Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Sun, 26 Feb 89 03:16:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 26 Feb 89 03:16:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #261 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 261 Today's Topics: the un/manned debate Re: Synthetic Aperture Radar Re: 1992 moon base Re: 1992 moon base Re: 1992 moon base Re: Government/Commercial Research, Development and Operations Re: centrifugal forces Re: 1992 moon base Re:Re: French small space shuttle: A go ahead ! Re: 1992 moon base Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 89 17:00:56 CST From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Happiness is planet Earth in your rearview mirror) Subject: the un/manned debate The problem with arguing about the value of space research is, what is its REAL value. Not the intrinsic value to most participants (knowledge), but, for instance, what does 1987A have to do with a cure for AIDS or stopping the greenhouse effect. What I find myself doing is getting involved with this from a view of space only. We don't have the luxury of living in that world. If someone were to come forward and offer up a cure for AIDS (or whatever you believe is a pressing social issue), but the cost would be NASAs budget for the next year, we'd all be dreaming for a year. All the research, all the technology that we have going for us, and we still can't keep people clothed, fed and housed in this country. If you want to argue value of research, let service to society be your true standard, and see how far we all fall from the mark. We should go the stars because we want to, not because it makes sense. We should ask questions not for economic return, but because we are curious. Me, I've spent a week in an ice cave on Denali, so the moon colony sounds good to me :-) Dillon Pyron | The opinions are mine, the facts TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company. pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com | (214)462-5449 | Did anyone notice Frank Borman at | Christmas? ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 89 03:02:55 GMT From: sgi!mitch%rock.SGI.COM@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Mitchell) Subject: Re: Synthetic Aperture Radar In article <404@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, joe@hanauma.stanford.edu (Joe Dellinger) writes: > > Unfortunately, they lamented at the seminar that in Mexico there > HAS NEVER BEEN A GEODETIC SURVEY! Good surveys are not cheep. And they are rare in Mexico. This is one of the reasons our railroads were given the 20 mile checkerboard for completion of the railroads in the west. They only got the checkerboard IF it was surveyed and the rail was set.. It seems like a big give away today. But I don't think so. In Mexico today one of the largest expenses for mineral exploration is bringing in the required high quality survey to the property boundaries. A single monument can cost $+20,000 (1971 dollars). No wonder the masses cannot rise above it. > The question is, is there some way to CHEAPLY measure such > ground motions (on the order of a meter or two) from space? > I asked him about it, and he said if you wanted to be accurate > you'd probably need to lay out a grid of Radar corner reflectors. These > would be half-cubes of metal about ~1m on a side. Should be cheap. Yes, A couple of years back Bendix had a thing in one of the employee magazines which described a ~12inch sphere with imbedded optical corner cube reflectors. This had been launched into orbit just for high quality surveying. I have since seen (Science) articles with the same truck van doing 'high' quality surveying in the context of earthquake predictions. As the technique is optical locations may be determined within a couple of cm or so. The best way to research this is a computer search on the "Palmdale Bulge". There was a large bunch of articles c.5 years back when someone noted that geodedic leveling indicated a 'uplift' of a large area adjadcent to the San Andreas fault. As always only believe a bit of what you read, -- Thomas P. Mitchell (mitch@sgi.com) Rainbows -- The best (well second best) reason for windows. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 89 13:25:57 GMT From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu (Paul Dietz) Subject: Re: 1992 moon base Keith P. Mancus writes: > I fail to see why rovers couldn't be operated around the clock, > period. Putting searchlights on them is no big deal. My concern was not vision. After all, military light intensifiers allow soldiers on Earth to see reasonably well by starlight, the rover (at least on the near side) will have a Full Earth overhead, and, because of slowness due to transmission delays, it should be possible (if not necessary) to take several second exposures. I was worried about power. I assumed the rovers would be solar powered. Keith suggested using a RTG instead. Would this be feasible? If so, round-the-clock operation is no big problem. Indeed, if the rover uses optical communications the SNR for the signal from the rover would be higher at night. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 89 02:15:25 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: 1992 moon base In article <1989Feb21.091543.8162@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >>... A shuttle-based plan made *today* cannot >>assume oxygen/hydrogen without orbital assembly or something like that, >>but before January 1986 oxygen/hydrogen was a reasonable choice of fuel. > >It was reasonable only in the sense that NASA was saying that it was >reasonable. NASA said lots of silly things... And a lot of things that originally made sense got retroactively declared silly because NASA didn't feel like bothering any more. -- The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 20 Feb 89 19:31:34 GMT From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) Subject: Re: 1992 moon base In article <1989Feb20.075908.5764@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: [ lots of stuff deleted ] > > While earth-operated rovers may be slower, they could be operated around > the clock (at least during the lunar day). Earth-bound operators would be > many times less expensive than lunar colonists. > How about this: If we can put teleoperated lunar rovers on the surface, which can then survey the terrain and find good deposits of materials, why not follow up these rovers with teleoperated materials extraction robots, to extract and stockpile materials such as glass, aluminum, iron, silicon, etc, for a permanent colony to follow later? Iron could be relatively easily gathered with magnets, and since the soil has lots of silicon dioxide, glass would be easy to manufacture. But how about aluminum? Has anyone done any study of a closed-loop method for extracting aluminum from the lunar soil? If possible, it would make a good building material. How about silicon? If pure silicon (i.e. 98% +) can be extracted, then a robotic float-zone puller could eventually get pure enough silicon for the manufacture of solar cells. If the process is highly automated and produces large quantities, then even 5% efficiency is adequate. What about power storage? Are the materials present to construct batteries of any form? In a closed-loop process? In short, if we could put a teleoperated surveyor on the lunar surface, why not go one step further and stockpile resources? Apart from the $$$$$$$$$$, what's to stop it? Norman Kluksdahl Arizona State University ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah standard disclaimer implied Useful criticism always appreciated. Senseless flames always discarded. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 89 05:00:58 GMT From: right!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Nick Szabo) Subject: Re: Government/Commercial Research, Development and Operations In article <8902210156.AA22066@crash.cts.com> mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov writes: >The real space policy issue is where, on the spectrum of >technical maturity and risk from research to development to operations, >should the government be prohibited from stepping in to provide >direct support/subsidy and what controls should be put on that >support so as to avoid self-serving porkbarrel and good-ole-boy >networks? My analysis is based on U.S. politics. The U.S. had a very successful history of policies that promoted new industries and opened new frontiers. (Note the past tense). Government should provide funds for both exploration (as it did for Lewis and Clark et. al.) and basic research. Furthermore, it should provide incentives for the creation of new industries, as with the railroad (c. 1840-1870) and air transportation in the 1930's. It should not own or operate these industries. Translating these policies into the current space program, the government should fund scientific missions (eg planetary probes, Mission to Planet Earth) based on their science return, and basic R&D to develop better technology for future scientific and commercial applications. It should subsidize new industries of large potential by providing garunteed purchases, tax breaks, patents, import quotas, etc. to the extent that these measures do not harm other new industries. A technology is mature enough to be operated privately if it can be done at a profit, given reasonable government new-industry incentives. Launchers can and should be operated privately (except time-critical launchers for the DoD). Similarly, communications (including TDRSS and the DSN) and remote sensing should be privately operated. Research in commercial applications (eg free fall processing, optical space communications) is properly done by the government. Incentives for private research (eg patent rights and flight cost subsidies) are also desirable. Environmental constraints, labor regulations, etc. should be softened where needed as an incentive to new industry, with the full knowledge that these constraints will be stiffened to the norm after the short incentive period. Internationally, the government should promote the interests of the new industries under its jurisdiction, and provide free legal counseling. Nick Szabo szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 89 03:46:17 GMT From: gauss.rutgers.edu!math.rutgers.edu!aberg@rutgers.edu (Hans Aberg) Subject: Re: centrifugal forces The reply to the question in the long form is yes, if there were vacuum, or no other forces keeping the object