Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V12_6/V12_714.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 18KB

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/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/QbUN47m00VcJQ2m04A>;
          Wed,  2 Jan 1991 02:51:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  2 Jan 1991 02:50:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #714

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 714

Today's Topics:
          Why didn't I think of that!?@#$%!
          Re: MIR lottery (erh sweepstakes)
          Re: MIR lottery (erh sweepstakes)
            Re: Planetary Society
        Re: Why didn't I think of that!?@#$%!

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 08:00:36 PST
From: [e-mail]
X-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::AMES::"[e-mail]"
Subject: Why didn't I think of that!?@#$%!
To: [e-mail]

    Bonk yourself on the head for not having thought of this!!!  For those
who haven't already heard, a company called Space Travel Inc. now has a 900
number for a sweepstakes to hitch a ride on the MIR at $2.99 a call.  I've only
heard about this on the radio news, so of course they didn't give the number.
Anybody out there know?  Is it 1-900-GO-MIR...no, not enough numbers.  1-900-
BR-549...no, that's Junior Sample's Used Car Emporium.  1-900-PERESTROIKA...
no, way too many numbers.  1-900-FOR-FOOD...hmmm...

_____________
Dale M. Greer, whose opinions are not to be confused with those of the
Center for Space Sciences, U.T. at Dallas, UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER
"From an historical basis, Middle East conflicts do not last a long time."
                                                              --Dan Quayle

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 18 Dec 90 21:58:00 GMT
From: sdcc6!beowulf![e-mail]  (Bernd Stramm)
Subject: Re: MIR lottery (erh sweepstakes)
References: <9012181903.AA00726@tilde>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Does 9track + 8mm = 9mm + 8track?) writes:

>Just heard on NPR this morning that Space Sciences is having a lott- erh
>sweepstakes.  The prize is a trip on MIR.  Costs $3 to call their 900 number.
>They expect to get 20-25000 calls.  My wife's comment was "Not a bad profit!"

I just heard on CNN that the Soviets claim to know nothing about this.
I forget which Soviets exactly they asked. You may want to hold on to
your $3 for a bit.

Bernd

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 19 Dec 90 00:02:16 GMT
From: lib![e-mail]  (Jay Maynard)
Organization: University of Texas Medical School at Houston
Subject: Re: MIR lottery (erh sweepstakes)
References: <9012181903.AA00726@tilde>, <stramm.661557480@beowulf>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <stramm.661557480@beowulf> [e-mail] (Bernd Stramm) writes:
>[e-mail] (Does 9track + 8mm = 9mm + 8track?) writes:
>>Just heard on NPR this morning that Space Sciences is having a lott- erh
>>sweepstakes.  The prize is a trip on MIR.  Costs $3 to call their 900 number.
>>They expect to get 20-25000 calls.  My wife's comment was "Not a bad profit!"
>I just heard on CNN that the Soviets claim to know nothing about this.
>I forget which Soviets exactly they asked. You may want to hold on to
>your $3 for a bit.

The marketing VP was interviewed on a local radio station. He's provided
copies of the signed document that they got from Glavkosmos to the media.
The deal was arranged through Art Dula's Space Services operation, and Dula
was there at the announcement. If it's a hoax, it's a damned elaborate one.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
[e-mail]  | adequately be explained by stupidity.
  "...flames are a specific art form of Usenet..." -- Gregory C. Woodbury

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 20:19:26 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
    formerly National Bureau of Standards
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Planetary Society


>From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
>Subject: Re: Planetary Society

Well, folks, I cheated and went to the library, and looked up the offending
article in AW&ST. Henry's summary is in error - the issue is dated October 8,
not October 6 (other than that, it seems fine. :-) Here, for your reading
enjoyment, is the relevant section (pg 67):

  "The closed-door meeting to critique the station was called Sept. 19 by the
Planetary Society. It included veterans of space programs from industry and
government as well as academicians, congressional staffers, and officials
of the U.S., European and Japanese space agencies.

  "The society strongly supports manned space exploration but is more
interested in the Moon and Mars. At least two of the 38 who attended the
meeting believed participation was "stacked" against the space station."

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>>If the Planetary Society wants to produce a consensus statement of people
>>who hold a particular point of view, then fine. If they want to produce a
>>statement and claim that it is the general consensus of everyone in the
>>field, then they shouldn't make a deliberate effort to stack the meeting
>>with people known to hold a particular point of view.

