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 ; Fri, 29 Sep 89 04:23:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 29 Sep 89 04:23:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #88 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 88 Today's Topics: Department of Transportation Testimony Neptune Moons and Rings...Where are they? Re: public statements Re: Re: Saturn V & F-1 Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized??? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Sep 89 22:05:03 GMT From: usc!venera.isi.edu!cew@apple.com (Craig E. Ward) Subject: Department of Transportation Testimony Below is the statement I read into the record at a DOT field hearing for a new National Space Policy. It was the first time that I've done anything like that and it was an interesting experience. This kind of activity is important for the long term success of space development. I was notified of the hearings by Scott Pace, NSS Legislative Committee Chair. He sent me some background materials (not enough as it turned out). This particular branch of the field hearings had already been to Chicago and Seattle and Scott wanted to make sure that the DOT people got hit again to emphasize that space should be an important part of a National Transportation Policy. This statement is modeled after the statement given by the Seattle NSS people; however, I tried to give it some local flavor -- reading them the same thing would be less effective. After reading the statement, I asked some questions of the panel. The most important one concerned the Space Transportation Services Purchase Act. Unfortunately, the act does not have strong administration support. While the panelists knew about the act, none of them knew what the administration's position on it was. Before I gave up the mike, a representative of the OCST came forward and asked *me* a question. She wanted to know what the NSS position was on an amendment from Rep. Sensenbrenner that would prohibit American launches from the Australian Spaceport at Cape York. I had to say I didn't know but that it seemed a silly thing to me. (I asked Scott about it later and I was basically right -- Scott just had better reasons.) I am now the local Spacepac/Spacecause coordinator for the Greater LA area and I intend to keep track of these things better so that we can do a better job in the future. (People in the Southern California area who are interested in political activism should contact me. We have lots of things that need to be done!) ****** STATEMENT BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INNOVATION AND HUMAN FACTORS CLUSTER GROUP FIELD HEARINGS IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 24 AUGUST 1989 I am here today on behalf of the Organization for the Advancement of Space Industrialization and Settlement (OASIS), the chapter of the National Space Society (NSS) responsible for this area, and the National Space Society. OASIS is a non-profit public education group of approximately 200 of the 1200 NSS members in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Some of the traditional topics of transportation include trucks, ships, roads, railways and airplanes; traditional, that is, to the late 20th century. Some of the things we take for granted today did not exist as this century opened; others have been radically altered. These changes have not always come easily or naturally. Today a machine of human manufacture is making its closest approach to the planet Neptune and as Voyager 2 reminds us that things do change, I would like to draw attention to some of the issues that face us now so that we can prepare for the next century. These issues are in the realm of space transportation. It is important that we address theses issues now while we have a clean slate so that twenty years from now we do not need to hold hearings on how to extract ourselves from the tangled mess we will find ourselves. It is the position of the National Space Society that the United States must take a leading role in development of space transportation. The Department of Transportation can play a major role in this by incorporating into it's National Transportation Policy strong support for space transportation including (1) a strong Office of Commercial Space Transportation, (2) bold initiatives to establish reasonable commercial liability limits for third party launch insurance and damage to government property insurance, and (3) a launch site survey and land bank program to identify and preserve potential space launch sites for future use. DOT has a unique responsibility and opportunity to guide America's space transportation policy. The establishment of the DOT Office of Commercial Space Transportation in the Commercial Space Launch Act gave DOT the responsibility to: (1) license, regulate, and promote US commercial launch operations; (2) analyze and establish commercial launch liability limits; and (3) license launch sites and launch operators at commercial US launch sites. Further, the 1988 National Space Policy identifies DOT as the lead agency for developing federal policy and regulatory guidance for commercial launch activities in consultation with other relevant institutions such as NASA, DOD and the Congress. A well funded and staffed OCST is essential to adequately carry out these responsibilities. Many answers to space transportation questions are yet to be found. Ongoing research and planning will be necessary to address these issues. A strong OCST is the foundation on which DOT space transportation policy should rest. The questions of liability and insurance limits are key to the viability and success of our nation's commercial space development. Space transportation is international is scope and the Warsaw Convention covering air carriers should be used as a model for how to set proper limits to space transportation insurance liability. By limiting liability the government can bring launch insurance costs within reach of private companies. The Commercial Space Launch Act grants the authority to regulate insurance requirements to the OCST. The OCST, and not the Air Force, is the appropriate organization to set these requirements and the OCST must assert its role on this issue. To maintain and foster the US position in commercial space transportation, action must be taken now to identify and set aside sites for future commercial launch facilities. Landbanking these sites now will insure their availability as the US commercial launch industry matures. It should be noted that other nations are pursuing these actions now. One notable example is the preparation of Port York on the northern tip of Austriala's Cape York. The plans call for this site to be functioning for commercial activities by the turn of the century, a time that is just around the corner. Beyond the obvious economic and commercial benefits of a sound space policy are the benefits to the imagination and education of our youth. Space is an exciting place. Thoughts about the machines that take us there and possibilities of being there are great motivators to young people to excel in learning. I see this directly when I man the chapter table at events such as Rockwell International's Family Nights. Almost every time there is a boy or girl scout troup attending. The joy and excitement on their faces as the look at the full scale shuttle mockup is obvious. They invariably as a lot of good questions. They want to go. Some of the