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 ; Mon, 24 Jun 91 05:07:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4cNPNZm00WBwM8WU4I@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 05:07:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #700 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 700 Today's Topics: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures Re: Omnibus Space Commercialization Act of 1991 NASA Budget Re: INFO: Lunar Transient Phenomena - Paranet File orbiter production SIGNIFICANT MAJOR FLARE ALERT - HIGH IMPACT EXPECTED 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: 5 Jun 91 18:49:22 GMT From: agate!tornado.Berkeley.EDU!gwh@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures In article <1991Jun5.172942.3636@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >Why do you assume that nothing but the shuttle could ever be used to >launch such things? A Titan IV should be able to launch a fully-fueled >Centaur G', the upper stage that Galileo (for example) was designed for. >If you launch stage and fuel separately, the problems become even less >significant. The Titan IV isn't a civillian or even NASA launch option now and won't be for a while... besides which, it's _really_ margainal for lifting a Centaur+Galileo sized payload. That maxes out it's 100nm payload. And the Centaur is right at the edge of not being enough to throw Galileo to Jupiter from a slightly higher orbit... >If you *really* want to get clever, there is a place on the shuttle >where cryogenic fuels (the only ones banned from the payload bay -- liquid >fuels in general are not) can safely be carried up: in the External Tank. >I saw a serious proposal to haul Galileo+Centaur up *unfuelled*, take the >ET all the way to a (low) orbit, and fuel the Centaur in orbit using the >leftover contents of the ET. A little tricky, and I'm not surprised that >NASA decided it was too complex (depressed, maybe, but not surprised), but >it should be possible. Gee, Henry, shouldn't we test an on-orbit LOX/LH2 refueling before we assume we can do it? 8-) It would be embarrasing if something failed... -george william herbert gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 12:25:30 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Omnibus Space Commercialization Act of 1991 Allen Sherzer writes: > Last Thursday I received a copy of the Space Commercialization bill > for the 102ND Congress. It is similar to last years bill with some > additions. Some highlights are: > > 1. Requires all federally funded launches to go up on commercially > provided launchers unless certain conditions apply. The language for this amendment is better than the LSPA (it is much closer to our original language). However, by being such a broad amendment, it will open the door to more weaseling by NASA and it will make DoD an ally in that weaseling. The LSPA should be left alone for now and a defense-only version should be introduced via the Armed Services Committee. Divide and conquer but defend the turf we've already won. > 3. It still provides tax deducitons for people buying stock in a > commercial launch facility. The CSC has been working the problem of tax incentives for a while. This is a great idea but Rostenkowski is dead-set against any use of the tax-code that isn't "for raising revenue". The only way around this is to appropriate funding directly within the agencies for matching grants programs. However, Walker doesn't want to get into any funding authorizations his Act. Unless Walker has some trick up his sleeve, which is very unlikely, all his tax incentives will be vetoed by Rostenkowski. > 7. Loosens some anti-trust laws as they affect space. This aspect of the bill is misguided and I hope it is fixed: "Title V -- Miscellaneous Sec. 501. Antitrust Exemptions. (a) Standing To Conduct Certain Litigation Notwithstanding sections 4 and 4C of the Clayton Act (15 USC 15 and 15C) and section 4 (a) and (b) of the National Cooperative Research Act of 1984 (15 USC 4303 (a) and (b)), standing to conduct litigation arising from causes of actions under such Acts arising out of activities carried out under this Act is reserved to the Department of Justice under the direction of the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission." This limits standing to sue for anticompetitive activities to the Government. If we are going to remove the right to litigate from the private sector, we should also remove it from the JD. Otherwise, leave it in both places. Space is already too political. It is the political character of space that is driving out private capital. > 11. Specifies the duties of the Office of Space Commerce. Big mistake. The Office's funding should be turned over to Office of Commercial Space Transportation (to shut up NASA cats-paws, like MD, about licensing fees) and the Office of Space Commerce should be closed. After NASA won the battle with Baldrige's Office of Space Commerce over CDSF, NASA targeted the Office for capture and succeeded. > 12. Requires each federal agency with more than $100M in R&D funding > to give Congress a report containing a plan of space related > work they will do and periodic followup reports on progress. This is a token gesture toward a grand idea. The grand idea is to diversify the sources of funding for space related research. This diversification would be more beneficial