Note: this is a theoretical statement, not implying that PS did it one way or
the other. I was pointing out that "stacking" is viewed differently under
different circumstances. If NASA says that they have decided they want a
station with a certain general layout, and solicit information on how best to
build one within the given parameters, then there's at least no ethical
conflict in their inviting primarily people whose interest is in that kind of
station. If the Planetary Society stacks the deck and then issues a press
release saying "a bunch of us guys who think the space station design should
be modified got together and decided that the space station design should
be modified", then no problem. If either NASA or the Planetary Society
stacks the deck and then tries to give the impression that the result is
an independent and objective opinion of the general body of experts in the
field, then this is at least an ethical violation. I don't know what they
did - I wasn't at the meeting. If you read the entire article, perhaps you
can judge for yourself whether they pointed out to an appropriate extent
the selective nature of the group. There is presumably also a written report,
but I wouldn't know how to get it.

>The Planetary Society never claimed the statement covers everybody in
>the field.  They did not "stack" the committee any different than any
>other committee.  The whole issue is a slander against the Planetary Society
>and an ad hominem attack against this committee's conclusions.  It is
>a sad sight to see a group that includes leaders of our successful exploration
>of the solar system defamed like this.

Your argument seems to be a combination of "PS wouldn't do something so
wicked", and "Hey! Everybody's doing it." As I pointed out, *if* they did it,
the way it should be regarded depends largely on the exact circumstances.

Which are you angry with: the Planetary Society for inviting participants who
would be likely to slander it, AW&ST for reporting the comments of the
participants, or Henry for failing to censor that part out of his summary?

This is a question of ethics more than "pro-station" bias - both Henry and I
have stated that we felt a redesign was needed, which turns out to have been
the conclusion of the Planetary Society meeting.

>>My own opinion is that the space station was in need of redesign, particularly
>>in light of the predicted need for maintenance during assembly. I would also
>>consider at least the option for use as an assembly point for lunar and
>>interplanetary craft to be very important.
>The *concept* of a space station needs redesign.  NASA has designed
>and redesigned dozens of "space stations" since its inception and has only
>a brief post-Apollo fling, ending in the sands of the Australian outback,
>to show for it.  Maybe it's time we realized the whole aproach is wrong.

I hope you're not implying that Skylab was the best a space station can be.
It had several serious design problems, notably limited docking facilities
and the lack of provision for resupply. It was not *intended* for long-term
use, at least in its final implementation.

Plausible uses for space stations (not necessarily continuously manned)
include assembly facilities, testbeds for human habitation in zero or
low gravity (i.e. LLNL), and testbeds for 0g human-tended experiments that
are not highly sensitive to occasional low-g thrust or vibration. Obviously,
one design can not accommodate all of these applications, and obviously
things such as highly sensitive 0g experiments should not be included
on a manned station.

>>Last I heard, the Planetary Society was still pushing for a hideously
>>costly, crash-priority one-shot manned trip to Mars, mainly to serve
>>as an inspiration to mankind and generate political goodwill
>Good grief.  Everybody in the planetary science field knows this is
>just a political ploy to get funding for the stuff that does the real
>work, the probes.   There is no way anybody is going to afford to
>send people to Mars or anywhere else beyond the Earth system until well
>after it has been thoroughly explored and mapped.  But politics is
>politics, and if NASA can conjure up space station "customers", the
>planetary probe folks are entitled to conjure up a macho alternative
>to war in the cosmos.

A clever argument, worthy of Voltaire or Br'er Rabbit ("Oh please,
Br'er Congress, don't throw me in that Unmanned Probe patch!"), but
if this claim is valid, then it lowers my opinion of their advocacy
techniques still farther. You claim to exonerate the Planetary Society of
charges of a minor deception, then turn around and admiringly attribute
to them a much more serious offense. Certainly it's in an organization's
interest to use diplomacy and tact to present its views in a favorable
light, but to hold one view while claiming to hold the opposite is
downright fraud, and it is reprehensible.

If they're that tricky, how do you know they're not actually in favor of more
manned exploration, but are stringing the unmanned probe enthusiasts along
by means of a well-circulated rumor to the contrary? You've already said
that everybody in the field has swallowed that rumor, and therefore won't
cause any trouble, winking to each other and believing that *they're* the ones
perpetrating the deception. Later on, if they complain, the Planetary Society
can just say "Why didn't you read our official policy? We *said* that we
were strongly in favor of manned exploration." - That would seem to be a more
plausible explanation for their behavior than the one you gave.

