Message-ID: <cZS=sG200VcJE4k04W@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sun,  3 Dec 89 01:32:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #299

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 299

Today's Topics:
		   Accessible C Type Asteroid Found
		     Space and Masculine Identity
Re: What happened when SkyLab came down? [was : What happens when a satellite comes down?
	   Re: NASA Headline News for 12/01/89 (Forwarded)
		   Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars
Re: What happened when SkyLab came down? [was : What happens when a satellite comes down?
		Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars
		  Re: So how elastic is the market?
			      SUBSCRIBE
			 Re: shuttle question
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 89 07:42:26 PST
From: mordor!lll-tis!ames!scubed!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: ames!lll-tis!mordor!angband!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Accessible C Type Asteroid Found

C asteroid 1979VA was recently identified as having characteristics
which make it economically competitive with the moon as a source of
oxygen.  This is the first asteroid found to have such characteristics.

See Lucy McFadden's unpublished manuscript to appear and
"Economic Accessibility of Near Earth Asteroids" by Andrew Cutler
Princeton Space Manufacturing Conference 1987
Typical RESEARCH contract ($ = 1million):
$
Typical DEVELOPMENT contract:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 89 10:16:07 PST
From: mordor!lll-tis!ames!scubed!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: ames!lll-tis!mordor!angband!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Space and Masculine Identity

The expansion of terrestrial life to space is the greatest opportunity
for a positive resolution to the contemporary crisis in masculine identity 
that currently plagues western cultures.

As discussed in George F. Gilder's brilliant analysis: "Sexual Suicide",
the growing denial that males require affirmation of their masculine identity 
has resulted in western cultures exhibiting a kind of geopolitical neurosis.
A comprehensive list of the effects would be voluminous.

The political power of feminism, the space program and the war economy 
are based, primarily, on this cultural neurosis.  The economic symptoms 
include growing national debt for worthless defense and welfare spending, a 
crippled space effort (with resulting zero-sum global thinking) and 
abandonment of manufacturing technology in favor of the technologies of 
the "service" or "information" economy.  The social symptoms (usually 
identified with "feminism") include a dramatic breakdown of effective family 
forms (extended as well as nuclear), increase in both the openness and 
fequency of "alternative sexual lifestyles" (including pedophilia, 
homosexuality, pornography, prostitution, and other barren sexual modes), 
increasing alienation through mobility and the erosion of moral and 
ethical standards in human relations.

Something that Gilder didn't go into is that this has come about as 
reaction to the loss of our frontiers combined with the unacceptability of 
war as a way of getting rid of the "excess males".  Humans have an 
effective "harem size" of about 1.8 according to comparative primate 
studies.  The resulting excess males are usually driven away to bring 
back protien (meat), spread the tribal culture and genes to other tribes
or die in wars to expand the tribe's territory.  More recently, they 
expanded agricultural areas into surrounding habitat.  Of course, this
only addresses human males -- similar patterns can be found throughout
species of mammals and, in more abstract ways, in virtually all sexual 
species with an effective harem size >1.

The early pioneering of this country is just the most recent, and in
many ways, trivial, example of this very old and deep pattern of male
rejection and habitat expansion.

Sooner or later, (hopefully sooner), rationality will prevail we will 
attempt to do something effective about The Excess Male Question.  At that 
time, we will either choose (as we have apparently done in the handling 
of the HIV epidemic) to engage in a pogrom against the excess males (similar 
to Hitler's answer to The Jewish Question) or we will allow them to pursue
a positive role -- an opportunity to expand our habitat.

Success through risk is the way to affirmation of male identity.
This is what makes images of manned spaceflight so politically powerful.

The image of young mother exploding in a failed space launch shook our
denial that space was not risky and therefore, was no longer the province
of the male risking life and limb for territorial expansion.  If she had 
died in attempt to save her child it would have been not an outrageously 
absurd loss, but an emotionally understandable tragedy.  

With this in mind we might choose to redirect the resources we have been 
borrowing to prop up male identity in the war economy and instead
establish a government program to support a bunch of excess males 
(space nerds) in a space colony.  This, however, would be ineffective.

First of all, we have to recognize that the government's (tribe's)
assets are more valuable than the affirmation of a few people in a 
false sense of masculine identity and the supposed "spin-offs" of such 
an effort.  The tribe has no obligation to provide males with their
sense of masculine identity (which is the real reason feminists bristle 
at government supported machismo).  If a male wants to feel himself to
be a Man, he must earn his identity with his own resources and those
of his peers.  This is where NASA and government spending on the creation
of images of machismo (yes even those including Sally Ride) is most 
destructive to genuine pioneering of the space frontier.  By taking
advantage of the suppression of masculine affirmation, NASA's heroic
images not only waste valuable resources that could be used in legitimate 
economic pursuits, but they also mock and devalue the images of true heroism.

