Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_520.TXT

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

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/8c:Xnfe00WBw4B8E47>;
          Fri, 10 May 91 02:25:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 10 May 91 02:25:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #520

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 520

Today's Topics:
              re:why the space station?
                Re: Incentives
            SPACE Digest V13 #507
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
       Re: Ethics of Terraforming (was Re: Terraforming Venus)
           Re: Saturn V computers and RISC
                Re: Incentives

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: Wed, 8 May 91 14:44 EST
From: "JOHN E. PERRY" <[e-mail]>
Subject: re:why the space station?
X-Envelope-To: [e-mail]


I've mentioned this before, but no one else seems to have picked it up.

Before the Great Apollo Spectacular, there was a well-reasoned plan
for American access to space, and we were pursuing it vigorously and
reasonably. There were a number of articles written about it, and they
should still be around for anyone who knows how to ferret them out.

Briefly (as I recall), the idea was this:

Get a good handle on low earth orbit with powerful rockets for intermediate
supply.

Build a space station for interfacing the LEO launchers with the specialized
extraorbital vehicles. This allowed us to optimize each type of vehicle for
its regime.

Use this station as the launch point for GEO and especially lunar transport.

Build a lunar station, leading up to a lunar colony.

Use the lunar station/colony to (hopefully) mine valuable or useful materials,
do astronomical/planetary research, and eventually replace the orbital station
as the jumping-off point for planetary/stellar exploration.

Key components already in development were a space station, nuclear rocket
NERVA (about which doubt had already arisen as to its appropriateness for earth
launches), the Dyna-Soars, and heavy-lift chemical rocket lifters.

All of this was swept out the door in the frenzy to make Kennedy's 1970
Apollo deadline. A number of older NASA scientists with whom I worked in
the '70's and '80's expressed both bitterness at the wholesale destruction
of good programs to support the Spectacular, and the opinion that there was
a good chance that we could have made it by 1970 following the original
concepts, given the huge increases in budgets prompted by Kennedy's deadline.

Some of the NASA oldtimers of that era should still be around in spite of
the retirement pogroms of the mid '80's. Could some of the NASA readers
pick their brains about it? There ought to be some left who are in their
late 50's or early 60's.

Come to think, though, the same people who told me those anecdotes also said
the major players were forced out of NASA by the "progressive" new people.
Maybe some minor players can still fill us in?
     --John P.

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

Date: 29 Apr 91 17:33:46 GMT
From: cbmvax![e-mail]  (Mark Ricci - CATS)
Subject: Re: Incentives

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (/dev/null) writes:
>It is a prize for the first one to get there.  There would be a lot
>of prestige for the first one there ('free' PR), and it would
>encourage a lot of private space exploration and move us into
>a spacefaring nation!

If there's that much prestige and potential, let the market be the one to
reward them.

>Also, it only costs each person less than 50 cents.

Oh?  Is that each taxpaying person or each person?

>>
>> I don't think we need to give the boneheads in Washington any new ideas
>> on wasting money.  They already do enough damage.
>
>They have screwed up a lot in the past, but they have also done a lot
>of good compared to many nations and comared to no nations but themselves.
>
>I don't know what your personal experiences are with this government but
>who do they damage by 'wasting' money this way?

Anyone who depends on this country having a sound economy, i.e., everyone
who lives in this country.

I'm not sure where you got the notion that money wasted by the federal
government does not hurt the country, but it's a very wrong notion.
--
=============================================================================
  Mark Ricci - CATS              | "I don't think so! Homey don't play dat."
  Commodore Applications and     |
  Technical Support              |    - Homey the Clown
  [e-mail]     |         In Living Color
==============================================================================

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 08 May 91 17:30:51 EDT
Resent-From: Tommy Mac <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Wed, 8 May 91 10:44:41 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #507
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>


