Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_2/V9_252.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
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/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/cY0HQIy00UkZI7=E5g>;
          Tue, 21 Feb 89 05:16:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 89 05:16:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #252

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 252

Today's Topics:
         Looking for ESA lunar orbiter report
            Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle
               Re: the un/manned debate
              Re: 1992 moon base
           Ariane: Contract of the Century
               Re: the un/manned debate
               Re: the un/manned debate
              Re: MARS the Movie
            RE: SPACEPAC ratings by state
        Re: Space travel and the human spirit
         Space probe studies of Mars' moons.
           Re: Manned vs unmanned space exploration
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 17 Feb 89 17:00 CST
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Looking for ESA lunar orbiter report
Original_To:  SPACE

Here's an interesting problem, gang. Do any of you have a library at your
institutions good enough to find the following document?

European Space Agency
Polar Orbiting Lunar Observatory:
POLO Science Assessment
SCI/SPL(78)2. December 1978. PP.25

I am especially interested in North Americans.  It's not available from the
usual place to order ESA documents, ESTEC in Noordwijk, Holland, but I am
working on obtaining it from Paris. I thought maybe there was a copy somewhere
on this side of the Big Ditch.  If you can locate one, please send me e-mail.

There was a lot of activity in the mid-seventies to plan a lunar polar orbiter
as a natural follow-on to the Apollo and Luna studies.  Both NASA and ESA
considered the project in some detail.  But they ran out of steam during
those hard times, and other missions took precedence.  I'd like to know
what the ESA group was thinking about.

                      ______meson   Bill Higgins
                   _-~
     ____________-~______neutrino   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
   -   -         ~-_
 /       \          ~----- proton   Bitnet: [e-mail]
 |       |
 \       /  NEW!  IMPROVED!         SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
   -   -    Now comes with Free
     ~  Nobel Prizewinner Inside!   Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 17 Feb 89 03:05:02 GMT
From: Portia!Jessica![e-mail]  (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle

Gawd, just think of the platform you could put up in geosync with a Saturn.
You'd recoup the expense of the development in a few years from a *real*
direct broadcast TVsat system...

-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX      | "Research Scientists need Porsches, too!"
->[e-mail] |            -- Bloom County

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

Date: 17 Feb 89 06:12:48 GMT
From: right![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (THE VIKING)
writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>
>>Two posters now have advocated putting money in *unproductive* ventures,
>>for the very reason that they are unproductive, and skimping on productive
>>ventures!  This sort of thinking scares the bejeebers out of folks who are
>>considering investing their money in space.
>
>Nick's posting attacks Robert's and my postings by simplifying their content
>to a single, obviously contradictory sentence. Not a very ethical way of
>discussing things Nick.

It has now become "unethical" to think rationally.  I paraphrased your
arguments quite correctly.

>The basic premise in my posting is that manned space research is basic R&D.

Then it should be funded as R&D, through the peer review of scientists.
The manned program is not R&D.

>That means that economic return on investment does not apply.

The return in scientific knowledge, related to the dollars spent, most
definitely *does* matter; this is the purpose of R&D.

>It is wrong to try to catagorize some types of basic R&D as more important
>than others.

Then, how, pray tell, do you decide where to spend finite budgets?  The
purpose of peer reviews is exactly this, to decide which areas of research
are important enough to be funded, and by how much.

>Most people in this discussion do seem to agree that manned space R&D is
>important in general, including Nick Szabo and Paul Dietz.

I believe it is *not* important now, but will be in a few decades, assuming
we put in the effort and rational thought we need *today*.  If we do the
research and explore the solar system in the 90's,  we stand a fighting
chance of having the resources and technology to support human needs in
space in the first half of the 21st century.

>Nick and Paul do state that it is unimportant now. This
>is wrong because knowledge gained from basic R&D is valuble regardless (within
>reason) of when it is learned.

When is very important, if it means one has to spend billions of dollars
on information that can be gained for much less in the future, instead of
spending it on making that future possible.  (If it is going to cost
billions to do zero-g physiology research in 2010, we won't be able to
afford manned bases either.  When we are ready the research will be cheap).