This affirmation can only result from entrepreneurs risking their own 
fortunes, and finally, their lives, to accomplish aims of real value.  The 
mythic proportions of such heriosm are unprecendented as they are on behalf 
not just of a tribe, a nation or even the human species -- but of all life.

Typical RESEARCH grant ($ = 1million):
$
Typical DEVELOPMENT contract:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

------------------------------

Date: 2 Dec 89 10:53:34 GMT
From: wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@eddie.mit.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: What happened when SkyLab came down? [was : What happens when a satellite comes down?

In article <49061@bbn.COM> ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>... its reentry trajectory (i.e. down the Atlantic,
>around the tip of Africa and out across the Indian Ocean) was just too
>fortuitous to be blind luck.  His arguement was that if this had been the
>case, we would have heard more about it.

You are right, your friend is wrong.  NASA had some slight control over
Skylab's reentry, and used it to speed up the reentry a little when it
became clear that that would minimize the chances of hitting populated
areas.  As it happened, this wasn't entirely successful, since the part
of Australia affected has a sparse but non-zero population, but the
alternative was a reentry track likely to involve North America or
Europe.
-- 
Mars can wait:  we've barely   |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
started exploring the Moon.    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 2 Dec 89 21:23:45 GMT
From: haven!uvaarpa!hudson!bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU!gl8f@purdue.edu  (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 12/01/89 (Forwarded)

In article <37103@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:

>The Washington Post reports Vice President Quayle and the 
>National Space Council, held several meetings this week to 
>evaluate alternative ways of sending humans to the moon and to 
>Mars.  Included in one of the sessions were author Tom Clancy, 
>scientists Carl Sagan and Edward Teller; former astronaut Michael 
>Collins and physicist Charles Townes.

This left me rolling on the floor. Carl Sagan and Edward Teller were
listed in the same category, while Charlie Townes was respectfully
labeled with the actual field he does work in.

:-)

------
Greg Lindahl

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 1 Dec 89 07:13:39 PST
From: mordor!lll-tis!ames!scubed!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: ames!lll-tis!mordor!angband!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars

Paul Dietz writes:
>In article <671@visdc.UUCP> jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) writes:
>>Paul Dietz writes:
>>> I am amazed that people are supporting a $400 B project that will
>>> send four people briefly to Mars.  Even if you ignore science,
>>> what could possibly be the justification for this?
>>
>>The $400 billion figure is a best-effort estimate of the MINIMUM cost
>>to avert a MAJOR depression in the military-industrial complex, not
>>considering any contractors outside of important population states.
>
>I hope you're not repeating the old canard about government spending
>necessarily creating wealth.  That $400 B would have to come out of
>someone's pockets; this technowelfare program would only spread the
>cost of economic restructuring, not remove it (and the taxes would
>be a disincentive to real wealth creation elsewhere in the economy).
>
>Also, if we do spend $400 B, can't we at least get something tangible
>out of it?  Science, at least, has proved to have tangible value.

Just the prevention of another Great Depression -- that's all we'll
get out of it.  Since WW II pulled us out of the Great Depression, 
it is no longer macroeconomic THEORY that defense spending is all that
stands between us and that dark abyss of poverty... it is macroeconomic 
FACT and therefore credible enough to justify the borrowing of 3 trillion
dollars during the Reagan/Bush military buildup.  Look at the result!
We have a BOOMING economy!  We are on our way to MARS!!  THERE IS NO 
LIMIT TO WHAT AMERICANS CAN DO WHEN WE BORROW TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM
FOREIGN NATIONALS!!!

And I don't want to hear anything about these foreign nationals 
starting to exert political influence and subverting our democractic
institutions.  Just because they have money doesn't mean they can
subvert our institutions -- we would never let our own super-rich
control our branches of government so there is just no WAY foreigners
can exert such influence.

By the way, I hear that feudal lords require sexual access to their
surfs' wives -- not that anyone in the US can afford to have a family
anymore anyway.  At least you will have the privilege of raising a 
genetically superior child, probably with the economic support of your 
feudal lord.  He might even let YOU impregnate your wife as well -- if
you express enough personal loyalty to him.  

---
Typical RESEARCH grant ($ = 1million):
$
Typical DEVELOPMENT contract:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

------------------------------

Date: 2 Dec 89 17:19:10 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!wombat!george@apple.com  (George Scolaro)
Subject: Re: What happened when SkyLab came down? [was : What happens when a satellite comes down?

