Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_2/V9_272.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

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/4Y3FGBy00UkZ4iqU5h>;
          Thu,  2 Mar 89 05:16:45 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu,  2 Mar 89 05:16:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #272

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 272

Today's Topics:
             SPACE Digest V9 #259
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 26 Feb 89 03:12:16 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject:  SPACE Digest V9 #259
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"<[e-mail]>"

 *** VMS error in delivery mail, error message follows ***

EXOS Mail server: delivery error: %MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening USER$DISK2:[PJS.MAIL]MAIL$000400920EFD2D53.MAI; as output
EXOS Mail server: delivery error: -RMS-F-FUL, device full (insufficient space for allocation)0400920EFD2D53.MAI; as output
EXOS Mail server: delivery error:
%MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening USER$DISK2:[PJS.MAIL]MAIL$000400920EFD2D53.MAI; as output
-RMS-F-FUL, device full (insufficient space for allocation)

 *** Original message follows ***

From : [e-mail]
Subject:  SPACE Digest V9 #259

Return-path: <@po3.andrew.cmu.edu:[e-mail]>
Received: from jpl-mil (jpl-mil.Jpl.Nasa.Gov) by grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV
          id 000000C0002 ; Sun, 26 Feb 89 03:11:13 PDT
Received:  from spanza.Jpl.Nasa.Gov by jpl-mil.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (4.0/SMI-3.4+DXR+main+mr)
    id AA01874; Sun, 26 Feb 89 03:16:43 PST
Received:  from po3.andrew.cmu.edu by spanza.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (4.0/SMI-4.0+DXRs0.3)
    id AA19744; Sun, 26 Feb 89 03:08:24 PST
Received:  by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA18323>; Sat, 25 Feb 89 03:42:11 EST
Received:  via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail];
 Sat, 25 Feb 89 03:42:09 -0500 (EST)
Received:  from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/sq2/QF.AY1aIgy00Vs100xE4R>;
          Sat, 25 Feb 89 03:34:53 -0500 (EST)
Received:  from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.YY1a9Py00UkZMcoU4d>;
          Sat, 25 Feb 89 03:22:53 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Reply-To:  [e-mail]
From:  [e-mail]
To:  [e-mail]
Date:  Sat, 25 Feb 89 03:16:25 -0500 (EST)

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 259

Today's Topics:
       manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization
              RE: Pigs will be pigs ...
              Re: MARS the Movie
                  arguments
                Re: arguments
           ANTHROPOLOGIST SEEKS ABDUCTEE INTERVIEWS
             What ever happened to NERVA?
           Re: What ever happened to NERVA?
             Re: State SPACEPAC rankings
              Re: 1992 moon base
               Current issue of Science
     Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 89 22:50 -0600
From: bradley thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization

Just thought I would drop a few comments on these subjects:
1- manned vs. unmanned space exploration- I work on low gravity
experimentation in the areas of biotechnology and materials
processing. I view manned tending of my experiments as being
critical. If I get a breakdown or unexpected results I need
human capability to deal with the situation. My own personal
experiences on low gravity aircraft [ KC135 in the USA, and
the T33 in Canada] only support these beliefs. 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.
2- commercialization in space- most of the companies I deal with
are interested in space not as a place to do things but as a place
to research processes. Most multiphase processes on Earth
are combinations of physical-chemical and gravity driven parameters.
In space we can isolate the effects of each and learn something
that normally helps out on the ground. Think of multiphase processes.
They occur in waste treatment, biotechnology, oil, coal, materials,
and a hoste of other industries. What I need is routine access to
low gravity and cheap experiments. Note I am ommitting cheap
launch costs. Experiments are usually low mass, therefore low
launch cost. Companies need routine access to build business
plans around.

Nuff said.

Brad Thompson
Alberta Research Council
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

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

Date: Mon, 20 Feb 89 10:46:14 CST
From: [e-mail] (Happiness is planet Earth in your rearview mirror)
Subject: RE: Pigs will be pigs ...

Peter Scott <[e-mail]> writes:

>[e-mail] writes:


>>Space Calendar, Jan 30 - Feb 5, 1989, pg 2
>>
>>    MEDIA SPONSORED REMOTE SENSING,
>>    Washington, DC: Faces opposition from
>>    DoD. A satellite which could provide im-
>>    mediate photos of military activities to the
>>    media "poses a greater threat to national
>>    security" than current foreign-owned tech-
>>    nology, the AAAS was told recently.
>>
>>
>>Editorial comment:
>>
>>The above is to be expected. The military does not foster a mentality
>>that is compatible with a truely free society. The more power that
>>mentality is given over society, the farther said society will be driven
>>from being a liberal, laissez-faire democracy.
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  to what it is today :-)

The argument that distribution of knowledge makes for a peaceful world has
been used in multiple espionage trials, without much success.  This does
not refute the argument (I believe it to a certain degree), but places the
burden of proof on the "distributor".  While spying per se is a dirty and
dangerous game, making available to the world something such as the status
of a poison gas plant in Lybia or the number of B-1Bs on the ground at Dyes
is reasonable, if the goal is reducing fear of the other person.

