Message-ID: <4cJRRwG00WBwEDyU5X@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 04:12:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #633

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 633

Today's Topics:
			Re: lifeboats....ACRV
	      Summary of 5/20 Space News (Fred Funding)
Re: Bootstrapping (Was: Re: S.E.T.I. Who can give me any reasons ...)
		   Re: Keck (was Re: Privatization)
			    Re: lifeboats
			 Re: Babies in Space
			  Re: Privatization
    Re: Babies in Space (was: Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?)

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  space+@andrew.cmu.edu.  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to
			 tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu

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

Date: 24 May 91 22:55:14 GMT
From: agate!headcrash.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: lifeboats....ACRV

In article <1991May23.003204.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> gerlach@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>For Net knowledge sake.  I work in the Orbiter and GFE Projects Flight Data and
>Evaluation office as a Mission Evaluation Room Manager.  However, I can soak my
>father, Ronald H. Gerlach/Project Manager - Assured Crew Return Vehicle, for
>any specific information.  I know the ACRV project office is more than happy to
>send out any information to clear up allot of missconceptions out there
>concerning there project!!

Two questions about the ACRV:

1: How are the capsule designs going? All I have heard about in the past year
is the lifting body consept out of NASA/Langley.

2: Could an ACRV be modified for launch on a expendable launcher, and if
so, could it be modified for launch WITH people on board, e.g. as a crew
transport?

				       Frank Crary
				       UC Berkeley

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

Date: 24 May 91 12:20:40 GMT
From: eagle!sei_4.lerc.nasa.gov!dbm0000@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Dave McKissock)
Subject: Summary of 5/20 Space News (Fred Funding)

The May 20-26, 1991 edition of SPACE NEWS has two front page articles
about Fred Funding. Below are some excerpts from the two articles:

Rep. Bob Traxler (D-Mich), chair of the House  Appropriations 
submittee that oversees NASA, says a decision by members of the House
of Representatives to press NASA to stop work on the station would
follow a debate about the program on the House floor, whick likely will
take place around June 4. 

If the House approves the panel's recommendation to change the Station
1992 funding from $2 billion to $100 million, Traxler says they will
direct NASA to use the remaining 1991 funds to terminate the effort.
The $100 million in 1992 funding would go for leftover termination costs
and [Guess what :)] new studies on a more modest orbiting facility.

Senate & administration officials say they will not allow the House
to unilaterally dismantle the Station program. Press secretary for
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Mich, chair of the Senate panel that oversees
NASA appropriations), says a decision on Station will affect the space
program for the rest of the decade, and must be a bicameral decision.
[My dictionary says "bicameral" means based on two legislative chambers.]

By deleting most Station funding, they were able to put $1.2 billion
into housing, environmental, vetrans medical care and other programs.
Even the National Cemetary System would receive an additional $5 million.
The remaining $800 million goes to other NASA programs, primairly
space science projects. One House staffer said a barrage of letters
from the space science community before the markup was a factor in
the decision to kill Station & give space science efforts the money
requested for 1992.

By naming specific winners in canceling the Station, the panel created
powerful forces in favor of the program's demise, say congressional
staffers & NASA managers.

In a separate article (Mixed reaction to Cut), it's reported that many
space scientists were upbeat about the House vote.  They argued the
action will force NASA to reorient the design to better serve science
[Question: How does one reorient something that has been cancelled].

On the other side of the fence, Ray Williamson (analyst with 
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment), said canceling Station
could be seen as a "vote of no confidence" for space programs, which 
could decrease support for exploration missions.

Jerry Grey, director of science & technology for AIAA, says if NASA
started all over again, they might end up with something cheaper, but
not if you include the cost of the $5 billion already spent.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave McKissock              sakissoc@mars.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland Ohio.
Opinions expressed herein probably bear absolutely no resemblance to
the official NASA position.

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

Date: 24 May 91 17:07:37 GMT
From: pasteur!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!umich!sharkey!nstar!crom2!jim@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (James P. H. Fuller)
Subject: Re: Bootstrapping (Was: Re: S.E.T.I. Who can give me any reasons ...)

dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

> I also dispute the idea that breaking out into space requires large
> amounts of terrestrial resources.  The real cost is in labor, in
> design, manufacture and operation; a rocket simply doesn't contain
> very much material, after all.

     A spaceship is an economic unit just like a bargeload of coal or a pork
belly.  When you compute the cost of a spaceship you have to compute the
cost of everything that goes into it, *including* the labor, and the cost of
training and organizing the labor, and supporting the labor, and supporting
the sort of technological society that produces space-science majors in the
first place (hunter-gatherer societies don't, you know.)  That's where the
requirement for large amounts of terrestrial resources comes in, and the
rules don't allow you to exclude any of it from your calculation.  
   
