Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_590.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-03 | 17KB

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/McGmV7S00WBwEYoU5T>;
          Tue,  4 Jun 91 01:42:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue,  4 Jun 91 01:42:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #590

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 590

Today's Topics:
           SOLAR TERRESTRIAL BULLETIN - NEW WARNING
         Re: Fred cut, AXAF and SIRTF funded
          Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
            Re: Senate decision timetable?
      Re: Fred vs. Exploration: head-to-head competition
         Re: Fred cut, AXAF and SIRTF funded
      CRAF Penetrator (was: Should Galileo be rerouted?)
            SPACE Digest V13 #564

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: Fri, 17 May 91 02:44:47 MDT
From: oler <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:[e-mail]> (CARY OLER)
Subject: SOLAR TERRESTRIAL BULLETIN - NEW WARNING
X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"[e-mail]"

                /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

                        SOLAR TERRESTRIAL BULLETIN

                              16 May, 1991

                             ADMINISTRIVIA

                /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\


THE NEW LOW LATITUDE AURORAL ACTIVITY WATCH

     A new type of low-latitude auroral activity warning has been brought
into service.  The "Low Latitude Auroral Activity Watch" is intended to
provide southerly middle and low-latitude observers with an additional
warning mechanism used to inform people in these areas of an increased
risk for auroral activity.

     This new Watch has a lower probability threshold than the "Low Latitude
Auroral Activity Warning", which will continue to be used when a high
probability exists for low latitude auroral activity.

     In other words, a Low Latitude Auroral Activity Watch will generally be
issued whenever conditions might become suitable for low latitude (or
southerly middle latitude) auroral observations.  On the other hand, the Low
Latitude Auroral Activity Warning is issued whenever the probability for
low latitude auroral activity is high (ex. after a well-placed major
proton flare).

     It is important that these two services be properly distinguished.  They
may be considered similar to the methods employed by the weather service in
classifying severe weather potentials.  A Watch is used to inform people that
a risk exists.  A Warning is used to warn people that the conditions already
exist or soon will exist (with relatively little uncertainty).  A Watch does
not guarantee that auroral activity will be observed.  Neither does a
Warning.  But a Warning represents a higher probability that auroral activity
will be observed than does a Watch.

     This new addition is a significant one for low-latitude observers, since
it decreases the probability that observers will be caught off-guard if
forecasters underpredict the intensity of geophysical impacts.  The lower
probability threshold allows forecasters to issue the Watch during times when
uncertainty regarding the intensity of terrestrial impacts may preclude the
issuance of a Warning.

     The Low Latitude Auroral Activity Watch should therefore be treated less
seriously than a Warning.  It should also be used to denote a period of
uncertainty when conditions could materialize capable of producing observable
auroral activity over the lower latitudes.  With these tools in hand, the
observer will be better prepared to find and observe aurorae.

     Watches will always be reported in separate messages and will not be
imbedded within other alerts or warnings.


**  End of Bulletin  **

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

Date: 17 May 91 19:47:43 GMT
From: uokmax![e-mail]  (Robert W Murphree)
Subject: Re: Fred cut, AXAF and SIRTF funded

[e-mail] writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fraering Philip) writes:

>>I don't think Freedom's a good idea, but let's face facts:

>>1. It will probably have its budget restored by the Senate.

>We need to work hard to prevent this.

>>2. Killing Freedom will not transfer its money to space science.

>That is _exactly_ what Congress did: it cut all funding for Fred,
>and gave full funding to SIRTF and AXAF.

>The Luddites have a real myth going here about poltical necessity
>of astronauts.  Polls have always shown that citizens are every
>bit as enamoured with real exploration as they are with astronaut
>stunts. Now, Congress has demostrated that astronauts and their
>groupies are _not_ politically important to the space program.
>Space exploration no longer needs to be beholden to the centrally
>planned, wasteful projects that astronaut fans have forced on
>the program.  This week, two major exploration efforts were funded
>because a collosal pork barrel was cut.  A happy week indeed!


