Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_0/V10_088.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 16KB

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/sZ8mNy:00VcJ8CN04X>;
          Fri, 29 Sep 89 04:23:27 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 89 04:23:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #88

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 10 : Issue 88

Today's Topics:
        Department of Transportation Testimony
          Neptune Moons and Rings...Where are they?
            Re: public statements
            Re: Re: Saturn V & F-1
     Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized???
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 89 22:05:03 GMT
From: usc!venera.isi.edu![e-mail]  (Craig E. Ward)
Subject: Department of Transportation Testimony

Below is the statement I read into the record at a DOT field hearing for a
new National Space Policy.

It was the first time that I've done anything like that and it was an
interesting experience.  This kind of activity is important for the long term
success of space development.

I was notified of the hearings by Scott Pace, NSS Legislative Committee
Chair.  He sent me some background materials (not enough as it turned out).
This particular branch of the field hearings had already been to Chicago and
Seattle and Scott wanted to make sure that the DOT people got hit again to
emphasize that space should be an important part of a National Transportation
Policy.

This statement is modeled after the statement given by the Seattle NSS people;
however, I tried to give it some local flavor -- reading them the same thing
would be less effective.

After reading the statement, I asked some questions of the panel.  The most
important one concerned the Space Transportation Services Purchase Act.
Unfortunately, the act does not have strong administration support.  While
the panelists knew about the act, none of them knew what the administration's
position on it was.

Before I gave up the mike, a representative of the OCST came forward and
asked *me* a question.  She wanted to know what the NSS position was on an
amendment from Rep. Sensenbrenner that would prohibit American launches from
the Australian Spaceport at Cape York.  I had to say I didn't know but that
it seemed a silly thing to me.  (I asked Scott about it later and I was
basically right -- Scott just had better reasons.)

I am now the local Spacepac/Spacecause coordinator for the Greater LA area
and I intend to keep track of these things better so that we can do a better
job in the future.

(People in the Southern California area who are interested in political
activism should contact me.  We have lots of things that need to be done!)
******
                             STATEMENT BEFORE THE
                         DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
                  INNOVATION AND HUMAN FACTORS CLUSTER GROUP
                                FIELD HEARINGS
                              IRVINE, CALIFORNIA
                                24 AUGUST 1989

I  am  here  today  on  behalf of the Organization for the Advancement of Space
Industrialization and Settlement (OASIS), the chapter  of  the  National  Space
Society (NSS) responsible for this area, and the National Space Society.  OASIS
is a non-profit public education group of approximately 200  of  the  1200  NSS
members in Los Angeles and Orange Counties.

Some  of the traditional topics of transportation include trucks, ships, roads,
railways and airplanes; traditional, that is, to the late 20th century.    Some
of  the  things we take for granted today did not exist as this century opened;
others have been radically altered.  These changes have not always come  easily
or  naturally.    Today  a  machine  of human manufacture is making its closest
approach to the planet Neptune and as Voyager  2  reminds  us  that  things  do
change,  I  would like to draw attention to some of the issues that face us now
so that we can prepare for the next century.

These issues are in the realm of space transportation.  It is important that we
address theses issues now while we have a clean slate so that twenty years from
now we do not need to hold hearings  on  how  to  extract  ourselves  from  the
tangled mess we will find ourselves.

It  is  the  position of the National Space Society that the United States must
take a leading role in development of space transportation.  The Department  of
Transportation  can  play  a  major  role  in  this  by incorporating into it's
National  Transportation  Policy  strong  support  for   space   transportation
including  (1)  a  strong  Office  of Commercial Space Transportation, (2) bold
initiatives to establish reasonable commercial liability limits for third party
launch  insurance and damage to government property insurance, and (3) a launch
site survey and land bank program to  identify  and  preserve  potential  space
launch sites for future use.

DOT  has  a  unique  responsibility  and  opportunity  to guide America's space
transportation policy.  The establishment of the DOT Office of Commercial Space
Transportation  in  the Commercial Space Launch Act gave DOT the responsibility
to: (1) license, regulate, and promote US  commercial  launch  operations;  (2)
analyze  and  establish  commercial  launch  liability  limits; and (3) license
launch sites and launch operators at commercial US launch sites.  Further,  the
1988  National  Space  Policy  identifies DOT as the lead agency for developing
federal policy and regulatory guidance  for  commercial  launch  activities  in
consultation  with  other  relevant  institutions  such  as  NASA,  DOD and the
Congress.

