Space & Astronomy

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Space & Astronomy / Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso / mac / TEXT / SPACEDIG / V13_6 / V13_617.TXT < prev next >

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-08 | 20KB

Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu> 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/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/Mailbox/ccI6fUW00WBwM1LE4d>; Sat, 8 Jun 91 01:28:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <EcI6fFW00WBw41JU4i@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 8 Jun 91 01:27:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #617 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 617 Today's Topics: Re: Mars Quote Correction Re: Bootstrapping (Was: Re: S.E.T.I. Who can give me any reasons ...) Revising a biased history of space science funding VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Subcommittee Appropriations Re: Amateur Telescope Making Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 May 91 22:40:21 GMT From: pyramid!lstowell@hplabs.hpl.hp.com (Lon Stowell) Subject: Re: Mars Quote Correction In article <9105231802.AA29712@gemini.arc.nasa.gov> greer%utdssa.dnet%utadnx@utspan.span.nasa.gov writes: > >quote: > >"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 > Hey, he should know...after all he is talking about his home town! ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 91 23:43:19 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!hamlet.caltech.edu!carl@uunet.uu.net (Lydick, Carl) Subject: Re: Bootstrapping (Was: Re: S.E.T.I. Who can give me any reasons ...) In article <1991May23.193728.7192@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes... >This is completely wrongheaded. Most mineral resources are present on >earth in enormous abundance. Prices of minerals have declined with >time, as extraction technology has outpaced depletion of the most >concentrated deposits. Currently we are near historic lows for the >inflation adjusted prices of most nonpetroleum mineral resources (and >even oil is well below the artificial highs of the 70's); this despite >repeated false predictions that prices would soon inevitably increase. >There are multiple possibilities in the wings for new energy sources >when the oil runs out (various forms of nuclear and solar power >have nearly unlimited potential; obstacles of cost can be >confidently predicted to be overcome if a strong incentive is there). Not necessarily. With the population decreasing at a disastrous rate, and the sort of people who start any discussion of with space with a "question" like: "I don't see why we're spending all that money on space when we could be doing something USEFUL with it down here." growing in numbers and influence, it seems to me that we're in danger of using stupidity to leverage ourselves into a global subsistence economy. I'm not saying that WILL happen, just that it might. >I also dispute the idea that breaking out into space requires large >amounts of terrestrial resources. The real cost is in labor, in >design, manufacture and operation; a rocket simply doesn't contain >very much material, after all. No, the rocket doesn't. The infrastructure to support it does, and requires that HUGE amounts of labor be diverted from what all too many people consider more important uses. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl J Lydick HEPnet/NSI: SOL1::CARL Internet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 91 03:31:19 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!ptimtc!nntp-server.caltech.edu!dullea.ipac.caltech.edu!krs@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Stapelfeldt) Subject: Revising a biased history of space science funding In article <1991May22.043446.26432@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: > >Let's take a look at the actual facts: > >* From the time Sputnik, the unmanned satellite, motivated our > country into action and radically increased space funding, until > 1966 unmanned lunar and planetary exploration drew about $900 million > (in $1985) per year. > Much of this unmanned exploration funding was directly related to supporting the manned lunar landings with automated precursor missions. The scientific results of Lunar Orbiter and Surveyor were a direct offshoot of the manned program's need for landing site surveys. It is preposterous to quote these budget numbers out of their programmatic context and imply that they demonstrate how well unmanned exploration does without budget pressure from manned programs. > From 1966 until 1971, the Apollo program dominated funding, and funding > for automated exploration dropped to $400 million per year. > This number does not begin to reflect the true benefits reaped by planetary science during this period. Although motivated by national prestige, the Apollo missions were the most important exploration missions ever conducted. The returned lunar samples allowed the chemical composition of the lunar surface to be determined (knowledge of great importance to the future use of extraterrestrial resources); allowed crater age dating methods to be calibrated against radioisotope ages (informatation fundamentally important to dating all solid surfaces in the solar system); and determined the age of the moon. You imply that the Apollo program damaged planetary science, when in fact the opposite is true. To ignore Apollo's contribution to planetary science shows an extreme bias against manned programs. >* During 1971-1975, Apollo flights were cut short, and planetary > exploration