In article <49061@bbn.COM> ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>In article loughry@tramp.Colorado.EDU (J. Loughry) writes:
>> Solar Max is coming down.  According to the papers, [...]
>
>When SkyLab came down, it was treated by the papers, Johnny Carson (and the
>Man In The Street) as more or less a miracle that nobody died.  But I tried
>arguing with a friend that its reentry trajectory (i.e. down the Atlantic,
>around the tip of Africa and out across the Indian Ocean) was just too
>fortuitous to be blind luck.  His arguement was that if this had been the

Eh, what do you mean fortuitous blind luck? Skylab crashed into Western
Australia, in the goldfields behind Kalgoorlie. Since Kalgoorlie is pretty
close to due east, 600km, of Perth (the capital with 1 million or so) it
seems to me that if had come down a tiny bit sooner it would have been less
then fortuitous. Many of the locals went out on a scrap locating mission,
probably the closest us poor aussies have got to space tech. in a long time,
and brought back bits and pieces, certainly some were large enough to squish
a person.
-- 
George Scolaro
george@wombat
(try {pyramid|sun|vsi1|killer} !daver!wombat!george)

------------------------------

Date: 3 Dec 89 00:40:15 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars

In article <20177@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> scott@scheme.berkeley.edu writes:
>What are the advantages of actually sending men to Mars?  Is it true that they 
>  are considering this before sending any roving unmanned probes?

There is talk about any number of possible approaches.

>If so, why?  Aren't unmanned probes far less expensive and more efficient?

It depends on what you are doing.  For just taking pictures from a distance,
unmanned probes are definitely far less expensive and more efficient.  For
investigating a complex and rough terrain (Mars is *really* rough) close
up, in a wide variety of ways, at a distance from Earth that makes
teleoperation difficult, the situation is rather less clear.  The classic
example is the mysterious results from the Viking life detectors, *probably*
due to highly active surface chemistry, which could not be investigated
in detail because the Viking landers were more or less limited to doing
investigations that had been thought about in advance.  Another example
is the problem of operating a robot vehicle at reasonable speeds in
hazardous terrain with speed-of-light lags measured in minutes.

The best way to do an in-depth preliminary investigation of Mars would
probably be a mixed approach:  teleoperation from a manned vessel in
Mars orbit.  (This also avoids the sticky question of whether it is wise
to make an immediate manned landing on a planet which just barely might
have life.  Life definitely cannot be widespread on Mars, but small
amounts in unusually favorable areas would not be inconsistent with the
Viking results.)  Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to satisfy either
ideology.  The robotniks say "keep those icky humans out of the plans",
while the Mars-or-busters want a manned landing ASAP and no compromises.
-- 
Mars can wait:  we've barely   |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
started exploring the Moon.    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 Nov 89 07:59:28 PST
From: mordor!lll-tis!ames!scubed!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: ames!lll-tis!mordor!angband!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: So how elastic is the market?

Allen W. Sherzer writes:

>We are preparing something on HR2674 to show our congresstype
>later this year. One piece of information we need to know is
>some estimate of how elastic the market is. In other words,
>if the cost to launch a pound were cut in half, how much bigger
>would the market get in terms of pounds to orbit? Anybody have
>access to any graphs on this or can point me to a source?

This is a recurring problem in new, technically driven, markets.

For example, in the 1950's, a study conducted by the world's foremost
authorities concluded that one computer, with approximately the power 
of a 80386 connected to the phone network with a LOT of modems, could 
handle all computation requirements for the US.  A lot of people wanted 
to start a National Central Computer Project (don't recall the name at 
the moment).  

If you get some estimates that overcome the inherent handicap of doing
extrapolation rather than interpolation, let me know, I'd be interested.

PS:  Cost/pound isn't the only driver in the market -- being able to
purchase a launch when you want it rather than waiting a decade or so
as with the Shuttle, can be a BIG consideration these days.
Typical RESEARCH grant ($ = 1million):
$
Typical DEVELOPMENT contract:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

------------------------------

Date:         Sat, 02 Dec 89 20:31:24 CST
From: SPACE STUDIES STUDENT ORGANIZATION <UD186413@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Subject:      SUBSCRIBE

 SUBSCRIBE

------------------------------

Date: 2 Dec 89 10:35:50 GMT
From: wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@eddie.mit.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: shuttle question

In article <16869@nuchat.UUCP> steve@nuchat.UUCP (Steve Nuchia) writes:
>[SSMEs] are reusable engines.  That means they have to be taken
>apart and put back together, piece by piece and at great expense,
>before you can light them again.

No, that is a consequence of them being *NASA* reusable engines -- that
is, designed for absolute maximum performance and pushing technology
very hard in new directions (nobody had ever built an engine resembling
the SSME before).  Test-stand experience indicates that other liquid
engines are significantly *more* reusable than SSMEs, with half an
hour or more of accumulated firing with minimal maintenance fairly
common for some designs.  Centaur's RL-10 engines are cleared for
multiple ignitions and over an hour of firing time on a single flight,
i.e. with zero maintenance.  They are, in principle, cleared for much more
if you can do even the most minimal maintenance in between.  The high-time
RL-10 has fired for over four hours, with relatively modest maintenance
by SSME standards.  The reason these engines are not thought of as being
reusable is simply that the vehicles currently using them are missile
derivatives that are not recoverable.
-- 
Mars can wait:  we've barely   |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
started exploring the Moon.    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V10 #299
*******************