A well funded and staffed OCST is  essential  to  adequately  carry  out  these
responsibilities.  Many answers to space transportation questions are yet to be
found.  Ongoing research and  planning  will  be  necessary  to  address  these
issues.    A  strong  OCST  is the foundation on which DOT space transportation
policy should rest.

The questions of liability and insurance limits are key to  the  viability  and
success  of our nation's commercial space development.  Space transportation is
international is scope and the Warsaw Convention covering air  carriers  should
be  used  as  a  model  for  how  to  set proper limits to space transportation
insurance liability.  By limiting liability the  government  can  bring  launch
insurance costs within reach of private companies.

The  Commercial  Space  Launch  Act  grants the authority to regulate insurance
requirements to the OCST.  The OCST, and not the Air Force, is the  appropriate
organization  to  set  these  requirements and the OCST must assert its role on
this issue.

To maintain and foster the US  position  in  commercial  space  transportation,
action  must be taken now to identify and set aside sites for future commercial
launch facilities.  Landbanking these sites now will insure their  availability
as the US commercial launch industry matures.

It  should  be  noted  that  other nations are pursuing these actions now.  One
notable example is the  preparation  of  Port  York  on  the  northern  tip  of
Austriala's  Cape  York.    The  plans call for this site to be functioning for
commercial activities by the turn of the century, a time that  is  just  around
the corner.

Beyond the obvious economic and commercial benefits of a sound space policy are
the benefits to the imagination and education  of  our  youth.    Space  is  an
exciting   place.    Thoughts  about  the  machines  that  take  us  there  and
possibilities of being there are great motivators to young people to  excel  in
learning.    I see this directly when I man the chapter table at events such as
Rockwell International's Family Nights.  Almost every time there is  a  boy  or
girl  scout troup attending.  The joy and excitement on their faces as the look
at the full scale shuttle mockup is obvious.  They invariably as a lot of  good
questions.  They want to go.

Some  of  the issues of space transportation have not yet made themselves know.
Transportation issues have a history of changing as the machines and  needs  of
humanity  change.    I and the organizations that sent me wish to thank you for
allowing us the opportunity to speak on these issues  as  they  are  understood
today.

Craig E. Ward
--
====================================================================
ARPA:     Craig E. Ward <[e-mail]>
PHONE:    [phone] ext. 111
USPS:    USC Information Sciences Institute
    4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1100
    Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Slogan:    "nemo me impune lacessit"
====================================================================

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

Date: 21 Sep 89 19:21:23 GMT
From: hubcap![e-mail]  (Robert M. Panoff)
Subject: Neptune Moons and Rings...Where are they?


I am posting this for a friend.  Please reply BY MAIL to
[e-mail]    Thanks in advance. rmp

- - - - - - -

I need the orbital and physical parameters for the new moons of Neptune
and its rings.  I would also like to know the particle distribution of
the rings.  If someone could either send these to me or point me in the
right direction, I would be very grateful.

Dr. P. J. Flower
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Clemson University
[phone]
--
rmp, for the Bob's of the World

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

Date: Thu, 21 Sep 89 20:37:13 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: public statements


>From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx![e-mail]  (Greg Goebel)
>Subject: ATTN NASA Personnel

>I realize that speaking frankly in a large organization can be very dangerous
>(I always think twice or three times before saying anything that even could
>be misinterpreted as sounding bad about HP!) so I suggest email would make
>more sense than posting responses.  All such responses would be in strictest
>confidence; I might consider a posting summarizing the responses I got, but
>I would make no quotes, name no names, and make no references to specifics
>that might identify a particular individual unless specifically authorized to
>do so.
>    | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd                                         |

