Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_2/V9_270.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/sY3Ax7y00UkZEiQU4t>;
          Thu,  2 Mar 89 00:21:13 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu,  2 Mar 89 00:21:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #270

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 270

Today's Topics:
European space policy & activists (was: French small space shuttle: A
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #258
            Re: The never-ending argument
         Re: First concert from space--update
            Re: The never-ending argument
                Re: arguments
                Re: arguments
         Re: First concert from space--update
             Re: approaching "C"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 24 Feb 89 11:35 CST
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject:  European space policy & activists (was: French small space shuttle: A
Apparently-To: <[e-mail]>

go ahead !)
To:       [e-mail]
Original_To:  SPACE


Recent postings by Jean-Marc Debaud and Bruno Poterie have raised
questions about European space policy.

To summarize my understanding of such things:  ESA has decided they
need a broad capability in space, including medium launchers (Ariane
1-4), heavy launcher (Ariane 5), independent launch site (Kourou),
their own module on the U.S. station (Columbus), free-flying space
station (further Columbus developments), and independent manned
shuttle (Hermes).  In addition, they have plenty of science projects,
comsats, and earth-resources programs, and cooperation on
multinational space science programs such as Hubble and Cassini.

The British government thinks that ESA's effort is too extravagant.
They have opposed Hermes and some other projects as being redundant
and expensive; in general, they seem to prefer space projects with
immediate benefits. This makes some sense if they are trying to
tighten up their budget (and they always are). The UK has been
reluctantly dragged into ESA's grander schemes.  There are plenty of
British taxpayers, of course, who would prefer a more glorious
program.  Some of them read this newsgroup.

Additional analysis, from persons with more profound understanding of
the situation than I, is welcome.

Question:

Are there British space activists, working to influence national space
policy in the same way that NSS/Spacepac/etc. people [think they]
influence the US government?  How about other nations in Europe?

Does the British Interplanetary Society take a role in this?  Although
I have been a member for years, I know almost nothing about activities
other than publishing magazines and holding lectures and seminars.
Can anybody out there (yoo-hoo, JANET) tell me more?  Are there other
organizations in the UK or elsewhere pushing on politicians?

Disclaimer:  I don't mean to imply that political action is the
*only* appropriate purpose of a pro-space group-- far from it.
I am merely curious about whether any is going on.

                      ______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: Fri, 24 Feb 1989 13:02-EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #258

> imposition of requirements on the private space sector to control
> or prevent the proliferation of space debris will have important
> commercial implications.

Interesting to hear the government make this statement since they are
the ones that are nearly 100% responsible for the current debris
problems. The ol' pot calling the kettle black routine...

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

Date: 25 Feb 89 20:39:38 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1![e-mail]  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: The never-ending argument

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>> Knowledge about precisely how to live and work in space will NEVER
>> be obtained --- EVER --- unless we go out there and try it.

>His main premise, that manned spaceflight will not be
>developed unless we, today, send men into space, is nonsensical.

Wrong.  That is not my premise.  My premise is that manned space
flight will not be developed until we develop manned spaceflight.
This is obvious to the point of being a tautology.  Sending out
more probes, though a valuable thing in itself, does not develop
manned spaceflight.

>Lack of knowledge of how to live and work in space is not the
>bottleneck.  The main problem is exorbinant launch costs.  Once these
>come down, it will be far easier and cheaper to get this putative
>precious knowledge.

There's a great deal of truth to this.  Fine, we need cheap launchers.
Unfortunately, there's a catch-22 here.  We shouldn't do manned space
flight because we need cheap launchers to do that in a cost-effective
manner.  But we don't need to waste money on the development of
new heavy-lift launch systems because there are no missions that
require them.  (We cancelled all that useless, wastefull manned stuff,
remember?)  Titan III's and IV's can easily handle all our REAL
space needs.

That is a prescription for going absolutely nowhere at any speed.

>Consider the Soviet space program.  They have much lower launch costs
>than can be provided by the shuttle, yet their current space station
>is much smaller than NASA's gold plated project.

Yes.  A permanently *MANNED* space station with rotating crews.

>
>Like Henry says (if I understand him correctly), we need NASA to do
>R&D, not operate a trucking company  ...

You won't get much arguement from me on that one.

>One thing is for sure -- the current NASA
>program is on a slow track to nowhere.

