Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_580.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/wcDU7IC00WBw4PNk4z>;
          Sat, 25 May 91 02:19:00 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 25 May 91 02:18:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #580

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 580

Today's Topics:
          Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
          Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
              Space Digest Distribution
          Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
             Re: Space Station Cancelled
                  Subscribe
          Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
        Fred vs. Exploration: head-to-head competition
             Re: Space Station Cancelled
              Senate decision timetable?
               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: 16 May 91 17:20:59 GMT
From: rochester!sol![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>>>...  They're dreaming if they think it will have
>>>more than a momentary effect on their own financial problems.

>>Even a _momentary_ effect is enough to pay for SIRTF, AXAF,
>>a greatly expanded ground-based visual search, a greatly expanded
>>Antartic asteroid sample return mission, _and_ a gaggle
>>of small infrared probes launched into the meteor showers.

>But look at the big picture. The House subcommittee zeroed Freedom
>so more money could go to HUD. Next year they will want to put more
>money into HUD and of course, it will come from NASA. What part of
>NASA will they cut then? What will they cut the year after that?

So, perhaps, the politically savvy space scientist (and space
enthusiast) should spend less time lobbying against manned space
exploration and more time lobbying against HUD.  (I tend to agree with
a previous poster that, in the wake of the Gulf War, the VA is largely
untouchable.)

Seems only fair, considering how often advocates of housing projects
lobby against space exploration...
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Date: 17 May 91 01:14:47 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>Put a Soyuz on a Titan. It will work just fine. Use the money saved
>to build a space station. Send the spacelabs up to LEO and keep them
>there. Service with Titan IV as needed.
>
You mean "Put a Soyuz on an Atlas" the Soyuz (as well as the Progess
unmanned resupply craft) masses only 7 tonnes.

                                   Frank Crary
                   UC Berkeley

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

Date: 17 May 91 03:08:41 GMT
From: ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>NEWS FLASH!  NEWS FLASH!  Spending $120,000,000,000 will
>>REDUCE COSTS!!!  Pictures at 11!
>
>I would
>say the computer and electronics industry has spent well over that
>much over the last 30 years to develop markets, processes, and products.
>I think has reduced costs. Don't you agree?

Boy, there is a _huge_ difference here.

The computer/electronics industry is _thousands_ of companies making
_thousands_ of investments, each gauged to make back the money.
There are also hundreds of laboratories and hundreds of thousands of
experiments that go into these investments. No one single company or
laboratory has spent even a tiny fraction of the Fred figure on a
single project without the intention of making money, or indeed
without any already active market.  No government came in and hired
3/4 of all the electronic engineers and technicians in the civilian
world declaring "we will solve all the world's problems with one
gigantic supercomputer."

If they had, we wouldn't have any computer or electronics industry
now to speak of.

Freedom is _one_ incredibly large expenditure, by an organization that
has no intention or incentive of making money, on something for which
there is no demonstrable need, outside of NASA and astronaut groupie
hype.

These sort of investments are why, outside of satcoms -- which luckily
NASA abandoned decades ago to private industry -- there is no commercial
space industry to speak of.

Now that Fred is hopefully dying -- and we need to continue our
efforts to make sure the Senate and President Bush go along with
the Congress -- the space community can wake up to the 1990's and
start looking at space as an industry and as a place to explore
instead of as a centrally planned socialist utopia.

This could be the beginning of a hopeful new era.


--
Nick Szabo                [e-mail]
"If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably
knew it already.  The more bewildered you are, the more successful
the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer

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

Date: 10 May 91 18:21:47 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss![e-mail]  (Bev Freed)
Subject: Space Digest Distribution

I'm sorry to plague the conference about the Space Digest, but I
heard there was a problem with spotty distribution.  At first, I
thought I was the only one suffering it and tried to work on the problem
here.  Todd Masco (who is supposed to moderate Space Digest) sent
out mail indicating that there were complaints of spotty distribution,
and I realized at that point that the problem did not lie in my system.
For going on two months, I've been trying to contact him since his
"bomb-run" notice, and there hasn't been any communication from him

since.  I have no other problems with mail.  Space Digest is the
only one.
Is anyone else still suffering spotty distribution of Space Digest?
 Has anything been done about it?  Is Todd Masco still around?



--- Opus-CBCS 1.14
 * Origin: NSS BBS - Ad Astra! [phone] *HST* (1:129/104.0)
--
Bev Freed - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!freed
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 16 May 91 08:52:35 GMT
From: ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>The House HUD/VA/IA Appropriations Subcommittee marked up the NASA
>appropriation this morning. They zeroed out ALL station funding.

>Unless the Senate restores the money and it survives conference,
>the space station will be cancled.

Good news!   GOOD NEWS  !!!!!!

Congress is listening to the explorers !!  Hope for space exploration,
space development, and _real_ space settlement lives on !!!!!!

If this holds up, it will be time for DANCING IN THE STREETS !!!!!

I haven't felt this good since the Pegasus launch.... whew....



--
Nick Szabo                [e-mail]
"If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably
knew it already.  The more bewildered you are, the more successful
the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer

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

Date: 16 May 91 08:04:50 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Mark Gellis)
Subject: Re: Space Station Cancelled

Hmmm...Freedom dead?  A pity, although from what I've been hearing, the
space station, as it was being planned, wasn't worth much.  Better not to
do it at all than do it badly.  Maybe this will scare people into thinking
the business through and designing something that will work--we can't
afford white elephants.

I have a feeling we will build a space station eventually, though.  I would
be willing to bet money--a small amount, at least--that Europe or Japan will
be at least planning their own space station by the end of the century.  If
either of them, or both of them, put one up, we will either build one our-
selves to protect our image as a world leader (a stupid reason, but one
that will appeal to politicians and, sadly, most American voters) or we
will be involved as a partner in one or both of foreign space station
projects.  The latter seems preferable to me.

