doing studies like this as late as 1971, what with all the
>cancellations going on.
>
Ahh. Well, this might have been a very nasty trend at NASA where they
were no longer quite aware of what was happening.. lasting up until the
present..
>
>>Crew egress procedures for Apollo block 1 command module at sea,
>> NASA-TM-X-64311, Dec 07, 1966, JSC
>
>....So, just how different were these from the block 2 models :-/
>
I looked very hard for the other one of these too..
>>Rendezvous procedures - Apollo 7, AS-205/101 Final report,
>> NASA-TM-X-64411, Sep 27, 1968, JSC
>
>....Anyone wanna guess whether this report mentions the "Mickey Mouse
>manouvers" that Wally refused to do because they hadn't been worked
>out previously in the sims?
>
I would suspect that they would be very bland..
>>Apollo operations handbook extravehicular mobility unit. Volume
>> 2: Operational procedures CSD-A-789-(2), Apollo 15-17, revision
>> 3, NASA-TM-X-69515, Jun 01, 1971, JSC
>
>....I'm assuming this is the CSM's EVA suit for going out and
>retrieving the film cans from the SM bay?
>
no idea..
>>Effect of terrain variations on primary LEM guidance equations
>> during phase 2 of powered descent, NASA-TM-X-64338, Dec 21,
>> 1964, JSC
>
>....Again, here's more 1201/1202 thesis fodder :-)
>
Along with the post-mission trajectory analysis..
>>Roles of the ground and flight crew in Apollo operations., AIAA
>> PAPER 72-236, Mar 01, 1972
>
>....You know, if this is online, then I'll definately add a link from
>the FAQ. Every now and then you'll see kids asking what EECOM, FIDO,
>METRO, etc. stand for.
>
Hmm. I would swear that NASA had a homepage for acronyms somewhere..
This does look like a good ref in any case.
Well, I figure that I have, at least, given some pointers as to some of the
things out there for Shane and Dana. The data is not going to be in one piece,
but given the wholesale cataloging of everything else, I would say that there
is some very good info out there if you dig.
Hmmm. I wonder if a non-profit corporation could get enough donations to
scan a lot of these documents into electronic form... Archive them up
and make them web accessible..
dan...@airmail.net
>: Last time I post a heartfelt concern around here, folks. For those
>: who sent along kind words by e-mail and shared my concerns, thank you.
>: Your words are appreciated.
>
>Uh, this is getting a little too emotional. First you're getting nasty
>e-mails, now you're getting expressions of concern. Let's just discuss
>and debate things instead of feeling each others' pain, okay?
Excuse me.
I got nasty e-mails, as well as some appreciative ones. Some people
totally missed the point of my commentary, latching onto, for example,
a single point (such as the debated availability of Saturn V
blueprints) and hanging on like rabid chihuahuas. Others saw the big
picture, and expressed to me their own concerns over what we have
lost. I wanted these folks to know I appreciated their words.
I wasn't aware that a general rule for this newsgroup was as follows:
'Any message posted to this board must be a dry litany of facts and
figures relevant to spaceflight history, with no expression of
humanity, humor or mutual concern whatsoever, while always (and
sarcastically, if possible) putting the poorly-informed message poster
(especially if young) in his/her place by showing him/her how much
spaceflight-related trivia and/or significa the more-enlightened of us
know, while answering as few sincerely-asked research questions as
possible and belittling those pathetic souls who ask, casting a
general pointer toward their local public library, which may or may
not contain a damn thing about manned spaceflight of the 1960s (I know
mine doesn't).'
And I also think it might do some people a bit of good to consider
others' 'pain' once in a while.
>The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant.
Apparently so.
Dwayne Allen Day
dan...@airmail.net wrote:
: I got nasty e-mails, as well as some appreciative ones. Some people
: totally missed the point of my commentary, latching onto, for example,
: a single point (such as the debated availability of Saturn V
: blueprints) and hanging on like rabid chihuahuas.
New to Usenet, I guess?
A poster has no control over how people will interpret their words after
they are posted. So the fact that most people latched on to the issue of
the destruction of records (for which various posters have provided
extensive proof that this is not correct) is just the nature of Usenet.
Now it also seems that you don't have much ground to stand on because that
part of the debate is also the one you yourself chose to reply on. So,
while it annoys you that people focused on this one small part of your
larger post, you might remember that YOU YOURSELF chose to focus on this
one small part of your larger post.
: Others saw the big
: picture, and expressed to me their own concerns over what we have
: lost. I wanted these folks to know I appreciated their words.
