Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_0/V10_070.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 15KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.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/AZ7PPUS00VcJE4fU4W>;
          Mon, 25 Sep 89 01:25:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 89 01:25:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #70

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 10 : Issue 70

Today's Topics:
    Alternative Space Goals, Anyone? (was Re: SpaceCause)
            Re: Linguistic Tidbits
         NASA Headline News for 09/13/89 (Forwarded)
      Re: Alternative Space Goals, Anyone? (was Re: SpaceCause)
            Re: Edgar Rice Quayle on Mars.
         Re: Frequently asked SPACE questions
            Re: Alternate Voyager Missions
            Re: sterilized probes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 89 01:37:41 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Alternative Space Goals, Anyone? (was Re: SpaceCause)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Elijah Millgram) writes:
>>
>>>I have started getting junk mail from an organization called
>>>SpaceCause.
>>
>>>4.  What are the organizations policy slants?  What particular
>>>projects do they support?  And which ones do they oppose?
>>
>>They basically use the policy platform of the NATIONAL SPACE SOCIETY.
>>The closest thing to that (if you don't have NSS' position statements)
>>is the National Commission on Space.  That is to say, SPACE STATION,
>>MOON, and MARS are the three main goals.
>
>Ah, The Plan.  Spend hundreds of billions of dollars on three narrow,
>obsolete, but extravagently expensive projects, while real science, real
>R&D, real space exploration, and real space industry starve.  The same 3
>stupid goals that NASA has had ever since the 60's, that NASA has been
>wasting tens of billions on since the 60's, that NASA is no closer to now
>than in the 60's.  How much longer must we suffer, Oh Lord?

OK, what goals do *you* think NASA (and/or the private space industry)
should be pursuing?

It would be nice if the anti-NASA individuals on the net could put
together a list of alternative space goals (public sector, private
sector, or both) rather than just bashing NASA.  If you think NASA
should be completely disbanded, then what type of private sector
corporations / organizations do you want to take the lead in space
development?

Personally, I think NASA has clearly made some major mistakes and
suffers from all of the problems of being a large bureaucracy (worse
yet, a large, *government* bureaucracy), but I have yet to see any
long-range plan that provides a better alternative.

More funding for robotic space probes would definitely help both space
science and space exploration, and companies like AMROC, SSI, and
OSC/Hercules seem to be on the right track towards providing low-cost
access to orbit.

These are important first steps, but what's next in the Alternative
Agenda for space development?

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 17:06:02 GMT
From: frooz![e-mail]  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: Linguistic Tidbits

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Nichael Cramer):
> As a brief aside, somewhere ("Intelligent Life in the Universe" ?) Sagan
> suggests the adjective "Cytherean" --from Cytherea, the island where
> Venus/Aphrodite was "born"-- to describe things connected with Venus.  In
> part because the adjective form of "Venus" is "Venereal" and he refused to
> accept the neologism "Venusian".

The planets known in classical times have two adjectival forms:
  Mercurian  mercurial
  Venerian   venereal  (Venerean is an obsolete spelling of the first form)
  Martian    martial
  Jovian     jovial
  Saturnian  saturnine  (why not saturnial???)

The first form (capitalized in Merriam-Webster but often seen
uncapitalized) refers to the planet; the second form refers to the
supposed characteristics of the god or goddess.

Oddly enough, the corresponding adjective for the Earth, "tellurian,"
is NOT capitalized in M-W.  More commonly used is "telluric."  I have
never heard of "tellurial" or any corresponding adjective.  [Though I
have a feeling that I might be about to ... :-) ]

These are all from Latin, not Greek.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Willner            Phone [phone]         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 21:43:03 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Headline News for 09/13/89 (Forwarded)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                         NASA Headline News
Wednesday, Sept. 13, 1989                     Audio: 202/755-1788
-----------------------------------------------------------------


This is NASA Headline News for Wednesday, September 13....


A Senate Appropriations Subcommittee has approved $1.85 billion
for Space Station funding.  The markup of the NASA budget of
$12.3 billion will provide for what Maryland Senator Barbara
Mikulski calls a "no frills space station....one that can
fly...meet preliminary missions and meet international
agreements".

The $1.85 billion was the amount described by NASA Administrator
Richard Truly as the absolute minimum needed.  Any less would
have required extensive restructuring of the station.

The full Appropriations Committee is exected to take up the
appropriations bill today...making it possible for a Senate floor
vote on the NASA appropriations bill by the end of this week.



Prelaunch activities for the STS-34 Space Shuttle mission
continue at Kennedy Space Center.  Fueling of the Orbital
Maneuvering System and Reaction Control System storage tanks has
been completed.  Preparations are now underway to begin the
Terminal Countdown Demonstration Test with a call to stations at
8:00 A.M., Thursday.

Today, Galileo spacecraft on-board science instruments are being
checked.  The probe experiment will undergo a similar check
tomorrow.

The STS-34 astronauts met briefly with the media this morning
prior to getting ready for their participation in the countdown
test Friday morning.  Mission Commander Donald Williams said as
far as he knows..."everything is ready to go"... for an October
12 launch and the crew is looking forward to it.

In Washington yesterday, a half-dozen anti-nuclear protesters,
carrying signs against the launch of Galileo, handed out flyers
at NASA Headquarters for about an hour before leaving.



          *           *           *           *






-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA
Select television.   All times are Eastern.


Thursday, September 14......