>Subject: United Space Federation, Inc.UPDATE 2



>Dear News Net Members our letter to the US Congress and Senate

>        We are endeavoring to establish an International Civil Space
>Agency by 1993.  With the cold war over between the USSR and the USA
>many key industries, around the world, are now in a state of financial
>trouble of epidemic proportions.  During the cold war, Billions of
>dollars on both sides of the iron curtain were expended on defense
>related production and research for ships, planes, tanks, missiles, ect,
>ect. and ect., and were the mainstay and base from which industrial,
>scientific, and technology related economies, either directly or
>indirectly, depended on for their existence.
>       In the United States of America, for example, I would dare to say
>that probably 50 to 60 percent of the National Scientific, technological,
>and industrial advances, production, and economic stability was based on
>or supported directly, or indirectly, by defense related activities or
>projects.  What will fill this post cold war vacuum?  How will these key
>industries survive in the post cold war world with out work for their
>employees and contracts to fulfill?
      [some stuff deleted]
>        It takes money to solve problems, and as we all now money does
>not grow on trees !  Its fine and dandy to say solve world hunger!, solve
>world environmental problems!,  stop global warming!, and give money to
>the poor!, and I strongly support every one of these problems being
>solved, but where is all this money going to come from if everybody is
>unemployed and all the corporations are bankrupt.  Its fine and dandy to
>say stop building weapons and peace on earth and good will to men, and I
>would truly like to see this occur, but what are all the millions of
>people who are employed around the world in science, technology, and
>industrial defense related jobs going to do when they suddenly have no
>jobs!  What's going to happen to the families, communities, and whole
>national and regional economies that are now supported by defense related
>activities, when the very bases for their existence is suddenly
>eliminated!  Just stopping to build weapons and cutting off defense
>expenditures makes no sense, is not logical, and can't  realistically be
>done with out devastating aftereffects far worse than those which existed
>in its place.  The present conditions in the USSR and the now lagging
>economy in the USA are a two very good examples of the types of problems
>created from this type of approach.
>        Diverting present, world wide, excess or unnecessary national
>defense related efforts and activities to other similarly related efforts
>and activities, while maintaining there integrity and established
>economic levels, by far makes more sense, is much more logical, and is
>practical, because all nations can benefit from and maintain their
>present economies with little or now change in their established
>technological and industrial economic infrastructures.  The United Space
>Federation is now attempting to do just this; create an endeavor which
>can integrate, with little or no change, multinational  scientific,
>technical, and industrial activities, similar in form and structure to
>that of the present defense related activities, world wide, and divert
>them to more constructive, peaceful, and productive activities and
>endeavors.

No offense, but I think the most productive way to 'save the economy' would
be to give massive tax breaks to all the citizens of the Nation, thereby
diverting all the money back into the 'sagging Economy', where it would
benefit all the people that you just said can't get help from the money tree.

I like the idea of spending ex-defense budgets on space, but I think the
logic you use in this post is quite flawed.

An examples of said logic is;

We can "Save The Economy" if we just;

   A)  Have the Government Spend more money
   B)  See how much money the Government can spend
   C)  Let the Federal Government Buy more stuff (including prosperity)
   D)  Spend more money on things taxpayers wouldn't buy individually
   E)  Buy more things with Tax money
   F)  Pay lots of people in the Government for not making things
   G)  Pay lots of people for making useless things for the Government
   H)  Spend Government money as fast as possible
or I)  Increase the Federal Budget (again)

IMHO, and, I sincerely believe, in many other people's HO; This is the real
reason we're in the mess we're in now!                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I offer the last 40 years of American Fiscal History as a reference.

I think we SHOULD spend defense dollars on space.  I couldn't help think,
while watching CNN this Winter, "Imagine where we'd be in space right now, if
we'd put all that thought and money into explora/exploitation of space".  Some
of those tank battalions must have cost as much as one SPS flight alone!  Let
alone the carriers.  Or planes.  (etc. etc. etc.)

But using the "We Can Spend Our Way Out Of Debt" philosphy makes me question
what other judgements you might make (that are based on fatal logic).

Maybe it's a good way to convince the gov. employees, but I ain't buyin' it.

Tommy Mac
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 7 May 91 21:02:21 GMT
From: mintaka!think.com!rpi!crdgw1!gecrdvm1![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) says:
>
>you say below about the design goals where said about the Shuttle as well.
>Why is it any different this time?
>
>In fact, what this thing is depends on who you ask (kind of reminds the
>old timers present of the Shuttle). The Air Force thinks it is a Titan
>
>So was the Shuttle. Why will this be any different?
>
>
>So was the Shuttle. Why will this be any different?
>
>
>   Allen

now there's an incredible argument: they f*cked up once so never
listen to them again. I'm convinced-there will never be an effective
winged spacecraft cause we tried once and failed. there will never
be a cheap launcher cause we tried once and failed.

