Message-Id: <YcI9etK00WBwM21E5r@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Date: Sat,  8 Jun 91 04:52:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #623

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 623

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Privatization
			 Re: Asteroid mining
		     Keck (was Re: Privatization)
	   Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated
			CDROM Software request
			  Launch technology
		      Re: Ethics of Terraforming
       What comes after Fred's death? ESA promises to carry on!
		Re: Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?
		 Re: Fred cut, AXAF and SIRTF funded
			      Re: SR-71

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: 22 May 91 14:55:11 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu!hrubin@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Privatization

In article <13588@goofy.Apple.COM>, leech@Apple.COM (Jonathan Leech) writes:
> In article <DLBRES10.91May21143827@pc.usl.edu> dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) writes:

			..................

>     Showing the potential for private funding of projects in the $160
> million range (roughly the cost of the two scopes, I believe), but not
> the 10x greater cost for a major planetary mission.  Even funding
> SSI's relatively cheap Lunar Polar Probe from private sources is a
> pain.  Further, no planetary mission will return as much science in
> its brief lifetime as the Keck will over decades, and the risk factor
> is very high.

This shows the need for reinstituting private non-governmental funding of
research of all types, instead of relying on government sources and the
consequent danger of direction.  Before WWII, the great bulk of research
in the US, and it definitely could not be considered insignificant, was
done this way.

If the government gets out of the way, I see no problem in getting a 
non-profit organization set up which can manage the few billion a year
needed for the unmanned activities.  I see also no major problem in 
getting the more than 100 billion needed to really get going on man
in space on a hopefully permanent basis.  But such agencies are going
to need the right to do with their funds what many politicians oppose.

Millions are capable of investing in this type of a future, and should
have the right to get on with it.  Different groups will use different
approaches, and have different goals, and that is as it should be.  We
are now reaping, in many branches of scientific research, the rigidification
cause by government funding being dominant.  Research universities used to
support research out of their endowments, instead of vying for government
funds, with its problems.  Any change in this system will have to come
gradually, but it should come, as the amounts of money are huge.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)   {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 91 15:03:42 GMT
From: sun-barr!olivea!samsung!rex!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll@apple.com  (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Asteroid mining


> The resources I'm thinking of may be salable (even at VERY low
> prices) in the very short-term.  I.E. before real operations get
> started. Take nickel.  It's current price is around $1/lb.  With
> a typical Nickel Asteroid, you could sell it for $.05/lb, and
> still make a klilling. (Do you know how much nickel would be in
> an asteroid 1km wide?).  Could any mining company compete?  More
> importantly, could we get them to invest?

	The Sudbury asteroid has two advantages that allow it to produce
nickel at a lower cost than nickel produced by exploiting other asteroids.
These advantages are:

	Life Support: Sudbury suppplies some life support services gratis.
		These services include air, some light, and radiation 
		shielding. The temperature range is well within that range
		conventional technology can deal with. There is almost
		certainly local life on Sudbury.

	Access: The delta vee required to reach the Sudbury asteroid and
		to send the nickel produced at Sudbury is very small, and
		can be handled by simple chemical engines. Indeed, if all 
		you want to do is *reach* Sudbury, stone age technology
		(feet) can do the job from Eurasia, given time and an Ice Age.

	If you want to sell your asteroid nickel, it has to be cheaper
(or at least as cheap) as nickel from competing sources. If your life support
costs, and transport costs are as high as *current* technology make them,
you won't be able to sply ET nickel at the current price and no-one will
buy your $2000.00/lb nickel (exept *maybe* in locations like LEO, where
the transport costs from Sudbury are almost as high) and the amount of 
nickel in your source does not affect LS and transport costs/lb. If I were 
company, I would not invest in asteroid mining unless I had good reason to
believe I could meet current market prices with my products and current 
technology does not seem to be able to do this wrt nickel production in
space.

	Decrease transport and production costs in space, and maybe ths will
change. What reason wqould a mining company to have to expect this in the
short run?

								James Nicoll

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 91 23:56:06 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Keck (was Re: Privatization)

In article <13588@goofy.Apple.COM> leech@Apple.COM (Jonathan Leech) writes:

>pain.  Further, no planetary mission will return as much science in
>its brief lifetime as the Keck will over decades, and the risk factor
>is very high.

One wonders, then, why we should spend multiple billions on planetary
science when the scientific return on the dollar is so much greater
from ground-based telescopes (and, last I heard, telescope time
worldwide is oversubscribed by at least 4 to 1).  Sure, there are
questions that can only be answered on-site, but the questions the
telescopes are trying to address (the fate and nature of the universe
as a whole) seem more fundamental.

The question "why spend money on planetary probes" is at least as
problematic as "why spend money on manned spaceflight".