Yes, I agree.  The super pork space station is on its way to a well
deserved oblivion.  Good riddance to bad science and engineering.>--
>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 19:20:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Robert L. Smith)
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED


    I agree with those who in summary claim that nothing of lasting
human importance will occur in space until private enterprise does it.
This is true in the main because only a single leader with independent
resources can hold uncompromisingly to a crisp vision over the long
run needed to implement it.  But until such a leader arises, one
commanding vast resources while possessed of supreme charisma and
fanatic zeal, don't count on private enterprise for more than tokens
on the fringe.
    The energy gap to high orbit is huge.  It needs a truly big man to
take so big a constructive risk.  In his absence we are left only the
niggling compromises and ever-shifting goals of a government operation
that is no longer perceived as necessary.
    The recent and likely temporary cancellation of FRED funding,
despite solemn assurances from those with no control of the funding,
is merely one more case in point.  It behooves the crowing advocates
of silicon explorers, as opposed to hydrocarbon, to note how few
disinterested naysayers it takes to eliminate anybody's favorite
program when the government funds it.
    Despite its pitiful deficiencies, however, FRED is the better use
of tax-extorted funding.  If public funding in Space is ever to have a
direct impact on the source of those funds, it must serve the purpose
of moving humanity into Space and keeping it there.  You can argue all
you want for the beauty of pure science, but for lasting public
benefit consider that migration off this planet is our only positive
alternative to steady state stagnation.  FRED is the only current step
in the direction of that migration, and the nature of government
operations will guarantee that no better step can now be had.  Let's
not hesitate further on the stair.
    While waiting for a leader to drive us into space without regard
for the desserts of the homeless and the inevitable tragedies along
the way, we need all the data we can get on what it's like to be a
human there.  Men and women are more better sources of that
information than machines.

Regards, rLs

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

Date: 17 May 91 21:00:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Adam R. Brody)
Subject: Re: Senate decision timetable?

Am I correct in understanding the chronology?  NASA's budget was passed
earlier but now they are going back in and zeroing one of the line
items?  Does that mean the money goes elsewhere in NASA?

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

Date: 17 May 91 06:31:07 GMT
From: csus.edu!wuarchive!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!dullea.ipac.caltech.edu![e-mail]  (Karl Stapelfeldt)
Subject: Re: Fred vs. Exploration: head-to-head competition

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

      The combined AXAF and SIRTF budgets for this
coming fiscal year don't even amount to $500 million.  And we are supposed
to believe that zeroing out a $2+ billion program was necessary to ensure
full funding for these space astronomy missions ?   Even the fearmongering
alerts distributed by the space science hierarchy last week only claimed that
a $1 billion cut was coming for NASA.  We can now see that HUD was the
true beneficiary of all the negativism the space science community heaped
on the space station project in their letters last week.

I'm glad that SIRTF and AXAF will apparently continue.  However, I think
the "scientific community" has made a tremendous mistake by slamming the
space station in the effort to support their own projects.  This plays
into the hands of those who would cancel all space projects, and causes
unneeded bloodletting among those who support them.  In my opinion, no
single space project (be it Freedom, AXAF, EOS, SEI, CRAF) is important enough
to justify politically dividing space program supporters.  Have 20 years
of shuttle bashing yielded any benefits for space science ?   No.

It politically realistic to expect the House subcommittee decision will
be reversed.  A vote by six political lightweights will not stand
up against the wishes of the President when he gets around to intervening.
The foreign policy implications of the subcommittee's decision are by
themselves enough to ensure a reversal.  Even so, I doubt we will see
full funding for the station - another downsizing is likely.

I hope that supporters of the manned program can avoid the temptation to
take out their frustrations by opposing space science.  I also hope that
someday most space scientists will learn to see beyond the ends of their
noses and act as partners in the exploration and development of space.

                       Karl Stapelfeldt
                       [e-mail]

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

Date: 17 May 91 14:11:26 GMT
From: iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Fred cut, AXAF and SIRTF funded

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

>That is _exactly_ what Congress did: it cut all funding for Fred,
>and gave full funding to SIRTF and AXAF.

You still don't see it Nick. In your joy at seeing the potential demise
of Freedom (which I share) you aren't looking at the long term issues.
Among those are:

1. Freedom was killed because it was so poorly managed. Congress still
   wants a permanent human presence in space. Expect to see 'son of
   Freedom' sometime soon.

