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 ; Thu, 2 Mar 89 00:21:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 2 Mar 89 00:21:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #270 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 270 Today's Topics: European space policy & activists (was: French small space shuttle: A Re: SPACE Digest V9 #258 Re: The never-ending argument Re: First concert from space--update Re: The never-ending argument Re: arguments Re: arguments Re: First concert from space--update Re: approaching "C" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 11:35 CST From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: European space policy & activists (was: French small space shuttle: A Apparently-To: go ahead !) To: SPACE+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU Original_To: SPACE Recent postings by Jean-Marc Debaud and Bruno Poterie have raised questions about European space policy. To summarize my understanding of such things: ESA has decided they need a broad capability in space, including medium launchers (Ariane 1-4), heavy launcher (Ariane 5), independent launch site (Kourou), their own module on the U.S. station (Columbus), free-flying space station (further Columbus developments), and independent manned shuttle (Hermes). In addition, they have plenty of science projects, comsats, and earth-resources programs, and cooperation on multinational space science programs such as Hubble and Cassini. The British government thinks that ESA's effort is too extravagant. They have opposed Hermes and some other projects as being redundant and expensive; in general, they seem to prefer space projects with immediate benefits. This makes some sense if they are trying to tighten up their budget (and they always are). The UK has been reluctantly dragged into ESA's grander schemes. There are plenty of British taxpayers, of course, who would prefer a more glorious program. Some of them read this newsgroup. Additional analysis, from persons with more profound understanding of the situation than I, is welcome. Question: Are there British space activists, working to influence national space policy in the same way that NSS/Spacepac/etc. people [think they] influence the US government? How about other nations in Europe? Does the British Interplanetary Society take a role in this? Although I have been a member for years, I know almost nothing about activities other than publishing magazines and holding lectures and seminars. Can anybody out there (yoo-hoo, JANET) tell me more? Are there other organizations in the UK or elsewhere pushing on politicians? Disclaimer: I don't mean to imply that political action is the *only* appropriate purpose of a pro-space group-- far from it. I am merely curious about whether any is going on. ______meson Bill Higgins _-~ ____________-~______neutrino Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory - - ~-_ / \ ~----- proton Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET | | \ / NEW! IMPROVED! SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS - - Now comes with Free ~ Nobel Prizewinner Inside! Internet: HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1989 13:02-EST From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #258 > imposition of requirements on the private space sector to control > or prevent the proliferation of space debris will have important > commercial implications. Interesting to hear the government make this statement since they are the ones that are nearly 100% responsible for the current debris problems. The ol' pot calling the kettle black routine... ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 89 20:39:38 GMT From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: The never-ending argument In article <1989Feb25.115731.15055@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >In article <243@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >> Knowledge about precisely how to live and work in space will NEVER >> be obtained --- EVER --- unless we go out there and try it. >His main premise, that manned spaceflight will not be >developed unless we, today, send men into space, is nonsensical. Wrong. That is not my premise. My premise is that manned space flight will not be developed until we develop manned spaceflight. This is obvious to the point of being a tautology. Sending out more probes, though a valuable thing in itself, does not develop manned spaceflight. >Lack of knowledge of how to live and work in space is not the >bottleneck. The main problem is exorbinant launch costs. Once these >come down, it will be far easier and cheaper to get this putative >precious knowledge. There's a great deal of truth to this. Fine, we need cheap launchers. Unfortunately, there's a catch-22 here. We shouldn't do manned space flight because we need cheap launchers to do that in a cost-effective manner. But we don't need to waste money on the development of new heavy-lift launch systems because there are no missions that require them. (We cancelled all that useless, wastefull manned stuff, remember?) Titan III's and IV's can easily handle all our REAL space needs. That is a prescription for going absolutely nowhere at any speed. >Consider the Soviet space program. They have much lower launch costs >than can be provided by the shuttle, yet their current space station >is much smaller than NASA's gold plated project. Yes. A permanently *MANNED* space station with rotating crews. > >Like Henry says (if I understand him correctly), we need NASA to do >R&D, not operate a trucking company ... You won't get much arguement from me on that one. >One thing is for sure -- the current NASA >program is on a slow track to nowhere. That's for sure! (How about that -- we agree on something!) -- Mike Van Pelt "Hey, hey, ho ho, Video 7 Western culture's got to go." ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp Stanford students and faculty. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 89 20:41:03 GMT From: ingr!brooke@uunet.uu.net (Brooke King) Subject: Re: First concert from space--update In article <1989Feb24.175109.11738@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: | You should not need permission from government bureaucrats to go into | space for purposes *you* consider worthwhile, assuming that you can pay | the fare and that there's a vacant seat. It's truly mind-blowing that | to book a spaceliner seat in the "Free" World you need a very good reason, | years of patience, and approval from 57 layers of bureaucrats, while to | book one behind the Iron Curtain you just need the fare in hard currency. I guess this would be truly mind-blowing if Mr. Spencer did not correctly have to put quotation marks around the 'Free' in 'Free World.' Some countries in the "Free" world are freer than they have been. Some are less so. Certainly, the USA is an example of the latter, but I currently would not want to call any other place home. ("Sweet Home Alabama" and "Oh Fair New Mexico" really appeal to me!) The Iron Curtain launchers are simply facing the reality of their need for hard currency and the results of the (until recently) reality of the US government's foolish, all-the-eggs-in-one- expensive-shuttle-basket, monopolistic launch policy. They oughtn't be credited with any love of free enterprise. | 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 -- brooke@ingr.com uunet!ingr!brooke W+1 205 7727796 H+1 205 8950824 ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 89 16:57:31 GMT From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul Dietz) Subject: Re: The never-ending argument In article <243@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: > Knowledge about precisely >how to live and work in space will NEVER be obtained --- EVER --- >unless we go out there and try it. What you are insisting upon, >whether you are personally aware of it or not, is that we relegate >manned space flight to a "study it to death but never DO anything >about it" status. Mike's argument completely ignores the need to make a choice between different options. We have to make choices, because budgets are limited. His main premise, that manned spaceflight will not be developed unless we, today, send men into space, is nonsensical. Lack of knowledge of how to live and work in space is not the bottleneck. The main problem is exorbinant launch costs. Once these come down, it will be far easier and cheaper to get this putative precious knowledge. Conversely, if launch costs do not come down, the knowledge of how to live and work in space will have little value. Consider the Soviet space program. They have much lower launch costs than can be provided by the shuttle, yet their current space station is much smaller than NASA's gold plated project. If their program is worth emulating, the "next logical step" for NASA would be to build better launchers, not a space station (or a moon base!). Now, it might be argued that independent private companies should work on launchers. Certainly they will help, and eventually will take over. But the market is uncertain. I think the right kind of government support would help enormously, and is the only way to develop really novel technologies, like the various gun launchers or laser rockets. Like Henry says (if I understand him correctly), we need NASA to do R&D, not operate a trucking company (or rationalize projects that give their "trucks" something to do). Manned vs. unmanned is a secondary issue, except insofar as manned space advocates insist on NASA conducting expensive, non-critical-path projects in space rather than longterm R&D on the ground. One thing is for sure -- the current NASA program is on a slow track to nowhere. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 89 01:22:53 GMT From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Nick Szabo) Subject: Re: arguments In article <1154@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: >If we are to have largely self sufficient ecological units in space for man >to live, at a conservative level we will need at least 5 times the mass in >nonhuman organic material as human. How are we going to find out how a >space garden will work by sending up unmanned probes? We are not. The necessary knowledge can be obtained by projects such as the current Biosphere and ISECCO(sp?) closed-ecology experiments, and experimenting with small plants and animals at various levels of gravity. This is many orders of magnitude cheaper than manned space projects. The critical paths to self-sufficient settlements are first, as Paul mentioned, bringing down launch costs, and second, converting the resources of space into the biomass, the shelter for such biomass, and the export industries to motivate the whole project in the first place. The first requires extensive R&D, the second R&D and inexpensive exploration of the solar system. >Scientific exploration can never be effective if we attempt to make it cost- >effective. The best type of cost-effectiveness in scientific endeavor is to >support people who have demonstrated ability, together with some "screwballs." Scientific progress