Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_6/V13_680.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-22 | 19KB

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/wcMjzSS00WBwE35E4j>;
          Sat, 22 Jun 91 03:44:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 03:44:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #680

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 680

Today's Topics:
      Re: Fred vs. Exploration: head-to-head competition
           Re: Rational next station design process
              Re: Good for the Japanese
          Re: Extra Terrestrial Intelligence
         Re: Moonbase movie *Plymouth* to air Sunday?
              RFD:  talk.politics.space
         Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch?
        Info needed for manned flight to Mars

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: 29 May 91 15:13:07 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Fred vs. Exploration: head-to-head competition

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>
>> The system we have now ain't perfect, but it, in a fashion, works. And I can't
>> see any private set of individuals gathering up $1 billion for two
>> Voyager-class probes, nor maintaining infrastructure for 15+ years to collect
>> all the data.
>
>What about all the optical telescopes?  I see absolutely no problem with a long
>ongoing project.  As for the collecting the data from such probes, I can see no
>shortage of funding for it.  Possibly they would have given up trying to get
>the probes to produce data now, but most of the collecting is automated.

What about them? How much does an optical telescope cost, quantity one? It's
cheap. Voyager class probe? Expensive.

Collection is cheap. Analysis isn't. Monitoring health and status isn't.

Again I pose the question: How are you going to fund something like the Voyager
series of probes as a private venture? You're talking hundreds of millions of
dollars for building and launching quantity one.

And no matter how you slice it, the U.S. government will be involved because
the radioactives on the probe (nasty evil Pu :-) were supplied by the
Department of Energy. You can't buy Pu over-the-counter.

>Almost all of the pure research done in this country before WWII, the great
>bulk of it privately funded, went into the public domain.

So? WWII was 50 years ago. The times, they are a changin'. Currently, the
makers of AZT are being sued for their patent rights to that drug. Why? Much of
the research and testing was done in NIH labs without renumeration. Not in
the private sector.

Companies will hold close to their wallets any information which will make them
a buck. This is the capitalist way.

> BTW, it WAS suggested
>that those TV stations showing the lunar landings should have paid NASA for the
>rights, and there is no reason why it should not outsell the Olympics.

We went there for "all mankind." Would have been crass if we did, and it would
have lost that propaganda effect we got from showing up the Reds ;-)

>The idea of access fees for data seems to be a product of the computer age,
>with,
>for the first time, commercially developed instructions, which cannot be used
>without permission.

Apples and oranges. Commercial database systems are compilations of information
from many sources. The value is in the assemble and ease-of-search, plus
whatever data they generate in-house.

>Is the Manned Space Development Society, or the Planetary Research Society,
>going to keep its data from university researchers?  Even Spacecraft, Inc.
>is unlikely to do that.

Oh, no, I'm sure, for a price, ANYONE can get access to the data. However, I
think you underestimate the nasty trait of organizations to exploit monopolies.

     Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 29 May 91 21:16:04 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Rational next station design process

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

>A problem with Fred, as discussed often here, is
>the prospect of trying to retain all original goals as the station shrinks.

I don't think this is anywhere near as true under the current design as
it was in the past. Before we had the major goals of space engineering,
microgravity, and life science on equal footing; NASA was claiming all
would be met equally well. That claim is no longer being made, rather
we hear that Freedom is first for engineering, then life science and then
microgravity as time permits. design decisions are being made accordingly.

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

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

Date: 31 May 91 11:51:54 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!gecrdvm1![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Good for the Japanese

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (will) says:
>
>
>        In just few QUARTERS we started a project, partly worked on it and
>        restarted it again.  The International community does'nt really
>        work this way.  Japan thinks in terms of 50 years, Europe too,
>        about 50 years.  America thinks in terms of now.  This very minute.
>
>
>                                                        Will.....
so, what's all this I hear about "let's put off any decision on Hermes
for a couple years, the economy's gone bad"?  Or, "we just spent close
to our last buck on buying east germany, let's ease off on space
spending"?

The here today/gone tomorrow approach of the USA is essentially a need
to cater to the fad driven public (the same one which woke up this
morning and said "desert what?") and a need to sensationalize them with
something in order to get general approval for spending.  nowadays it
seems easier to wow them with ideas (NASP, Freedom) than with actual
deeds.  (easier to shell out those "research" pork dollars as well).

