Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.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 ; Mon, 25 Sep 89 01:25:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 25 Sep 89 01:25:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #70 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 70 Today's Topics: Alternative Space Goals, Anyone? (was Re: SpaceCause) Re: Linguistic Tidbits NASA Headline News for 09/13/89 (Forwarded) Re: Alternative Space Goals, Anyone? (was Re: SpaceCause) Re: Edgar Rice Quayle on Mars. Re: Frequently asked SPACE questions Re: Alternate Voyager Missions Re: sterilized probes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Sep 89 01:37:41 GMT From: rochester!yamauchi@rutgers.edu (Brian Yamauchi) Subject: Alternative Space Goals, Anyone? (was Re: SpaceCause) In article <2074@ibmpa.UUCP> szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >In article <9518@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: >>In article <2558@husc6.harvard.edu>, millgram@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (Elijah Millgram) writes: >> >>>I have started getting junk mail from an organization called >>>SpaceCause. >> >>>4. What are the organizations policy slants? What particular >>>projects do they support? And which ones do they oppose? >> >>They basically use the policy platform of the NATIONAL SPACE SOCIETY. >>The closest thing to that (if you don't have NSS' position statements) >>is the National Commission on Space. That is to say, SPACE STATION, >>MOON, and MARS are the three main goals. > >Ah, The Plan. Spend hundreds of billions of dollars on three narrow, >obsolete, but extravagently expensive projects, while real science, real >R&D, real space exploration, and real space industry starve. The same 3 >stupid goals that NASA has had ever since the 60's, that NASA has been >wasting tens of billions on since the 60's, that NASA is no closer to now >than in the 60's. How much longer must we suffer, Oh Lord? OK, what goals do *you* think NASA (and/or the private space industry) should be pursuing? It would be nice if the anti-NASA individuals on the net could put together a list of alternative space goals (public sector, private sector, or both) rather than just bashing NASA. If you think NASA should be completely disbanded, then what type of private sector corporations / organizations do you want to take the lead in space development? Personally, I think NASA has clearly made some major mistakes and suffers from all of the problems of being a large bureaucracy (worse yet, a large, *government* bureaucracy), but I have yet to see any long-range plan that provides a better alternative. More funding for robotic space probes would definitely help both space science and space exploration, and companies like AMROC, SSI, and OSC/Hercules seem to be on the right track towards providing low-cost access to orbit. These are important first steps, but what's next in the Alternative Agenda for space development? _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 89 17:06:02 GMT From: frooz!cfa.HARVARD.EDU@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Re: Linguistic Tidbits From article <45521@bbn.COM>, by ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer): > As a brief aside, somewhere ("Intelligent Life in the Universe" ?) Sagan > suggests the adjective "Cytherean" --from Cytherea, the island where > Venus/Aphrodite was "born"-- to describe things connected with Venus. In > part because the adjective form of "Venus" is "Venereal" and he refused to > accept the neologism "Venusian". The planets known in classical times have two adjectival forms: Mercurian mercurial Venerian venereal (Venerean is an obsolete spelling of the first form) Martian martial Jovian jovial Saturnian saturnine (why not saturnial???) The first form (capitalized in Merriam-Webster but often seen uncapitalized) refers to the planet; the second form refers to the supposed characteristics of the god or goddess. Oddly enough, the corresponding adjective for the Earth, "tellurian," is NOT capitalized in M-W. More commonly used is "telluric." I have never heard of "tellurial" or any corresponding adjective. [Though I have a feeling that I might be about to ... :-) ] These are all from Latin, not Greek. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 89 21:43:03 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA Headline News for 09/13/89 (Forwarded) ----------------------------------------------------------------- NASA Headline News Wednesday, Sept. 13, 1989 Audio: 202/755-1788 ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is NASA Headline News for Wednesday, September 13.... A Senate Appropriations Subcommittee has approved $1.85 billion for Space Station funding. The markup of the NASA budget of $12.3 billion will provide for what Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski calls a "no frills space station....one that can fly...meet preliminary missions and meet international agreements". The $1.85 billion was the amount described by NASA Administrator Richard Truly as the absolute minimum needed. Any less would have required extensive restructuring of the station. The full Appropriations Committee is exected to take up the appropriations bill today...making it possible for a Senate floor vote on the NASA appropriations bill by the end of this week. Prelaunch activities for the STS-34 Space Shuttle mission continue at Kennedy Space Center. Fueling of the Orbital Maneuvering System and Reaction Control System storage tanks has been completed. Preparations are now underway to begin the Terminal Countdown Demonstration Test with a call to stations at 8:00 A.M., Thursday. Today, Galileo spacecraft on-board science instruments are being checked. The probe experiment will undergo a similar check tomorrow. The STS-34 astronauts met briefly with the media this morning prior to getting ready for their participation in the countdown test Friday morning. Mission Commander Donald Williams said as far as he knows..."everything is ready to go"... for an October 12 launch and the crew is looking forward to it. In Washington yesterday, a half-dozen anti-nuclear protesters, carrying signs against the launch of Galileo, handed out flyers at NASA Headquarters for about an hour before leaving. * * * * ----------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA Select television. All times are Eastern. Thursday, September 14...... 12:30 P.M. Please note: NASA Update will be transmitted one hour later than it's regularly scheduled time. Repeating...NASA Update will be transmitted one hour later than usual....at 12:30 P.M. Friday, September 15..... 