2. More important, next year they will be looking at another project
   to kill so money can be shipped to HUD. The prime canidates will
   be either SIRTF and AXAF or EOS. Rest assured EOS will not be cut.
   What are you going to do next year?

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 91 09:28:30 PDT
From: [e-mail]
X-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::AMES::"[e-mail]"
Subject: CRAF Penetrator (was: Should Galileo be rerouted?)


In SPACE Digest V13 #563,
swrinde!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!rex!uflorida!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!prism!
[e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>Assuming CRAF still has its penetrator on board, (I heard it was having
>budgetary problems a while back) CRAF will do exactly what is needed to
>help us start understanding what resources are out there.  Galileo will
>not.

CRAF's penetrator was eliminated last year.  CRAF has several instruments
on board, most of which have been tried and perfected on other missions.
But no one's ever done a penetrator before, so it was incurring large
development costs in addition to construction costs.  The penetrator's
share of the budget was going beyond the share of all the other
instruments combined, so that the penetrator and the other instruments
could not coexist on the same budget.  When the budget was cut, the
penetrator was axed in favor of those instruments which were more likely
to provide a good deal of scientific return.  If it makes you feel any
better, the plasma science platform was cut from CRAF's sister
spacecraft, the Cassini probe to Saturn.

This could all be moot anyway if the space station's funding is restored.
AXAF, CRAF/Cassini, and EOS all stand to be eliminated if the White House
is successful at defending the space station's funding.  I don't see much
use in the space station as is, so I'm inclined to favor cutting it to the
benefit of space science, especially since that's the line of work I'm in.

However, to put things in perspective, consider this: the amount of money
they're talking about cutting from NASA, a little over $2e9, amounts to
about $1.50/month for every taxpayer* in the country, and comes to about
0.6% of the projected budget deficit.  In fact the entire budget of NASA
only costs $13/month per taxpayer and accounts for about 4.5% of the
budget deficit, 1.1% of the total budget, 0.3% of US GNP.  The military
space budget is about double this.

* (There are about 100e6 taxpayers in the US if you count couples filing
   jointly as a single taxpayer.)

_____________
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
"Mars is essentially in the same orbit.  Mars is somewhat the same
 distance from the Sun, which is very important.  We have seen pictures
 where there are canals, we believe, and water.  If there is water,
 there is oxygen.  If oxygen, that means we can breathe."
 -- J. Danforth Quayle, 18 November, 1989

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Fri, 17 May 91 14:27:28 EDT
Resent-From: Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Fri, 17 May 91 02:24:07 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #564
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: Long-term Future of Life

: At the point in time you're referring to, resources will no longer mean, for
: example, trees, food and houses, but rather energy and information.
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>If that.  What I know may be of no use to the ultra different 'brothers'
>50 light years away!  And 50 years from now, the info may be useless.
>Maybe cultural info to the less xenophobic cultures. (Such as
>'Radio Alpha-C').

Quite possible.  Just because a candle is a low-value resource doesn't change
it's 'resource-ness', tho.  I chose information, because it's what you need to
move Energy (or change it's form), and Energy for the obvious reasons.

: The coming age of Solar-system industrialization will train us in the now-
: infant technology of efficient recycling.  It would follow that material
: will always be available.  Whether it's in usable form depends on what you
: know, and availability of energy. Conservation, not depletion, will be
: the bigger issue.

>Aye, there's the rub, but who can tell *WHAT* we are going to need or feel
>we need in the future!  Its like the Cave-men predicting cars and airplanes.

We'll (they'll?) still need energy and information (at least!).

[Stuff about evolution, resources, etc deleted]

>It would make an excellent SF novel.

I know.  I ain't sharin' any more with you!  You can read about it! :-)

>For a good 'feel' of this read _Man_After_Man_.  Its kind of a pseudo
>scientific art book, but it is very interesting nonetheless!

Thanks.  I'll check it out.  'The_Next_Ten_Thousand_Years' is fun, too.

Tommy Mac         Have to include this quote from our college Pres:
                 "Unless you're uncomfortable with an idea,
                                          it's not an idea at all."
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #590
*******************