I don't see American simply dropping out of the space business.  We're
not that stupid, and we are getting close to the point where someone is
going to put a processing facility on the moon, or some asteroid, and
then you will see the politicians scrambling to make sure we get our
piece of the high frontier.  In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised
if the Russians build a lunar base for science purposes, and then build
a small processing facility, mostly to see if it can be done, and then,
when they get real results, the corporations will smell blood and we
will see more money pumped into space research than we can shake a
stick at.  Right now, and especially in the middle of a recession,
people do not see why we should bother with space; give them real,
practical results, and they will be lining up to invest in the high
frontier.  It's the American way, bless our pointed little heads.

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

Date:         Thu, 16 May 91 09:39:32 EDT
From: Leo McCarthy <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Subscribe
To: "SPACE Digest/sci.space" <[e-mail]>

SUBSCRIBE SPACE Leo McCarthy

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

Date: 16 May 91 22:15:26 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:
>
> >What we need is for the government to allow those who want to do it to
> >do so without restriction from government restrictions.
>
> >This is the thing to lobby for.  Then those who believe in space science
> >can raise money from various sources for it, and those who believe in
> >man in space can do likewise, and the various profit and nonprofit
> >organizations can cooperate to get the job done.
>
> Sounds good to me -- what *specific* restrictions are currently
> preventing private and non-profit organizations from pursuing space
> exploration and development?

Essentially any launch must be approved, no matter where it occurs.  If
we want to use Ariane to launch a satellite, it must be approved.  If
the money could be obtained to put up a space station, the whole operation
would have to be approved, for an American to participate, even if nothing
was done from the US.

There are various arguments given, all of which are pretty much irrelevant.
It has been claimed that the invasion of Kinshasa from Angola was to
destroy a private German space project to launch communications satellites
cheaply for third world countries.  But I think the real reason is that the
governments do not want anyone out there they cannot control.  The US
population is still enough concerned with individual freedom that it the
necessary legislation might be carried out here, but the rest of the world
is very doubtful.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet)   {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)

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

Date: 17 May 91 03:36:36 GMT
From: ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Fred vs. Exploration: head-to-head competition

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

>Has it not occurred to you that no space
>projects will ever see that funding if Fred dies?

Congress said NASA wants X billion this year, we are only going
to give them Y.  What do we cut?  SIRTF and AXAF?  Or Fred?  They
chose Fred.  So yes, indeed, two quite valuable space projects have
gotten their funding due to the death of Fred (at least in this
committee  -- let us hope and work for this holding up in the Senate
and the White House).

This example couldn't be more clear -- there was a definite competition
for funds.  Two valuable space projects versus a collosally wasteful
space project.  At least in Congress, the valuable projects held sway.
A happy, happy day.

Large-scale, slow programs have always been, and are growing more
so, politically unpopular compared to quick programs that create
their excitement during the term of office of the politician that
funded it.  Now terms vary -- tens of years for the typical
Congressman or Senator, four to eight years for the president.
Something like SEI, which doesn't get off the ground even during
Bush's lifetime much less his term of office, is political silliness
which any future President interested in using NASA for their own
benefit will not repeat.

This is very fortunate, since quick return missions are also what
are needed most badly by space explorers and researchers.
I just got through pointing out to Allen how the electronics
industry was built upon the quick-turnaround experiments and
businesses of hundreds of thousands of scientists, engineers, and
entrepreneurs, in thousands of different companies, each with their
own unique ideas of how the industry was going to look.  It was not,
and could not have been, created by one huge supercomputer built by
central-planning idealists monopolizing most of the funding.

I expect to see a renaissance in NASA funding once Fred is
dead, giving breathing room for the quick return missions to show
their stuff.  Of course this assumes that the space community will
wake up out of their 1950's central-planning stupor into the 1990's
era of space industry and exploration, and actually support the
projects that researchers and explorers want and that Congress is
most willing to fund.


--
Nick Szabo                [e-mail]
"If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably
knew it already.  The more bewildered you are, the more successful
the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer

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

Date: 17 May 91 02:05:41 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Station Cancelled

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>They should take the time to study the actual history of NASA during
>the shuttle program. Lots of small space science programs got axed to
>cover shuttle overruns...

Not to mention Galileo overruns.  Anyone want to bet on the effects when
CRAF and Cassini run over?  And EOS is enough to give one the shivers.

>Despite Henry Spencer's emotional
>protestations to the contrary, history clearly shows that manned space
>flight budgets are NOT independent of space science funding.

I've never claimed they were independent.  There is a clear correlation:
lower manned-space funding means lower funding for unmanned space too.
This year it's the space station; next year, if Fred dies this year, it
will be one or two of the big unmanned projects on the block.

Meanwhile, truly *important* projects like Lunar Observer are sacrificed
to protect the multi-billion-dollar sacred cows in Pasadena.
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 17 May 91 04:37:36 GMT
From: waikato.ac.nz![e-mail]
Subject: Senate decision timetable?


    So when does the Senate decide of Fred?
 Also what options are available to them/Bush (From a earlier comment in this
group, I was lead to understand that Bush can decide to do something, but he
can't force senate/congress to pay for it)?

    Sorry if these are obvious questions, but your system is a lot more
complex than ours (though they both seem equaly capable of f*cking things up :)

Pete Smith
Uni of Waikato
New Zealand

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

Date: 17 May 91 02:37:28 GMT
From: mintaka!olivea!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>An Apollo CSM would be a poor choice for a crew transport...

He said "CM", not "CSM".  The service module would be largely superfluous
in this role.
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #580
*******************