That's for sure!  (How about that -- we agree on something!)
--
Mike Van Pelt                                 "Hey, hey, ho ho,
Video 7                                       Western culture's got to go."
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp                        Stanford students and faculty.

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

Date: 25 Feb 89 20:41:03 GMT
From: ingr![e-mail]  (Brooke King)
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
| You should not need permission from government bureaucrats to go into
| space for purposes *you* consider worthwhile, assuming that you can pay
| the fare and that there's a vacant seat.  It's truly mind-blowing that
| to book a spaceliner seat in the "Free" World you need a very good reason,
| years of patience, and approval from 57 layers of bureaucrats, while to
| book one behind the Iron Curtain you just need the fare in hard currency.

I guess this would be truly mind-blowing if Mr. Spencer did not
correctly have to put quotation marks around the 'Free' in 'Free
World.'  Some countries in the "Free" world are freer than they
have been.  Some are less so.  Certainly, the USA is an example
of the latter, but I currently would not want to call any other
place home.  ("Sweet Home Alabama" and "Oh Fair New Mexico"
really appeal to me!)

The Iron Curtain launchers are simply facing the reality of their
need for hard currency and the results of the (until recently)
reality of the US government's foolish, all-the-eggs-in-one-
expensive-shuttle-basket, monopolistic launch policy.  They
oughtn't be credited with any love of free enterprise.

| The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
| our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]
--

[e-mail] uunet!ingr!brooke W+1 205 7727796 H+1 205 8950824

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

Date: 25 Feb 89 16:57:31 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: The never-ending argument

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Van Pelt) writes:

> Knowledge about precisely
>how to live and work in space will NEVER be obtained --- EVER ---
>unless we go out there and try it.  What you are insisting upon,
>whether you are personally aware of it or not, is that we relegate
>manned space flight to a "study it to death but never DO anything
>about it" status.

Mike's argument completely ignores the need to make a choice between
different options.  We have to make choices, because budgets are
limited.  His main premise, that manned spaceflight will not be
developed unless we, today, send men into space, is nonsensical.  Lack
of knowledge of how to live and work in space is not the bottleneck.
The main problem is exorbinant launch costs.  Once these come down, it
will be far easier and cheaper to get this putative precious
knowledge.  Conversely, if launch costs do not come down, the knowledge
of how to live and work in space will have little value.

Consider the Soviet space program.  They have much lower launch costs
than can be provided by the shuttle, yet their current space station
is much smaller than NASA's gold plated project.  If their program is
worth emulating, the "next logical step" for NASA would be to build
better launchers, not a space station (or a moon base!).

Now, it might be argued that independent private companies should work
on launchers.  Certainly they will help, and eventually will take
over.  But the market is uncertain.  I think the right kind of
government support would help enormously, and is the only way to
develop really novel technologies, like the various gun launchers or
laser rockets.

Like Henry says (if I understand him correctly), we need NASA to do
R&D, not operate a trucking company (or rationalize projects that give
their "trucks" something to do).  Manned vs. unmanned is a secondary
issue, except insofar as manned space advocates insist on NASA
conducting expensive, non-critical-path projects in space rather than
longterm R&D on the ground.  One thing is for sure -- the current NASA
program is on a slow track to nowhere.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Feb 89 01:22:53 GMT
From: minke![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: arguments

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:
>If we are to have largely self sufficient ecological units in space for man
>to live, at a conservative level we will need at least 5 times the mass in
>nonhuman organic material as human.  How are we going to find out how a
>space garden will work by sending up unmanned probes?  We are not.

The necessary knowledge can be obtained by projects such as the current
Biosphere and ISECCO(sp?) closed-ecology experiments, and experimenting with
small plants and animals at various levels of gravity.   This is many orders
of magnitude cheaper than manned space projects.

The critical paths to self-sufficient settlements are first, as Paul
mentioned, bringing down launch costs, and second, converting the resources
of space into the biomass, the shelter for such biomass, and the export
industries to motivate the whole project in the first place.

The first requires extensive R&D, the second R&D and inexpensive exploration
of the solar system.

>Scientific exploration can never be effective if we attempt to make it cost-
>effective.  The best type of cost-effectiveness in scientific endeavor is to
>support people who have demonstrated ability, together with some "screwballs."

