Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_2/V9_275.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/MY3thXy00UkZI20k4Y>;
          Sat,  4 Mar 89 03:16:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat,  4 Mar 89 03:16:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #275

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 275

Today's Topics:
              NSS Hotline Update 2/24/89
               RE: the un/manned debate
       Manned/unmanned projects and government funding
     Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization
               Re: the un/manned debate
            Photo identification?
               Re: the un/manned debate
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 89 04:26:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp![e-mail]
Subject: NSS Hotline Update 2/24/89



This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline for the Week
ending 2/24/89

In Washington.....
Last Wed. Office of Management & Budget Director Richard Darman
testified on NASA's FY 90 Budget to the House Budget Committee
Hearing.  Stating that, "the only way to save any significant
money from the NASA budget would be to cut the space station
program, and stretch it out over a longer time line.  That would
be equivalent to killing it, and Office of Management & Budget
doesn't want to do that.  The space program is critical in the
investment of our future.  Investment in space is an investment
in our children's future, its a good policy and a good budget".
In closing remarks he stated the we should not allow the US to
take a back seat in new technologies, and exploring a new
frontier.

Its been rumored that Henry Cooper will be named by President
Bush to Head the National Space Council.  Henry Cooper was a
State Department official with a background in military space
activities.  He served as a arms control negotiator for defense
and space issues.  No decision has been made, but he is a leading
candidate for the position of executive secretary of the National
Space Council.

In response to the Bush Administration's line by line acceptance
of the NASA budget Sen. Lloyd Bensten stated it will be taught to
sell the NASA increases to a Congress that is mainly concerned
with deficits.  He called on NASA's administrator to try to win
support for the agency's need for additional funding.

At Kennedy Space Center:

On the Orbiter Discovery technicians are finishing up the last
connections to the third oxidizer turbo pump, while workers
installed heat shields around the other two main engines.  On
Sunday pre-launch operations will commence, including
pressurization of the orbital maneuvering system and reaction
control system.  Flight readiness tests will be conducted on the
orbiter and the TDRS's IUS.  The tests will determine weather the
orbiter and payload are ready for flight.

The orbiter Atlantis had her flight controls tested and
activities regarding the checkout of main propulsion system, tile
inspections and waterproofing are continuing.

A faulty electrical power supply was found in the Magellan Venus
radar mapper booster, last Wed.  This was another small but
frustrating problem that technicians say have been slowing down
preparation of the probe for its April 28 launch.  The IUS will
probably have to be disconnected from the spacecraft in order to
replace the burnt out component.  NASA must launch the probe
during the April 28 to May 28 launch window, or wait two years
before the planets return to closer positions.  The launch is
still scheduled for April 28th.

NASA has accepted 24 out of 455 proposed experiments to go on its
Earth Observing polar platform.  550 scientist from 168 different
institutions, from over 13 countries will be participating in the
program.  The platform is scheduled to be launched in 1996, and
will be coordinated with the Space Station.

The Air Force released a report last Fri. that stated there is a
growing problem with all the debris in orbit about the Earth.
The 71,000 pieces of debris larger that 4 inches in diameter and
the 17,500 smaller pieces pose a dangerous threat to operating
spacecraft, especially manned.

The Bush administration proposes $190.5 million for increased
research of global temperature changes caused by the greenhouse
effect.  The money will be split between nine federal agencies
including the NSF, DoE, EPA and NASA.

Currently NASA managers are asking Congress for $6.8 million this
year to increase work on the 10 year, $85 million Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence program.  The program will search
800 stars that fall within 480 trillion miles of Earth, and that
resemble the sun. In addition the program will perform a lower
intensity survey of the full sky.

On an interview with Moscow Radio Buran Space Shuttle designer,
Yuri Semonyou, stated that the next flight of Buran will probably
be unmanned like it previous voyage.  In addition he believed
that there could be interaction between the Buran and the Mir
Space Platform.

The USSR's probe Phobos has relayed to Earth the first images of
Mars's moon Phobos.  Nine high-quality television images of
Phobos at various angles.  The information will be used to orbit
the probe about Phobos, so that it will deploy its two landers.

Lastly a documentary called "SPACE WORKERS" will be aired on
public television Mon. Feb. 27.  The program features NASA
employees and space activists that have helped in shaping the US
Civil Space program.  Please consult you local listings for show
time.

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

Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 18:31 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: the un/manned debate

    I just read the march 1989 Scientific American article "U.S. Access
    to Space".  This is a companion to last month's article on the Soviet
    space program.  The march article describes the "Shuttle-C" which
    has not been extensively discussed on the net.

