Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_1/V13_195.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 19KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/8blpl4e00WBwEh=k4u>;
          Sun, 24 Feb 91 01:25:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 01:25:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #195

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 195

Today's Topics:
         Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92?
              Magellan Update - 02/21/91
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #180
            SPACE Digest V13 #186
     Re: Commercially-funded Space Probes (was Re: Space Profits)
          Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D
            Government vs. Commercial R&D

Administrivia:

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

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

Date:    Sat, 23 Feb 1991 12:50:22 EST
From: [e-mail] (Pierre V. Villeneuve)
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"[e-mail]"

help

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

Date: 24 Feb 91 01:55:47 GMT
From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>No smiley here--I think it really is feasible to return a moon orbitor
>back to Earth.  The big trick would be getting the probe back to into
>Earth orbit so the shuttle can pict it up...

That is indeed the big trick.  Unfortunately, the propulsion requirements
for this are non-trivial, and nobody is going to bother doing it unless
there is a major special reason.  Bear in mind that you don't have forever
to do it, either:  the Moon's gravitational field is so lumpy that objects
left in orbit generally crash on the surface within a few years.  The
Lunar Prospector RFP specified monthly orbit corrections, and LP's lifetime
is ultimately defined by the supply of correction fuel.
--
"But this *is* the simplified version   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
for the general public."     -S. Harris |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date:    Sat, 23 Feb 1991 12:50:45 EST
From: [e-mail] (Pierre V. Villeneuve)
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"[e-mail]"

list

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

Date: 23 Feb 91 03:46:27 GMT
From: europa.asd.contel.com!issm!wlbr!mahendo!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Update - 02/21/91


                          MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                            February 21, 1991

     The Magellan spacecraft and its radar system are performing nominally.

     The offpoint of the solar panels for about 5 minutes at the beginning and
end of each mapping pass has reduced the thermal effects of sunlight reflecting
off the solar panels on to the spacecraft bus.  The gyro temperatures have
leveled off at 68.8 degree C and Battery #1 is peaking at about 23.4 degrees C.
The resulting depth of battery discharge is about 12 percent.

     A decision was made yesterday afternoon to continue the solar panel
offpoint and shortened mapping strategy through the remainder of mapping
sequence M1051.  That is, the earliest change to this strategy would be in
the M1058 command sequence next Tuesday.

     On February 28 (next Thursday), Magellan begins a period of periapsis
occultations, when a portion of the low end of each orbit passes through the
shadow of Venus.  This will help to cool the spacecraft as the length of time
in the shadow increases.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab | Is it mind over matter,
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | or matter over mind?
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | Never mind.
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | It doesn't matter.

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

Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 18:31:24 EST
From: Tommy Mac <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #180

Re:  Nick Szabo's Opinions

Well, Nick you've done it again, in your letter to Michael Kent.  I won't go
over the details, just remember that not all you sarcasm was directed at NASA.

I'm going to ask you a question, Nick.  Please be so kind as to actually answer
it.  (I noticed you completely blew off the question about your job.  Where you
used to work, and the spiritual experiences you had doesn't tell us what you
actually DO;  I used to work at the MSU Cyclotron.  Making wire harnesses.)

Others have hinted at this question.  But, alas, you missed the hint.

Since you have such an extensive knowledge of the issues at hand, please, let
us all in on the secret.  WHAT CONSTITUTES WORTHWHILE PROJECTS IN SPACE?

Based on you previous statements of what is and is not For The Public Good, I
will define "worthwile" as;  a project that will return 15-20% on it's initial
ivestment, in less that 20 years, will not require extensive R+D, and will be
possible to begin regardless of the experience level of the crew.

Based on your previous letters, I expect to see something more impressive than;
-Space stations (as they cost FAR too much for what they deliver)
-Space Settlements (they cost too much, and no human can design one)
-Plain ol' Probes (THEY don't make any money for those poor taxpayers you're
                   always worried about
-Communication Satellites (We've already GOT those.  Jeez, get an imagination)

Tommy Mac and the Mac Attack
18084tm@msu
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 19:26:22 EST
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 02:11:42 EST
Resent-From: Tommy Mac <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #186
Resent-To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Resent-Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Comments: To: [e-mail]

Re: Gaia;
Kenneth Aromdee writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tommy Mac)
   rites:
>>         A) uses energy in any form for the organization of matter
>>         B) experiences growth
>>         C) reproduces
..
>>  The only reasons not to accept it
>>at face value are:  (as far as I can tell)
>>1)  Gaia is childless
>>2)  Our defenition of life is non-existent (Or so vague it's meaningless)
>>3)  Our defenition of individual organisms is non-existent

>4) In order to claim that functions by "parts of Gaia" are actually life
>unctions, you have to make analogies that don't _completely_ fit.  Sufficient
>election of analogies can be used to prove that anything is alive; this is not
> a problem with the definition of life, but a problem with making excessive
>analogies.