Large organizations have several incentives (besides fear of whistle-blowers)
to be uneasy about random employees making random statements to the public.
A major reason is the possibility that such statements will be taken as
official announcements reflecting the policies of the entire organization.
(Our mailer automatically adds a disclaimer to this effect, so we don't have
to.) A second reason is to avoid liability. (A person wishing to stick his face
in a fan calls the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the janitor who
picks up the phone says, "Go ahead! It's perfectly safe!") A third reason is
the tendency for employees to "borrow" the reputation of their organization
to lend weight to their own statements. ("I work for NIST, so this book on
computer standards that I wrote in my spare time and am offering for sale
is obviously authoritative.") There are also occasional internal memos
distributed describing tentative decisions, negotiations in progress, etc.
which note that they are not for release to the public. The government does
not usually seem to be too restrictive on the release of information that is
not classified or "sensitive", but it does insist on the proper disclaimers.
(At least, that's what they tell us :-) There are also certain restrictions
and customs pertaining to the use of the government-sponsored Internet.
                                    John Roberts
                                    [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Sep 89 22:41:31 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx![e-mail]  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Re: Saturn V & F-1

In article <[e-mail]> David Palmer writes:

>Why not just license the Energiya design from the U.S.S.R.?  This would
>have multiple effects.
  .
  .
  .
  .
>    3) It would shock the US gov't into saying 'How did they get so
>        far ahead?'  (They will, of course, blame Drugs, the
>        Democrats, the Republicans, the lack of prayer in the schools,
>        flag burners, commies, pornographers, feminists, the
>        military-industrial-complex, and The Queen Of England.


Don't forget the "evil NRA" and the "evil assault rifle"! :-)







Neal    I am the NRA!        [e-mail]

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

Date: 19 Sep 89 16:49:32 GMT
From: uccba!uceng![e-mail]  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized???

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Rodman) writes:
> Everyone

except the Jovians, presumably

> agrees the probability of wiping out any
> possible Jovian life is small. The question is: at what level is
> the "risk" acceptable?

Is the official motive here compassion, or the desire to preserve
extraterrestrial life in a pristine state so we may study it?
Exobiologists have been waiting a long time for something to
investigate (keeping a scientific discipline going for any length of
time on sheer speculation is not easy, I guess). Extraterrestrial
life, if it exists, would likely be different than terrestrial life
(perhaps dramatically so). This would yield important knowledge,
perhaps revolutionizing many of our ideas about life and how it may
have originated.  With only one data point so far, we still haven't
the foggiest clue of just how probable we are.

If compassion is our motive, then why are we going into space at all?
One only needs to review the record of Man the Explorer to see that
the most compassionate thing we could possibly do for the Jovians
would be to stay home.

> IMHO, the risk is very, very, small, but the _possible_ is quite
> horrific (although we'd probably never know it).  I think
> some sort of planetary Golden Rule applies here: I would like the earth
> to be treated the same way by any other life forms, please.

I appreciate this religious sentiment, but I'm having a very hard time
imagining any realistic scenario where our behavior toward
extraterrestrial life is going to have any effect on the behavior of
other ET life toward us. Perhaps someone could enlighten me, without
anthropomorphizing too much? (I.e., I don't want to hear about a space
fleet landing on the White House lawn, and announcing "You naughty bad
humans...") In any case, we have already run up such a tab on Planet
Earth that we hardly need to waste anyone else to seal our guilt in
these bogeyman scenarios.

> Also, IMHO, I tend to think the probability of Jovian life is at least
> as great as Martian life.

Me too: zero. :-)

I do wonder, though, about the chance that terrestrial matter may have
been blasted by meteorites into orbit around the sun and later fallen
on, say, Mars. Could earth bugs survive such an ordeal?

> Jupiter has a lot more interesting raw
> materials and sources of energy, granted the chemistry would be
> different. Given that we don't know much about the origins of life, we
> really should have sterilized the probe.  Is that really a lot to ask?

Well, I agree that we shouldn't go fouling up another planet until
we have at least some idea of what we are fouling up. But that never
stopped us before, and you can bet it won't stop us in the long run.
Do you suppose that the Jupiter bugs are going to have a bleeding
chance once we start industrializing space in a big way? Jupiter
bugs could yield priceless knowledge, but they sure aren't going
to like what happens to neighborhood when we move in.

Dan Mocsny
[e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #88
*******************