And here's the other problem: your post was not really appropriate to
this group. It was more appropriate to sci.space.policy, where the
"state of manned spaceflight" is frequently discussed. In fact, there was
just a major, intense, quite illuminating discussion there recently. It
discussed the role of the frontier and whether that was a factor in Apollo
and should be a factor today. So the fact that your post did not generate
the type of debate that you wanted is partly the result of the fact that
you posted it in the less appropriate newsgroup.
: I wasn't aware that a general rule for this newsgroup was as follows:
There ain't no rules for the group. One must simply follow some common
sense.
: know, while answering as few sincerely-asked research questions as
: possible and belittling those pathetic souls who ask, casting a
: general pointer toward their local public library, which may or may
: not contain a damn thing about manned spaceflight of the 1960s (I know
: mine doesn't).'
[I'll wait for the violins to fade...]
Ah, well, the "sincerely-asked research question" can come in many forms.
Sincerity is not really the important thing. The important thing recently
has been the laziness of the person doing the asking. We have noted
several recent cases where someone asked a vague, ambiguous, poorly
phrased research question in such a way as to indicate that they wanted
other people to do their research for them (i.e. "please e-mail me the
answers because I don't read the group"). As I have said in response to
these questions, the best way to help these people would be to point them
in the right direction and let them do their own research. It's the old
"give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish" lesson.
: And I also think it might do some people a bit of good to consider
: others' 'pain' once in a while.
Welcome to Clinton's America.
DDAY
--
Jim Kingdon
> Hmmm. I wonder if a non-profit corporation could get enough donations to
> scan a lot of these documents into electronic form... Archive them up
> and make them web accessible..
The usual approach for this seems to be to rely heavily on volunteers.
If one person/organization wants to scan and provide bitmaps, and let
volunteers do OCR and proofreading that might be easier than requiring
volunteers to have scanners, I dunno. If volunteers do most of the
work you would just need donations for getting the copies in the first
place plus a small staff if you want one.
The Federation of American Scientists (www.fas.org) has done a certain
amount of this, although of course the documents they are interested
in may or may not be the documents you are interested in.
Another source of revenue might be to sell CD-ROMs. Even if you don't
claim a copyright on any of it, this might be workable. I'm not sure
whether I have much of an opinion one way or the other about whether
people would be interested in such a project (either the CD-ROM angle,
and/or the donation angle).
Paul F. Dietz
dan...@airmail.net wrote:
>I wasn't aware that a general rule for this newsgroup was as follows:
>'Any message posted to this board must be a dry litany of facts [...]
Facts would be a good idea, yes.
Paul
dan...@airmail.net
On 17 Jan 1997 20:10:45 GMT, wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Dwayne Allen
Day) wrote:
>dan...@airmail.net wrote:
>: I got nasty e-mails, as well as some appreciative ones. Some people
>: totally missed the point of my commentary, latching onto, for example,
>: a single point (such as the debated availability of Saturn V
>: blueprints) and hanging on like rabid chihuahuas.
>
>New to Usenet, I guess?
>A poster has no control over how people will interpret their words after
>they are posted. So the fact that most people latched on to the issue of
>the destruction of records (for which various posters have provided
>extensive proof that this is not correct) is just the nature of Usenet.
>Now it also seems that you don't have much ground to stand on because that
>part of the debate is also the one you yourself chose to reply on. So,
>while it annoys you that people focused on this one small part of your
>larger post, you might remember that YOU YOURSELF chose to focus on this
>one small part of your larger post.
Where did I do this? My follow up posts were made EXCLUSIVELY in
response to others. My 'choice to reply' was made because the primary
response to the commentary in this group was centered on this 'one
small part.'
>: know, while answering as few sincerely-asked research questions as
>: possible and belittling those pathetic souls who ask, casting a
>: general pointer toward their local public library, which may or may
>: not contain a damn thing about manned spaceflight of the 1960s (I know
>: mine doesn't).'
>
>[I'll wait for the violins to fade...]
You're a funny guy.
>Ah, well, the "sincerely-asked research question" can come in many forms.
>Sincerity is not really the important thing. The important thing recently
>has been the laziness of the person doing the asking. We have noted
>several recent cases where someone asked a vague, ambiguous, poorly
>phrased research question in such a way as to indicate that they wanted
>other people to do their research for them (i.e. "please e-mail me the
>answers because I don't read the group"). As I have said in response to
>these questions, the best way to help these people would be to point them
>in the right direction and let them do their own research. It's the old
>"give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish" lesson.
>
>
>: And I also think it might do some people a bit of good to consider
>: others' 'pain' once in a while.
>
>Welcome to Clinton's America.
