Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 05:10:39 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #264 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Wed, 30 Sep 92 Volume 15 : Issue 264 Today's Topics: Atlas E and F questions ( Actually Pershing missile) Clinto and Space Funding Clinton and Space Funding Controversy over V-2 anniversary Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding) Re: Porous Silicon Satellite of the Month Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Sep 92 04:17:16 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Atlas E and F questions ( Actually Pershing missile) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <29SEP199217433989@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >>This is essentially a government-organized sounding-rocket service that >>happens to be implemented by private contractors... > >... what about the Space Vector Corporation? They have been flying, selling >and using the Minuteman I platform in various forms since the late 70's. >Actually Deke Slayton's company (Now EER Systems) started by launching a >Minuteman I second stage from Matagorda Island ... There are other people using hardware designed for missiles too. For example, Orbital Sciences's Taurus launcher is basically a wingless Pegasus on top of an MX first stage. >... The issue is not nearly as black and white as you suggest. Crucial difference: as I understand it, these folks are basically paying market prices for the rocket stages. They're not getting large-scale government handouts of surplus rocket hardware at fire-sale prices. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 92 10:09:02 GMT From: clements@vax.ox.ac.uk Subject: Clinto and Space Funding Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep28.163120.16536@medtron.medtronic.com>, rn11195@sage (Robert Nehls) writes: > clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes: > : > : Japan and Germany have relatively little military spending, and as a result of > : this they can spend more on government support of civilian R & D programs. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Japan and Germany had a unique advantage in that they lost WWII, (this > sounds stupid, but I'm talking about today, not 50 years ago) and weren't > allowed to have militaries. Exactly, so they didn't waste money on it (waste isn't quite the right word... They didn't use the money as effectively as it could on civil R&D). > Things were tough for them and they did do a lot of things right and for > that they do deserve a lot of credit. So stop denying them it! > : > : >Do you really think that it is a coincidence that > : >the military and space budget cuts coincide with the Japenese gaining a > : >technological edge? > : > : Come on... They've had an edge for a *lot* longer than that! > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > [arguments that Japan only gained an 'edge' in the 70s] Two comments: The Japanese were beating the socks off the UK and European ship building industry long before the 70s military cuts. I think you're focussing on the areas where the Japanese are *today* seen as superior and neglecting those areas where they did well some time back. OK, shipbuilding isn't necessarily technology driven, but it still requires substantial expertese and, in this case, the backing of their government. Shipbuilding was the first 'tragetted' industry, in the sense that the Japanese government and industries wroked together to become preeminant in the world. Cars was the next... In addition, it seems that the Japanese have had a long term edge in the 'technologies' of personel and project management. You can suiggest that this is because of their 'regimented society' etc etc and similar cliched comments, but the fact is that these methods work when transfered to other countries (like the UK) so it is *not* a cultural thing. Also the Germans had a technological edge long before the Japanese... > : > : This is where that military money can and should be spent. However, the typical > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Dave, this is exactly what I was talking about. So many people can say > where the money should go, but nobody knows where it goes when its cut from > the military budget. It just vanishes and leaves thousands of people out of > work. As I stated in my previous post. Until the programs are set up to > orderly divert the money to another R and D effort, it should stay in the > military budget where at least it is doing some good. If your government is not accountable in the sense that you can't find where all your tax money goes, then there is something really wrong and someone (I would suggest the person at the top, Georgie boy) deserves the chop! I would suggest one area that need serious consideration are lung cancer subsidies (ie. the money given to the tobacco producers which goes to subsidise lung cancer all over the world) and other agricultural subsidies. At least Europe ios making some moves on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), I have seen no sign of similar moves in the US (though I may have missed