Scientific progress above all must be cost-effective, because budgets are
short.  Try asking for $30 billion (or any significant fraction of that) for
your next statistics study and see how far you get.  Scientific progress
comes through giving lots of "screwballs" and people of ability money, with
most ideas from both groups failing and the rest paying back several-fold.
We can't predict ahead of time which will pay back, so it's a bad idea
to put most of the money in one place (when we do we get things like the
Shuttle).

>And I have called for governments to allow those of us who wish to support
>manned space programs to get out of our way.

I agree wholeheartedly.   Governments should stop funding manned programs.
They should get out of other operations as well, except for providing
commercial start-up incentives.  Governments have a proper role in exploration
and basic R&D.

Nick Szabo              [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Feb 89 15:55:35 GMT
From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: arguments

In article <[e-mail]>, szabonj@minke (Nick Szabo) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Sparks) writes:
> >In article <[e-mail]>, szabonj@minke (Nick Szabo) writes:

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

> >How do we learn how to support life in space unless we go there and try
> >to support life in space?
>
> Biological reactions to space are not the most important questions, and
> they can be answered with an unmanned biological platform like the sliding
> module tether I have proposed.  The important questions of finding resources,
> and figuring out how to mine and manufacture them, are best answered by unmanned
> projects.

If we are to have largely self sufficient ecological units in space for man
to live, at a conservative level we will need at least 5 times the mass in
nonhuman organic material as human.  How are we going to find out how a
space garden will work by sending up unmanned probes?  We are not.

Years of research have not produced a workable Mars rover.  A robotic mining
and manufacturing robot?  We can build a robot to do what we know how to do
almost precisely.  There are no thinking machines in the immediate future.
I would be surprise if we could even build a mining robot on earth.  And
I doubt that a government project would speed the development of manufacturin
robots.

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

> Promoting manned spaceflight at the expense of unmanned does not constitute
> "support" for the unmanned program.
>
> >While most supporters of the Unmanned Program are against the Manned Program
> >altogether, or put it off indefinately.
>
> Nobody has argued anything of the kind.  The argument is that we
> must "put it off" until it provides cost-effective return of scientific
> knowledge or money, or there are volunteers willing to undertake it at their
> own expense.

Scientific exploration can never be effective if we attempt to make it cost-
effective.  The best type of cost-effectiveness in scientific endeavor is to
support people who have demonstrated ability, together with some "screwballs."

And I have called for governments to allow those of us who wish to support
manned space programs to get out of our way.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)

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

Date: 24 Feb 89 23:47:54 GMT
From: ingr![e-mail]  (Brooke King)
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rick Wojcik) writes:
| I apologize to Shel and others in her company for being such a
| curmudgeon.  It is just my personal opinion that we are not yet
| at a point where the activity that they contemplate is
| justifiable.

See talk.politics.theory for why I don't think Rick owes Shel or
anyone else an apology for being a "curmudgeon."

| Rick Wojcik   csnet:  [e-mail]
|               uucp:   uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik
--

[e-mail] uunet!ingr!brooke W+1 205 7727796 H+1 205 8950824

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

Date: 25 Feb 89 21:13:31 GMT
From: rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu![e-mail]  (Peter Owings)
Subject: Re: approaching "C"

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robin Adams) writes:
>
>A space ship is travelling through space at 75% light speed. It is headed
>toward our moon and is 50,000 miles distant. A powerful laser is mounted at
>the front of the space ship. When the beam is switched on, the light should
>reach the moon in approximately 0.27 seconds.
>- Did I miss something?

Yes...    For all observers, the speed of light is the same, namely c.  The
difference between observers is the distance between you and the moon and
the time it takes for the light to get there.

    For someone on Earth, say, the distance for the light to travel is
50,000 miles.  However, for you, the moon is moving toward you at 0.75c and
the distance is Lorentz contracted by the factor sqrt(1-(v/c)**2), or for you
is ~33000 miles.  So the time for the light is different for the two observers,
you in your space ship and someone standing on Earth.

    Time and distance change at relativistic speeds.  The speed of light
is the constant for all observers, always.

Peter...
>
>
>
>                       o         o                o
>                                              o                  o
>                    o                  o            o
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                            |       |
>                            |       |   Robin
>                           /---------\  Adams

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #270
*******************