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 91 19:26:43 GMT
From: pasteur!agate!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated

In article <5680@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
>I'd like to support the call for a moderated sci.space.?? group...

The big problem with a moderated sci.space equivalent is, who moderates it?
Finding and keeping good moderators is not easy.

A secondary problem is, does the unmoderated group continue to exist in
parallel?  Historically, moderated groups usually don't do well in that
case... although it helps a lot if the moderator can convince the major
and most interesting contributors to shift to the moderated group.
-- 
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 91 16:59:22 GMT
From: amdahl!JUTS!rmm20@apple.com  (Robert Mitchell)
Subject: CDROM Software request

I retrieved several images from the CDROMs at Ames before
BITFTP pulled the plug.
What I did not have a chance to get was the decompression
software.

Could some kind soul e-mail me the following:
cdcomp.c, decomp.c, and detest.c.

Thanks - looking for a new FTP link - Robert Mitchell

-- 
UUCP:  rmm20@juts.ccc.amdahl.com
DDD:   408-746-8491
USPS:  Amdahl Corp.  M/S 205,  1250 E. Arques Av,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086
BIX:   bobmitchell

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 91 05:16:01 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!markh@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Mark William Hopkins)
Subject: Launch technology


   Hearing the recent discussion of launch technologies, you get the
impression that size is the determining factor.  Perhaps this may be the
common view.  But size is irrelevant.

   The REAL issue boils down to one very simple question: what is the speed
of the propellant relative to the ship?  Everything else follows from that.
One, the "time constant" associated with the launch is v/a, where v is the
speed of the propellant and a the desired acceleration to generate.  Taking
v to be 1000 m/s and a to be about 3 G's (30 m/s^2), the time constant would
be about 30 seconds.

   Two, sustained thrust beyond the time constant requires initial fuel mass
that increases EXPONENTIALLY with the difference between thrust time and the
time constant.  Therefore, size only gives you a logarithmic advantage!!
Meaning: nothing to write home about.

   Increase the propellant velocity and then you won't even need a big booster
to get off the ground in the first place.

   So here's my question: what are the propellant velocities of the currently
used fuel sources?  Is there any non-nuclear process currently existing that
can achieve propellant velocities on the order of 1000 km/sec?!?!

   What can electromagnetic or nuclear process do in the way of propellant
speed under a controlled environment?

   Exercise: calculate the distance you can travel in a period equal to one
time constant with 1000 km/sec fuel under constant 1 G thrust.  Discuss the
implications.  Tell NASA about them. :)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 May 91 12:12:15 PDT
From: fermat!r@la.tis.com (Richard Schroeppel)
Subject: Re: Ethics of Terraforming

Responding to Ken Sheppardson, Henry Spencer writes

> I assume, then, you oppose the terraforming of Los Angeles?

If the %$#&*@! tree-hugging EPA would leave us alone, we could get
on with veneraforming LA.

Rich Schroeppel        Better to shoot out a single street lamp,
rcs@la.tis.com         than to curse the light pollution.

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 91 12:25:53 GMT
From: mcsun!unido!mpirbn!p515dfi@uunet.uu.net  (Daniel Fischer)
Subject: What comes after Fred's death? ESA promises to carry on!

Even with Fred likely to be abandoned, the European Space Agency will not give
up any of their plans for a European permanent lab in orbit (Columbus) and
a micro-shuttle serving it (Hermes). When I talked to their PR Dept. today, I
was told that the "situation is serious, but don't panic": if Fred dies, Colum=
bus will be redesigned to become an autonomous lab; that will lead to delays,
but there's "no doubt about that" it will be done. 

+- p515dfi@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de --- Daniel Fischer --- p515dfi@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de -+
| Max-Planck-Institut f. Radioastronomie, Auf dem Huegel 69, W-5300 Bonn 1,FRG |
+----- Enjoy the Universe - it's the only one you're likely to experience -----+

Crazy speculations follow. The Soviets have all the experience, plans for MIR-2
but no money. ESA and Japan have the money (sort of). The US has neither. 
Shouldn't that lead to an USSR-ESA-NASDA collaboration to put a truly interna=
tional space station into orbit where they can learn whether it makes sense -
and rent some space to the (very few) U.S. researchers who'd like such a thing?

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 91 23:03:33 GMT
From: mintaka!olivea!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!wiml@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (William Lewis)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?

In article <7470010@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> mll@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Mark Luce) writes:
>Question: What would happen if we were to seed the upper atmosphere of
>          Venus with sulfur-chomping bacteria? You say that analysis of

   What would they chomp it into? Unless we decide to engineer bacteria
that perform nuclear fusion, there's still going to be sulfur somewhere,
and you have to do SOMETHING with it. I assume that most heavy compounds
that might settle to the surface would break down eventually in the
heat, pressure and miscellaneous chemicals. 

