Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_525.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 16KB

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/Qc:samS00WBw43lk4d>;
          Sat, 11 May 91 02:05:38 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <8c-sagu00WBwA3k05=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 11 May 91 02:05:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #525

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 525

Today's Topics:
          Re: United Space Federation,Inc. Update 3
               Small Explorers
           Re: Saturn V computers and RISC
           Re: FACE on MARS -- Request for info...
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS

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 13:50:09 EST
From: [e-mail]



Dear Astronomer or Friend of Astronomy:

Space science at NASA is threatened.  The House Appropriations
subcommittee will make a decision in the next 10 days or so that will
affect the future of all space science.  Either they will decide to
fund fully the space station and cancel or delay the major space
science programs in progress or they will cancel or delay seriously
the space station and continue with the space science program more or
less as planned.  Len Fisk told me today that this decision will
determine whether NASA emphasizes space science, as the Augustine
Commission recommended, or manned space flight.  At stake is
approximately 3/4 of a billion dollars in this year's budget.


I am asking you NOW to consider writing a short letter to Chairman
Traxler and to the ranking minority member, Congressman Green, both of
the relevant appropriations subcommittee.  If you know anyone of the
other members of the subcommittee or they are from your home state,
please address a letter directly to them.  It would also be useful to
send separate copies of your letter to the most important people in
the senate.  The addresses of the congressional people are listed at
the end of this message.  I hope that you will stress your support for
NASA space science programs in general with special emphasis upon AXAF
(the Advanced X-ray Astronomy Facility) and SIRTF (the Space Infrared
Telescope Facility), the two programs that are most threatened.

Incidentally, personal phone calls to anyone in Congress, e. g., to
the staffers, will be very effective.  Congressman Traxler's number
is, e.  g., 202-225-2806, and Senator Mikulski's number is:
202-224-4654.

Please let me know after you receive this message and have sent your
letter to Traxler, to Green, with a copy to R. Mallow, the chief staff
officer of the House Appropriations committee.

Do you know anyone else that you could send this message to?  If so,
please ask them also to send messages.  We need to contact our
colleagues personally by walking into their offices or by phone and
get them to send letters right away.  Please make sure that colleagues
in your department actually write.  You may want to go back once or
twice to check.  Dick Mallow told me today that the decision
concerning what to do about space science will be ``decided by the
political process'', roughly translated, that means by the volume of
mail and other contacts.

Please let me and the Congress hear from you.

Thanks.

John Bahcall ([e-mail])

P.S. Here is a sample letter.

Dear Chairman Traxler:

Space science is important for education, for national prestige, for
technological developments, and for enriching our cultural heritage.
As the Augustine Commission recommended, an increased emphasis upon
space science is the best way for NASA to serve the nation.  It is
also the most exciting.  I am particuarly concerned that the programs
for AXAF and for SIRTF not be stretched out; they were,respectively,
the highest priorities for the National Academy of Sciences decade
reports for the 1980s (the Field report) and for the 1990s (the
Bahcall report).  Both missions will answer fundamental questions
about the universe that fascinate the curious of all ages.  They are
ready to proceed.  Delaying them now would be costly.  The people of
the United States should have the opportunity of garnering the
scientific rewards of the detailed preparation that has gone into the
planning of these major missions.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. X



HOUSE:

APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTE on HUD \& Independent Agencies

Democrats                             Republicans

Bob Traxler, MI, CHAIRMAN             Bill Green, NY, RANKING MIN.
Rm. 2366 Rayburn House Office Bldg.   Rm. 2301 Rayburn House Office Bldg.

Louis Stokes, OH                      Lawrence Coughlin, PA
Rm. 2365 Rayburn House Office Bldg.   Rm. 2309 Rayburn House Office Bldg.

Alan Mollohan, WV                     Bill Lowery, CA
Rm. 229 Cannon House Office Bldg.     2433 Rayburn House Office Building

Jim Chapman, TX
236 Cannon House Office Building

Chet Atkins, MA
123 Cannon House Office Building

Marcy Kaptur, OH
1228 Longworth House Office Building


Staff: Richard Malow
       H 143 The Capitol


All addresses are Washington D.C. 20515

===============================================================================

SENATE

APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE: HUD and Independent Agencies

Democrats                                Republicans

Barbara Mikulski (MD), CHAIRMAN          Jake Garn (UT), RANKING MIN.
Rm. 320 Senate Hart Office Bldg.         Rm. 505 Senate Dirksen Office Bldg.