>--
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>|Allen W. Sherzer |        Allen's tactics are too tricky to deal with      |
>|   [e-mail]   |             -- Harel Barzilai                           |
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 7 May 91 18:26:04 GMT
From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Ethics of Terraforming (was Re: Terraforming Venus)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Sheppardson) writes:
>  Is there anyone else out there who questions the ethics of tampering
>  with other planets (with or without the presence of life) to make them
>  more 'earthlike'? ...

I assume, then, you oppose the terraforming of Los Angeles?  After all,
it's fine the way it is, with smog and asphalt everywhere; why introduce
foreign phenomena like trees and clean air to make it more "earthlike"?

How do you feel about the Hawaiian Islands, which were bare volcanic rock
until all those foreign plants and animals moved in and started tampering?
If what nature did there was right, how can it be wrong for nature (which
includes us) to do the same thing elsewhere?
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date:         Wed, 08 May 91 17:00:55 EDT
From: Richard Ristow <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Re: Saturn V computers and RISC

>Date: 2 May 91 17:45:25 GMT
>From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Perry G Ramsey)
>
>The following is Figure 7-17 from the AS-507 flight manual:
 ( ... )
>
>Programming  18 instruction codes
>                10 arithmetic
>                 6 program control
>                 1 I/O
>                 1 store
>
>Timing        Computer cycle = 82.03 microsecond
>              Bit time       =  1.95 microsecond
>              Clock time     =  0.49 microsecond
>That clock time works out to 2 MHz.  Does anybody know what that
>'serial processing at 512 k' means?  Does that mean that this was
>effectively a '1 bit bus'?  And how about those 18 instructions?  The
>original RISC!

 Not original.  The PDP-8(*), with 8 operation codes, was earlier.  RISC-
 like designs aren't all that new.  They were popular for a long time to
 get a working computer with minimum logic circuitry to get unusually low
 cost (PDP-8) or high ruggedness and reliability (in-flight computers).
 When logic got cheaper, and microprogramming popular, the reaction was
 to extend the instruction set to make the machines more attractive to
 program.  The RISC movement comes from the perception that

 + Most machine-language programs are written by compilers, and it's
   easier to write a compiler that uses a simple instruction set well
   than one that makes full use of a complicated instruction set.
 + RISC architecture requires issuing more instructions to do the same
   work, but the instruction-issue rate for the simpler set can be
   speeded up more than enough to compensate.  (And as for the tedium
   of *writing* the longer programs, the compiler's doing that anyway.)

Descriptions of some modern RISC architectures are strangely reminiscent
of the PDP-8.

(*) PDP-8 is a trademark of, and the machine was built by, Digital Equipment
    Corporation, Maynard, Mass.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Ristow       [e-mail]       (BROWNVM on BITNET)

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

Date: 29 Apr 91 17:46:48 GMT
From: cbmvax![e-mail]  (Mark Ricci - CATS)
Subject: Re: Incentives

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fraering Philip) writes:
>Let me see, the government spends some 10,000 times this amount every year.
>
>NASA spends about 10 billion, or 100 times that amount, every year.
>
>They spend five times the proposed amount per shuttle launch.
>
>What was being proposed was that a not-so-modest sum to us, but
>a very modest sum compared to the space program in general, be given
>to the first private group to perform a certian task. Of course, if
>a private group does what the government itself says it cannot, and
>for far less money, then one hell of a lot less would be wasted than
>if things continue as they are.
>
>At the very least, the idea would be to pay for results. I can't see
>why someone would object to this when yearly much more is spent for
>much less results, the only difference being the gubbimint spends it.

So, if there's a high murder rate in New York City in 1990, why should anyone
care if it's higher the following year?  I don't think so.  Homey don't play
dat.

I agree that the government is wasting money all over the place, but that
doesn't mean I sanction new waste.  This is not hard to understand.  The
more money we waste, the more we tank the economy.
--
=============================================================================
  Mark Ricci - CATS              | "I don't think so! Homey don't play dat."
  Commodore Applications and     |
  Technical Support              |    - Homey the Clown
  [e-mail]     |         In Living Color
==============================================================================

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #520
*******************