them). Also, a great deal of wasted GNP can be sorted out by changing your ridiculous legal system (70% of lawers in the world are in the US, and all earning lots of money that could go to real commercial use elsewhere), and getting your medical system sorted. You can lambast the UK and other Eropean countries for having doctrinally unsound socialised (gasp!) medical systems, but the fact is *our health services are ****cheaper***** in terms of GNP than yours. The legal and medical issues are in some sense linked too because fo the degree of litigation in US medicine. -- ================================================================================ Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department ================================================================================ clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax | Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de dlc @ uk.ac.ox.astro | Saint Germain... ================================================================================ ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 92 05:54:24 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Clinton and Space Funding Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton In article <1992Sep29.011549.16665@colorado.edu> privette@pippin.colorado.edu (Jeff Privette) writes: > >TIME interviewed a group of the nation's leading economists (gee, I didn't >see Thomas' name...) and asked them to comment on various aspects of >both Bush's and Clinton's economic plan. As a sneak preview, *none* >of these professionals expressed the right-wing paranoia so beautifully >displayed by Thomas. They did have some doubts about both Clinton's and >Bush's planned policies, however there was a slight majority consensus >that Clinton's would result in better long term growth. Of course the >objective reader may choose to ignore the comments of talented professionals >and accept the statements of a single armchair quarterback (read "Thomas"). >Weirder things have happened... Taken in a vacuum, Clinton's professed economic plans don't look that bad. Unfortunately US government economics doesn't take place in a vacuum. The Democrat Congress dominates where, when, and how much is spent on various programs. They have a 50 year track record of ignoring Presidential budgets and doing as they please. A Democrat in the White House has a slightly better chance of getting some of his programs enacted, but only at the cost of rubber stamping a lot of other programs demanded by Congress. The net result is much greater government spending and a much worse deficit. Bush isn't much better, but his hands off policy, and use of the veto, at least keeps spending down a little and avoids destructive tinkering with the working of the business cycle. Many of the leading economists say that the US would already be well into recovery if it weren't for the massive tax hike that Congress wrangled out of Bush. He now admits that was a tragic mistake, but Congress hasn't. How many tax hikes do you think they can get past Clinton? How much extra social spending? How much bigger will the deficit be in four years? In economic terms, it's the *weasels* in Congress that have to go, the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is of less consequence. International affairs is the major province of the President, and there Bush's record is much better. Do you believe Clinton can do better than an experienced leader like Bush with his military and spook experience? Gary ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 92 17:57:17 GMT From: Urban F Subject: Controversy over V-2 anniversary Newsgroups: sci.space higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >Monday I heard a news account that ceremonies to celebrate this >event have become a matter of controversy. Yes, and so much that the German aerospace industry has cancelled its plans on any celebrations on Oct 3:rd. >In this country, the Confederate Air Force is allowed to tell us what >a great plane the B-17 was without visible interference... Well, you aren't currently trying to enter a union with those who got bombed by it, are you? And didn't the CAF get some interference when they wanted to celebrate by dropping a simulated A-bomb from a B-29? -- Urban Fredriksson urf@icl.se (n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk) "In order to make someone a nervous wreck, apologize while they still haven't used their best arguments." -- Runer Jonsson ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 92 06:33:41 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep29.170516.11468@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >Wingo posted the following: > >> No we are not still mining huge amounts of coal. We are mining less >> coal today than in the seventies. > >This is quite wrong. From the 1992 World Almanac: > > Year US Coal Production (million metric tons) > ----------------------------------------------- > 1970 612.7 > 1975 654.6 > 1977 697.2 > 1979 781.1 > ... > 1988 950.3 > 1989 980.7 > 1990 1035.9 > >Production is up 32% from 1979 (the top year for US coal production in >the 70s) to 1990. US