in orbit, there would no artificial gravity. (But an aeroplane is hard to maneuver in vacuum.) The short form question is more tricky, because one needs to define the meaning of a centrifugal force; so I leave that. Hans Aberg, Mathematics aberg@math.rutgers.edu ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 89 17:55:27 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: 1992 moon base In article <714@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: >> "We can't just dump people in covered wagons and expect them to huddle >> heroically while we try to build a railroad to bring them back." > >I see similarities in the analogy, but important differences... Agreed that the cases are not entirely parallel (although they are not parallel in more ways than you mention, notably the fact that we've got much better technology to send with our pioneers), but I think I made my point: historically, colonization has often been a one-way trip with return difficult or impossible, and it is not ridiculous to assume the same in space. Such an assumption may not be *desirable*, but it is not ridiculous; there would be no shortage of volunteers. -- The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 89 21:09:05 GMT From: jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) Subject: Re:Re: French small space shuttle: A go ahead ! >You should care about your titles: Hermes is a *European* project, backed >up by the ESA. Your national pride, although comprehensible, gives a strange >idea of Europe to the locals on your side of the Atlantic: > France first > Great Britain never > Germany sometimes In a way I have to agree with the above. But for *HERMES* the case is the same that with ARIANE. At the biginning NO ONE else wanted to support it or to be part of it. Then when the project began to engrange successes, everybody joined the train !! The Germans being the more honest of all. HERMES follow the same path. 2 years ago nobody wanted to hear about it. To push it the French agreed to pay for more than one half of cost. Now (almost) every nation wants its name on it !! >And *for once* i may share some of Tatcher's fears: The Hermes project is >more the result of national/european pride and political motives than the >outcome of a real need. It will be dependant on a heavy and expensive booster, >and will be redundant with the American and Soviet shuttles. Bruno, if you were following the discussion in American politics, you would realise than very few people are ready to share any technologies concerning space or the shuttle in particular. Yes we will have an almost redundant system but it will be ours and we won't have to wait and prostitute ourselves. Remenber the outrageous conditions that Americans space launchers asked 10-20 years ago for satellite launchs until the monopoly was broken by Ariane !! We can't afford that !. A funny things is the new openness of the Soviet. We can do more with them now than with the Americans. (I want to add that this is no insults to the American audience. I am studing in this country and very happy to be doing so !!) To speak about the British Government. I agree with you Bruno. The English people in great generality support Europe. Just the attitude of the English government (expressing also the fears of the American to see Europe unifying itself) is making me mad. !!! Jean-Marc. jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 89 02:46:59 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!sq!msb@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: 1992 moon base In case my article with the incredibly stupid mistake about the lunar poles has escaped my cancel message and reached you -- please ignore it! Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com "I'm a little worried about the bug-eater," she said. "We're embedded in bugs, have you noticed?" -- Niven, "The Integral Trees" ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 89 13:44:01 GMT From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (daniel mocsny) Subject: Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization In article <58*thompson@arc.cdn>, thompson@arc.CDN (bradley thompson) writes: > Every experiment > I have personally flown has needed in flight repairs and/or > modifications in protocol. Simple things kill experiments in > low gravity. Give me a cranky old STS mission with a overworked > astronaut any day over an automated satellite experiment. What prevents you from using a tele-operated rig? Touchy force-feedback requirements? Rapid time scales making propagation delays unacceptable? Inadequate video/audio transmission? Lack of suitable binocular/pseudo-3D display (e.g., VIVED)? The importance of smell? > What I need is routine access to > low gravity and cheap experiments. Note I am ommitting cheap > launch costs. Experiments are usually low mass, therefore low > launch cost. Companies need routine access to build business > plans around. When human life support is necessary, low mass goes out the tailpipe. If the $ billions wasted on the shuttle had gone into developing teleoperated devices and cheap, expendable boosters, you would be much closer to satisfaction today. Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #261 *******************