If I put up a private imaging satellite, then I can also have multiple ground
stations, and no country can stop me from producing pictures, until one
of them (choice of two) turns my bird into a metorite.  If someone wants
to put a new missle/ship/plane/girlfriend out in the daylight, I should
be able to take a picture of it.  An analogy would be your 55 Chevy.  If
you don't want me taking pictures of it, leave it in the garage.  The danger
of owning curiosities is that it makes people curious.

>Actually I would be more worried by the likely misuse of cheap high-quality
>aerial pictures by the media.  The possibilities range from the Miami Herald
>("Gary Hart Takes Cruise on Monkey Business II: Pictures of Decktop Party")
>to the National Enquirer ("Supermodel and her Secret Love Nest in the Poconos")
>to _Geraldo_ ("Did the survivors of Air Peru flight 999 really resort to
>cannibalism in the Andes?  We have the answers.")  I don't think that organs
>of the media such as the Morton Downey Jr. Show have really demonstrated
>that they are responsible enough to use this information wisely.  I'm not
>saying that the military are, either, but at least they don't broadcast it.

>I know that this assumes *really* cheap and *really* high-resolution
>photography, but not outlandishly so.  Obviously the media would say that
>they would use such a satellite for pictures of things like the Chernobyl
>incident, but given the emphasis that the networks are placing on so-called
>`trash tv' these days, how long would it be before they found some way to
>pervert it for those purposes?  Enquiring minds want to know...

Interesting.  And just who should determine what is or is not a legitimate
use of the "pictures"?  Just because you don't like the reporting style
(and I agree, those are dogs) doesn't give you, or anyone, the right to
censor the medium in question.  And that is censorship.  Either all have
equal access, or no one should have access.  I chose all and take the jerks
as a cheap price to pay.

Dillon Pyron
this time, I won't say who I work for, although the NSA knows who I am.

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

Date: 21 Feb 89 17:58:10 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: MARS the Movie

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Smithwick) writes:
>What I'm really waiting for is >>> Henry Spencer the Movie <<<

Don't hold your breath; production has been halted due to a battle over
merchandising rights.  :-)
--
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Subject: arguments
From: [e-mail] (nicholas c. hester)
Date:    Tue, 21 Feb 89 12:48:32 EST

i find it fascinating how each side of the manned/unmanned "debate" feels that
the other is "destroying" the US space program, tho' the unmanned side screams
the loudest. the prestige and technology gained from manned flight is necessary
politically in todays world, while the unmanned platforms provide for pure sci-
entific research and industrial production that is too expensive and unnecessar
y to be manned. if both stopped bickering and tried to cooperate a solution mig
ht be found to improve both worlds.

=Nick=
[e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Feb 89 01:58:15 GMT
From: minke![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: arguments

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (nicholas c. hester) writes:
>the prestige and technology gained from manned flight is necessary
>politically in todays world

Manned spaceflight does not spin off more technology than unmanned.  The
fact that all private space industries are unmanned points to the reverse
being true.

Prestige is a matter of attitudes, which are changing.  People are realizing
that solid economic and scientific progress is in itself prestigious, while
the glamour of manned spaceflight has faded into expensive, meaningless
repitition.  Polls show that the public prefers unmanned planetary probes
over manned missions.

Nick Szabo              [e-mail]

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

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:     Tue, 21 Feb 89 11:36:07 -0900
Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Sender: <[e-mail]>
From: MARILYN R DUDLEY-ROWLEY          <[e-mail]>
Subject:  ANTHROPOLOGIST SEEKS ABDUCTEE INTERVIEWS

Professional  anthropologist  seeking  interviews  in  Alaska  or
Southeastern   United   States  with  those   believing   they've
participated  in  "the Visitor experience".   Must be willing  to
interview on tape,  although anonymity assured.   Willing to work
with   psychology   professionals  in  those   geographic   areas
interested in the phenomenon, and who might be counseling several
such clients at present.   This is a serious study,  and  serious
persons  need  apply.   Write me via electronic mail  or  Marilyn
Dudley-Rowley, 2664 Montana Road, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709.

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

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 89 13:20:42 SET
From: [e-mail]
Comment: CROSSNET mail via SMTP@INTERBIT
Subject: What ever happened to NERVA?

I would pose a question to the net.