>Afterall when is the right time to learn about
>the nature of subatomic particles, or the structure of DNA, or how to build a
>transister?

When researchers can afford particle accelerators, high-resolution
microscopes, and electronic testing devices.

>Paul says that manned space won't be important for 40 years. I
>don't think it's possible to predict technological advance with any accuracy
>beyond 25 years, if that.

The *time* is uncertain, but what we will need when we get there is pretty
straightforward.  Our most expensive and essential need in space will be
a large mining and industrial infrastructure to produce our air, water,
food, structural materials, machines, etc. from the resources in space.
To create this we must (1) discover the resources with an exhaustive search
over a wide area of the solar system and (2) create the technology
to process these materials in an environment of vacuum, low gravity and
high labor cost.  How people adapt to free fall is an  unessential question
that can be answered with inexpensive research when the time comes.
Unmanned exploration and basic R&D provide the two essential components.

>I personally believe that manned space R&D should focus on reducing manned
>launch costs before doing anything else.

Launch costs are an important problem.  The problem of reducing manned and
unmanned launch costs is similar; breakthroughs in the latter are usually
breakthroughs in the former.

>I agree with Henry Spencer that it would be best if we simply disbanded NASA
>(with the exception of JPL) and turned it over to private industry with a
>policy of payment on orbital delivery only.

Does Henry really say this?  I agree!


Nick Szabo              [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 10:44:56 PDT
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"[e-mail]"

rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz) writes:

>[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>>If we assume that there is a useful amount of ice in lunar polar craters --
>>not ridiculous but not at all certain either -- it clearly is possible to
>>start a lunar colony with today's technology.  Before Challenger, in fact,
>>there was a proposal to do exactly that in 1992, as a commemoration of the
>>500th anniversary of Columbus.  It would have been within reach of (major)
>>private funding, given extensive reliance on donated labor and materials...
>>but the reliance on six donated shuttle flights killed it.

I didn't see this proposal, so I am curious; just how much payload did they
expect to deliver to lunar surface from a shuttle flight and how?  The shuttle
only goes to LEO, if you use a Centaur third stage like we were going to use
for Galileo I suppose you could get a LEM and enough fuel to land there, not
sure.  The lifting capacity of the Saturn V was much more than the shuttle and
look how little they got to the Moon, although of course they had to carry
enough fuel to get back.

Given Henry's later assertion that

>This was a *colony*, not a base, meaning no crew rotation and the intent
>to be self-sufficient in basic materials essentially at once.

just *what* did they expect to get there in 6 shuttle flights that could
have achieved that?

By the way, I wish we'd done it too.

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

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

Date: 17 Feb 89 13:54:56 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Jean-Marc Debaud)
Subject: Ariane: Contract of the Century

From Radio France International capted last night (2/16)
we heard that the private company Arianespace has
ordered with the Societe Europeene de Propulsion
the equivalent of 3B US$ for 50 Ariane 4 to be delivered
in the next 8 years.

With a very strong order book, Arianespace is bound to keep
the lead in commercial espace explotation.

In mid-january was the last Ariane lift off which was a complete
success and the ninth straight in a row.

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

Date: 17 Feb 89 17:44:32 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>... All this
>could be done, in spades, if only a fraction of the funding currently
>thrown at manned programs were available for the effort.

Of course it's not, and never will be, since money taken away from manned
programs does **NOT** get shifted to unmanned programs.
--
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Feb 89 00:36:53 GMT
From: umigw![e-mail]  (steve emmerson)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry
Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo)
>writes:
>>... All this
>>could be done, in spades, if only a fraction of the funding currently
>>thrown at manned programs were available for the effort.
>
>Of course it's not, and never will be, since money taken away from manned
>programs does **NOT** get shifted to unmanned programs.

And yet the reverse appears to be true.
--
Steve Emmerson                     Inet: [e-mail] [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               [e-mail]
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

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

Date:    Fri, 17 Feb 89 10:36:38 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MARS the Movie
X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"[e-mail]"


The video is available from some outfit for $39.95 (a rip-off for
a 2-minute movie!).   I'm not sure what the process is, but I do know
that I as an employee can show up with a blank VHS videotape and get
"LA the Movie", "Miranda the Movie", "Earth the Movie", and "Mars the
Movie" copied onto it for next to nothing.  If you are interested,
I would suggest that you send a letter to either the Public Affairs
Office or Von Karman Auditorium here at the lab.