production grew about 2.6% per year. >Consumption by US electric utilities grew 46% over that period, or >about 3.5% per year, to 771.5 MMT in 1990. > >The only grade of coal that we mine less of now than in the 70s is >anthracite, which accounts for about 0.3% of US coal production. Anthracite is mainly used for metallurgical purposes, steel refining. We're doing less of that than in the past. Another business gone to the Far East. Most power company coal is now coming from open pit mines in the West. Much of Eastern coal is high sulphur that costs more to pollution control. Subsurface mines are closing in the East. Alabama, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania now have less subsurface mining activity than in the 1970s. SIGECO has cancelled contracts with Indiana mines and switched to low sulphur coal from Wyoming. Two of three subsurface mines in my home county in Kentucky have closed in the last 5 years due to lack of market for their coal. Our coal exports have declined as Japan and other trading partners switch to more nuclear power generation and more modern electric steel furnaces. Our surviving steel industry is also moving away from coal. And home heating by coal has become almost extinct. Coal production hasn't declined, but Eastern coal production has declined, and coal use has switched from industrial and home heating to primarily electric power generation thanks to TMI and the environmental movement's fear of nuclear power. It's ironic that environmentalists fought the steel industry's belching smokestacks, and now the belching is coming from power plants forced to use coal by their protests. Meanwhile the primary energy efficiency of the steel industry has declined because of the intermediate conversion losses from coal to heat to electricity and back to heat. Like the environmental movement, Dennis was extrapolating the local situation to the global situation. Not always a sound methodology. Gary ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:16:24 GMT From: John Fordemwalt Subject: Re: Porous Silicon Newsgroups: sci.space In article <3043.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com>, howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes: > I haven't seen the EE Times article, but it sounds very much like > something I read about elsewhere--sorry, don't remember where, but > it was recent. From the EE Times article: "Experiments at SUNY suggest that a porous-silicon layer is able to trap 100 percent of the photons striking it, eliminating the additional anti-reflection processing step." [ Wayne Anderson, a SUNY researcher, states that ] "... it was concluded that the porous-silicon layer converts virtually all the light that is trapped. That would make porous silicon an ideal candidate for high-efficiency solar cells." > The article I read mentioned very high conversion efficiency for > current -> photons. I don't recall that it said anything about > conversion the other way. But there didn't seem to be anything > fundamentally irreversable about the conversion process, so the 97% > figure that you cite doesn't seem out of the question. However.. You may also be thinking of the June 24, 1991 EE Times, page 39 article regarding "an all-silicon light-emitting diode." > The catch is that the 97% figure would only apply to point source > illumination at the single frequency for which the device was > physically configured. This is not clear from the article text, although it is implied that these devices don't radically out-perform other solar cell technology, just that they are simpler to make (no anti-reflection coatings required for high efficiency). In any case, the devices look pretty cool, with power generation, photo-detection, and photo-emission applications. Kudos to the SUNY team! -- Roger Arnold arnold@clipper.ingr.com ---------- John Fordemwalt johnf@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 92 20:25:28 GMT From: Bruce Watson Subject: Satellite of the Month Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,rec.radio.amateur.misc Earth Satellite UARS Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (NORAD #21701, COSPAR 1991-063B) was launched from Space Shuttle Discovery (mission STS-48) on September 15, 1991. It is measuring changes and ozone depletion in the stratosphere and mesosphere. This satellite is in an orbit inclined to the earth's equator by 57.0 degrees. It makes one revolution every 96.2 minutes and comes to within 575 km of the earth's surface and is most distant at 581 km. UARS is measuring changes and ozone depletion in the stratosphere and mesosphere. It is beginning a sequence of evening passes for North American observers. UARS is roughly a sphere 4.6m in diameter and 9.8m long. It has 6 - 1.5m by 3.3m solar panels. I have observed UARS from Denver 4 times since its launch once at +3 mag and another time at +1. UARS 9.8 4.6 0.0 4.4 1 21701U 91063 B 92263.22531901 .00002399 00000-0 20993-3 0 1817 2 21701 56.9852 187.4931 0005294 93.7738 266.3903 14.96349665 55730 -- Bruce Watson (wats@scicom) Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 264 ------------------------------