In an old textbook ( Sutton-Ross (?), about 1970 ) I found an article
regarding the exploitation of nuclear energy in space technology. It was
full of expectations for the NERVA and Phoebus-2A nuclear rocket engines
( maybe Phoebus-2A was intended for for electric power production : I
don't know ). These engines were promising specific impulses about 800
sec., and there were also hints at far more advanced nuclear engines,
with a liquid or gaseous core, expected to attain as much as 3000 sec.
specific impulse.
I know for sure that prototypes of NERVA and Phoebus-2A were built and
ground-tested, even if they were never flown. I wish I could know : why
were these projects dropped ( I think they were, because I had never
heard about them before ) ?  Was it because of technical difficulties,
safety concerns, financial illness, political issues ( e.g. space-based
nuclear weapons prhibition treaty ) ?  Or what else ?  Are they a
definitively closed stage of propulsion systems technology ?

 Thank you in advance,

Gianluca Zanetti

  EARN/BITnet    T001119@ICNUCEVM

  Internet        [e-mail]
              or  [e-mail]
              or  [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Feb 89 21:37:23 GMT
From: minke![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: What ever happened to NERVA?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I know for sure that prototypes of NERVA and Phoebus-2A were built and
>ground-tested, even if they were never flown. I wish I could know : why
>were these projects dropped ( I think they were, because I had never
>heard about them before )?
I do not know exactly why they were dropped, other than the general budget
cutting going through the NASA and the DoD at the time.  I do know that
nuclear engines are still among our most promising space propulsion options,
and the research should be revived.

Nick Szabo              [e-mail]

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

Date: 20 Feb 89 16:29:19 GMT
From: haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu![e-mail]  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: State SPACEPAC rankings

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (stephen Samuel) writes:
}In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter Scott) writes:
}>>Subject: Spacepac ratings by State
}>>From: Scott Pace <[e-mail]>
}>>a rough measure of the Spacepac "rating" of each state.  Ratings of 70% or
}>>more were called pro-space, while 0-50% were called anti-space. This gave
}>>us 15 pro-space states, 9 anti-space states, and 26 "swing" states.
}>>The ranking was:
}>>California      66.5  [#20]
}> >Alaska          91    [#1]
}> although I was surprised somewhat by the poor standing of
}> >California      66.5  [#20]
}> but why in God's name is Alaska *first*, significantly beyond the pack??
} California, on the other hand, is just too COMFORTABLE. People in
}that state may tend to find it much easier to look towards things like
}social issues (civil rights, ecology, etc.).

I propose that the reason that Alaska is so high is the same reason that
California is so low - people are comfortable in California and want to
stay there, psople in Alaska are so un-comfortable that they want to get
out.

Besides, -80 degrees is not so unlike Mars!   ;-)



The above was test data, and not the responsibility of any organization.

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

Date: 21 Feb 89 14:15:43 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

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

>Don't forget that the first Shuttle/Centaur launch was only a few months
>away when Challenger was lost.  A shuttle-based plan made *today* cannot
>assume oxygen/hydrogen without orbital assembly or something like that,
>but before January 1986 oxygen/hydrogen was a reasonable choice of fuel.

It was reasonable only in the sense that NASA was saying that it was
reasonable.  NASA said lots of silly things -- like the shuttle having
a 1 in 10,000 (or was that 100,000?) chance per launch of blowing up.
That's down to 1 in 3000 now.  Some progress, I suppose.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Feb 89 23:29:04 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Current issue of Science

Nice issue on Atmospheric Science in Science 10 Feb. 1989.
Covers all aspects of the problems in independent way (perhaps
a disadvantage is that interactions aren't covered). Schneider's
article has a section on "Scientific Consensus" which basically says:
it's probable we will have greenhouse warming, but if you push us for details,
we can't help you, but we do need more research.  Back to benchmarking models.

Follow-ups directed to sci.environment.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, [e-mail]
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Post follow ups.  Contribute to network noise."

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

Date: 21 Feb 89 21:28:27 GMT
From: minke![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization

In article <58*[e-mail]> [e-mail] (bradley thompson) writes:
>My own personal
>experiences on low gravity aircraft [ KC135 in the USA, and
>the T33 in Canada] only support these beliefs. Every experiment
>I have personally flown has needed in flight repairs and/or
>modifications in protocol.

Airplane flights are very cheap compared to space flights, and man-tended
experiments make sense.  But in space, how many of the repairs can be made
real-time? Shuttle experience suggests not very many.  How many protocol
changes could be made through software uploads?  Quite a few.  Furthermore,
mixing experiments and people puts tremendous safety constraints on the
experiments.  For actual space experiments, it does not make sense to spend
billions of dollars for the minor added capability of man-tending.

>What I need is routine access to
>low gravity and cheap experiments. Note I am ommitting cheap
>launch costs. Experiments are usually low mass, therefore low
>launch cost.

Experiments are low mass; people and the extensive life support they
need are high mass.  This again illustrates why automated research
makes more sense.

>Companies need routine access to build business
>plans around.

Routine *and* inexpensive.  This is why all serious private space ventures are
unmanned, and will remain so (excepting expensive tourism) until a mature
mining and manufacturing infrastructure is developed in space.


Nick Szabo              [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #259
*******************

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #272
*******************