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 ; Wed, 3 Jul 91 03:04:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 03:04:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #766 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 766 Today's Topics: Re: Fred's Operatic Death Re: Access to Space Re: CNN Report On Paris Airshow Re: Access to Space Re: Beanstalk analysis reprise Re: Excavating (mining) gold in the space by NASA. Solar Terrestrial Bulletin - WWV & WWVH Schedule Changes Re: Fred's Operatic Death 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: 17 Jun 91 12:49:50 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!crdgw1!gecrdvm1!gipp@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Fred's Operatic Death In article <1991Jun17.055344.8332@sequent.com>, szabo@sequent.com says: > >In article <1991Jun14.083756.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> kent@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes: > >>The kind of arrogant attitude you project with statements like "astronaut >>groupies" and implying that pro-manned space people call finaciers "Bean >>counters" makes me discount your arguments. > >"Astronaut groupie" is a description based on observations of people >flocking out to Edwards to watch the Shuttle land, getting astronaut's >autographs, and worshipping deceased astronauts as martyrs. This is >very similar to the behavior of a rock band groupie. I don't see >any reason to make my language less descriptive of reality. Reality is in the eye of the beholder. I could probably say the same things about those who drool and wet their pants thinking about a robotic mission, but it probably wouldn't describe the majority of AI advocates. > >Some of these people do in fact call the politicians who fund their >programs, and people who keep track of those funds, "bean counters". >_That_ is arrogance. There have been at least 3 examples of this Why is it arrogance? If you count beans, you're a bean counter. nothing wrong with being called a pencil pusher, a desk jockey, etc, etc. Now, if they call you a honeywagon you had best don your gloves, cause thems fighting words. >statements. Quit wasting my tax money making self-serving posts to the >net. Quit wasting my money on engineer-welfare projects like Fred. Get a >real job. > hey, guess who woke up and found Fred still funded? > >-- >Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com >Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter... >These views are my own, and do not represent any organization. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 91 22:05:10 GMT From: sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Access to Space In article <1991Jun17.165036.6816@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <1991Jun17.152849.11430@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: > >>We could also have a thriving space exploration >>and science program if the greedy astronaut programs were not soaking >>up the bulk of the funds. > >In the short run, yes. In the long run we are far better off building the >infrastructure. We need self-sufficient infrastructure, which is what I have been advocating. You have been promoting 1960's tin cans, which have nothing to do with infrastructure or the economical habitation of space. Meanwhile, most of the technology and exploration needed to expand our self-sufficient infrastructure remains unfunded, due to the neglect of the NASA leadership and promoters of astronaut programs such as yourself, greedily soaking up the bulk of the funds for short-term, astronauts-now projects. >Doing so wold reduce costs to LEO and permit a lot more >to be done. Sorry, we have been following your strategy for 20 years and the cost to LEO for astronauts has _increased_, not decreased. Furthermore, over 90% of the self-sufficient industry is in GEO and SSO, not LEO. Putting $multi-billion centralized satellites in LEO is pork barrel, not infrastructure. >Eventually we would get to the point where PhD students could >send their own probes out. That will produce far more results in the long >run than your short term approach. Why do you think I am advocating the development of Iridium-type technology? We need to move towards the next generation of space technology, not backwards to the 1960's. As for the silly "long term vs. short term" rhetoric, decades-long projects that develop little new technology are far worse for the future than quick, short-range projects that advance the state of the art. Worse still are short-range programs to launch a tiny number of astronauts in tin cans by the next decade, instead of doing the hard work needed to develop self-sufficient industries that can be used to build economical habitats over the longer term. >>The Europeans have quite substantial access to space via Ariane and Giotto, >>et. al., with astronauts nowhere in sight. > >And yet they still feel the need to build Hermes so they can have a manned >program. Only as a sad mimicry of the U.S. Europe (largely France) also has its astronaut groupies. Most of the space scientists and commercial space people in Europe are opposed to Hermes, just as most of these people in the U.S. are opposed to Fred. Even as we speak, Ariane 5 is being redesigned from a large satellite carrier into an HLV whose only purpose in life will be to lift two astronauts into LEO. Every nation in Europe except France has been trying to stop this nonsense. Sadly, France has not learned from our mistakes (and their successes). Europe will probably lose its leadership in the commercial space launch field by the end of the decade, for the same reasons the U.S. lost that leadership to Europe in the 1980's. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter... These views are my own, and do not represent any organization. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 91 22:55:27 GMT From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) Subject: Re: CNN Report On Paris Airshow In article <875@newave.UUCP> john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes: >The Soviets unvail the Mig-31. The Mig is on static display >and will fly at some point during the show. It looks like >an Eagle (twin tails) and is painted white with blue stripes. >What more can one say after having a 4 second glimpse? The MiG-31 isn't exactly a new aircraft; it's basically a reworked version of the MiG-25, which was initially designed to counter the B-70 Valkyrie. -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their Office of Information Technology P.O. box." - Zebadiah Carter, Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu _The Number of the Beast_ ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 91 00:29:57 GMT From: mintaka!think.com!samsung!caen!ox.com!hela!aws@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Access to Space In article <1991Jun17.220510.15128@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >>In the short run, yes. In the long run we are far better off building the >>infrastructure. >We need self-sufficient infrastructure, which is what I have been >advocating. We have never had a self-sustaining infrastructure. Where it not for the cold war we would have no launchers today. If the government assumes the role it always had and makes the investment (which they have yet to do) then we will have the infrastructure we need. It would have been interesting to hear your agruements through history. You would have complained about the nasty 'central planners' who where subsidizing the trans-continental railroad. When the Kelly Act began using govenrment money to build airports and encouraging with subsidies large multi-engine aircraft no doubt you would have complained about those 'pilot groupies' diverting diverting needed funds away from baloon technology into their heavier-than-air 'tin cans'. >You have been promoting 1960's tin cans, which have >nothing to do with infrastructure or the economical habitation of space. I have posted a lot on what I would do. It has little to do with tin cans and everything to do with cheap access to space. The methods I advocated will reduce cost to orbit by a factor of three. You claim it will take 50 years to do (and under your ideas, it would) yet it can be done in three. What's wrong with 60's technology if it reduces costs? >>Doing so wold reduce costs to LEO and permit a lot more >>to be done. >Sorry, we have been following your strategy for 20 years and the cost >to LEO for astronauts has _increased_, not decreased. Do you actually think we have been following the approach I advocate for the last 20 years? I thought you understood it better. >Furthermore, over 90% of the self-sufficient industry is in GEO and SSO, >not LEO. Nick, we have no self-sufficient industry anywhere in space. Nothing ever launched in the commercial area has come close to paying the full cost of their launches. >>>The Europeans have quite substantial access to space via Ariane and Giotto, >>>et. al., with astronauts nowhere in sight. >>And yet they still feel the need to build Hermes so they can have a manned >>program. >Only as a sad mimicry of the U.S. I see. If you like it it is 'forward thinking efforts we would do well to emulate'. When you don't like it it is 'sad mimicry of the US'. You can't have it both ways, either they know what they are doing or they don't. >Even as we speak, Ariane 5 is being >redesigned from a large satellite carrier into an HLV whose only purpose >in life will be to lift two astronauts into LEO. Huh? Several problems here: 1. The main reason for Ariane 5 IS Hermes. Without Hermes there would be no need for Airane 5. 2. No design changes are being considered which will preclude using Ariane 5 for satellites. 3. Ariand 5 is NOT a HLV; it will lift about as much as a Titan IV. >Every nation in >Europe except France has been trying to stop this nonsense. Hermes is overrunning but I suspect is will survive the meeting in November. As to it being nonsense, they did decide to build it and they do think it is a good idea. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. | | aws@iti.org | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 91 16:09:04 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!ptimtc!nntp-server.caltech.edu!sol1.gps.caltech.edu!CARL@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: Re: Beanstalk analysis reprise In article <43882@fmsrl7.UUCP>, wreck@fmsrl7.UUCP (Ron Carter) writes: >The terminal velocity of a cable of density 1.7 must be >considered. If the cable is only an inch or two in diameter >and the lengths are not long enough to whip the ends up to >high speed ("range-safety" equipment is indicated!), terminal >velocity will not be high, and damage will be small. I've never seen any proposal for a beanstalk that thin. >> The thread title says "Beanstalk reprise". > >Beanstalks are a class of tether. Weren't you here for the lecture? > >> Beanstalks aren't possible given today's technology. I >>agree with you... again !! > >Agreed. However, they are possible given MATERIALS known >today. This is a crucial distinction; we know what to shoot >for, and even many of the physical processes required. There was a science fact article in ANALOG Science Fiction/Science Fact a couple of years ago that concluded that, given our understanding of chemical bonds, there was no material theoretically strong enough to build a beanstalk on Earth (on Mars or the Moon, yes; on Earth, no), but that pinwheels would be feasible. Anybody out there who can point us to the appropriate issue of Analog? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 91 16:22:41 GMT From: beguine!jfm@mcnc.org (John F. Miller) Subject: Re: Excavating (mining) gold in the space by NASA. In article shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >The diamond cartel (de Beers) very stringently limits the supply of >diamonds, to keep the price high. DeBeers does not merely try to keep the price of diamonds high. Their more important goal is to keep the price of diamonds _STABLE_ and rising just slightly faster than the overall inflation rate. In the late 1970's and early 1980's, inflation was running rampant, and speculators drove diamond prices to very high levels (from which they subsequently collapsed). During that time, speculators were buying and selling diamond rough that would normally go to diamond cutters. DeBeers tried to curb the speculative activity, since they knew the bubble would burst and have a harmful effect on the entire diamond industry. Prices have been rising very moderately for the past few years (following the crash). -- John Miller, Graduate Gemologist/Gemcutter/Analyst Programmer -- John Miller (jfm@med.unc.edu) Department of Pharmacology, UNC-CH School of Medicine 1026A FLOB (231H) CB#7365, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 Tel: (919) 966-6966 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 12:27:21 MDT From: oler <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:oler@HG.ULeth.CA> (CARY OLER) Subject: Solar Terrestrial Bulletin - WWV & WWVH Schedule Changes X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ SOLAR TERRESTRIAL BULLETIN 15 June, 1991 WWV & WWVH SCHEDULE CHANGE /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ RADIO STATION WWV AND WWVH SCHEDULE CHANGE For those who obtain information from radio stations WWV or WWVH, please note that the solar radio observatory responsible for measuring the 10.7 cm radio flux has been moved from the Algonquin Radio Observatory (near Ottawa, Canada) to the Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory (DRAO) in Penticton, British Columbia, Canada. As a result of this move, the daily 10.7 cm radio flux measurements are now taken at 20:00 UT instead of 17:00 UT as was the practice at ARO. This has shifted the schedule for updates on WWV and WWVH. The new daily data on WWV and WWVH is now provided at 21:18 UT instead of 18:18 UT. This change was adopted in early June and is now permanent. ** End of Bulletin ** ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 91 18:40:52 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!blacks!rob@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Robbie) Subject: Re: Fred's Operatic Death yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >You assume that he's supporting the manned space program because he >works for NASA. Have you considered that the converse may be true? >Perhaps he works for NASA because he believes in the manned space >program. >Whether he's right or not is a completely different issue, but I think >it's unfair to denigrate all pro-NASA posts from NASA employees as >"self-serving propaganda." >Usenet is not (yet) a major focus of political power in this country. >Most people who post to the net do not believe their posts will have a >major effect on national policy. I believe that NASA employees who >post their opinions are simply expressing their personal views and not >attempting Machiavellian political maneuvers. >While I think it would be senseless to accept their opinions as fact >simply because "they're the experts", I think it's equally senseless >to discard their opinions as propaganda simply because "they're paid >by the IRS". Their arguments, like anyone else's, should be weighed >on the merits of the views expressed, and not upon the identity of the >poster's employer. >-- Oh, bless your heart, sir. At JPL we specialize in remote sensing instruments, but even so I have a deep gut level affinity for the astronaut program. (I also like Ray Bradbury, you see.) I will duck the rest of the discussion, primarily because my opinions are not yet carefully considered, and neither do they reflect anything that NASA thinks, but I will make one more small observation: While the IRS may pay us, in some sense, they are but an agency, or a bureaucratic means of government ends. I prefer to think of the heirarchy in terms of my boss, and his boss, and so forth. In short, I feel that as a NASA employee I don't work for the IRS--I work for Dan Quayle. Rob Fatland (My personal views only, not that of NASA, etc., ad infinitum) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #766 *******************