Patrick Leahy (VT)                       Alfonse D'Amato (NY)
Rm. 433 Senate Russell Office Bldg.      Rm. 520, Senate Hart Office Bldg.

J. Bennett Johnston (LA)                 Don Nickles (OK)
Rm. 136 Senate Hart Office Bldg.         Rm. 713 Senate Hart Office Bldg.

Frank Lautenberg (NJ)                    Phil Gramm (TX)
Rm. 506 Senate Hart Office Bldg.         Rm. 370 Senate Russell Office Bldg.

Wyche Fowler, Jr. (GA)                   Kit Bond (MO)
Rm. 204 Senate Russell Office Bldg.      Rm. 293 Senate Russell Office Bldg.

J. Robert Kerrey (NE)
Rm. 316 Senate Hart Office Bldg.


STAFF: Kevin Kelly
       142 Senate Dirkson Office Building

All addresses are Washington D.C. 20510


===============================================================================

SENATE

APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE: HUD and Independent Agencies

Democrats                                Republicans

Barbara Mikulski (MD), CHAIRMAN          Jake Garn (UT), RANKING MIN.
Rm. 320 Senate Hart Office Bldg.         Rm. 505 Senate Dirksen Office Bldg.

Patrick Leahy (VT)                       Alfonse D'Amato (NY)
Rm. 433 Senate Russell Office Bldg.      Rm. 520, Senate Hart Office Bldg.

J. Bennett Johnston (LA)                 Don Nickles (OK)
Rm. 136 Senate Hart Office Bldg.         Rm. 713 Senate Hart Office Bldg.

Frank Lautenberg (NJ)                    Phil Gramm (TX)
Rm. 506 Senate Hart Office Bldg.         Rm. 370 Senate Russell Office Bldg.

Wyche Fowler, Jr. (GA)                   Kit Bond (MO)
Rm. 204 Senate Russell Office Bldg.      Rm. 293 Senate Russell Office Bldg.

J. Robert Kerrey (NE)
Rm. 316 Senate Hart Office Bldg.


STAFF: Kevin Kelly
       142 Senate Dirkson Office Building

All addresses are Washington D.C. 20510


===============================================================================

end message
-- Philip A. Pinto [phone]
-- Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,
    60 Garden St., MS 65, Cambridge, MA  02138
-- ARPA:   [e-mail]
-- UUCP:   harvard!cfa!pinto
-- BITNET: [e-mail], pinto@cfa

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

Date: 10 May 91 15:59:33 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!newcastle.ac.uk!turing![e-mail]  (William Hey)
Subject: Re: United Space Federation,Inc. Update 3

[e-mail] writes:

>******************************************************************
>*   UNITED SPACE FEDERATION,INC. / UPDATE FOR 9th of MAY 1991    *
>******************************************************************

>                     What is the USF

>       The United Space Federation is a not-for-profit corporation
>which was concieved and founded in 1986 in Virginia Beach,
>VA.,USA, the purpose of which is to establish an international civil
>space agency with a mandate to promote and and implement
>multinational commercial and scientific exploration of space.

Nobel goals indeed, however, from whome would this mandate come, and who would
it cover?  eg From the (dis)United-Nations to every nation?

>charter of this proposed space agency would forbid it to work with
>national military organizations and would discourage projects
>which entertain narrow political and/or economic biases.

Internationally, as well as at home,
military research is the best funded area of research.  Consequently, it's
often the most technically competant.  To dismiss it on dubious moralistic
grounds would probably result in duplicity of effort (amoungst others).

Further more, alturism (probably a redundant word) is never a good enough
insentive for obtaining results.  Political and economic biases would HAVE to
be considered, however, in this case what is meant by 'narrow'?

>       The hope of the Founder and Directors is that the USF's efforts
>will produce more rapid advancement in already existing fields
>such as space physics and engineering, life sciences, Earth
>obsorvation, astronomy, meterology,  and telecommunications than
>is possible when scientific work and civil commercial activities
>are overly restrained by national barriers.