>For instance, automobiles
>-- use energy
>-- experience growth (by performing functions for humans, in exchange for
>   which the humans replace parts)
>-- reproduces (an automobile factory is a place for reproduction of
>   automobiles; just because it's external doesn't mean it's not reproduction.
>   Plus, automobiles play a part in maintaining the very economy that makes
>   it profitable for automobile factories to work in the first place).
--

Remember, I posted this so someone could get a (probably very limited, simple
and non-technical) understanding of the GAIA hypothesis.  If you want the REAL
understanding (I.e. nitty-gritty, super jargon-filled version) there are lot's
of books on the subject (I haven't found the intuitive kind yet).  If you want
the easy, down-to-earth kind, grow up on a farm.

But I believe that the biosphere (the tao?) is alive, so I will defend it:

First, the problem IS the defention of life, because there is none.  If you
could decide whether a virus is alive (and convince your peers) you would be in
 the market for a nobel prize.  This would not be true if there was a handbook
that had "Defenitions....Life" on page n.

Second, to qualify as reproduction, some material from the parent must be moved
to the body of the offspring.  A seed would be the minimal case (not including
the questionable case of a virus).  DNA, at the least, would be required.  By
this defention, Gaia's potential reproduction fits, while the car anology does
not.  To qualify as growth, material that the organism takes into itself must
be remade into parts of the organism.  I.e.  you are what you eat.  Cars do not
make spare parts out of gas and oil (food?),  but Gaia covered the land masses
of the Planet Earth with plant material.  (She grew onto the land!!   |-} )
And using energy to go down to the 7-11 is not the same as using it to organize
matter.  Acting like life by consuming and moving does not define life.  If it
did, than clouds, black holes, meteors, sand dunes, etc.,etc., would qualify.

The question really does hinge on the defeniton of life and the defention of
the individual.  Our cells can't live outside our bodies without some sort of
complex artificial support.  And we can't live outside of the biosphere without
even more complex artificial support.  If we are individuals, what is it about
Gaia that makes her (him? it?) different.

Are Nations idividuals?  Would Darwin say that Saddam's nation will not pass on
the political/cultural characteristics which led to it's demise?

Will your cells die if you do?  Will you die if Gaia does?

If you feel inclined to reply, please include YOUR defention of life.  Mine is
really just an amateur effort.  I'm no biologist (although that may be why I'm
willing to offer a defention) so if you have a better one, let's hear it.

One less stringent defention that Gaia fits anyway:
   -  Possesses DNA (This is why a virus doesn't count)

                  Formal version:  The Atmosphere and Oceans of Earth are kept
Tommy Mac         in such a state as to support life, by the actions of the sum
18084tm@msu       total of life on Earth.
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 24 Feb 91 05:16:40 GMT
From: magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu!csn!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!sol![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: Commercially-funded Space Probes (was Re: Space Profits)

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

   [ in reference to the Moon Treaty ]

   The State Department had been heavily involved in negotiating the treaty
   and wanted to see it ratified.  Their rationale was roughly that the
   treaty was harmless and the show of cooperation would make the Third
   World happy.

   Idiots.

Which administration was responsible for this monstrosity?  Nixon,
Ford, or Carter?

(Actually, all of these administrations strike me as being
sufficiently short-sighted to make such a blunder.)
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Date: 24 Feb 91 05:49:54 GMT
From: rochester!sol![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D

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

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Blase) writes:
   >
   >....the really advanced R&D that drives
   >technological advance is VERY expensive and, in general, no private company
   >(with the possible exception of Bell Labs) can afford (or is willing to risk)
   >the 10-20 year lead times and the billions of dollars necessary.

   This is false.

The most striking counterexample is the biotechnology industry --
cutting edge research funded by private industry with lead times from
research to product in years rather than decades.  (Of course, it
would be faster without the lethargic process of FDA approval...)

