Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_2/V9_262.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

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/IY1wuJy00UkZ0e604o>;
          Sun, 26 Feb 89 05:16:53 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 89 05:16:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #262

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 262

Today's Topics:
              manned spaceflight
               Re: the un/manned debate
        Re: An integrated space program for the world
            Re: manned spaceflight
            Re: Energia questions
            Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle
            Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle
               More good news!
     Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization
               The Fascism continues...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 89 15:51:26 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]
Subject: manned spaceflight

From: cooper

The value of an endeavour is often hard to quantify.
Consider the Apollo moon landings. A group of people
set themselves the extremely difficult (many said impossible)
goal of landing people on another planet, and
in very short order achieved it.

I'd say this changed the human race's view of itself in a positive way
more than any other event in human history. It completely redefined the
scope of what humanity was capable of achieving, for almost every single
living person. For a few billion bucks, seems like a bargain to me.

It seems pretty clear that purely technical achievements (unmanned probes, for
example) cannot ever provide this kind of priceless value.

....space is all about expanding scope, and breaking limits.....

[e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Feb 89 17:29:45 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:
>>Of course it's not, and never will be, since money taken away from manned
>>programs does **NOT** get shifted to unmanned programs.
>
>Just what evidence do you have for this?  I recall that after Apollo was
>cancelled, money was shifted into Viking and Voyager, among other things...

Please have someone run diagnostics on your memory. :-)  The heyday of
unmanned planetary exploration was in the Apollo days.  Unmanned funding
declined more or less in step with manned funding when Apollo began to
end.  Viking and Voyager were shrivelled remnants of much more ambitious
earlier programs.  Viking, in particular, was a joke compared to the
original Apollo-era Voyager project, which was the most ambitious unmanned
planetary program ever planned.  (The name "Voyager" got reused later,
once the original was dead.)  I'm unaware of any Apollo funding being
shifted into anything except Vietnam and the pork barrel.

> On
>the flip side, it is clear that the U.S. solar-polar and Halley missions
>were cancelled, and Galileo, Magellan, Space Telescope and Mars Observer
>were delayed, due to the funding priorities and delays of the Space Shuttle
>program...

To quote one more skeptical observer at the time, "don't you give a major
recession any credit at all?".  Yes, unmanned programs were starved almost
to death during Shuttle development... but so was the Shuttle.  The only
case I'm aware of where unmanned funding was definitely and unquestionably
diverted to manned spaceflight was one nasty year during Shuttle development,
when the Shuttle was so starved that it ended up taking bites out of a lot
of other NASA programs (not just unmanned spaceflight) to survive.

One can argue about whether Shuttle priorities have hampered funding for
other projects.  Undoubtedly they have, to some extent.  But this isn't
confined to manned-vs-unmanned.  At various times in the past there've
been a good many unmanned-spaceflight partisans who would have cheered
if Galileo had been cancelled, because it has done the same thing to a
lot of smaller unmanned projects.  The SSEC argued most pointedly that
the small projects are more cost-effective and deserve protected funding.
"When the elephants dance, the mice stay off the floor."  This sort of
thing will happen any time you get big projects with lots of staff and
smaller ones sharing the same budget; it would happen if the US had no
manned space program at all.
--
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 17:03:11 -0600
From: Mark William Hopkins <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Re: An integrated space program for the world
Cc: [e-mail]

The political climate is subtly changing in such a way that no individual
nation's power no longer exceeds the combined power of world opinion.
For example, the UN's intervention in the Iran-Iraq war, in Angola and
Namibia, are pointing toward this trend.

The point is that the Sahara project is not something to be accomplished
with world cooperation as a prerequisite, but rather as a means to that
end.  But all in all, I think that the opportunity is finally dawning on
us today to accomplish major engineering projects such as this.

Judging by the response, though, I would still tend to think that a lot of
people are somewhat skeptical towards this assessment of the current and
future political situation.  But the world is getting to be way too
small for there to be autonomous nations -- especially with what is already
going on with other climate problems such as the depleting Ozone layer
or the Greenhouse Effect.

There will be cooperation, or extinction.  That time of reckoning is no
longer in the future (as so many Sci. Fci. scenarios depict it), but
today.

