Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_6/V13_676.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-22 | 21KB

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/IcMhzt:00WBwM2ZE5g>;
          Sat, 22 Jun 91 01:28:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 01:28:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #676

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 676

Today's Topics:
            RFD:  sci.space.internat-coop
              Re: What is erythropoetin?
          Re: Extra Terrestrial Intelligence
   Scientific programming positions at UC Berkeley - space science
       One Small Step for a Space Activist (vol 2 no 6)
           Re: Rational next station design process

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: 31 May 91 04:41:41 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi![e-mail]
Subject: RFD:  sci.space.internat-coop


  I would like to ask that the following news group be formed as to
meet the increasing need to debate this subject and to define over
all feelings and views on how international(multinational)space
activities in the future should be undertaken.  The newsgroup I
would like to present is as follows: Sci. Space. Internat/coop.
This newsgroup would offer an outlet for open debate and
exchange of ideas about the future of international space related
activities.  I feel this is now a very relevent topic which needs
to be brought into a world forum such as VMSNEWS.  Thank you for
any support or comments in this regards.
--
                                        Rick R. Dobson
                                        Executive Director
                                        United Space Federation, Inc.

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

Date: 1 Jun 91 00:20:14 GMT
From: swrinde!sdd.hp.com!think.com!mintaka!ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: What is erythropoetin?

[I write about how MacDac and Johnson & Johnson were driven out
of space pharmaceutical manufacturing by Amgen, which developed
ground-based technique via genetic engineering].

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

>What is erythropoetin?
>Is it something to do with treating diabetes?

It is used, I believe, in treating anemia (dearth of functional
red blood cells).   The folks in sci.med may have more info on this.
The microgravity processing technique is electrophoresis, whereby
the drug is separated from poisonous contaminants via electric charge.
In general, this technique works much better in microgravity than
on Earth; however if the drug in question can be purified
reasonably cheaply (c. < $10/gram of raw material) with even large bulky
equipment on Earth, it is not economical to do it on small equipment in
space.   Many drugs (in undiluted form) cost over $100/gram, and if the
raw material is at least 10% pure, and the contaminants cannot be extracted
on Earth for < $100/gram of product, we have a winner.  Erythropoetin was
seen as a clear winner, given subsidized Shuttle slots for R&D and
the Fairchild Leasecraft for operations.   But Amgen came along and blew
that one away.  No other clear winner has been identified, but our
microgravity experience with pharmaceutical electrophoresis is fairly limited.
Any info on more recent electrophoresis work and study is solicited.

The Fairchild Leasecraft, in turn, was a 1982 proposal for an automated
space factory costing c. $200 million that was scuttled in the mid-80's
for lack of NASA or commercial interest.  It is still, IMHO, superior
to the current Space Industries factory design, though the latter borrows
much from the Leasecraft design.



--
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: 31 May 91 17:02:52 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!uafhp![e-mail]  (Brian McCormick)
Subject: Re: Extra Terrestrial Intelligence


>     I think the conclusions stated here are ridiculous.  If a civilization
> were capable of "creating" black holes (However unlikely) it would not likely
> have all its beans in the same basket.  In other words not all of its people
> would likely reside in the same solar system or planet.  I think it would be
> likely that they would not do a great deal of experimenting on their home
> planet.   If they were advanced enough to destroy them selves quickly and by
> accident, they would most probably do research in space. Space offers many
> advantages for research, the first of which would be limiting the damage
> you could cause.
>
>     Just an Opinion.

Don't you think we already have that capability?  Just think of the "Land
of Confusion" video where Ronnie Reagan pushed the nuke button instead of
the nurse button.

The end need not be such an obviously ridiculous accident as that though.
Even in this day when everyone says the cold war is over, a missile could
be accidentally launched from the USSR, and the US could reply with a
massive retaliatory strike (you were aware that the US and NATO have a
first strike policy weren't you?).  It would then matter little
whether or not the USSR replied with a similar response.

I think I'd call the ability to destroy civilization in a single day
"quick", and it is still possible for the scenario above to occur
"accidentally", even without extensive space research on other planets

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

Date: 31 May 91 23:29:10 GMT
From: csus.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!agate![e-mail]  (EUVE jobs)
Subject: Scientific programming positions at UC Berkeley - space science


                   Map the Unseen Universe

The Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer (EUVE) Project  is looking for
talented  and  enthusiastic  professionals  to join our team in
exploring and documenting stars and galaxies as they have never
been seen before.

EUVE is a NASA satellite scheduled for launch in December 1991.
Its  four  telescopes  were  designed  and  built  at the Space
Sciences Laboratory of the University of California, Berkeley.
These high-tech instruments will scan the sky in the first-ever
study of  the extreme ultraviolet,  a band of the spectrum that
cannot  be  seen  from  Earth.   Discoveries  await  us in this
previously unexplored region of space.

Among the challenges of the EUVE mission  is the development of
software to interpret the data gathered by the satellite.  This
software  will be used to study  the entire sky, creating a map
of the locations and intensities of stars and other astronomical
sources  emitting EUV radiation,  and to  convert photon  events
into meaningful data for in-depth scientific study.