   >The only organization capable of supporting this long-term R&D is the U.S.
   >government, and the only government organizations doing so are NASA and the
   >military.

   Large government organizations have a poor record of
   producing both fundamental technological advances and more
   incremental innovation.   Dollar for dollar, government projects are
   inefficient generators of progress.

It's interesting that these two statements are not necessarily
contradictory.  Most long-term research in this country is funded by
the federal government but performed by university and corporate
research labs.  While I would disagree with the assertion that the
government is the *only* organization capable of supporting long-range
research (consider IBM Watson and Bell Labs), it does happen to be the
largest source of funding.

So, the lines are fuzzy -- is a university department which gets its
research funds from DARPA considered private or government?  How about
an aerospace company's long-range research lab?  How about a
government lab (like JPL, LLNL, LANL, Sandia) which is administered by
a university or private corporation?

Bringing this back to space exploration, maybe a step in the right
direction would be to JPLize the other NASA centers, by having them
administered by universities and companies with proven records of
excellence in research, while remaining funded by the government.

Has anyone in NASA considered this approach?
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Date: 23 Feb 91 05:27:00 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Government vs. Commercial R&D

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Blase) writes:
>
>....the really advanced R&D that drives
>technological advance is VERY expensive and, in general, no private company
>(with the possible exception of Bell Labs) can afford (or is willing to risk)
>the 10-20 year lead times and the billions of dollars necessary.

This is false.

* Of U.S. patents granted in 1989, 79,088 (76%) were issued
  to corporations, 23,624 (23%) to private individuals, and
  700 (1%) to government laboratories.  While some of the
  private individuals are government funded, clearly the bulk
  of innovation comes from outside the government laboratory
  sphere.
* Historically, most fundamental advances come from a
  commercial or university lab and a handful of people.
  Here is a list of important 20th-century technology
  advances that most greatly impact space travel today, and
  what kinds of people or groups developed them:

    * Airplane (bicycle shop)
    * Computer (many small groups in universities & corporations)
    * Liquid-fuel rockets (physics professor on a farm)
    * Nuclear fission (German university research lab)
    * Transistor (Bell Labs)

* The "lead times" for most of the successful work vary widely,
  but average 5-10 years rather than 10-20 years.
* For both normal patents and fundamental new technology, the
  yearly budget for any particular project is usually less than
  $10 million (in today's dollars).  The number of people involved
  are usually between 1 and 100.


>The only organization capable of supporting this long-term R&D is the U.S.
>government, and the only government organizations doing so are NASA and the
>military.

Large government organizations have a poor record of
producing both fundamental technological advances and more
incremental innovation.   Dollar for dollar, government projects are
inefficient generators of progress.


>In war, the side with the most advanced tools wins (see the
>laser-guided bombs and such being used in the current Persian Gulf conflict).

Lasers were invented by Columbia University grad students and demonstrated
by a Hughes Aircraft Company physicist.   U.S. government labs did not
become interested in them until they had already been built in dozens
of diverse configurations by corporate research labs.   Since the 1960's
government labs have spent $billions trying to turn lasers into powerful
"death rays" without success.  This is but one example of the radical
mis-scaling of technology, a symptom of economic illiteracy, that runs
through the larger socialist research labs.

Meanwhile, corporations and universities created hundreds of useful
products using lasers.  Some of these eventually found their way to
defense contractors and became an important part of defense weaponry, their
potential fully recognized by the military only in this most recent war.
This is by far the most common direction of spin-offs, from the
university/corporate world to the government.


>People often refer to spinoffs
>as one of the nice things about NASA, and then wonder how we can spend money
>exploring space.  I say that spinoffs are one of NASA's main justifications
>for existance, and that lacking them, we might as well start learning
>Japanese right now.

If spinoffs are NASA's justification, they might as well close up
shop.  Like most other large government R&D , their dollar for
dollar innovation record is poor (though unlike other labs it is
well-hyped).

In contrast to U.S. government research, Japanese R&D is
carried out on an economical scale and directly related to marketable
products such as HDTV and biotechnology.  Because they don't waste
those "10-20" years on mis-scaled technology, they can bring products to
market quickly.  If NASA really wants to produce spinoffs, they could
learn quite a bit from the Japanese (as well as our own American innovators).


References:

_The Universal Almanac_, 1991. pg. 521 [patent statistics]
_The Innovators_ by John Diebold  [laser]


--
Nick Szabo            [e-mail]
Think long-term, act now.

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #195
*******************