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

Date: 31 May 91 19:09:43 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Extra Terrestrial Intelligence


[WARNING: This reply contains Topic Drift. If you wish to read sci.space
information instead of roasty-toasting, please hit the 'n' key now]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian McCormick) writes:

>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?).

Sir,

First, 'First strike' implies that we launch our warheads first. If a mushroom
cloud appears above the U.S. FIRST, this is a 'first strike.'

The United States of America (we'll get to NATO in a moment) has traditionally
relyed on a policy of "Launch Under Attack." If a certain number of weapons
have landed on the soil of the United States, and there is positive
confirmation of a large-scale nuclear attack, we will, in turn clear the silos
and launch whatever bombers are left.

Some AF generals wanted to be able to "Launch on Warning" whereby we clear
the silos and launch the bombers (relatively speaking) when we are sure the
Commies have launched at us, but nobody in the Pentagon wants to end
civilization on the basis of a bad computer chip.

Neither one of these instances can be construed as a "first strike." The
Pentagon has not stated what would happen in a "limited" nuclear strike.
Presumably, we would see if it was an accident and all forces would be placed
on full alert. A quite interesting scenario which most planners are looking
into with the increased instability of the Soviet Union.

Since Looking Glass (US AF airborne command post to silos) and TACAMO
(US Navy counterpart to submarines) have stepped down from 24-hour in-the-air
alert due to reduced tensions (and to save money), and that the OTH-B radar
sight in Maine is now on a 40 hour work week, your nightmare warmonger scenario
is somewhat unlikely for an attack against the U.S.

AS FOR NATO: If CONUS (Cont. US) is attacked, NATO doesn't have squat to do
with anything, other than us giving someone a phone call and telling them to
duck and cover.

Had NATO been massively attacked by the Soviet Hordes, it reserved "the right
of first use." Basically, if the Sovs pulled a "standing start" attack and
looked like they were going to overrun Europe, NATO and the US reserved the
right to use nuclear weapons in a tactical environment (tactical: against
bridges, railroads, and massed troop concentrations with small bombs instead of
against cities and big ones).

This could be construed as a "first strike." It could also be construed as
self-defence of the most drastic sort.

Since the Warsaw Pact is no more, NATO is much less likely to get into "first
use."

In the future, please read "The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists" and your local
newspapers with more care before jumping up and yelling "The Sky is Falling."


     Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 1 Jun 91 12:53:32 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!ox.com!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Moonbase movie *Plymouth* to air Sunday?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brett G Person ) writes:
>Is this a pilot?  Could be a neat series.  Especially if the moonwere
>to suddenly be ripped out of oorbit and....

Yeah! Then we cold have some aliens show up and try to trash the place.
(We're talking high concept TV here).

>Hope they make it a series.  We could use a good SF network show again.

Alas no. I talked to the Disney publist working on the show. She said the
overnight ratings showed Plymough coming in with a 16% share. She said
this was 'respectable' but it isn't enough. The main problems where that
the sets where torn down when ABC didn't pick up the series last year,
the show was too expensive to produce, and the producer doesn't work for
Disney anymore.

HOWEVER, it would be a good idea to call/write your local affiliate,
ABC Programming Department, and the shows sponsors. If they see that
there is a market for a show like this they will produce shows to
meet the demand.

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

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

Date: 2 Jun 91 06:01:52 GMT
From: mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi![e-mail]  (Ronald E. Graham)
Subject: RFD:  talk.politics.space

This is a Request for Discussion for a proposed new group,

talk.politics.space

for which discussion is to be carried out solely in news.groups,
per the Usenet Guidelines for New Group Creation, or via e-mail.
What e-mail I receive on this subject I will summarize weekly for
the duration of the discussion period, which will last for four
weeks from the date of this posting.  After this time, if it appears
as though a new group is desired by the majority of respondents, and
the name and charter have been agreed upon, I will issue a Call for
Votes on the proposed new group, again per the Guidelines.

Charter:

This group will exist for the purpose of discussion of the politics
of space exploration, development, and scientific research.  Topics
could include, but not be limited to:

o   activities of space activists;
o   space policy in general, and applied to programs in particular;
o   funding levels and other non-technical considerations;
o   guesswork regarding the nature of extraterrestrial life forms
    or of the methods of space and planetary colonization.