    Currently Henry Spencer and Paul Dietz and others are engaged in
    a protracted debate on the merits of manned vs. unmanned space
    exploration.  I would suggest that without agreeing on the long
    term issue, both groups should agree that the Shuttle-C deserves
    to be built as quickly as possible.

    At $1.5B it is a relatively cheap project. (Sci.Am p.38)  This is
    perhaps the cost of three shuttle launches (P.37)  At 100-150K lift
    this is definately a heavy lift vehicle.  I see the following
    advantages:

    Manned Space Exploration:  The capacity to lift large payloads is
    essential to manned space exploration.  Complete moonbase or space
    station modules could be lifted with shuttle-c, while shuttle requires
    in space assembly, which greatly increases risks and expense.
    Furthermore, dangerous supplies (such as fuel) would be needed for
    a moonbase/mars mission and these cannot be lifted with shuttle
    due to safety considerations.

    Unmanned Space Exploration:  The capacity to lift large payloads
    greatly increases the prospects for unmanned space exploration.
    Small probes can accomplish a lot, but larger probes have a number
    of advantages.  Guidance, power and communication componants are
    required for all probes, but these fixed expenses can be amortized
    over a larger number of scientific packages on a large probe.  IN
    a large probe redundancy of critical subsystems requires a smaller
    percentage of weight and cost.  Furthermore, dangerous but useful
    componants (such as lithium batteries) cannot be lifted on the shuttle.

    It seems to me that everyone who wants any kind of ambitious space
    exploration should strongly support the shuttle-C.  It is the only
    near term proposal for a new heavy lift launcher.  Capacity is similar
    to or greater than the Saturn V.  Using at least partially reusable
    componants (shuttle boosters) should result in some cost savings.
     Using already exising componants (boosters/engines) also saves
    bucks and further amortizes the original shuttle development costs.
     Fully fueled pre-challenger boosters could be used without upgrading
    them.

    The "proponants maintain that the vehicle could be operational as
    early as 1994 and estimate that it could lift between 100,000 and
    150,000 pounds to the space station's orbit" (S.A. P.38).
    This should be something that everyone in this discussion group
    should clearly and vocally support.

    Chris Eliot
    University of Massachusetts at Amherst

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

Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 22:16:52 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Manned/unmanned projects and government funding


>Government should provide funds for both exploration (as it did for Lewis
>and Clark et. al.) and basic research.  Furthermore, it should provide
>incentives for the creation of new industries, as with the railroad (c.
>1840-1870) and air transportation in the 1930's.  It should not own or
>operate these industries.

>Translating these policies into the current space program, the government
>should fund scientific missions (eg planetary probes, Mission to Planet
>Earth) based on their science return, and basic R&D to develop better
>technology for future scientific and commercial applications.  It should
>subsidize new industries of large potential by providing garunteed purchases,
>tax breaks, patents, import quotas, etc. to the extent that these measures
>do not harm other new industries.
(2 more paragraphs)
>Nick Szabo              [e-mail]

This appears to be a very reasonable presentation of the proper role
of government in research and development, and largely corresponds with
my own ideas on the subject. However, for actual application of these
principles, another factor must be included: politics. There is limited
funding available, and competition for it is intense. Strong political
pressure is generally required for approval of any funded project. This
pressure has additional leverage if it is from a powerful organization
within the government. It is also important to consider the effects of
politics within a government research organization. There may, for
instance, be more concern for continued funding (survival) than for
spending the money in the most efficient manner. There may be excessive
caution, to prevent politically harmful mistakes. When a budget is tight,
the organization may try to kill or restrict some projects to save others,
and the leaders of the organization may have an unjustified bias toward
or against certain areas of research. The organization may also try to
discourage private competition.

It is clear that many areas of space research must be funded by the
government if they are to be pursued at all in the near future, because
they offer no direct short-term financial benefits. Included in these
are exploration of the solar system by unmanned probes, and research
on human occupation of space. NASA, as a moderately powerful organization
within the government, has caused many billions of dollars to be spent
on space exploration that would have otherwise been spent on things
unrelated to space. Whether the collective influence of NASA has been
helpful or harmful in the long run to any specific area of space exploration
is open to debate. However, NASA has justified, and Congress has approved
its current budget largely in terms of the manned space program, with some
additional funding for the unmanned effort. Given this history, and the
known characteristics of Congress, it is simplistic to assume that taking
away the funding for manned exploration would result in all the money being
added to the unmanned program. There might be some increase, but the overall
space budget would probably be greatly reduced, to the sorrow of the large
portion of the population that favors both manned and unmanned exploration.

NASA has previously discouraged private competition for launch services.
Hopefully, this is coming to an end, and we are at the beginning of an
era in which numerous private companies compete, at first for government
launches, then later for service to industry.