funding staged a renaissance, to a peak of $900 million in > 1975. > This peak in funding corresponds to the Viking (Mars orbiter/lander) missions. Why should we attribute Viking's funding success to the decrease in manned space activity instead of the merits of a Mars lander mission ? >* During 1975-1985, the Shuttle grabbed an increasing share of the funds, > and planetary exploration dropped to a low of $200 million in 1984. > The planetary budget may have fallen, but the NASA astronomy budget grew substantially because of the Hubble Space Telescope. The real fact is that the total NASA science budget (Planetary + Astronomy + Earth Science) has been level at 20 % of the total agency budget since the Apollo days (Reference : speech by Carl Sagan at JPL, spring 1990). Planetary exploration can just as easily blame HST as the shuttle for this funding drought. Another contributing factor, in my opinion, was the politically ineffective tactic of bashing the manned space program in the effort to support planetary projects. >Now the astronaut fans are trying to make up a new myth >-- "Fred money is going to HUD". But these myths wear thin >after awhile; it is quite obvious that the Committee funded space >science, NSF and EPA, not HUD, out of this year's Fred money. > It's obvious that they cut Fred, and that the money saved provided little or no increment to other NASA or NSF programs. This is not a myth. The total NASA budget was cut; this is a fact. >BTW, if we are going to fight HUD, proposing to spend money that >can buy 2 million houses to instead buy just one house is, politically >as well as logically, the worst possible way to win that fight. > I think Fred (or its successors) will never escape this politically potent slogan. >All in all, the astronaut fans have made up their own little world where >scientists are mere pests, the people who fund their programs are >"bean counters", the only alternative to their astronauts is HUD, >and they have a God-given right to the largest piece of NASA's pie. > This characterization of single-minded supporters of manned space flight could be applied equally well to anyone who takes the narrow point of view that their particular projects should be advanced at the expense of others. There is no shortage of such people speaking in support of space science. Extremism on both sides must be curtailed, or the space program will be divided and conquered. No program, manned or unmanned, has a automatic right to any particular funding level. Each must make its case and work to earn its funding every year. It may be a political reality that Fred doesn't have the support to be fully funded right now; we'll see what the President can do. Karl Stapelfeldt krs@ipac.caltech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 91 13:08:15 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!les.engin.umich.edu!sheppard@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Ken Sheppardson) Subject: VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Subcommittee Appropriations Posted without comment: =============================================================================== Statement of the Honorable Bob Traxler, Chairman, VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee, House Appropriations Committee -- May 15, 1991 "Today's action of the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, in accepting my recommendation to terminate funding for the development of NASA's Space Station Freedom, reflects the fact that our Federal Government's budgeting has hit a dead end. We simply can no longer afford huge new projects, with huge price tags, while trying to maintain services that the American people expect to be provided. The Fiscal Year 1993 scenario is also dismal. Under last year's budget agreement, the Subcommitee does not expect any increase beyond the percentages in this year's allocation; 5.4% in budget authority and 5.6% in outlays. Furthermore, prior-year appropriations will produce increased outlays that will adversely impact the Subommittee's ability to fund the various agencies within its jurisdiction. In brief, if we cannot afford to fund the space station this year, there ss no way that we would be able to fund it next year. The budget crunch this year requires us to terminate development of the space station; if we stay on the same budget course, we will soon be faced with the prospect--even the necessity--of making more awful decisions in the years ahead. The VA-HUD Subcommittee funds a range of important human needs programs: VA hospitals, housing for the poorest in our society, environmental clean-up programs on which the health of ourselves and our planet depend, education and basic research programs on which our fuure economy depends, and, yes, our civilian space program with which we address another basic human need-- the need to explore. In terminating; funding for the space station, we have been able to provide nearly full funding for other space science research efforts and we have provided full funding for the research and education programs of the National Science Foundation. We have provided a much needed increase for the VA hospital system, which I wish could have been more, in order to help keep our nation's medical services for veterans in operation. We have provided generous funding for our nation's environmental programs. Finally, we have maintained our nation's commitment to housing for the poor and the homeless." =============================================================================== All number are in millions of $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = Overall VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations = Sample Distribution of 1992 Sample Distribution of 1992 VA-HUD-Indep Agencies Bill VA-HUD-Indep Agencies Bill without Spact Station Funding with Spact Station Funding Budget Budget Authority Outlays Authority Outlays Med Care + 175 + 151 + 50 + 43 Med Care Equip Delayed --- - 32 --- - 32 Med Research + 10 + 7 --- --- Construction + 77 + 2 + 77 + 2 Annual Contributions + 847 + 11 + 847 + 11 Operating Subsidies(1) + 250 --- - 250 --- HOPE - 765 --- - 765 --- HOME - 500 - 10 - 500 - 10 HUD Homeless --- --- - 100 - 20 CDBG + 345 + 14 + 280 + 11 EPA Operating + 162 + 56 + 75 + 28 Superfund - 100 - 15 - 150 - 23 Construction Grants + 325 + 11 + 225 + 7 FEMA Homeless + 34 + 32.64 --- --- NASA - 2068.5 - 1065 - 1251 - 730 NSF --- - 17 - 250 - 125 Other Non-NASA/NSF Accts + 5 + 4 - 10 - 8 -------- -------- ------- ------- TOTAL - 1203.5 - 850.36 - 1222 - 846 Section 6028 Allocation - 1207 - 845 - 1207 - 845 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = NASA Appropriations = RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Station-Out Station-In Space Station................................. - 1928.9 Space Flight Capability Development New Launch Systems........................ --- - 175 General Reduction......................... - 10 - 50 Space Science and Applications General Reduction......................... --- - 35 SETI...................................... --- - 7 SIRTF & OSL Phase B's..................... --- - 25 LIFESAT................................... - 10 - 15 Life Science (Space Station).............. - 25 - 25 AXAF...................................... --- - 50 EOS....................................... --- - 75 CRAF...................................... --- - 45 LANDSAT................................... + 5 --- Microgravity.............................. - 11.5 --- Remotely Piloted Aircraft................. - 5 - 5 SAR....................................... + 10 --- Classroom of the Future................... + 1.5 --- Information Systems........................... - 5 - 5 Commercial Programs Commercial Applications and Enhancements.. - 5 - 5 Commercial Transportation................. - 5 - 25 Aeronautics & Space Technology Aeronautics Research General Reduction.... - - 10 NASP...................................... - - 25 Exploration Technology.................... - 10 - 52 Space Automation and Robotics (FTS)....... --- - 50 Exploration Mission Studies............... - 10 - 15 General Reduction (Space Technology)...... --- - 25 Academic Programs............................. --- - 9 General R&D Reduction......................... --- - 25 TOTAL NASA R&D.................. - 2003.9 - 753 SPACE FLIGHT Space Transportation Production and Operations General Reduction......................... --- - 200 Assured Shuttle Capability................ --- - 75 Structural Spares......................... --- - 75 ASRM...................................... + 175 + 175 Tracking.................................. - 25 - 50 Expendable Launch Vehicles TDRSS LAUNCH VEHICLE...................... - 39 - 39 Titan IV CRAF/CASSINI Vehicle............. - 35 - 50 Mobile Satellite.......................... - 24 - 24 General Reduction......................... - 10 - 10 TOTAL NASA SPACE FLIGHT........ + 42 - 348 R&PM General Reduction From Fund Source III.... - 13 - 75 General Reduction From Fund Source I & II. - 12 - 25 TOTAL NASA R&PM................. - 25 - 100 CONSTRUCTION ASRM (Transferred to Space Flight Account) - 50 - 50 Space Station Processing Facility......... - 35 --- CEISIN Facility........................... + 3.4 --- -------- -------- TOTAL NASA...................... - 2068.5 - 1251 -- =============================================================================== Ken Sheppardson Email: kcs@sso.larc.nasa.gov Space Station Freedom Advanced Programs Office Phone: (804) 864-7544 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA FAX: (804) 864-1975 =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 91 19:07:58 GMT From: pasteur!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!boingo.med.jhu.edu!haven.umd.edu!wam.umd.edu!bunge@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Robert David Bunge) Subject: Re: Amateur Telescope Making In article <9105231316.AA09423@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> GLWARNER@SAMFORD.BITNET (THE GAR) writes: >A trip to a nearby library at lunch yielded three books in my search: > >Amateur Telescope Making: Book One (1959) from Scientific American >Amateur Telescope Making: Book Two > >Standard Handbook for Telescope Making by N.E.Howard (also 1959) > >I look forward to hearing any comments on my chosen (by availability) texts >and suggestions regarding new techniques or sources which may have emerged >in the last 32 years. The ATM Books are ok, a _little_ out of date, but the basics haven't changed that much. There is a newer edition of Howard out (about 1984?) and a good book by Richard Berry (editor of _ASTRONOMY_ magazine) called _How To Build A Telescope_. Most people today buy the optics and build the mount and tube. Only a few die hards (like me!) still grind their own mirrors. But, perhaps the best source of ATM information (especially for larger aperture Dobsonian type telescopes) is _Telescope Making_ magazine, published by Kalmback Publishing, 21027 Crossroads Circle, P.O. Box 1612, Waukesha, WI 53187. They also publish _ASTRONOMY_. You might want to move this to sci.astro. Bob Bunge bunge@wam.umd.edu . ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #617 *******************