The big stumbling block is getting the superpowers together on such a plan.
That, alone, would turn the tide of opinion.

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

Date: 22 Feb 89 21:32:52 GMT
From: minke![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: manned spaceflight

In article <[e-mail]> cooper writes:

>Consider the Apollo moon landings. A group of people
>set themselves the extremely difficult (many said impossible)
>goal of landing people on another planet, and
>in very short order achieved it.

Sending probes to other planets was considered equally, if not more,
difficult.  It has turned out to be much easier.  This discovery, which
has still not sunk in to many space enthusiasts, is more significant than
Apollo.

>I'd say this changed the human race's view of itself in a positive way
>more than any other event in human history. It completely redefined the
>scope of what humanity was capable of achieving, for almost every single
>living person.

Space communications and remote sensing (unmanned activities) have changed
our lives and worldviews more fundamentally than Apollo.  Unmanned planetary
probes have explored a much vaster and more diverse part of the solar system
than manned missions.

>It seems pretty clear that purely technical achievements (unmanned probes, for
>example) cannot ever provide this kind of priceless value.

This is not clear, it is wrong.  First, "manned" missions are no more or less
"purely" technical achievements than "unmanned": both involve people and
technology.  Second, many people, James Michener comes immediately to mind,
found Viking and Voyager to be more astounding and important than Apollo.

>....space is all about expanding scope, and breaking limits.....

Indeed it is, and unmanned space projects have expanded our scope much
farther, and have broken many more limits, than manned projects.


Nick Szabo              [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 10:26:33 PDT
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Energia questions
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"[e-mail]"

For some reason I had thought that Energia had made more than two flights...

uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail] (Andrew Higgins):

>The four first stage boosters fall away in pairs and parachute back to Earth
>ready for refuelling and further use, while the core stage splashes down in
                                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the Pacific.  Though it might be noted that the Soviets have yet to demonstrate
>this capability.

What are you saying here?  That the core has the capability of making a
soft landing, presumably for re-use?  That would require atmospheric heat
protection and a parachute system, the heat shield would add a lot of weight,
is it worth it?

What's the atmospheric drag like at Mir's altitude?  Presumably not much
since it is fairly big already.  What if the Russians started boosting
the cores to dock with Mir?  Can you imagine how fast that thing could
grow?  Since I haven't seen what I would call a sufficient reason why we
shouldn't put shuttle E.T.s in orbit, I can only assume that the Russians
are going to do the obvious and put Energia cores in orbit.  They've already
demonstrated the ability to improve on our designs (liquid- instead of
solid-fuel boosters for their shuttle carrier, jets on the shuttle, tele-
operated piloting mode).

I just saw a re-run of "The Absent-Minded Professor".  There's a scene where
the professor flies his Flubber-equipped Model T to Washington and the Air
Force tracks it as a UFO.  They broadcast a radio warning that they will
shoot it down unless it identifies itself and a colonel gives it ten seconds
to do this.  As he counts, an assistant interrupts to say that the object
has gone behind the Capitol dome and if they fire at it, they'll kill every
Senator and Congressman.  The colonel stares into the camera, and without
missing a beat, continues counting: "Nine..."  I know the feeling.

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

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

Date: 21 Feb 89 12:42:57 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive![e-mail]  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>There is not much point in resurecting the Saturn IB when the Titan
>IV, Proton, and Ariane V all have, or will have, equivalent
>performance.

It is also worth noting that the Ariane V will be man-rated.
I believe the proton is too.

Is there any plans to do this with the Titan IV?
    bob.

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

Date: 22 Feb 89 18:41:32 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha![e-mail]  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bob Gray) writes:
>
> It is also worth noting that the Ariane V will be man-rated.
> I believe the proton is too.
>
> Is there any plans to do this with the Titan IV?

Here we go again--Wehrner Von Braun is probably spinning in his grave at
this thought.  I seem to recall that he strenuously objected to every
flying men on rockets with solids.  If they man-rate Titan IV, it will
be the second manned launch vehicle with solid boosters.  Perish the thought!


Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

Useful criticism always appreciated.  Senseless flames always discarded.

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

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail]
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 07:26:51 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: ucsd!nosc!crash![e-mail]
Subject: More good news!


