Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Sun, 23 Jun 91 02:03:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 23 Jun 91 02:03:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #686 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 686 Today's Topics: Re: Gibson & Sterling RfD: talk.politics.space Re: More on Freedom Vote Has-beens, LSPA and Operant Conditioning Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch?? Re: More on Freedom Vote Re: What is erythropoetin? Re: satellite refuelling 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: 3 Jun 91 02:27:19 GMT From: spool.mu.edu!agate!earthquake.Berkeley.EDU!gwh@decwrl.dec.com (George William Herbert) Subject: Re: Gibson & Sterling In article dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) writes: >Why is it that there seems to be a large group of people who want to >have a direct launch manned Mars mission (and I don't mean the sort >Paul Koloc would build) ? Because, well, it's cheap, reliable, and despite the cries, you CAN establish an infrastructure here and there without some in between 8-) -george william herbert gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 91 17:50:53 GMT From: eagle!venus.lerc.nasa.gov!ecaxron@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Ronald E. Graham) Subject: RfD: talk.politics.space This is a Request for Discussion for a proposed new group, talk.politics.space for which discussion is to be carried out solely in news.groups, per the Usenet Guidelines for New Group Creation, or via e-mail. What e-mail I receive on this subject I will summarize weekly for the duration of the discussion period, which will last for four weeks from the date of this posting. After this time, if it appears as though a new group is desired by the majority of respondents, and the name and charter have been agreed upon, I will issue a Call for Votes on the proposed new group, again per the Guidelines. The Request for Discussion will be posted to sci.space shortly after it appears in news.announce.newgroups. Charter: This group will exist for the purpose of discussion of the politics of space exploration, development, and scientific research. Topics could include, but not be limited to: o activities of space activists; o space policy in general, and applied to programs in particular; o funding levels and other non-technical considerations; o guesswork regarding the nature of extraterrestrial life forms or of the methods of space and planetary colonization. Background: Currently sci.space is a newsgroup with a great deal of traffic. Over the last year, there have been several attempts to raise discussion on various potential spin-off groups; each group having shown little significant interest due to highly-specialized subject matter. Complaints are often posted within that newsgroup regarding the non- technical nature of other postings. It is true that there are a large number of non-technical issues brought up in sci.space, and that readers sometimes find themselves caught up in political arguments (and flame wars!), or are urged to political action of one sort or another. The purpose of this RfD is not to question whether such postings are good, but rather whether sci.space has not grown to the point that there are two distinct patterns of discussion: technical and non-technical/ political. If it has, then a new group may be necessary. If such a new group is primarily political in nature, then the talk.politics subhierarchy is appropriate for the group. Let me also point out that, while there is nothing in the Usenet Guidelines for New Group Creation that states there must be a great deal of traffic on a given subject before that subject merits a group of its own, a great deal of traffic will still convince many readers that a new group has merit. So: I propose the formation of talk.politics.space, and am now asking for discussion of the proposed group. I will not participate much in the discussion myself, since I am more a reader in sci.space than a participant, but I will do the leg work for this gladly, and am looking forward to seeing comments from the real participants. Go to it, all. RG "Principal Engineer" espousing "Engineering Principles" ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jun 91 01:46:14 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!widener!hela!aws@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: More on Freedom Vote In article yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >>The amendment will 'tax' 3% of all the agencies except Vetrans and NASA... >Is this *all* agencies or just all HUD/Independent Agencies (NSF, EPA, etc.)? All agencies funded by the HUV, VA, and IA Subcommittee except VA and NASA would have 3% of their budgets taken away under this plan. >>In addition, $500M in cuts identified by the >>NASA Authorization bill can be enacted to bring Freedom up to full funding. >Does anyone know which specific projects are affected by these >proposed cuts? I don't have exact numbers handy but I know some money was removed from EOS and HLV studies. EOS may have problems in the future; some members of the Authorization Committee are concerned that EOS will take too long and cost too much. They feel (correctly IMHO) that we could get 80% of the results for 20% the cost in far less time with a series of microsats. This amendment will not kill any of the currently scheduled space science. