Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_6/V13_686.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-23 | 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/8cN3b5e00WBwA4O05q>;
          Sun, 23 Jun 91 02:03:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 91 02:03:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #686

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 686

Today's Topics:
            Re: Gibson & Sterling
               RfD: talk.politics.space
               Re: More on Freedom Vote
           Has-beens, LSPA and Operant Conditioning
         Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch??
               Re: More on Freedom Vote
              Re: What is erythropoetin?
               Re: satellite refuelling

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: 3 Jun 91 02:27:19 GMT
From: spool.mu.edu!agate!earthquake.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (George William Herbert)
Subject: Re: Gibson & Sterling

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fraering Philip) writes:
>Why is it that there seems to be a large group of people who want to
>have a direct launch manned Mars mission (and I don't mean the sort
>Paul Koloc would build) ?

    Because, well, it's cheap, reliable, and despite the cries, you
CAN establish an infrastructure here and there without some in between 8-)

-george william herbert
[e-mail]

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

Date: 3 Jun 91 17:50:53 GMT
From: eagle!venus.lerc.nasa.gov![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.

The Request for Discussion will be posted to sci.space shortly after
it appears in news.announce.newgroups.

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: 4 Jun 91 01:46:14 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!widener!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: More on Freedom Vote

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

>>The amendment will 'tax' 3% of all the agencies except Vetrans and NASA...

>Is this *all* agencies or just all HUD/Independent Agencies (NSF, EPA, etc.)?

All agencies funded by the HUV, VA, and IA Subcommittee except VA and NASA
would have 3% of their budgets taken away under this plan.

>>In addition, $500M in cuts identified by the
>>NASA Authorization bill can be enacted to bring Freedom up to full funding.

>Does anyone know which specific projects are affected by these
>proposed cuts?

I don't have exact numbers handy but I know some money was removed
from EOS and HLV studies. EOS may have problems in the future; some
members of the Authorization Committee are concerned that EOS will
take too long and cost too much. They feel (correctly IMHO) that
we could get 80% of the results for 20% the cost in far less time
with a series of microsats.

This amendment will not kill any of the currently scheduled space
science.

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

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 17:52:23 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: crash![e-mail]
Subject: Has-beens, LSPA and Operant Conditioning

Prior to ascending to chairmanship of the Science, Space and Technology
committee, George Brown, at our request, cosponsored the Launch Services
Purchase Act of 1990.  His support was vital to the passage of that very
important piece of legislation.  As a reward for this courageous behavior,
when Brown faced the closest and toughest race of his career, I took two
weeks of vacation to run his Riverside phone bank and raised a thousand
dollars from space activists around the country.  I did this at my
own expense.

He was reelected by a very close margin.

As the new chairman of the Science, Space and Technology committee, Brown
has, energetically, taken the worst possible stance on every key piece
of legislation to come before him this year.  He could have made a break
with the past, led us to a new paradigm in science, space and technology
and thereby brought to himself and his committee, greater authority and
credibility.  Instead, he chose to deny the door that was opened to him
by the LSPA and follow it through to that new paradigm.

As a result of his failure of leadership, George Brown no longer deserves
to weild authority.  He "has been" a person of courage, but is no more.
In this sense of moral leadership, he is a has-been.

But for those who worship "realpolitick" Brown is also a "has-been" by
virture of the decay and downfall of big-science's political credibility
as a route to porkbarrel votes.  He backed the wrong horse with his
new chairmanship, and he lost.  It was a high-stakes political bet.

At this time, the real power over science, space and technology resides
with others.  It didn't have to be that way.

I have never used the term "has-been" to refer to a congressman before.
I do so now to communicate reality and I do so openly as punishment for
Brown's failure of courage, leadership, vision and political savvy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      619/295-3164               The Coalition for
PO Box 1981                                   Science and
La Jolla, CA 92038                             Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 3 Jun 91 20:55:20 GMT
From: amdcad!dgcad!dg-rtp!patriot![e-mail]  (Gene Gross)
Subject: Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch??

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Don Allen) writes...
>>     ParaNet  has received information that Richard C.  Hoagland,
>>the  noted author of The Monuments of Mars - a book  detailing  a
>>possible  surface anomaly on the planet,
>
>Hoagland is noted mainly for being a zealot who's rediscovered the fact that if
>you take enough random data, you'll be able to find a correlation with
>something in it.  I've been able to spot SEVERAL humanoid faces in the
>acoustical tile on my ceiling.

Actually, Hoagland didn't rediscover anything.  The first viewing of
the "Face" was while the assembled "horde" waited for the photos to
come back from Mars to JPL.  When the shot with the "Face" was put on
screen, the assembled scientists and journalists were a bit stunned.
You could have heard a pin drop during the few seconds that it took
for some bright scientist at JPL to quip "amazing what light and
shadows will do."

It was thought for a long time that the anomaly seen on Cydonia was
only seen in that one photo -- not so.  There was at least one more
photo of that same region which also showed the same "Face."  Both of
the photos where taken when the sun was in a different position -- but
both photos reveal the same structure.