Vice President, Dan Quayle, head of the newly revitalized Naional
Space Council, has been reached through our far reaching network of
political contacts.  He agrees the CDSF is the way to go.

He will throw the full weight of the NSC behind this plan as
a test of its capability to influence space policy in the face
of NASA intransigence.

Would you please all write to him expressing your support for his
position?

He can be reached care of the White House:

Vice President
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: [phone]
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Feb 89 17:37:56 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (daniel mocsny) writes:
>> Every experiment
>> I have personally flown has needed in flight repairs and/or
>> modifications in protocol. Simple things kill experiments in
>> low gravity. Give me a cranky old STS mission with a overworked
>> astronaut any day over an automated satellite experiment.
>
>What prevents you from using a tele-operated rig? Touchy force-feedback
>requirements? Rapid time scales making propagation delays unacceptable?
>Inadequate video/audio transmission? Lack of suitable binocular/pseudo-3D
>display (e.g., VIVED)? The importance of smell?

The complete lack of an adequate, workable "tele-operated rig" available
as reliable off-the-shelf hardware, perhaps?
--
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1989 17:42-EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: The Fascism continues...

Space Calendar, Feb 20-26-1989 p3:

    Mediasat International, Arlington VA: President Mark
    Brender reports that in the 18 January issue of The Federal
    Register a notice on remote sensing satellite rules was
    published by the Commerce Department and NOAA. Says
    the notice, "NOAA plans to undertake furthur rule making to
    reassure potential satellite license applicants that the US
    government would not unreasonably restrict licensing for
    commercial remote sensing satellites. At the same time,
    NOAA firmly declines to consider adopting a first amend-
    ment-based standard to test the risk to national security that
    would justify operating restrictions." According to Brender,
    the Radio and Television News Directors Association
    (RTNDA) will continue to urge NOAA to adopt rules that will
    clearly articulate the correct legal standards.
    Info Mark Brender, Mediasat International, 4419 Seventh St
    North, Arlington VA 22203; 202-887-7724

EDITORIAL: I'm glad to see that NOAA is publicly admitting it does not
believe itself bound by the Constitution of the United States. But
then, we've known for a long time that the government of the US is no
longer bound by constitutional law. Anyone who has watched the behavior
of presidents, congressmen or the military over the past four decades
knows this to be true. (I start with Roosevelt, the Supreme Court
Packer)

The First Amendment was clearly intended to cover all communications.
The fact that certain modern forms of information were beyond the
imagination of it's framers is irrelevant. Franklin and Paine are quite
clear in their beliefs that government has no rights to control
information flow. It was only the Hamiltonian ilk that wished such foul
state control (as in the Alien and Sedition Acts).

The Bill of Rights is becoming more and more of a problem for those who
rule the United States. They do not believe in it except when it serves
their own purposes, and those purposes are more often than not, power
and privilege.

Those who wield the power in this country are not the "capitalists".
Anyone who thinks the US is a capitalist country is much mistaken. (Not
there there aren't more surviving pockets of it than you will find most
places) The US is ruled by a group of career politicians, generals and
bureaucrats. The closest definition of what they have wrought is "State
Capitalism", or more simply, Fascism.

I would love to see these kinds of "people" (I use the word lightly)
behind bars. But courts do not bring down decisions that significantly
affect the desires of the ruling class. Any court in history that has
done so recieved a rude awakening about who had the guns. Government
and power ultimately came from the barrel of a gun and not from law.

Given the improving financial condition of SpotImage and the sudden
interest by the US government in a "joint venture", I really have to
wonder if this is an attempt by the DOD to get partial control over the
only other (outside of the soviet union) remote sensing system in the
world. The US and the USSR tend to have "gentleman's agreements about
not embarassing each other with spy satellite images. Honor amongst
theives, as they say. But the French are too damned independant and too
likely to develop something like real time imaging of world trouble
spots.

I suggest that the reason for the sudden interest by the US government
in Spot Image is the desire of the DOD to have a veto power over all
remote imaging systems on Earth.

I hope the French are smart enough to give the US government a
resounding, "NON!!!!" to this attempt to control them. I hope
that the American people would give a resounding "NO" to NOAA. But I
seriously doubt they will.

                    Free Minds and Free Markets,
                    Dale Amon

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #262
*******************