issues of space transportation have not yet made themselves know. Transportation issues have a history of changing as the machines and needs of humanity change. I and the organizations that sent me wish to thank you for allowing us the opportunity to speak on these issues as they are understood today. Craig E. Ward -- ==================================================================== ARPA: Craig E. Ward PHONE: (213)822-1511 ext. 111 USPS: USC Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1100 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Slogan: "nemo me impune lacessit" ==================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 89 19:21:23 GMT From: hubcap!panoff@gatech.edu (Robert M. Panoff) Subject: Neptune Moons and Rings...Where are they? I am posting this for a friend. Please reply BY MAIL to pjf@hubcap.clemson.edu Thanks in advance. rmp - - - - - - - I need the orbital and physical parameters for the new moons of Neptune and its rings. I would also like to know the particle distribution of the rings. If someone could either send these to me or point me in the right direction, I would be very grateful. Dr. P. J. Flower Department of Physics and Astronomy Clemson University (803) 656-5302 -- rmp, for the Bob's of the World ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 89 20:37:13 EDT From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Re: public statements >From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com (Greg Goebel) >Subject: ATTN NASA Personnel >I realize that speaking frankly in a large organization can be very dangerous >(I always think twice or three times before saying anything that even could >be misinterpreted as sounding bad about HP!) so I suggest email would make >more sense than posting responses. All such responses would be in strictest >confidence; I might consider a posting summarizing the responses I got, but >I would make no quotes, name no names, and make no references to specifics >that might identify a particular individual unless specifically authorized to >do so. > | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd | Large organizations have several incentives (besides fear of whistle-blowers) to be uneasy about random employees making random statements to the public. A major reason is the possibility that such statements will be taken as official announcements reflecting the policies of the entire organization. (Our mailer automatically adds a disclaimer to this effect, so we don't have to.) A second reason is to avoid liability. (A person wishing to stick his face in a fan calls the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the janitor who picks up the phone says, "Go ahead! It's perfectly safe!") A third reason is the tendency for employees to "borrow" the reputation of their organization to lend weight to their own statements. ("I work for NIST, so this book on computer standards that I wrote in my spare time and am offering for sale is obviously authoritative.") There are also occasional internal memos distributed describing tentative decisions, negotiations in progress, etc. which note that they are not for release to the public. The government does not usually seem to be too restrictive on the release of information that is not classified or "sensitive", but it does insist on the proper disclaimers. (At least, that's what they tell us :-) There are also certain restrictions and customs pertaining to the use of the government-sponsored Internet. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 89 22:41:31 GMT From: vsi1!daver!lynx!neal@apple.com (Neal Woodall) Subject: Re: Re: Saturn V & F-1 In article <11978@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> David Palmer writes: >Why not just license the Energiya design from the U.S.S.R.? This would >have multiple effects. . . . . > 3) It would shock the US gov't into saying 'How did they get so > far ahead?' (They will, of course, blame Drugs, the > Democrats, the Republicans, the lack of prayer in the schools, > flag burners, commies, pornographers, feminists, the > military-industrial-complex, and The Queen Of England. Don't forget the "evil NRA" and the "evil assault rifle"! :-) Neal I am the NRA! neal@lynx.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 19 Sep 89 16:49:32 GMT From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (daniel mocsny) Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized??? In article <1035@m3.mfci.UUCP>, rodman@mfci.UUCP (Paul Rodman) writes: > Everyone except the Jovians, presumably > agrees the probability of wiping out any > possible Jovian life is small. The question is: at what level is > the "risk" acceptable? Is the official motive here compassion, or the desire to preserve extraterrestrial life in a pristine state so we may study it? Exobiologists have been waiting a long time for something to investigate (keeping a scientific discipline going for any length of time on sheer speculation is not easy, I guess). Extraterrestrial life, if it exists, would likely be different than terrestrial life (perhaps dramatically so). This would yield important knowledge, perhaps revolutionizing many of our ideas about life and how it may have originated. With only one data point so far, we still haven't the foggiest clue of just how probable we are. If compassion is our motive, then why are we going into space at all? One only needs to review the record of Man the Explorer to see that the most compassionate thing we could possibly do for the Jovians would be to stay home. > IMHO, the risk is very, very, small, but the _possible_ is quite > horrific (although we'd probably never know it). I think > some sort of planetary Golden Rule applies here: I would like the earth > to be treated the same way by any other life forms, please. I appreciate this religious sentiment, but I'm having a very hard time imagining any realistic scenario where our behavior toward extraterrestrial life is going to have any effect on the behavior of other ET life toward us. Perhaps someone could enlighten me, without anthropomorphizing too much? (I.e., I don't want to hear about a space fleet landing on the White House lawn, and announcing "You naughty bad humans...") In any case, we have already run up such a tab on Planet Earth that we hardly need to waste anyone else to seal our guilt in these bogeyman scenarios. > Also, IMHO, I tend to think the probability of Jovian life is at least > as great as Martian life. Me too: zero. :-) I do wonder, though, about the chance that terrestrial matter may have been blasted by meteorites into orbit around the sun and later fallen on, say, Mars. Could earth bugs survive such an ordeal? > Jupiter has a lot more interesting raw > materials and sources of energy, granted the chemistry would be > different. Given that we don't know much about the origins of life, we > really should have sterilized the probe. Is that really a lot to ask? Well, I agree that we shouldn't go fouling up another planet until we have at least some idea of what we are fouling up. But that never stopped us before, and you can bet it won't stop us in the long run. Do you suppose that the Jupiter bugs are going to have a bleeding chance once we start industrializing space in a big way? Jupiter bugs could yield priceless knowledge, but they sure aren't going to like what happens to neighborhood when we move in. Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #88 *******************