Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Mon, 8 May 89 05:16:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 8 May 89 05:16:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #417 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 417 Today's Topics: Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?) Magellan update Re: Magellan launch window Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list. Re: Myth: Only a Government can ... Institute for Advanced Study Re: Private spending for space science Re: Private spending for space science Re: SPACE Digest V9 #408 Re: News of The Week, May 4 Re: Govt. vs. Small Launch Re: Private spending for space science ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 May 89 20:46:03 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?) In article <243@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) writes: >The referenced posting is, however, too golden an opportunity to pass up. >I interpret the testimony as supporting the proposition that the manned >and unmanned programs compete for funding. > >Of course I'm wrong ;-). Henry? They compete for funding priority. Once priorities are set, money taken out of high-priority projects doesn't get put back into lower-priority projects. One may argue about NASA's current set of priorities, but as long as they remain, attacking manned spaceflight is a pointless waste of time for the unmanned-spaceflight advocates: it will not put more money in their budgets. I don't read the testimony in question as carrying any implication that anyone *seriously* proposes gutting the lower-priority projects for the sake of the shuttle or the station, either. Fletcher is against it. And his questioners are not saying that it's a realistic idea: they're presenting it as an absurdity to try to convince him to make station and shuttle cuts. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 89 10:10:58 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: Magellan update X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu" Here's most of the text of the latest recorded announcement at JPL: This is the JPL broadcast news service 9:30 pm PDT May 4. [...] Magellan was deployed at 6:02 pm PDT, the first IUS burn occurred at 7:01 pm PDT, the second IUS burn at 7:06 pm PDT, and separation was confirmed at 7:27 pm. Once placed into an orbit around the Sun from which it will intercept Venus, Magellan will cruise for 15 months. There will be 3 trajectory correction maneuvers, the first will occur 15 days after launch [and I'm told that the trajectory is so good that this will be at most 3 m/s], the second 345 days later, and the last 17 days before Magellan reaches Venus orbit to ensure correct arrival conditions. The landing of the space shuttle Atlantis is scheduled for 12:44 pm PDT Monday May 8, and there will be a post-landing press conference at 2:15 pm PDT. Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov) For those of you who can't get enough of disclaimers: I'm not responsible in any way for the content of the message. I just call up the number and type in what's said, editing slightly for the benefit of this group. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 89 10:30:55 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: Re: Magellan launch window X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu" greer%utdssa%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov writes: > Anybody out there know why the Magellan launch window is so narrow? >I'm talking about the time-of-day dependent window rather than the one that >depends on the day-of-year of the two planets. During today's launch the KSC staff were saying that the later bound was constrained by the lighting conditions at transatlantic abort sites. (Watta launch. Who says this business is boring?) I don't know what constrains the earlier bound (it was uncharacteristically late in the day). Magellan doesn't leave Earth orbit for another six hours, so obviously they make several revs first. I'm told that Galileo will pass Magellan and actually arrive at Venus earlier. So much for ideas of Galileo taking pictures of Magellan. I wonder how close Magellan will come to Pioneer 10? Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 89 07:23:52 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net (H Keith Henson) Subject: Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list. Scott Hess (Scott@gacvax1.bitnet) concludes a thoughful "diatribe" with: Nope. UFOs probably dont exist, and do not warrant discussion. If they are aliens trying to avoid us, I doubt we could do much about them, so ignore them. If they are toying with us, the best way to get them to stop is to ignore them. If there is a valid reason we shouldn't have contact with them yet, the best method would be to ignore them to save our hides (souls?). If they dont exist, why dont we ignore them? UFOs are the realm of the mystical, not the scientific. Lets leave them there. --------------- I disagree. UFOs *do* exist, I made a considerable number of them in the early '60. Mine were mostly candle lighted, lifted by natural gas balloons and they caused an simply awful fuss in the Tucson newspapers. Till we got caught the were certainly "unidentified flying objects." Years later I found that a second cusin of mine had been doing the same in Albuquerque about the same time. Must say I agree with Scott about aliens, though :) Keith Henson (hkhenson@cup.portal.com) ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 89 17:33:03 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@handies.ucar.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Myth: Only a Government can ... In article <1303@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes: >Hercules Aerospace is not a small company. They are spending hundreds >of millions of dollars of their own money on getting into the private >space launch business. Uh, on what project? If you're thinking of Pegasus, it has a total budget of only about $70M, and a good bit of that is coming from OSC (which *is* a small company). Well-designed small launchers don't *need* hundreds of millions of dollars... :-) (Well, yes, I admit this argument is a little weak because (a) Pegasus is using Hercules production facilities whose capital costs are not being charged against it, and (b) Pegasus is probably not Hercules's only project.) -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 89 09:10:14 EDT From: ross@mackeson.ias.edu (Mark Ross) Subject: Institute for Advanced Study To whom it may concern, Please put me on your "SPACE Digest" mailing list. My email address is ross@guinness.ias.edu and my U.S. mail address (should you require it) is Institute for Advanced Study South Olden Lane Princeton, NJ 08540 c/o Mark E. Ross (Fuld 323) Thank you, Mark Ross ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 89 17:35:27 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@handies.ucar.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Private spending for space science In article <12775@ut-emx.UUCP> bonin@ut-emx.UUCP (Marc Bonin) writes: >> ..........Or a university consortium? > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > You are forgetting something here. Where would universities get the money >to fund a research project like this?? ... Have you looked at how much a prominent university can raise in a big, well-run drive to recruit private funding? Hint: it's a lot. Agreed that the first impulse of most universities would be to go begging to the government, but it's not the only way. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 89 22:20:39 GMT From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (William Baxter) Subject: Re: Private spending for space science In article <8049@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, leech@alanine (Jonathan Leech) writes: > Gerry O'Neill by and large ignores NASA, and SSI and Geostar and >are doing lots of interesting things. The effort spent NASA-bashing >has accomplished nothing comparable. It would be a terrible mistake to believe that the problem of NASA interference with space exploration and development will go away if we ignore it. And we are spending 11.5 billion on NASA this year. You seem to have the false impression that "NASA-bashing" is confined to idle conversation. Many "NASA-bashers" are doing things: writing legislation (to kill the space station, for example) working with congressmen, attempting to start companies which will provide space services, demonstrating to other people that under NASA we have no space program. It is not "NASA-bashing" which prevents people from working on other pro-space activities. It is ignorance of the facts and the problems, something necesssary for NASA-boosting and NASA-apology. If nothing else, the "NASA-bashing" awakens people to the facts. William Baxter ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 1989 10:17-EDT From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #408 > expense. It is simply a fact that there is important research which will not > be done by private companies or individuals, and so must be done with > government money or something similar. The "something similar" is a more ethical approach that does not require the use of stolen goods (taxes to those of different ideology). I am aware of at least three different models. One is the industry consortium like MCC. Another is the private research institute, like SSI. The third is the private foundation that specializes in assisting research of a particular type. I'm certain that creative minds can come up with lots of others. You might say, "but what if they can't raise enough money?" My answer is: it is an unethical act to force those who do not desire something to pay for it, no matter HOW much YOU (and I) want it. Doing so is a criminal act, no different from walking into their apartment and forcing them to write out a check to your favorite charity ... while you hold a gun to their head. It makes no sense to me how people can believe they are morally relieved of the wrongness of their acts by having a third party (the government, or a mafia strongarm man) do their evil deeds for them. ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 89 20:10:13 GMT From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com (Greg Goebel) Subject: Re: News of The Week, May 4 # # ####### ####### ###### # # ###### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### ##### ##### ###### # # ###### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ####### ####### # ##### # ####### # # ####### ##### ####### ####### ###### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ####### ##### # #### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ####### ##### ####### ####### ###### # # ####### ###### # # # ####### # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # ###### ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ### ## ## ####### # # # # ##### ####### # # ### +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Greg Goebel | | Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330 | | (503) 752-7717 | | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd | | HP DESK: CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20 | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 89 00:10:47 GMT From: tank!shamash!com50!questar!dave@handies.ucar.edu (David Becker) Subject: Re: Govt. vs. Small Launch What is the difference between civilian spec and mil spec launch hardware that was mentioned by Koopman (see below)? My impression is that Nasa and DoD launchers are modifications of old ICBM's which naturally were mil-spec. That would mean lots of redundacy and hardening for a WWIII environment. What are the military specifications and which would apply only for WWIII and which would AMROC and Co need anyway? Is there a "milspec" factor in ground facilities and procedures where this same distinction can be made? William Baxter writes: : : From hearings of the House of Representatives Committee on Science and : Technology, J61 S42 100th No. 68, September 15, 1987, "Commercial Launch : Industry" : : Testimony of Mr. KOOPMAN of American Rocket Co., Mr. KADAR of Conatec, : Inc., and Mr. CHAFER of Space Services, Inc. : : Mr. KOOPMAN. Sir, I mentioned before that we have a situation with : the financial community where there is still a large perception that : the government does not really mean what it says about buying launch : services. I have been told point blank that not only do they not : believe that the government will buy launch services from us, but that : in addition, they will never let us fly a nonmilspec rocket. -- David Becker and another bug bites, and another bug bites another bug bites the dust db@kolonel.MN.ORG ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 89 01:52:13 GMT From: thorin!alanine!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Private spending for space science In article <24083@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes: >You seem to have the false impression that "NASA-bashing" is confined to >idle conversation. Many "NASA-bashers" are doing things: writing >legislation (to kill the space station, for example) working with To get guaranteed govt. support for the CDSF, for example. After all, it's pushed by a small company which NASA is supposedly out to get, so CDSF must be a better place to put federal subsidies than the space station. >attempting to start companies which will provide space services There are certainly people like Koopman who are trying to start companies and doing lots of NASA-bashing (or "NASA-bashing", if you prefer), on the side. There are also people starting companies without the bashing. >It is not "NASA-bashing" which prevents people from working on other >pro-space activities. It is ignorance of the facts and the problems, >something necesssary for NASA-boosting and NASA-apology. If nothing >else, the "NASA-bashing" awakens people to the facts. More of the "if you're not with us, you're against us" ideology. Save it. I don't think NASA is any more to be trusted than the Social Security Administration, but I don't react to that by making continual anti-NASA postings containing, for example, carefully selected quotes from Congressional testimony by NASA officials. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``The experiment must be wrong'' - Richard Feynman (as quoted by Eugen Merzbacher), upon hearing that experimental data did not agree with theoretical predictions. Feynman was correct :-) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #417 *******************