Now, THAT'S irrelevant to the newsgroup. And I'm no Clinton fan,
believe me.
I thought we were people, not computers. My mistake.
I never wanted to make a fight out of all this. After my original
post, I never once came in here and instigated a thing. Every other
word I wrote was in response to someone else, which, as you pointed
out, is the nature of Usenet. I would not have posted the above, if
not for the sarcasm leveled at me concerning others' 'pain.'
You guys have certainly put me in my place. Between postings here and
e-mails sent to me, I have been labeled a conspiracy buff, a troll, a
pitiful fool, 'WRONG WRONG WRONG' and worse, and a supporter of
Clinton's America. I don't know which is worse.
Are we through? Can we drop this now?
Edmund C. Hack
In article <5b3tc9$tq$1...@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>,
Dwayne Allen Day <wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
>Chuck Buckley (cbuc...@fc.hp.com) wrote:
>: Most of the high end computing that I have heard of was driven by
>: the needs of weather forecasting. Most of Cray's early purchases were by
>: different weather organizations. (World Meteorological Organization, the
>
>that a good percentage of Cray's early sales went to the NSA.
Outside of Washington D.C., I was told that Houston, TX has the most
supercomputers installed. The "All Bidness" has a great need for number
crunching. It is not an accident that TI set up their DSP chip group in
Houston.
I was once at a training course at Lisp Machines Inc and 50% of the
machines in the assembly room were marked as going to the NSA or CIA.
--
Edmund Hack \ "If I had a time machine,
ech...@crl.com\ I know just where I'd go." - Al Stewart
Dwayne Allen Day
dan...@airmail.net wrote:
: >Now it also seems that you don't have much ground to stand on because that
: >part of the debate is also the one you yourself chose to reply on. So,
: >while it annoys you that people focused on this one small part of your
: >larger post, you might remember that YOU YOURSELF chose to focus on this
: >one small part of your larger post.
: Where did I do this? My follow up posts were made EXCLUSIVELY in
: response to others. My 'choice to reply' was made because the primary
: response to the commentary in this group was centered on this 'one
: small part.'
Jeez, this is like agruing with a rock...
To rephrase: your complaint is that all the debate has ignored your
original point and concentrated on the "destruction of records" issue. My
response is that you yourself have decided to continue to argue this issue
(despite extensive postings of archived materials that have proven you
wrong). So it is disingenuous to complain that the whole debate has
centered around this one point when you contributed extensively to that
whole debate.
: >[I'll wait for the violins to fade...]
: You're a funny guy.
What do you mean I'm a funny guy? Do you mean I amuse you? Do you mean
I'm a clown? Is that why I'm here... to amuse you?
[ah, Joe Pesci, I love ya]
: Now, THAT'S irrelevant to the newsgroup. And I'm no Clinton fan,
: believe me.
: I thought we were people, not computers. My mistake.
Huh?
: out, is the nature of Usenet. I would not have posted the above, if
: not for the sarcasm leveled at me concerning others' 'pain.'
Oh, it wasn't sarcasm. It was amusement.
: You guys have certainly put me in my place. Between postings here and
: e-mails sent to me, I have been labeled a conspiracy buff, a troll, a
: pitiful fool, 'WRONG WRONG WRONG' and worse, and a supporter of
: Clinton's America. I don't know which is worse.
I dropped the conspiracy buff and the troll characterizations. You are
stubborn, however. And you still fail to recognize that your tirade on
the state of manned spaceflight is more appropriate to the policy group
and would have attracted more discussion there. This, as the header says,
is sci.space.history, so one should not be exactly surprised to see
history debated here, as opposed to more general discussions as to where
the country is going in space. The current state of the space program is
not history. The issue of Apollo blueprints IS history. That explains
things pretty well.
Kenneth Lin
: 'Any message posted to this board must be a dry litany of facts and
: figures relevant to spaceflight history, with no expression of
: humanity, humor or mutual concern whatsoever, while always (and
: sarcastically, if possible) putting the poorly-informed message poster
: (especially if young) in his/her place by showing him/her how much
: spaceflight-related trivia and/or significa the more-enlightened of us
: know, while answering as few sincerely-asked research questions as
: possible and belittling those pathetic souls who ask, casting a
: general pointer toward their local public library, which may or may
: not contain a damn thing about manned spaceflight of the 1960s (I know
: mine doesn't).'
It's probably safe to say that any person (young or old) who has access
to the technology required to post freely on an Internet newsgroup and
search the far corners of the World Wide Web also has access to a local
library with information on manned spaceflight history.