above all must be cost-effective, because budgets are short. Try asking for $30 billion (or any significant fraction of that) for your next statistics study and see how far you get. Scientific progress comes through giving lots of "screwballs" and people of ability money, with most ideas from both groups failing and the rest paying back several-fold. We can't predict ahead of time which will pay back, so it's a bad idea to put most of the money in one place (when we do we get things like the Shuttle). >And I have called for governments to allow those of us who wish to support >manned space programs to get out of our way. I agree wholeheartedly. Governments should stop funding manned programs. They should get out of other operations as well, except for providing commercial start-up incentives. Governments have a proper role in exploration and basic R&D. Nick Szabo szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 89 15:55:35 GMT From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) Subject: Re: arguments In article <154@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, szabonj@minke (Nick Szabo) writes: > In article <381@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: > >In article <142@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, szabonj@minke (Nick Szabo) writes: ......................... > >How do we learn how to support life in space unless we go there and try > >to support life in space? > > Biological reactions to space are not the most important questions, and > they can be answered with an unmanned biological platform like the sliding > module tether I have proposed. The important questions of finding resources, > and figuring out how to mine and manufacture them, are best answered by unmanned > projects. If we are to have largely self sufficient ecological units in space for man to live, at a conservative level we will need at least 5 times the mass in nonhuman organic material as human. How are we going to find out how a space garden will work by sending up unmanned probes? We are not. Years of research have not produced a workable Mars rover. A robotic mining and manufacturing robot? We can build a robot to do what we know how to do almost precisely. There are no thinking machines in the immediate future. I would be surprise if we could even build a mining robot on earth. And I doubt that a government project would speed the development of manufacturin robots. .......................... > Promoting manned spaceflight at the expense of unmanned does not constitute > "support" for the unmanned program. > > >While most supporters of the Unmanned Program are against the Manned Program > >altogether, or put it off indefinately. > > Nobody has argued anything of the kind. The argument is that we > must "put it off" until it provides cost-effective return of scientific > knowledge or money, or there are volunteers willing to undertake it at their > own expense. Scientific exploration can never be effective if we attempt to make it cost- effective. The best type of cost-effectiveness in scientific endeavor is to support people who have demonstrated ability, together with some "screwballs." And I have called for governments to allow those of us who wish to support manned space programs to get out of our way. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP) ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 89 23:47:54 GMT From: ingr!brooke@uunet.uu.net (Brooke King) Subject: Re: First concert from space--update In article <10325@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes: | I apologize to Shel and others in her company for being such a | curmudgeon. It is just my personal opinion that we are not yet | at a point where the activity that they contemplate is | justifiable. See talk.politics.theory for why I don't think Rick owes Shel or anyone else an apology for being a "curmudgeon." | Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com | uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik -- brooke@ingr.com uunet!ingr!brooke W+1 205 7727796 H+1 205 8950824 ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 89 21:13:31 GMT From: rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!powi@louie.udel.edu (Peter Owings) Subject: Re: approaching "C" In article <3800@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> robina@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Robin Adams) writes: > >A space ship is travelling through space at 75% light speed. It is headed >toward our moon and is 50,000 miles distant. A powerful laser is mounted at >the front of the space ship. When the beam is switched on, the light should >reach the moon in approximately 0.27 seconds. >- Did I miss something? Yes... For all observers, the speed of light is the same, namely c. The difference between observers is the distance between you and the moon and the time it takes for the light to get there. For someone on Earth, say, the distance for the light to travel is 50,000 miles. However, for you, the moon is moving toward you at 0.75c and the distance is Lorentz contracted by the factor sqrt(1-(v/c)**2), or for you is ~33000 miles. So the time for the light is different for the two observers, you in your space ship and someone standing on Earth. Time and distance change at relativistic speeds. The speed of light is the constant for all observers, always. Peter... > > > > o o o > o o > o o o >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > | | > | | Robin > /---------\ Adams ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #270 *******************