In times of severe budget difficulties, NASA has tended to favor the
manned program over the unmanned program, and many claim that it always
does so to an unreasonable degree. Perhaps this situation could be alleviated
if a single agency were to be split off from NASA, dedicated to Space Science
or a similar category. This agency could initially be given the part of the
NASA budget dedicated to unmanned exploration (and maybe several other areas).
To launch its payloads, it could use private launch services or university
contracts. Having many areas of common interest, it would continue to
interact with NASA, as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission interacts with the
other descendent of its parent organization, the Atomic Energy Commission.
After the initial period, this agency would compete directly for the general
funding along with NASA and the other major government organizations. The
public, through its representatives in Congress, could show its relative
support for the manned and unmanned programs by the relative funding
approved for NASA and the new agency. Optimistically (from a space
enthusiast's viewpoint) the combined research budgets would be larger than
the current NASA research budget.

                                    John Roberts
                                    [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Feb 89 17:28:00 GMT
From: cwjcc!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:
>> >What prevents you from using a tele-operated rig?
>
>> The complete lack of an adequate, workable "tele-operated rig" available
>> as reliable off-the-shelf hardware, perhaps?
>
>The time has never been better to develop an orbiting, tele-operated
>materials-processing and biological experimentation laboratory. With
>skillful miniaturization, an unmanned laboratory could be lofted
>by a fairly small, and thus inexpensive, expendable launcher...

In, say, 1999, when development of the laboratory is complete.  If then.
This is *well beyond* current teleoperator technology (defined as the
technology that is well understood and reliable enough for production
use, as opposed to laboratory experimental devices), assuming that you
are talking about a teleoperator system that can deal with unexpected
problems (i.e. the need to repair equipment) rather than just moving
samples around.

I agree that the teleoperator development in question is worth pursuing.
But it should not be confused with alternatives that are available now.
--
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 10:39:24 PDT
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"[e-mail]"

uhccux![e-mail]  (Greg Lee) writes:

>Right.  If you want people to be willing to invest in space, you
>have to give them back something they value for their investment,
>or at least promise to do so shortly.  I've been following this
>discussion since forever waiting for someone to point out the
>obvious source for such value.  It's entertainment.  Movies filmed
>on Mars.  Curios carved from Deimos rocks.  Contest -- Win a 2-day
>vacation on the Moon!

Of course... if people want a nine-mile high statue of Elvis on Mars, then
By Golly, let's give 'em one!   :-)

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

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

Date: 27 Feb 89 05:26:47 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Paul L Schauble)
Subject: Photo identification?

Someone handed me copies of two satellite photos. These have identification
lines reading
  1615 26FE79 35A-2   00952 23132 SB39N121W-2
  1645 26FE79 35A-2   00954 23132 SB39N121W-2

Can anyone tell me how do decode this? Can you tell me where these came from?
I'd like to see if other images, perhaps in other spectral bands, are available
of the same area.

  ++PLS

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

Date: 27 Feb 89 00:22:14 GMT
From: orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!venera.isi.edu!aero!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo![e-mail]  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>My argument was that "manned space R&D" does not exist right now, because it
>is not funded through peer review.  I am in favor of setting up a true
>manned space R&D project.

This is the central point I've been trying to make in my postings. Manned
space R&D in general is worthwhile now. I agree however that the program as
it is *currently* constituted is not returning and will not return results
worth what the program costs. That said I'd like to say the following in
defense of NASA's program. First that the shuttle has yielded and the station
will yield valuble data, although to reiterate, the amount of money NASA is
spending could accomplish much more. Second, given that the only currently
practical source of billions of dollars for space is the government, a large
amount of waste is to be expected.

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John McKernan) writes:
>>manned space needs
>>inexpensive access to space for large amounts of mass much more than unmanned.
>>You can't miniaturize people.
>
>My point exactly.  True manned spaceflight must await drops of at least two
>orders of magnitude in launch cost, plus space infrastructure to support us
>when we get out there.  Unmanned projects can start today exploring the solar
>system and building that infrastructure.  The longer the unmanned projects
>wait, the longer people will wait.  Let's start now.

An orders of magnitude reduction in launch costs, followed by the construction
of an off earth infrastructure (in space, on Mars, on the moon, wherever)
sounds like an excellent *manned* program to me. As you say, we should start
now. And certainly the unmanned program should continue exploring the solar
system, with maximum financial support.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.signature currently under government sponsored basic research. Results
guaranteed to advance science, satisfy every special interest group, generate
2000 times the wealth expended, and show up the Russians expected REAL SOON NOW.

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #275
*******************