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. | | aws@iti.org | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 17:52:23 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: Has-beens, LSPA and Operant Conditioning Prior to ascending to chairmanship of the Science, Space and Technology committee, George Brown, at our request, cosponsored the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990. His support was vital to the passage of that very important piece of legislation. As a reward for this courageous behavior, when Brown faced the closest and toughest race of his career, I took two weeks of vacation to run his Riverside phone bank and raised a thousand dollars from space activists around the country. I did this at my own expense. He was reelected by a very close margin. As the new chairman of the Science, Space and Technology committee, Brown has, energetically, taken the worst possible stance on every key piece of legislation to come before him this year. He could have made a break with the past, led us to a new paradigm in science, space and technology and thereby brought to himself and his committee, greater authority and credibility. Instead, he chose to deny the door that was opened to him by the LSPA and follow it through to that new paradigm. As a result of his failure of leadership, George Brown no longer deserves to weild authority. He "has been" a person of courage, but is no more. In this sense of moral leadership, he is a has-been. But for those who worship "realpolitick" Brown is also a "has-been" by virture of the decay and downfall of big-science's political credibility as a route to porkbarrel votes. He backed the wrong horse with his new chairmanship, and he lost. It was a high-stakes political bet. At this time, the real power over science, space and technology resides with others. It didn't have to be that way. I have never used the term "has-been" to refer to a congressman before. I do so now to communicate reality and I do so openly as punishment for Brown's failure of courage, leadership, vision and political savvy. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Bowery 619/295-3164 The Coalition for PO Box 1981 Science and La Jolla, CA 92038 Commerce ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 91 20:55:20 GMT From: amdcad!dgcad!dg-rtp!patriot!grossg@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Gene Gross) Subject: Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch?? In article <1991May31.215411.19074@nntp-server.caltech.edu> carl@hamlet.caltech.edu writes: >In article <1991May31.022927.35@bilver.uucp>, dona@bilver.uucp (Don Allen) writes... >> ParaNet has received information that Richard C. Hoagland, >>the noted author of The Monuments of Mars - a book detailing a >>possible surface anomaly on the planet, > >Hoagland is noted mainly for being a zealot who's rediscovered the fact that if >you take enough random data, you'll be able to find a correlation with >something in it. I've been able to spot SEVERAL humanoid faces in the >acoustical tile on my ceiling. Actually, Hoagland didn't rediscover anything. The first viewing of the "Face" was while the assembled "horde" waited for the photos to come back from Mars to JPL. When the shot with the "Face" was put on screen, the assembled scientists and journalists were a bit stunned. You could have heard a pin drop during the few seconds that it took for some bright scientist at JPL to quip "amazing what light and shadows will do." It was thought for a long time that the anomaly seen on Cydonia was only seen in that one photo -- not so. There was at least one more photo of that same region which also showed the same "Face." Both of the photos where taken when the sun was in a different position -- but both photos reveal the same structure. Hoagland was not the one to discover the second photo. He had been at JPL taht day when the "Face" was seen for the first time. He followed the lead of the scientist who poo-poo'd the photo by also ignoring the "Face" for a number of years afterwards. However, two men, whose names escape me at the moment, got a copy of the tape from NASA and began developing photos. It was during this time that the "Face" and all of the other anomalies of Cydonia were "rediscovered." Hoagland got involved sometime later and has been the leading proponent of returning to Mars to study these objects -- if not in person than certainly with a better camera system. BTW, I have a copy of the original NASA photo showing the "Face." It is rather grainy, but I simply don't see how you can miss the "Face." It is nothing like the Kermit face that someone said they saw on Mars, nor is it anything like the face in the moon. This thing is so distinct that it will capture your attention immediately. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jun 91 01:36:45 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!hela!aws@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: More on Freedom Vote In article <30506@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >>I never said it would be easy [killing the Shuttle], I just said it >>could be done. In fact, it is happening even as we speak. >Congress is working on killing the shuttle and going to cans? Could you >elaborate? It's more than just Congress, it's also the Space Council and space activists. Look at the signs: OMB is using the money for another orbiter to fund HLV work. Congress is moving toward commercial procurement policies which will move cargo off the Shuttle. The only thing left is spacelab and Freedom resuply which can be done for FAR less with expendables. If NASA doesn't get the orbiters they will be forced to allow for the use of ACRV or perhaps Comet to transport astronauts. When that happens the Shuttle is finished. This won't happen overnight and it will take work by activists who want to see cost effective infrastructure. But it will happen. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. | | aws@iti.org | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jun 91 02:14:21 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rphroy!caen!malgudi!uoft02.utoledo.edu!grx0644@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: What is erythropoetin? In article <32049@rouge.usl.edu>, dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Phil Fraering) writes: > Okay, let's go one step further: > What is erythropoetin? > Is it something to do with treating diabetes? Erythropoetin (aka EPO) is a red blood cell growth cell factor secreted by the kidneys in responce to constant low oxygen levels of the blood. EPO causes immature RBC (red blood cells) to mature so the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood will increase. It is now manufactured by a company that I can not think of the name currently and is extreemly expensive, as it uses the latest in genetic engineering. It does not have much to do with diabetes. I have seen it mostly in hemodialysis where the patients usually become anemic. I can get more specific info if needed. Tony +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Anthony Paul Schliesser GRX0644@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU| |The University of Toledo GRX0644@UOFT02.BITNET | |College of Pharmacy FAC2966@UOFT01.UTOLEDO.EDU| | FAC2966@UOFT01.BITNET | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jun 91 15:35:25 GMT From: iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!hela!aws@lll-winken.llnl.gov (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: satellite refuelling In article <1991Jun1.203132.7025@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >> [The Kelly Act stimulated multi engine aricraft and navigation] >These technologies, and many more besides, came out of WWI and WWII, not >the Kelly Act. First of all, you can forget WWII; the body of law and policies which we call the Kelly Act hapened 20 years before WWII. At any rate, there where multi-engine aircraft in WWI but they didn't have the advanced navigation capabilities refered to. Those came about when the govenrment built a system of radio beakons along the routes. None of this was in common use before they where subsidized by the Kelly Act. >I question whether the Kelly Act -- which was targeted >towards the U.S. government business of mail delivery, _not_ passenger >service -- had any positive impact beyond mail delivery. I quote from "The American Heriatage History of Flight" by Arthur Gordon: ...Like his predecessors, Brown [Hoover's Postmaster] felt that the post office should encourage commercial avation in the interest of national defense. But he also felt that rapid expansion would never take place so long as government subsidies made it more profitable for the airlines to carry mnail than to carry passengers. Consequently, he sought an amendment to the original Kelly Act that would eliminate the old pound-per-mile rate and pay operators according to how much cargo space they made available. Brown figured that this would encourage the airlines to place orders for larger airplanes: then, if mail did not fill the extra space, operatiors would carry passengers rather than fly half-empty. The new proposal passed as the McNary-Waters Bill also attempted to reward progressive operators by providing for extra payments to airlines using multi- engine planes equipped with the latest navigation aids. The whole point of this new law, Brown said, was to develop avation in the broad sense and to stimulate manufacturers "who wold compete with each other to bring their aeronautical industry up to the point where it could finally sustain itself. This was in 1929 and you will note from the quote that avation was NOT self sustaining. >Real infrastructure is developed by mutual agreement and business >partnership of the parties concerned, not by dictation from >politically motivated central planners pulling numbers out of the blue. Let's see, we have the Interstate Highway system, the Railroads, the airports, docks, cannals, and a host of others. All where done by those nasty central planners. Are we actualy to conclude that you don't think ANY of them are infrastructure? Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. | | aws@iti.org | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #686 *******************