I think what Dwayne's been arguing is that going to the library first,
then posting specific informed questions on sci.space.history is
a much more productive research strategy than coming here first,
asking a question so ridiculously general that any pointers would be
equally vague, then never following up in a library or archive.
For example, if I were to ask:
"Hey, I'm writing a research paper on the space program. Please email
me info, as this is the one and only time I will ever post or read
on this newsgroup."
you would be completely within your rights in asking me to go to
a library, or at the very least try some Yahoo or Webcrawler searches,
which would likely turn up all the general space history sites anyway.
: >The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant.
: Sure seems that way.
: Shane
And now who's making nasty personal attacks?
Kenny
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kenny Lin '97
486 Eliot Mail Center
Cambridge, MA 02138-6133
(617) 493-7125
kw...@fas.harvard.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
dan...@airmail.net
On 17 Jan 1997 23:07:58 GMT, wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Dwayne Allen
Day) wrote:
>Jeez, this is like agruing with a rock...
>: >[I'll wait for the violins to fade...]
>
>: You're a funny guy.
>
>What do you mean I'm a funny guy? Do you mean I amuse you? Do you mean
>I'm a clown? Is that why I'm here... to amuse you?
Uh, I don't know...I mean...you're just funny...I mean...no, I didn't
mean...No...you're not a clown...I didn't mean...
BLAM!
Igneously yours,
Shane
Rich Wielgosz
In <32e009b9...@news.airmail.net>, dan...@airmail.net writes:
>You guys have certainly put me in my place. Between postings here and
>e-mails sent to me, I have been labeled a conspiracy buff, a troll, a
>pitiful fool, 'WRONG WRONG WRONG' and worse, and a supporter of
>Clinton's America. I don't know which is worse.
>
That depends... Has the SCI.SPACE.HISTORY RE-EDUCATION GULAG convinced you
that the Saturn V plans are NOT lost for all eternity?
Rich Wielgosz...
___________________________________________________________________
Richard V. Wielgosz <wiel...@servtech.com>
http://www.servtech.com/public/wielgosz
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chuck Buckley
In article <m2u3og3...@harvey.cyclic.com>,
Jim Kingdon <kin...@harvey.cyclic.com> wrote:
>> Hmmm. I wonder if a non-profit corporation could get enough donations to
>> scan a lot of these documents into electronic form... Archive them up
>> and make them web accessible..
>
>If one person/organization wants to scan and provide bitmaps, and let
>volunteers do OCR and proofreading that might be easier than requiring
>volunteers to have scanners, I dunno. If volunteers do most of the
>work you would just need donations for getting the copies in the first
>place plus a small staff if you want one.
>
I had considered that, but managing volunteer labor is sketchy, at best.
I have worked on too many volunteer efforts where the volunteers flaked out
and did not finish the job. It would be a good suppliment tho and certainly
something to consider.
Mostly, I was thinking of donations of equipment and upkeep costs. Keeping
the info online would eat a lot of disk space.
>The Federation of American Scientists (www.fas.org) has done a certain
>amount of this, although of course the documents they are interested
>in may or may not be the documents you are interested in.
Probably not.
>
>Another source of revenue might be to sell CD-ROMs. Even if you don't
>claim a copyright on any of it, this might be workable. I'm not sure
>whether I have much of an opinion one way or the other about whether
>people would be interested in such a project (either the CD-ROM angle,
>and/or the donation angle).
Well, CD mastering machines are fairly cheap now. The break even point
would be on the order of about 1000 CD's (assuming mostly volunteer labor).
Is there that much a market for original source materials? I am not sure about
that. Just looking at the number of people posting on here trying to get
predigested knowledge is not very encouraging. But, there are enough people
here that are interested to keep someone not interested in making a profit
in business. I think it could limp along providing some very good info, but
would not be a commercial success.
Dave Weinstein
>They've probably been surpassed by the nuclear weapons effects people at
>effects in a computer. So there is a greater requirement for sheer
>greater requirement than one would find in the spook field. It is also
>rather odd to note that we can employ massively powerful computers to
>design and simulate nuclear weapons and the story makes page 1 of the
>Washington Post, but the computers used by the guys at the Puzzle Palace
>are very deep black.
sincerely doubt that NoSuchAgency, or any other such agency would
release the exact specs of any of their computers, not to mention their
existance. I wouldn't be surpirsed if their systems weren't a decade or
two above teh best publicly available supercomps. That goes for the
Russians, the Brits, the Israelis, the Japanese, and probably the
Chinese Intelligence Agencies as well, to name a few.
Encryption/Decryption is rapidly becoming a function of how much info
you can process, how fast.
--
Dave Weinstein