than anything else in the bill if it were actually effective. However, the authorizing committee has consistently supported the centralization of funding over diversification (SSC, NREN, Fred, Shuttle, and so on). In each of these centralizations, some bozo bureaucrat concocts a "study" of all the "inefficient" activities going on and how money could be better spent on one big megaproject which serves all those hair- brained scientists that obviously can't pick their nose right, let alone make the right decisions on how to spend their grant money. And every time, the authorizing committee staffers BELIEVE them. There is a severe danger that these reports will simply provide more data for such "studies". Since there is evidence the "big science" credulity is getting worse among the committee staff, the ultimate effect of this section could be the elimination of all independent space funding. Section 507 has a lot of potential, both positive and negative. It depends on what ends up in the exact language and on whether the committee can make a positive committment to become much more skeptical of all the "studies" that advocate centralization of funding sources. I don't think they are capable of such skepticism because it just feels so good to start and run big projects. And who's going to fight you until after the project is big enough to defend itself? > 13. Requires the government to purchase space infrastructure from the > private sector whenever possible. This section (509) requires the NSC to submit a report including the encouragment of "unsolicited proposals". CSC has been pushing on "unsolicited proposals" for some time. I'm really happy it finally made it into some legislative language! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Bowery 619/295-3164 The Coalition for PO Box 1981 Science and La Jolla, CA 92038 Commerce ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 91 01:47:30 GMT From: prism!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!geomag!cain@gatech.edu (Joe Cain) Subject: NASA Budget The following information was received from my congressman's` legislative correspondent this afternoon: SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPMAN/LOWERY AMENDMENT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD NEARLY FULLY FUND SPACE STATION FREEDOM, WITHOUT MODIFICATION TO THE 602(B) ALLOCATION TO THE VETERANS/HUD APPROPRIATIONS BILL. THE AMENDMENT WOULD RESTORE SPACE STATION AND LEAVES VIRTUALLY ALL OTHER NON-NASA PROGRAMS IN THE BUDGET INTACT AND ADDS $33M TO ADDRESS URGENT NEEDS IN VETERANS MEDICAL CARE. NASA o Freeze all NASA programs at FY91 funding levels, providing 1.9B for Space Station Freedom. o No NASA program would receive less than last year's funding amount. VETERANS O Increase funding for Veterans Medical Care Programs by $33M. NSF o No change; fully fund NSF at the President's request, as recommended by the Appropriations Committee. EPA o No change; fund all EPA increases as recommended by the Appropriations Committee. HUD o Reduce subsidized Housing Operations subsidies to the President's requested level. The Committe had increased the President's request by $250M, but disallowed the expenditure of the $250M until September 20, 1992, ten days before the end of the fiscal year. o All other HUD programs--including CDBG, Elderly and Handicap new construction, and public housing modernization and construction-- funded at the levels approved by the Appropriations Committee. FEMA o No changes; fund all FEMA programs as recommended by the Appropriations Committee. All other Agencies and Programs o No changes; fund all other accounts as recommended by the Appropriations Committee. Scoring o The proposed amendment is fully offset in both budget authority and outlays. **************************************************************** The American Geophysical Union recognizes that passage of this amendment would do serious damage to future space science programs and urge all to phone their congressional representatives and urge that this amendment be defeated. Instead, they support the originally passed budget of the Appropriations Committee. ****THIS MUST BE DONE TODAY FOR POSSIBLE EFFECT******* In their testimony May 1, 1991, the President of the AGU pointed out several aspects of the deliberations concerning Space Station Freedom(SSF): -Scientific research is critical to the solution of major environmental problems affecting our nation and planet. The potential contributions of SSF is ..minimal and not commensurate with the enormous costs.. -there is little that cannot be done with unmanned satellites for Earth Observation -the total cost of SSF is not now made public but is likely to be of the order of $180 over its 30 year life. The operating costs alone will be about $5 billion per year. -all possible benefits are hopelessly overpriced. e.g. space manufacturing results have been minimal. -the high costs will delay other NASA programs that are far more likely to produce much greater benefits and contribute more to U. S. leadership in Space, such as the Mission to and from Planet Earth as recommended by the Augustine committee. We note that this committee did not include SSF in its Mission to Planet Earth Program. The AGU is not opposed to manned space per se, but in the face of the present budget reduction needs to agree with the vote of the full Appropriations Committee. It