I have seen all these videos and I must compliment the Image Processing
people here for an excellent job!   The next movie is "Gallium Arsenide
the Movie".

The movies are generated using VAX/VMS machines and one Alliant FX/8-8.

JPL's street address is:

        4800 Oak Grove Drive
        Pasadena, CA. 91109

The telephone number is [phone]

Ron Tencati
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
[e-mail]

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

Date:     Fri, 17 Feb 89 14:45:52 CST
From: [e-mail] (Allen C. Kistler)
Subject:  RE: SPACEPAC ratings by state

Peter Scott <[e-mail]> writes:

)Date: Mon, 13 Feb 89 10:34:29 PDT
)
)>From: Scott Pace <[e-mail]>
)>
)>In playing with the last set of Congressional ratings by Spacepac (1988
)>edition), we took averages for each State's House delegation.  This gave us
)>a rough measure of the Spacepac "rating" of each state....
)>
)>The ranking was:
)>Alaska          91    [#1]
)
)Excuse me??? ...
)... why in God's name is Alaska *first*, significantly beyond the pack??
)What are they doing up there to get that kind of support???!!?

Space research.  It pulls money into the state.  It also, in general, has
public support, probably because the Alaskan sky at night has two things
the Californian sky doesn't have at night:
  1- stars
  2- aurora

)Peter Scott ([e-mail])
                         ^^^^^^^^
Hopefully without being insulting, I'll point out that you should know that.
A significant fraction of the space-related money in the Alaskan economy
comes from JPL contracts.  Most, if not all, of the rest comes from other
NASA sites.

Allen Kistler   InterNet: [e-mail]
                SPAN:     iowa::kistler

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

Date: 16 Feb 89 18:27:11 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Space travel and the human spirit

Dan Mocsny [e-mail]) responded to a previous posting doubting
that technology would develop fast enough for the older folks among us to
take advantage of the life extending and wealth enhancing technologies we
can see growing out of the computer revolution.  In this I strongly
differ.  The problem is to get your memories and personality to future
medicine.  That can be accomplished (for those who make preperation) by
low temperature, i.e. cryonic suspension.  This is the reason I am so
optimistic about personally making it to the far side of the galaxy.
Keith Henson 408-978-7616   (detailed technical/legal/finantial/social
information is available from Alcor Life Extension Foundation, Riverside
California.  714-736-1703)  I can forward email request for information to
them.

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

Date: 17 Feb 89 16:00:25 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com![e-mail]  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: Space probe studies of Mars' moons.


         As for early space probe examinations of Mars' moons Phobos
    and Deimos, credit should also be given to MARINER 9, which sent
    back the first clear images of the moons in 1971-1972.  MARINER 6
    and 7 also returned images (albeit crude) of Phobos in 1969, which
    first showed scientists that Phobos was roughly potato-shaped and
    allowed more accurate measurements of its dimensions.

         I do not believe the Soviet Mars probes ever photographed
    either of the Martian moons, though several of the orbiters were
    able to return images of the planet's surface comparible to the
    later MARINERS.

         Larry Klaes

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

Date: 17 Feb 89 17:40:48 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Manned vs unmanned space exploration

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (THE VIKING) writes:
>...I do believe that the space station is a mistake at this time. In fact I
>agree with Henry Spencer that it would be best if we simply disbanded NASA
>(with the exception of JPL) and turned it over to private industry with a
>policy of payment on orbital delivery only...

Unfortunately, this badly misrepresents my views:  I do not favor disbanding
NASA or splitting it into pieces, although others have expressed that view.
(At some point I will probably editorialize about this in one of my AW&ST
summaries.)  It's a dumb idea, frankly, because NASA -- not just JPL -- has
a lot to contribute.  The problem is that right now, NASA is doing all the
wrong things and (worse) is not doing the right things.  What is needed is
a major reorganization and reorientation, not amputation.
--
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #252
*******************