     12:30 P.M.    Please note:  NASA Update will be transmitted
                   one hour later than it's regularly scheduled
                   time.   Repeating...NASA Update will be
                   transmitted one hour later than usual....at
                   12:30 P.M.


Friday, September 15.....

      6:00 A.M.    Final hours of the Countdown Demonstration
                   Test from KSC with STS-34 crew participating.
                   approximately 6 hours in duration.


All events and times are subject to change without notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC), NASA
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 04:50:25 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Alternative Space Goals, Anyone? (was Re: SpaceCause)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>It would be nice if the anti-NASA individuals on the net could put
>together a list of alternative space goals (public sector, private
>sector, or both) rather than just bashing NASA.  If you think NASA
>should be completely disbanded, then what type of private sector
>corporations / organizations do you want to take the lead in space
>development?

This may miss the point on several counts.

First, saying NASA is the wrong means does not require that one concoct
different ends as well.  One might take the position that everything
NASA wants to do is terrific, only NASA ought to go out of business
so the things could be done, right.

Second, DICTATING space goals may be the underlying problem.  If you
proceed from the assumption that someone gets to make and enforce some
*policy* about what's going to happen in space, then you are ultimately
forced to re-invent NASA even if you started by abandoning it.  NASA
is the avatar and logical culmination of "top-down" space exploration.
You can scrub its little face and tug a frilly frock over its misshapen
shoulders, but it'll always be a gummint agency.

A truly alternative approach would be to say, Nobody is deterred from
doing anything they want in space, period.  USG will continue to
underwrite basic research into materials and methods, but will not
"explore space" per se except for JPL's unmanned probes.  If space
is intrinsically unprofitable and uninteresting to those who could
afford to go there, then the hell with it.  If it's worth it to someone,
then let them go and Godspeed the journey.

After thirty years of a non-policy like this, the US would have a presence
in space exactly the size it's capable of maintaining in good health.
Nobody's money would be wasted, and nobody's Eldorado fenced off with
red tape.


--
Annex Canada now!  We need the room,    \)    Tom Neff
    and who's going to stop us.        (\    [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 14:51:08 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx![e-mail]  (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
Subject: Re: Edgar Rice Quayle on Mars.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (daniel mocsny) writes:
>
> The two US presidents with the highest IQ's were, I believe,
> Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter. If Quayle ascends to the presidency,
> can we expect to enter an unprecedented time of prosperity?

There is a story, attributed to Kennedy, that while hosting a gathering
of academic leaders he commented that the White House had not hosted
such a gathering of intellect since Thomas Jefferson dined there, alone.

However, whatever else may follow from Quayle's evident stupidity, it
worries me intensely that such a man is in charge of setting goals for
the US space program.

--
 I'm not afraid of dying     Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas
 I just don't want to be     {charm,ut-sally,emx,noao}!utastro!ethan
 there when it happens.      (arpanet) [e-mail]
    - Woody Allen            (bitnet) [e-mail]

These must be my opinions.  Who else would bother?

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 15:36:05 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Frequently asked SPACE questions

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

>The real reason that everyone in management
>at KSC keeps spouting this lie is to keep a lid on the fact that they all
>GOOFED when we went to STS, and that their fat-ass salaries chew up most of
>the damn budget. No :-)'s here, check it out....

I'm an engineer and not a great defender of management, but I _have_
to point out that most NASA managers, particularly at the center
level, make less than $100,000 per year.  Here at Dryden, more of the
salary budget is spent on engineers' and technicians' salaries than on
managers' salaries.

Among the other perks of government service are cabin class travel,
early-1970's reimbursement rates for hotels, lowest-bidder airlines,
obsolete infrastructure, drug testing, and abuse from a lot of
assholes.

Not even the incompetents work here for the money.  Or the perks.
--
Mary Shafer   [e-mail]  ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
         NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
                    Of course I don't speak for NASA

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 20:16:11 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Alternate Voyager Missions

An idea for painting a 3-D gravitational portrait of the Solar System
(and thus perhaps detect any unknown bodies) would be to send a
"fragmentation probe" at Jupiter: before the J-encounter it would mirv
into about 20 probelets each armed with nothing but a radio.  Each would
approach on a slightly different trajectory so as to "burst" in all
different directions after the gravity assist.  Then you just sit back
and track them for a few decades.  Any perturbations should be a snap
to triangulate.

Or, if they all bounce real hard at 250AU and start coming back, we'll
know our solar system model needs some work. :-)
--
Annex Canada now!  We need the room,    \)    Tom Neff
    and who's going to stop us.        (\    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 89 22:05:17 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: sterilized probes


>From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
>Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized???

>I also think we shouldn't take too much responsibility for keeping
>Jupiter pristine.  Junk flies all over the solar system, as witness the
>Mars "sample return missions" to the Ross ice shelf.  Jupiter's probably
>seen it all before.

I think this is likely. There are several proposed natural mechanisms by
which microorganisms could be thrown off the earth into space. There are
also proposed mechanisms by which extraterrestrial spores could have made
it from space onto the surface of the earth billions of years ago. I haven't
heard of any direct evidence that life originally sprang spontaneously from
nonliving matter on the earth.

Whether microorganisms from earth could survive on Jupiter is a separate
question.

I also doubt that the tiny amount of plutonium involved would have any
significant influence. Presumably large amounts of radioactive material
fall into Jupiter every day.

                         John Roberts
                         [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #70
*******************