seems to be a case where the major support is from the builders of the SSF, not the potential users. Joseph Cain cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu cain@fsu.bitnet scri::cain ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 91 04:58:22 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!midway!msuinfo!eecae.ee.msu.edu!grimm@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Jerry Michael Grimm) Subject: Re: INFO: Lunar Transient Phenomena - Paranet File schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes: >In <1991Jun2.222853.26216@bilver.uucp> dona@bilver.uucp (Don Allen) writes: >>NOTE: This article re-printed without the express written consent >>or permission of Paranet. >>... >>----Begin Included Text------------------------------------------ >>... >>(C) 1991 ParaNet(sm) Information Service. All Rights Reserved. >>... >>Reprinted from Sky & Telescope Magazine, March, 1991. >>... >This is great. A copyrighted article, reproduced without permission, >which itself contains a copyrighted article reproduced without >permission! >Who's attorneys will jump on this faster, I wonder? Hey, I know: >I'll mail a copy of the whole mess to both and see what they think >of it. Any bets? >Stay tuned, intelluctual property fans. hey, this is alt.alien.visitors, right? Well, where's the alien in this article? Mike G. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 91 16:51:36 GMT From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: orbiter production In article <30628@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >As for the production line bit, the production line was closed when >Challenger blew up, and yet we have Endeavour. I'll believe you when >they destroy the tooling used in making shuttles. Sorry, wrong. The production line was *almost* closed when Challenger was lost. Atlantis had been delivered some time before, but the line was still working to finish up the "structural spares" set that was later used to build Endeavour. The timing was decidedly lucky; if Challenger had been lost a year later, Endeavour might have cost twice as much as it did. The main problem is not tooling but skilled workforce and subcontractors. Even Endeavour is a great deal more expensive than the previous orbiters because of all the backing and filling that had to be done to ramp things up again. A fresh set of structural spares is underway at the moment, but once again the time is approaching when facilities will close down and people will be let go and the cost of a new orbiter will skyrocket. I don't think it is a particularly bright idea to let the orbiter line close when there is no replacement even in development, much less ready. -- "We're thinking about upgrading from | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 23:20:54 MDT From: oler <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:oler@HG.ULeth.CA> (CARY OLER) Subject: SIGNIFICANT MAJOR FLARE ALERT - HIGH IMPACT EXPECTED X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" -- MAJOR SOLAR FLARE ALERT -- JUNE 06, 1991 Flare Event Summary Potential Impact Assessment -------- MAJOR ENERGETIC EVENT SUMMARY Region 6659 has spawned yet another very powerful solar flare. This event, like several of the other flares from this region, saturated the GOES sensors at the class X12 level for between 20 and 25 minutes. The true intensity of this flare is unknown (it was well above a class X12 category). The optical component was rated 3B. A moderate intensity Type II and a major Type IV sweep were observed with this event. The flare began at 00:58 UT, peaked at 01:08 UT and ended at 02:47 UT on 06 June. A major HF blackout was also observed with this event. POTENTIAL TERRESTRIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT A high terrestrial impact is expected from todays major flare. Major to severe geomagnetic storming is expected to occur in association with this major event sometime early on 07 June. A-indices of greater than 50 are likely, with a risk for A-indices greater than 120 on 07 June. Protons are expected from this most recent flare. A PCA event is also anticipated, although the intensity of the PCA is not expected to be severe. Proton levels are expected to reach 3,600 to 3,700 pfu. Auroral activity will continue at high to extremely high levels over the next 24 to 72 hours. These high levels of activity are expected to continue as major flaring from Region 6659 continues. Major HF impacts, which have already been observed, will continue for the next 24 to 72 hours. As Region 6659 continues to move into progressively more sensitive areas of the solar disk, the risk for increasingly intense PCA activity will rise. The next week to 10 days do not look good for HF radio propagation conditions. Major HF blackout conditions are possible over the sunlit hemisphere during major flares. Conditions suitable for widespread VHF auroral backscatter will continue over the next 12 hours, with a return to favorable conditions early in the UT day of 07 June. Significant levels of flutter and auroral-induced anomalies will be observed throughout the next several days. Major flaring is expected to continue over the next 48 to 72 hours, at least. Projections estimate major proton flaring to be possible throughout the next week. ** End of Alert ** ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #700 *******************