Super, what about funding?  Even ESA has problems, and that's the nearest thing
around at the moment to your idea.

>into means of removing enviroment contaminating industrial
>processes to points beyound Earths eco-system.

You mean export our toxic waste etc, and dump it somewhere less obtrusive?
Space Transportation would probably increase the risk of environmental damage
than decrease it - just an opinion, have any studies been done yet?
(I also abhor the idea).

Well, in truth, I could snipe at this all day, and probably have nothing
constructive to say (maybe because I made a rapid descent down the stairs this
morning and got KO'd).

However, what you go on to propose (deleted) is nothing more than global social
restructuring (badly needed - granted), and goes far beyond the bounds of
science as a tool of society, more of science structuring society; and hereon
way out of my field.

Why not aim to be workable, encouraging NASA and NASDA co-operation,
Glavokosmos and ESA etc?

Cheers,

Bill

-----------------------+-----------------------------+
|    William Hey          [e-mail]    |
|    Astrophysics : Newcastle University, England.   |
-----------------------+-----------------------------+

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

Date: 10 May 91 17:25:03 GMT
From: ogicse!hsdndev!frooz!cfashap![e-mail]  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Small Explorers

> Does anyone have any more details about the Small Explorer program?

Four have been approved so far.  They were originally to be launched on
Scout or something similar, which means they mass about 200 kg and go
into low orbit.  The idea was to have small experiments launched quickly
and cheaply.  The program started in 88 or 89, and the first launch is
supposed to be in 92, last (of the four now approved) in 95.  I don't
remember all the missions, but the first is Total Ozone Mapping
Spectrometer, and the last is Sub-millimeter Wave Astronomy Satellite.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Willner            Phone [phone]         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 9 May 91 16:52:45 GMT
From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V computers and RISC

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Loren Petrich) writes:
>    It was mentioned that some early computers used RISC
>architectures, and that RISC architectures are now coming back.

This is an oversimplification.  Many early computers, especially small ones,
had to be simple to keep hardware costs down.  But the simplifications made
then hampered programming as often as they helped.  Modern RISC designs keep
software issues very much in mind; the simple early machines were more or
less built on the theory that the software people would like it or lump it.

>I am curious exactly what operations are in some of the early ones, like
>the Saturn V one and the PDP-8, and how present-day RISC systems
>compare.

I've never seen the specs for the Saturn V one.  I have programmed a pdp8
quite extensively.  Some of the things that *weren't* in it were a subtract
instruction (you got to negate and add instead), a load instruction (clear
the accumulator and add instead), a stack, indexed addressing, byte
pointers, bytes, 32-bit or even 16-bit addresses, vectored interrupts,
conditional branches (you got conditional skips instead), general-purpose
registers (well, there was one, the accumulator, sort of), etc etc.

Present-day RISC systems are orders of magnitude superior.  Only a very few
of the old ideas have reappeared, and usually in more sophisticated forms
backed up by much more careful study of how software uses hardware.
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 29 Apr 91 20:33:57 GMT
From: cs.cornell.edu![e-mail]  (Andy Rapo)
Subject: Re: FACE on MARS -- Request for info...

For heaven's sake,

    Don't look for answers in OMNI if you are interested in anything more than amusement.  I'd trust the national enquirer before puting any stock in the sensational science fiction that OMNI offers.

Andy Rapo
Cornell University

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

Date: 8 May 91 14:55:17 GMT
From: mintaka!think.com!sdd.hp.com!caen!ox.com!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

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

>There is one reason to believe that ALS will be close to what it is
>claimed to be: The Air Force says so.

They also said that about the Shuttle.

>There is some big general somewhere, along with a few little generals,
>a bunch of colonels, majors, captains, ... Whose next promotion
>depends on ALS being exactly what they say it will be.

No problem. You just declare whatever came out a success. Happens all
the time (like with the Shuttle).

However, that is not the way it works. These projects are developed
under the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). The main effect of
the FAR is to cover the asses of government program managers. If the
FAR is followed and the program fails, then it isn't the program's
fault. So long as the FAR is followed to the letter (and it will be) then
no Air Force person need fear the effects of failure on his career.

Remember, lots of Air Force people worked on the Shuttle and they are
still there.

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

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #525
*******************