For that matter, if that's how they do business, why are they recommending
that the space station be redesigned so it is smaller and requires fewer
hours of EVA, changes which make it more likely to succeed? By your logic,
they should advocate a bigger station, and insist that it be designed to
require more hours of EVA, which would in turn hopefully kill it, or maybe
they actually *want* a bigger station, so they're urging that it be made
smaller, or....

I believe that for the time being I'll stick with the simplest and most
straightforward interpretation (and the one most favorable to the Planetary
Society) - that they are indeed in favor of manned exploration of space
(though not to the exclusion of unmanned exploration), and that they do
favor a one-shot Mars mission. If this is the case, I can think of several
possible advantages to the Planetary Society. Most obvious is the glory and
the public interest in such a mission, and of course now that they are
promoting it, PS can claim some of the credit, and prove that they have
"vision". Sagan has always shown particular interest in Mars, and I bet he
would dearly love to see a manned landing there during his lifetime.
(Historical fame by association could be an added bonus.) For less direct
incentives, the project as proposed could benefit from and thus add to
international cooperation and good will, and would go a long way toward
eating up defense budgets. I presume they have an official list of their
reasons for supporting the mission. I favor continued human presence on the
moon, and eventual colonies on Mars, but not a crash-priority one-shot Mars
mission.


>>and at the
>>expense of most or all other manned space activity for the foreseeable
>>future.
>The "manned" program has already chopped up solar system exploration beyond
>belief, not to mention creating a bloated bureaucracy.  I for one will not
>cry any tears to see it die and the Space Age begin.


>>I do not consider this a good utilization of human resources in space,
>I, most explorers, and all successful space commerce companies don't
>consider throwing around humans in tin cans a good utilization of
>human resources on Earth.

Earth has plenty of human resource to spare - most of it hangs around in malls
or watches TV or squats in the dirt in third-world countries. From a human
resource perspective, it wouldn't hurt Earth a bit to have a few humans out in
space. Financial resources (in other words, harnessed or applied human
resource) are another matter. Given the disproportionately high expense of
manned vs unmanned exploration, a constant effort should be made to keep
(or stop) the manned program from hurting the unmanned program. I don't see
how that would imply that the manned program must be killed off, as you
advocate. Shooting your neighbor's kids so they won't beat up your kids is
often not considered socially acceptable.

For the broader question of whether humans should be in space at all, I feel
that human extraterrestrial presence has a value aside from direct
contribution to space science and exploitation of resources. At least many
millions of people share this opinion. I feel that human presence in space
should be limited for the time being because of the current high cost, but
that some level of ongoing activity is an important precursor to much more
extensive human occupation of space and other celestial bodies in the future.


>>and since I have read claims that the Planetary Society in its lobbying
>>tends to imply that *all* its members support the "official" view, I have
>>avoided joining the Planetary Society in spite of its many excellent
>>features.
>Every organization tries to show one face, a consensus opinion.
>Show me how this is different than other advocacy groups.

So ask me how many other advocacy groups I'm a member of. Again, it depends
on the exact methods used, and on how heavyhanded or objective the particular
group is, as illustrated by the following examples:

  [extremely unscrupulous organization]: You write a letter to Citizens for
    Decency through Outlawing the Bikini, telling them that they are idiots
    and you strongly disapprove of their campaign, and they turn around and
    tell Congress "See? Umpteen thousand *and one* people have written to
    us to express their concern over swimsuit decency." Not really a direct
    lie, but certainly misleading.

  [slightly more scrupulous organization]: Survey Question #17: Do you support
    the continued legal sale of chewing gum products, which results in the
    ongoing exploitation, torture, and death of thousands of impoverished
    workers in third-world countries? YES/NO

  [another approach]: Sure, our members support the official position -
    otherwise, they wouldn't have joined.

  [more reasonable]: An attempt is made to objectively poll the membership
    to see how they feel, and the results are expressed as "Over 70% of our
    members feel that...", or "When asked the following question: '...', 73%
    responded...."

Again, I don't have any direct experience with the Planetary Society, but
the secondhand stories I have heard seem to indicate that they lean toward
the method of dictation-from-above. That's why I'm cautious about joining -
I don't want to lend weight to positions that I do not support, particularly
the one-shot Mars mission.

>Nick Szabo
>[e-mail]~
>"We live and we learn, or we don't live long" -- Robert A. Heinlein
      John Roberts
      [e-mail]

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 19 Dec 90 04:25:05 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Subject: Re: Why didn't I think of that!?@#$%!
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

According to the noon TV news, the Soviet press agency is calling the
lottery a hoax.

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #714
*******************