Background:

Currently sci.space is a newsgroup with a great deal of traffic.  Over
the last year, there have been several attempts to raise discussion on
various potential spin-off groups; each group having shown little
significant interest due to highly-specialized subject matter.

Complaints are often posted within that newsgroup regarding the non-
technical nature of other postings.  It is true that there are a large
number of non-technical issues brought up in sci.space, and that readers
sometimes find themselves caught up in political arguments (and flame
wars!), or are urged to political action of one sort or another.

The purpose of this RfD is not to question whether such postings are
good, but rather whether sci.space has not grown to the point that there
are two distinct patterns of discussion: technical and non-technical/
political.  If it has, then a new group may be necessary.

If such a new group is primarily political in nature, then the talk.politics
subhierarchy is appropriate for the group.

Let me also point out that, while there is nothing in the Usenet Guidelines
for New Group Creation that states there must be a great deal of traffic
on a given subject before that subject merits a group of its own, a great
deal of traffic will still convince many readers that a new group has merit.

So: I propose the formation of talk.politics.space, and am now asking for
discussion of the proposed group.  I will not participate much in the
discussion myself, since I am more a reader in sci.space than a participant,
but I will do the leg work for this gladly, and am looking forward to seeing
comments from the real participants.  Go to it, all.

RG

"Principal Engineer" espousing "Engineering Principles"

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

Date:     Mon,  3 Jun 1991 00:37 CDT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch?
Original_To:  Orig_To! [e-mail],SPACE

Don Allen ([e-mail]) recently posted an excerpt from good old ParaNet.
I found this very interesting.

>This file is SHARETEXT material.[...] not used  for commercial
>purposes[... etc.]  Additionally,  we ask  that  you contribute to
>ParaNet, if possible,  to  assure  a continuation  of  this valuable,
>educational  SHARETEXT  service. The  suggested  contribution is
>$75.00 and entitles you  to  full access to our comprehensive library
>and our network of electronic affiliates  all  over the world.  Other
>services  are  available. Mail your contribution to:

This is followed by two articles.  One is a straight-faced account of
how Martians shot down the Phobos 2 probe.  The other is an excerpt
from the usually sensible "SpaceNews" ham bulletin which explains
Richard Hoagland's theory that the Mars Observer spacecraft has been
secretly launched by a Shuttle and mated to a booster previously
launched by ANOTHER Shuttle.

What amuses me is that ParaNet has the gall to ask for seventy-five
bucks for this "valuable, educational SHARETEXT  service."  The
"SpaceNews" information is widely available for free on other nets and
BBS's.  The Phobos report was an account of a story on *Hard Copy*,
described as a "television  news  program" (I forbear comment), which
may be viewed for free in many U.S. and Canadian markets.  It'll cost
you seventy-five bucks to get steady access to this kind of information
through ParaNet.  I am not tempted.

They are free to ask whatever price they want, though.  And it's nice
of them to make some of their tidbits available free (through the good
offices of Mr. Allen).  I love living in this country...

I suppose those who believe in Saucer People and Faces On Mars and
that kind of thing are accustomed to having their money taken from
them, and won't flinch at paying ParaNet a stiff fee for secondhand
rumors.

(To be fair, I am certainly not above accepting money myself for
information on space.  Have slideshows, will travel.  Nothing as
wonderful as Martian ASATs and secret NASA in-orbit assemblies,
though.)

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: 3 Jun 91 06:20:22 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!uniwa!cc.curtin.edu.au![e-mail]
Subject: Info needed for manned flight to Mars


One of my friends is doing an assignment on Flight to Mars, and she would
welcome any information she can grab on this. Can anyone please point me to
any ftp sites (or ames.arc.nasa.gov subdirectories) which has the related
data? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Charles
###############################################################################
Charles Tan                 | Internet: [e-mail]
2nd year Banking & Finance  | Bitnet: [e-mail]
Curtin Uni of Technology    | UUCP  : uunet!munnari.oz!cc.curtin.edu.au!STANYH
Western Australia           | Home  : 2 Laffey Court, Willetton, WA 6155
###############################################################################

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #680
*******************