    If you're disputing the notion that space travel is costly simply be-
cause a particular spaceship doesn't contain huge amounts of raw materials
then I think you need to reprogram your computer. 

 
crom2 Athens GA Public Access Unix   |  i486 AT, 16mb RAM, 600mb online
   Molecular Biology                 |  AT&T Unix System V release 3.2
   Population Biology                |  Tbit PEP 19200bps  V.32  V.42/V.42bis
   Ecological Modeling               |    admin: James P. H. Fuller
   Bionet/Usenet/cnews/nn            |    {jim,root}%crom2@nstar.rn.com

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

Date: 25 May 91 00:07:26 GMT
From: pasteur!agate!spool.mu.edu!rex!rouge!dlbres10@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: Keck (was Re: Privatization)

In article <11506@ncar.ucar.edu> steve@groucho.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) writes:

\I would (though I suspect my opinion is in the minority).
/Didn't the Augustine Report, however, specifically say that *science* 
\should be deciding factor for the space program?  If so, your suggestion
/would appear to be right on the mark.

There are many different sorts of science that can be done. Anything
from studying humans in zero-g, to the plasma around earth, to the
near-earth asteroids, Earth's moon and Mars' moons, and some comets,
for resource studies, or studying purely for abstract reasons the solar
system and the universe beyond, like quasars and neutron stars. 

"Space science" could conceivably cover a very large range of
research, from quasars to technology development like laser launchers
and mass drivers.

I suspect that the latter is what the report called for, although I have
not read it. It may be that pure astrophysical research could give us
the secrets behind such things as the Alderson, er, I mean Crazy Eddie
drive :-).


--
Phil Fraering || Usenet (?):dlbres10@pc.usl.edu || YellNet: 318/365-5418
''It hardly mattered now; it was, in fact, a fine and enviable
madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is
beyond the reach of a strong left arm.`` - Larry Niven and Jerry
Pournelle, _The Mote in God's Eye_

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

Date: 25 May 91 00:18:20 GMT
From: wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@decwrl.dec.com  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: lifeboats

In article <42637@fmsrl7.UUCP> wreck@fmsrl7.UUCP (Ron Carter) writes:

   Path: rouge!rex!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!caen!ox.com!fmsrl7!wreck
   From: wreck@fmsrl7.UUCP (Ron Carter)
   Newsgroups: sci.space
   Summary: Apollo CM would need redesign or assistance.
   Date: 22 May 91 15:41:08 GMT
   References: <1991May17.023728.17989@zoo.toronto.edu> <1991May18.233449.10542@agate.berkeley.edu> <1991May19.023624.29374@zoo.toronto.edu> <1991May20.184528.19548@agate.berkeley.edu>
   Reply-To: wreck@fmsrl7.UUCP (Ron Carter)
   Organization: Ford Motor Company, Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
   Lines: 40

   In article <1991May20.184528.19548@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) writes:
   >You're forgetting something... all the orbital maneuvering (reaction control
   >system etc) was on the SM if I remember correctly.  I'm not sure how happy the
   >astronauts would be about dropping hydrazine in their capsule for RCS
   >purposes.

   The CM had limited reaction control capabilities.  I've seen the
   Apollo 9 CM a few times; there are most definitely RCS nozzles
   built flush into the skin down near the heat shield.  The CM
   most definitely carried fuel for these thrusters; the hydrazine
   (or whatever) problem is old hat.

   However, these jets won't work for orbital maneuvering for
   several reasons.

   1.)	They are designed to maintain spacecraft attitude
	   during re-entry.  Thus, they can only roll, pitch
	   and yaw the spacecraft.
   2.)	Thrusters to translate the spacecraft in the X, Y
	   and (important for docking) Z axes are absent.
   3.)	The rotational thrusters aren't balanced.  (They
	   didn't need to be.)  A little translational push
	   from a rotation is of no consequence during re-entry,
	   but it is a serious problem when docking.

   This means that the CM cannot be used as a crew vehicle
   or lifeboat without either modification or an SM-equivalent.
   It can't dock without assistance, nor push away from a
   space station either.  These capabilities are required
   for either crew rotation or lifeboat operations.

   Considering our progress in ultra-low-power electronics
   (for avionics), high-strength materials (for oxygen tanks),
   powerful batteries, and other technologies, it should not
   be difficult to design a CM-equivalent which can be shipped
   up to a space station, dock with it, and then either work
   as a crew transport or lifeboat.  It might be possible to
   build one into a CM-shell and omit the SM, but I believe
   that it will be necessary to get somewhat fancy with the
   thruster configuration to achieve the necessary capabilities.
--
Phil Fraering || Usenet (?):dlbres10@pc.usl.edu || YellNet: 318/365-5418
''It hardly mattered now; it was, in fact, a fine and enviable
madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is
beyond the reach of a strong left arm.`` - Larry Niven and Jerry
Pournelle, _The Mote in God's Eye_

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

Date: 24 May 91 13:27:06 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu!hrubin@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Babies in Space

In article <12947@sybase.sybase.com>, brook@alf.sybase.com (brook mantia) writes:
> In article <9551@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL> lev@slced1.nswses.navy.mil (Lloyd E Vancil) writes:
 
> >Yes reduced gravity should cause problems for pregnancies and growing 
> >children

 
> Why?  Esp. for pregnancies.  I'd imagine reduced gravity might make pregnancy
> easier.  Just wondering...
 