Hoagland was not the one to discover the second photo.  He had been at
JPL taht day when the "Face" was seen for the first time.  He followed
the lead of the scientist who poo-poo'd the photo by also ignoring the
"Face" for a number of years afterwards.  However, two men, whose
names escape me at the moment, got a copy of the tape from NASA and
began developing photos.  It was during this time that the "Face" and
all of the other anomalies of Cydonia were "rediscovered."

Hoagland got involved sometime later and has been the leading
proponent of returning to Mars to study these objects -- if not in
person than certainly with a better camera system.

BTW, I have a copy of the original NASA photo showing the "Face."  It
is rather grainy, but I simply don't see how you can miss the "Face."
It is nothing like the Kermit face that someone said they saw on Mars,
nor is it anything like the face in the moon.  This thing is so
distinct that it will capture your attention immediately.

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 01:36:45 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: More on Freedom Vote

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>I never said it would be easy [killing the Shuttle], I just said it
>>could be done. In fact, it is happening even as we speak.

>Congress is working on killing the shuttle and going to cans?  Could you
>elaborate?

It's more than just Congress, it's also the Space Council and space
activists. Look at the signs: OMB is using the money for another
orbiter to fund HLV work. Congress is moving toward commercial
procurement policies which will move cargo off the Shuttle. The
only thing left is spacelab and Freedom resuply which can be done
for FAR less with expendables.

If NASA doesn't get the orbiters they will be forced to allow for
the use of ACRV or perhaps Comet to transport astronauts. When
that happens the Shuttle is finished.

This won't happen overnight and it will take work by activists
who want to see cost effective infrastructure. But it will
happen.

  Allen

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

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 02:14:21 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rphroy!caen!malgudi!uoft02.utoledo.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: What is erythropoetin?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Phil Fraering) writes:
> Okay, let's go one step further:
> What is erythropoetin?
> Is it something to do with treating diabetes?

Erythropoetin (aka EPO) is a red blood cell growth cell factor secreted by the
kidneys in responce to constant low oxygen levels of the blood. EPO causes
immature RBC (red blood cells) to mature so the oxygen carrying capacity of the
blood will increase. It is now manufactured by a company that I can not think
of the name currently and is extreemly expensive, as it uses the latest in
genetic engineering. It does not have much to do with diabetes. I have seen it
mostly in hemodialysis where the patients usually become anemic. I can get more
specific info if needed.

Tony
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Anthony Paul Schliesser             [e-mail]|
|The University of Toledo            [e-mail]     |
|College of Pharmacy                [e-mail]|
|                        [e-mail]     |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 2 Jun 91 15:35:25 GMT
From: iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: satellite refuelling

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

>> [The Kelly Act stimulated multi engine aricraft and navigation]

>These technologies, and many more besides, came out of WWI and WWII, not
>the Kelly Act.

First of all, you can forget WWII; the body of law and policies which
we call the Kelly Act hapened 20 years before WWII. At any rate, there
where multi-engine aircraft in WWI but they didn't have the advanced
navigation capabilities refered to. Those came about when the govenrment
built a system of radio beakons along the routes. None of this was in
common use before they where subsidized by the Kelly Act.

>I question whether the Kelly Act -- which was targeted
>towards the U.S. government business of mail delivery, _not_ passenger
>service -- had any positive impact beyond mail delivery.

I quote from "The American Heriatage History of Flight" by Arthur Gordon:

  ...Like his predecessors, Brown [Hoover's Postmaster] felt that the
  post office should encourage commercial avation in the interest of
  national defense. But he also felt that rapid expansion would never
  take place so long as government subsidies made it more profitable
  for the airlines to carry mnail than to carry passengers.

  Consequently, he sought an amendment to the original Kelly Act that
  would eliminate the old pound-per-mile rate and pay operators
  according to how much cargo space they made available. Brown figured
  that this would encourage the airlines to place orders for larger
  airplanes: then, if mail did not fill the extra space, operatiors
  would carry passengers rather than fly half-empty. The new proposal
  passed as the McNary-Waters Bill also attempted to reward progressive
  operators by providing for extra payments to airlines using multi-
  engine planes equipped with the latest navigation aids. The whole point
  of this new law, Brown said, was to develop avation in the broad sense
  and to stimulate manufacturers "who wold compete with each other to
  bring their aeronautical industry up to the point where it could
  finally sustain itself.


This was in 1929 and you will note from the quote that avation was NOT
self sustaining.

>Real infrastructure is developed by mutual agreement and business
>partnership of the parties concerned, not by dictation from
>politically motivated central planners pulling numbers out of the blue.

Let's see, we have the Interstate Highway system, the Railroads, the
airports, docks, cannals, and a host of others. All where done by those
nasty central planners. Are we actualy to conclude that you don't
think ANY of them are infrastructure?

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

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #686
*******************