The following positions are available:

                        STAFF POSITIONS

All  jobs  require  a  background in Astronomy,  Physics, Math,
Computer Science, or a related field.  In addition,  applicants
must  be  familiar  with  the  UNIX  operating system  and have
experience with C and/or FORTRAN.


SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMMER
Box # 05-212-217-22 Q

Work with a team of programmers and scientists to develop novel
algorithms  and  software to analyze the  imaging data from the
EUVE  all-sky  survey.   Both production  programs,  which must
operate autonomously  in a real-time pipeline,  and interactive
programs are included  in  the  scope  of  this  project.  This
experienced  programmer  will  work  on  original  methods  for
finding  new astronomical objects amid the noise of geophysical
and astronomical background, construction and display of false-
color  sky  maps,  measurement of positions  and intensities of
stars  using  complex  point spread functions,  quantifying the
time  variability of  sources,  and  detection  of  diffuse EUV
emission structures.

REQUIRED: Demonstrated scientific programming ability in C.


SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMMER
Box # 12-213-214-22 Q

Work closely with a small team of scientists to design portable
software for the project's Guest Observer Program.  Responsible
for  collaborating  with  scientists  to  implement  innovative
algorithms for image  processing of  event-oriented data.  This
position requires  a  programmer who  can work independently to
develop  software  to analyze spectrometer data;  perform image
processing  to  calibrate   observations;   and   develop  user
interfaces that  allow scientists to select observational data.
Assist with  theoretical modeling  to solve  complex  tasks  of
scientific data analysis.

REQUIRED:  Demonstrated scientific programming ability, preferably in C.
DESIRABLE: Familiarity with IRAF.


****************************************************************

All jobs are located  at the  Center for EUV Astrophysics on
the  UC  Berkeley  campus.  To  apply,  send  a  resume  and
three  references to the UC Employment Office, 2539 Channing
Way, Berkeley, CA 94720.   Cite the box number given for the
position.

You may also  send  copies of resumes  and cover  letters by
email  to  [e-mail].   However,  official
applications MUST go through the UC Employment Office at the
address given above.



               THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IS AN
          EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

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

Date: 1 Jun 91 20:31:40 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!ox.com!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: One Small Step for a Space Activist (vol 2 no 6)


                  One Small Step for a Space Activist...
                                      by
                            Allen Sherzer & Tim Kyger

At ISDC this year the cancelation of Space Station Freedom was the big issue.
By and large people thought that Freedom should be fought for, and funding
restored. In a rare show of unaniminity both the Board of Directors and the
Chapters Assembly of NSS passed resolutions supporting funding (this despite
the fact that almost nobody [including the authors] likes Freedom very much).

Why did people who generally think that Freedom it too expensive or won't work
decide to support funding? The single biggest reason was the perception that
the cancelation vote was a vote against manned space and not one that was made
for technical or even financial reasons. Many attendees felt that if Freedom
wasn't funded then there wouldn't be any space station for a long time. On
the other hand, if the money could be restored (so the arguement goes) then
it would be available in the future.

This argument has some merit; if the funding for Freedom goes to social and
environmental programs (where most of it has gone) it makes the 'space pie'
smaller. If the money stays, then it can go to Freedom or be diverted to
other useful space projects.

Despite the merit of the argument it is still pretty painful to be forced
into the position of defending Freedom. The current redesign is a lot more
likely to work but is still far too expensive. Still, there are other factors
to consider. This vote is directed against manned exploration. Congress must
see that there is a constituency for putting humans in space. If they see no
large opposition to this vote they will conclude that nobody cares about
humans in space and will vote accordingly on future issues. For example, the
Synthesis Group is about to propose some excellent projects but if Congress
doesn't see support for human exploration they will never get funding.

We must take steps to insure that we aren't placed in this difficult position
again. We must agitate for a more cost effective program. William Lenoir, in
charge of Freedom, should resign due to its history of mismanagement. Richard
Truly should also resign to pave the way for a leader with more vision. Since
microgravity is now second fiddle to life science we must push for
commercially, funded man-tended free flyers. We should also push for
commercial partners for Freedom; let the private sector add the expansion
modules (Boeing has already offered to add commercial modules).


                               Legislative Roundup

                                   Plymouth
ABC finally showed the Plymouth pilot about the first lunar colony. Despite
this it is too late for a series according to the Plymouth publist. The
show got a 16% share and was third the time slot (after CBS and Fox). Still,
it would be a good idea to write to your local ABC affiliate, the ABC
programming department, and the show sponsors and express your opinion. It
wold help to show that there is a market out there for this sort of show. A
show like Plymouth would go a long way to communicate to the general public
our goal of a spacefaring civilization. Major sponsors included: Burger King,
Penneys, Pizza Hut, US Air, American Express, AT&T, Exxon, and Heinz. Many of
these companies will have 800 public comment lines. Call them.