> Cheers,
> Brook Mantia
 
> PS:  If anyone knows of any good reference material regarding this subject
> I'd be very appreciative. Thanks.

How can we have any good, fair, or even poor reference materials on this?
We know essentially nothing, and no amount of study on earth can give us
this information, barring good practical antigravity devices capable of
operating for months (in the case of pregnancy) or years (growing children.)

The only way to do zero-gravity biology is in zero gravity.  Low-gravity
biology can be done in low gravity, or by using spin in zero gravity.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)   {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)

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

Date: 24 May 91 16:45:28 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!uafhp!bmccormi@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Brian McCormick)
Subject: Re: Privatization

In article <12761@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
 
> While I appreciate others supporting my position, I doubt that it could
> be done THAT cheaply, but it is feasible to get a "permanent" manned
> presence in space NOW if the governments can be kept out of interference.
 
All this talk of "government interference" and "private enterprise" reminds
me of a discussion I used to have with a co-worker.  He was pretty extreme
in his viewpoint that government should get out of everything.  Ultimately,
I came to the conclusion that he held those political views primarily because
he wanted to get out of paying taxes.  In any case, those discussions 
provided a good paltform for exploring the influence and interference
of the governement and how they affect the actual cost of programs.

There are two basic points that I would like to make that have relevance 
to this pontification of the virtues of private industry in space.
  
   1. Private industry does not always do something more efficiently.
      This may come as a surprise to some of you, but it's true.  As
      an example, consider this:  private insurance companies end up
      paying out benefits on their policies at the rate of about 80
      cents on the dollar (varies from company to company).  Medicare
      and Medicaid are actually much more efficient.  They pay out
      rougly 96-98 cents in benefits for every dollar they receive.
      My understanding is that the more comprehensive Canadian health
      care program has a similar efficiency.

      It is fairly obvious that NASA is a very inefficient organization.
      However, you simply can't use the argument that private industry 
      is always more efficient to justify a position that private
      could provide all the same services as NASA at the same cost.
      There isn't a private company tha does all the things NASA does
      to compare NASA to.  If you want higher efficiency, you can
      probably get it by reforming NASA.  There is no guarantee at all
      that you can get it by forming a separate private enterprise.

   2. There seems to be little interest on the part of private industry
      in developing space.  I say this for a number of reasons, but the
      most important one is that industry has neither made a substantial
      investment in space infrastructure, nor has it made any really
      serious attempts to overcome the regulations you say stand in its
      way.  The fact is, that aside from a handful of small ventures
      which have had little impact, the only infrastructure that private
      industry has spent its money on is infrastructure which enhances
      existing ground based infrastructure (communications satellites 
      for example).  Private industry has not invested significantly in
      launch capability, nor in an orbiting platform, nor in its own
      lunar prospecting mission.  In particular, private industry has shown
      no interest in a manned program.

      As for government regulations...  Considering that S&L's, Banks,
      airlines, and cable TV all got deregulated in the 80's, I don't
      see how a concerted lobbying investment by space interest groups
      and private industry could have failed.  Unless of course, there
      was so little interest in the development of space that no one
      was willing to invest their money in deregulation...  It's pretty
      obvious that congress listens to whatever lobbying group makes the
      best pitch, and it's even more obvious that NASA is ineffective
      (or possibly laughable) as a lobbying organization.  Years of 
      budget cuts are a testament to the latter.
    
I personally would like to see private industry in space, at least as 
an alternative to government programs.  However, I am not so blinded 
by a love of private industry that I fail to take note of the fact that 
private industry is uninterested in space.  When the potential to make
an immediate profit in space is already in place, I'm sure private 
industry will take an interest.  In the meantime, the government will
have to suffice.

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

Date: 24 May 91 18:12:03 GMT
From: agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hp-pcd!hpmcaa!winter@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Kirt Alan Winter)
Subject: Re: Babies in Space (was: Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?)

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> [any experiments?]
> 
> Not yet.  The farthest anybody has gone, that I recall, is hatching eggs
> in orbit.  Something that has been on the life-sciences wish list for a
> *long* time is to take the life cycle for something like mice from
> conception through to birth, and preferably through at least one more
> generation, in free fall.  It's still on the wish list.

I seem to recall an experiment on one of the Skylab missions that involved
minnows (or some other small fish).  The adult minnows didn't do too well
with weightlessness (swam around in little loops), but the offspring that
hatched seemed to do much better.

Does anybody else remember this experiment?

Kirt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kirt Alan Winter                                    winter@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com
 Hewlett Packard - Cardiology Business Unit          (503) 472-5101 x371
 McMinnville, Oregon
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #633
*******************