6:00 A.M. Final hours of the Countdown Demonstration Test from KSC with STS-34 crew participating. approximately 6 hours in duration. All events and times are subject to change without notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC), NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 89 04:50:25 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Alternative Space Goals, Anyone? (was Re: SpaceCause) In article <1989Sep13.013741.10776@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu.UUCP (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >It would be nice if the anti-NASA individuals on the net could put >together a list of alternative space goals (public sector, private >sector, or both) rather than just bashing NASA. If you think NASA >should be completely disbanded, then what type of private sector >corporations / organizations do you want to take the lead in space >development? This may miss the point on several counts. First, saying NASA is the wrong means does not require that one concoct different ends as well. One might take the position that everything NASA wants to do is terrific, only NASA ought to go out of business so the things could be done, right. Second, DICTATING space goals may be the underlying problem. If you proceed from the assumption that someone gets to make and enforce some *policy* about what's going to happen in space, then you are ultimately forced to re-invent NASA even if you started by abandoning it. NASA is the avatar and logical culmination of "top-down" space exploration. You can scrub its little face and tug a frilly frock over its misshapen shoulders, but it'll always be a gummint agency. A truly alternative approach would be to say, Nobody is deterred from doing anything they want in space, period. USG will continue to underwrite basic research into materials and methods, but will not "explore space" per se except for JPL's unmanned probes. If space is intrinsically unprofitable and uninteresting to those who could afford to go there, then the hell with it. If it's worth it to someone, then let them go and Godspeed the journey. After thirty years of a non-policy like this, the US would have a presence in space exactly the size it's capable of maintaining in good health. Nobody's money would be wasted, and nobody's Eldorado fenced off with red tape. -- Annex Canada now! We need the room, \) Tom Neff and who's going to stop us. (\ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 89 14:51:08 GMT From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ethan@ucsd.edu (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Subject: Re: Edgar Rice Quayle on Mars. In article <2152@uceng.UC.EDU>, dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: > > The two US presidents with the highest IQ's were, I believe, > Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter. If Quayle ascends to the presidency, > can we expect to enter an unprecedented time of prosperity? There is a story, attributed to Kennedy, that while hosting a gathering of academic leaders he commented that the White House had not hosted such a gathering of intellect since Thomas Jefferson dined there, alone. However, whatever else may follow from Quayle's evident stupidity, it worries me intensely that such a man is in charge of setting goals for the US space program. -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,emx,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU These must be my opinions. Who else would bother? ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 89 15:36:05 GMT From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: Frequently asked SPACE questions In article <6012@ttidca.TTI.COM> sorgatz@ttidca.TTI.COM ( Avatar) writes: >The real reason that everyone in management >at KSC keeps spouting this lie is to keep a lid on the fact that they all >GOOFED when we went to STS, and that their fat-ass salaries chew up most of >the damn budget. No :-)'s here, check it out.... I'm an engineer and not a great defender of management, but I _have_ to point out that most NASA managers, particularly at the center level, make less than $100,000 per year. Here at Dryden, more of the salary budget is spent on engineers' and technicians' salaries than on managers' salaries. Among the other perks of government service are cabin class travel, early-1970's reimbursement rates for hotels, lowest-bidder airlines, obsolete infrastructure, drug testing, and abuse from a lot of assholes. Not even the incompetents work here for the money. Or the perks. -- Mary Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 89 20:16:11 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Alternate Voyager Missions An idea for painting a 3-D gravitational portrait of the Solar System (and thus perhaps detect any unknown bodies) would be to send a "fragmentation probe" at Jupiter: before the J-encounter it would mirv into about 20 probelets each armed with nothing but a radio. Each would approach on a slightly different trajectory so as to "burst" in all different directions after the gravity assist. Then you just sit back and track them for a few decades. Any perturbations should be a snap to triangulate. Or, if they all bounce real hard at 250AU and start coming back, we'll know our solar system model needs some work. :-) -- Annex Canada now! We need the room, \) Tom Neff and who's going to stop us. (\ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 89 22:05:17 EDT From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Re: sterilized probes >From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) >Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized??? >I also think we shouldn't take too much responsibility for keeping >Jupiter pristine. Junk flies all over the solar system, as witness the >Mars "sample return missions" to the Ross ice shelf. Jupiter's probably >seen it all before. I think this is likely. There are several proposed natural mechanisms by which microorganisms could be thrown off the earth into space. There are also proposed mechanisms by which extraterrestrial spores could have made it from space onto the surface of the earth billions of years ago. I haven't heard of any direct evidence that life originally sprang spontaneously from nonliving matter on the earth. Whether microorganisms from earth could survive on Jupiter is a separate question. I also doubt that the tiny amount of plutonium involved would have any significant influence. Presumably large amounts of radioactive material fall into Jupiter every day. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #70 *******************