-- 
 wiml@milton.acs.washington.edu       Seattle, Washington   
     (William Lewis)   |  47 41' 15" N   122 42' 58" W  
 "Just remember, wherever you go ... you're stuck there."

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 91 07:00:54 GMT
From: mintaka!ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Fred cut, AXAF and SIRTF funded

In article <1991May17.141126.13967@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>1. Freedom was killed because it was so poorly managed. Congress still
>   wants a permanent human presence in space. Expect to see 'son of
>   Freedom' sometime soon.

I disagree.  Congress found the price of permanent human presence
in space too high.  As well it should.   It chose the more 
fruitful route of expanding our knowledge of space.  Congressional
common sense prevailed over the economic fantasies of NASA and the
current Administration (which is much more competent in fields other
than space).  When somebody comes up with reasonably priced space 
habitats, they will be built.  But at $30 billion per person we 
are nowhere near that now.

Yes, I expect NASA to come back with more bizarre astronaut-toy
proposals while the astronauts remain in charge of NASA.  I hope 
Bush wakes and fires Richard Truly.  I also expect the Congress, 
and hopefully the Senate, to knock them down as soon as they pop
up.


>2. More important, next year they will be looking at another project
>   to kill so money can be shipped to HUD.

The cut did _not_ go to HUD.  This is utter myth.  Half of the $2
billion went to NSF and EPA -- at least one of those a much better
investment in space technology than Fred -- and the other half went to 
AXAF, SIRTF, and EOS.  If Fred had not been cut, AXAF and eventually
CRAF would have been, thus greatly diminishing our chances of affordable 
human habitats within our lifetimes.  With SIRTF and other exploration 
missions like CRAF alive, we stand a fighting chance of gaining the 
knowledge we need to bring habitat costs down.

Speaking of HUD, it is trivially easy -- and quite correct -- to
wonder why anyone in their right minds would want to build one 
$120 billion house instead of 2 million $60,000 houses.  Proposing
Fred is absolutely the worst way to keep NASA money from going to HUD.

Next year, if Fred stays cut in the Senate budget, we will likely
see continued full funding for SIRTF.  With Fred sucking up $3+
billion we would see SIRTF, AXAF, _and_ CRAF cut to pieces -- the
guts of our exploration destroyed.

We just saw it happen with the Shuttle -- Halley and Solar-Polar 
and Lunar Observer axed, Hubble, GRO, Mars Observer and Magellan 
severely delayed, Galileo severely hobbled and delayed, and numerous 
valuable smaller programs, such as lunar and asteroid sample studies, 
analysis of Viking, Voyager, IRAS etc. results severely cut back or 
cancelled, all because of the insatiable greed of astronaut groupies 
to see their singular monolithic project succeed at the cost of all 
others.  It is foolish to expect that this time would be any different.

As soon as we can get a larger number of smaller, quicker programs
into the NASA budget, we will get to the point where politicians
can fund projects that see fruition within their term of office.
When this threshold is crossed, the NASA budget will soar.  SIRTF, 
AXAF, and most definitely EOS do not really fit that bill -- though
they come much closer than Fred -- but smaller programs that have 
been saved, such as SMEX, SeaStar, COMET, and future proposals made 
possible by the Fred cut, can provide this breakthrough.

Until the astronaut groupies get their greedy hands off the bulk
of the NASA budget, which rightly, by NASA's charter and the
spirit of the Augustine Commission, belongs to exploration, the 
explorers will continue to see the astronaut fans as dangerous
enemies.  If astronaut fans want to see a reunited program, it is time 
for them to admit their mistakes and let exploration have its turn
to show its stuff with the bulk of NASA funding.  By showing their
support for exploration now, they can win those with the space
knowledge they need to their side.  If astronaut fans continue to
support greedy programs like Fred they will sadly remain hated
enemies of the space explorers for a long time to come.


-- 
Nick Szabo				szabo@sequent.com
"If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably
knew it already.  The more bewildered you are, the more successful
the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 91 18:14:30 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: SR-71

In article <7P5622w163w@lobster.hou.tx.us!n5abi>    Path: skipper!ames!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!nuchat!lobster!n5abi!gak

    The June issue of Popular Mechanics includes an article on the SR-71 and
   mentions that NASA is putting three back in service for research. Does
   anyone know where they will operate from? I would guess Edwards but the
   article never says.

Yes, I know where they'll operate from.  I know where two of them already
are.  I'm trying to come up with an experiment that uses them, since I
work in high speed flying qualities and there are some issues that need
to be addressed for the project I'm currently involved in.

The answer's in my signature.
--
Mary Shafer  shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov  ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
           NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
                     Of course I don't speak for NASA
            "Turn to kill, not to engage."  CDR Willie Driscoll

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V13 #623
*******************