                                Synthesis Group
Release of the Synthesis report has been delayed due to the Freedom situation
but details are leaking out. The report will not be a list of hardware to
build, but a list of goals and requirements covering the next 20 years. We
will tell you how to get a copy for yourself as soon as it comes out.

The report is expected to say that we can have a significant lunar base and
associated infrastructure for less than the cost of Freedom. It will also
propose several projects with real chance of being economically viable over
the long term. For example, the report is expected to place heavy emphasis
on Solar Power Satellites (SPS). SPS would have several political advantages
for Bush since it provides non-polluting power and Bush wants to be
the 'Environmental President'.

Things to do:
1. Prepare a presentation on SPS and deliver it to your local environmental
   groups. If we can sell them on the concept it will be much easier to get
   funding.

                             Spaceport Financing Act
The Financing act was recently evaluated by the Joint Committee on Taxation.
They said that making spaceport financing bonds tax free will cost the feds
$10M over five years. This low number is good since under the budget agreement
a $10M cut in spending must be found to offset the effects of the bill. A
larger number may well have killed the bill.

Rep. Rostenkowski will be holding hearings on international competativeness
at the end of June and in early July. An attempt may be made to get the
Spaceport Financing Act considered in these hearings.
Things to do:

1. Write or call Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) and ask him to include the
   Spaceport Financing Act in his International Competitiveness hearings.
   Mr. Rostenkowski's address is given below (remember, only ask for one thing
   in your letter).

                       Omnibus Space Commercialization Act
Comments on the draft bill are being examined at this writing (May 28). Expect
to see the bill introduced in early June. Hearings are expected on both the
Republican and Democratic versions of the bill in the middle of June.

The bill should see quick passage out of the Space Subcommittee and then the
full Science Committee. The bill will then be referred to the Ways and Means
Committee because of its tax provisions. It will be MUCH harder to see movement
there. Now is the time to start pushing for hearings at Ways and Means.

Things to do:
1. Write or call Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) and ask for hearings on this
   bill. Mr. Rostenkowski's address is:
   2111 RHOB                 tel: [phone]   fax: [phone]
   Washington DC 20515


                             Tidbits
Sources say that NASA and DoD will begin a push for building NLDP in '93. To
get funds they WILL recommend halting NASP and SSX/SSTO. This will be a
disaster if it happens...

Allen Sherzer: [phone] (W) [phone] (H) [e-mail] (net)
Tim Kyger: [phone] (W) [phone] (H) [e-mail] (net)

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer |   DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten.         |
|   [e-mail]   |                                                         |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 26 May 91 03:33:46 GMT
From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink![e-mail]  (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Rational next station design process

[e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:

> I admit, and did admit in my origional posting, that my system is less
> "generally useful." You are correct. It WILL miss other possibilities.
> However, if we study ALL the possibilities, we will be doing a decade of
> paper studies before we actually DO anything.

I didn't say that ALL possibilities must be studied in great detail.  What I
was arguing against is the elimination of other factors and possibilities.  If
you limit your view to building a space station, you are denying any other
possibilities for a space program.  That's basically saying, "I don't care what
effect it has on the future of space development, I want a space station now."
That's the thinking that led to the Apollo program and the space shuttle.  What
sort of launch capability could have been developed by now with the money that
was spent on the space shuttle?

> My idea will, at least, assure a positive "scientific/technological value"
> (e.g. will be in the black.)

Yes, that's possible, though I doubt that you'll get complete agreement on the
value of the research, no matter what it its.  The problem is that one project
cannot properly be considered in isolation.  If you put resources into one
avenue of space development, you have less to put into another.  You also
affect the direction of other work.

Here's an example: you have $100 billion to spend over five years and have two
choices (your limited study approach).  You can develop a small space station
or you can develop unmanned technology (robotics, AI, teleoperation).  If you
go with the R&D, you can use that technology later to build a manned station
for much lower cost (or a much larger station for the same cost).  That
technology will also be very useful in many of the services a manned station
would provide (materials processing, biological research, etc).  It would also
have useful application here on Earth (bedpan-handling robots to relieve the
burden on nurses, seafloor exploration, remote sensing, firefighting robots,
etc).  I'll let you--or anyone else--present the benefits of the manned space
station.

Now, if you go with one of the choices, you can't properly pursue the other;
that's the way things work.  :(   The government will use one project as an
excuse to limit funding for other projects.  There are only a limited number of
really good people, and they can't work on both projects at once.

The support industries will develop products for one of the projects.  For
example, they'll optimize their gizmos for human servicing, rather than
automated servicing.  Once they've done that, it will be hard to get them to
change.  It will also limit the market potential for an automated space service
robot, since there will be competition (possibly subsidized like the space
shuttle) and the equipment needed to handle optimized-for-human hardware will
be more expensive and complex than necessary.

Pushing blindly forward for a manned space station now may be progress of a
sort, but be careful that you're not actually heading down a blind alley.  :(


ps.  I've offered the benefits of pursuing R&D into automation technology.  I'd
like to see a similar argument for pursuing manned space technology.

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #676
*******************