Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_7/V13_742.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-29 | 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/gcP3cmq00WBwI1MU4N>;
          Sat, 29 Jun 91 03:43:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 03:43:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #742

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 742

Today's Topics:
               Re: What's HUD?
               Re: NASA Budget
      Re: Excavating (minig) gold in the space by NASA.
            Re: Fred Vote Thursday
              Re: Whats this USF thang?
            SPACE Digest V13 #630
      CMU Ambler on National Geographic Explorer on TBS
Re: LSPA Credit Assignment (was Re: The Coalition for Science and...)
            SPACE Digest V13 #625
              Re: Mars or bust!
            Re: Fred Vote Thursday
             Re: Lost satellites
    Re: talk.politics.space (was Re: sci.space.moderated)
            Re: Traxler says:  WAKE UP!!!!

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: 12 Jun 91 23:34:57 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: What's HUD?

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

>Department of "Housing and Urban Development".  These guys can build
>2,000,000 houses on Earth for every one house NASA can build in space.
>Astronaut groupies believe that this one house, about the size of a
>Winnebago, provides a motivation for Congress to move money from HUD
>to NASA.

Hmmm...what's the science/house ratio for the HUD projects, and what's
the same value for the NASA project?

Which one helps maintain a technological lead, and which doesn't?

--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Office of Information Technology      P.O. box."  - Zebadiah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]    _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 00:23:05 GMT
From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa![e-mail]  (Charles Frank Radley)
Subject: Re: NASA Budget



Last year Freedom was cut to save space science.   We took our hit
with good grace.
   I sincerely hope science does not get too much damage, but
let's face it gentlemen, it is now your turn to take some hit.

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 02:39:41 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: Excavating (minig) gold in the space by NASA.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kenneth J Meltsner) writes:

>If you'd like some 1 ppm gold ore, I can probably get you some dirt
>cheap right here on Earth.  In fact, while I don't have any specific
>numbers handy, there's probably at least 1 ppm gold in sea salt.

>10 ppm platinum is a bit better, but still not enough to make me want
>to get involved, even if the material were free, lying on the ground.
>I hope someone at the Washington Post knows how stupid this is.

Well, that's not quite it; when gold is mined from rock on earth,
the gold is extracted from the rock, usually at a couple ounces per
ton, and then the remaining ton of rock is thrown out.

The process used to extract gold from nickel-iron would be the carbonyl
process, and it may or may not be more efficient than some of the methods
used here. Also, the residue from he process would be iron, not more useless
rock. Any space mining done will have the bulk of the material used in
space. Mining the rock referred to in the article would have the side effect
of producing lots of gold.

And, finally, there is the possibility, which needs to be checked and
not simply dismissed, that there are mineral veins in the asteroid
where the gold and platinum group metals are concentrated.

Phil Fraering
[e-mail]

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

Date: 14 Jun 91 00:10:32 GMT
From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa![e-mail]  (Charles Frank Radley)
Subject: Re: Fred Vote Thursday



We have to generate CAD drawings before we build hardware.
The CAD drawings are very high value, and that is where the
vast majority of the engineering cost and effort goes.
   We have not had Preliminary Design Review closure yet.
We cannot begin fabrication utnil the design is agreed.
Once the PDR milestone is passed, that is when the
large quantities of test hardware will begin to appear.
  This will comprise mostly breadboard units.
Then will be Critical Design Review, about one year after
PDR.    Critical design review is authority of commence
manufacture and fabrication of the flight units....
    We have been on track since 1988.   PDR is scheduled
for July of this year.    Lokk for lots of test hardware early next year...

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

Date: 12 Jun 91 22:29:05 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!brolga!uqcspe!cs.uq.oz.au![e-mail]  (Rhys Weatherley)
Subject: Re: Whats this USF thang?

This is a reply I sent about this to Rick Dobson of the USF (which I am
joining) with my ideas, and he said I should post it:

>going for defense $$$ going to space programs.  I'd like to have
>my taxes cut so I can afford to live a little.  People in the
>defense industry will just have to learn a new trade.  I did.  That's
>the way it goes in any industry.

Fair enough.  In the long run space could pay off heavily with asteroid
mining, etc.  But this may not happen until your kids or grandkids time,
so I can sympathise with your reluctance to shell out tax dollars for
something you'll never see.  But what would you give your descendents?
Would you give them a world environmentally recked by industry and severly
depleted of resources, or give them a space-based economy to support
industry and a healthier planet?

>If you just get everyone focused
>on some grandiose world space program, we will still have the same
>socioeconomic problems.

Of course.  I'm not against solving these problems as well, but if
we turn away from space industry to solve socioeconomic problems,
then we'll never get into space.

>              We as a species haven't yet learned to
>live together and I doubt that focusing on colonization of space
>is going to solve that problem.  We will just bring the same
>social ills into outer space with us.  Hopefully there will be
>some kind of intergalactic space police to keep us under control.

A lot of the problems of "living together" will start to disappear with
a greater global awareness of each other.  This "global village" will
need to be supported by satellites and other communications networks.
If you can talk to someone on the other side of the world directly, without
needing to rely on political double-talk as an intermeditary, you will
be less likely to hate your fellow man.  By the time large numbers of
people start to migrate off-planet, then the common people will have
started to solve the problems themselves, despite the best efforts of
the governments of the world.

However, we won't know until we try.

Rhys.

+=====================+==================================+
||  Rhys Weatherley   |  The University of Queensland,  ||
||  [e-mail]  |  Australia.  G'day!!            ||
||       "I'm a FAQ nut - what's your problem?"         ||
+=====================+==================================+

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <Added.ocJei=[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 12 Jun 91 19:13:44 EDT
Resent-From: Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Wed, 12 Jun 1991 02:16:43 TZONE
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #630
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

Subject: Kelly Act (was: Re: Building Infrastructure)

>You miss the point Nick. The Kelly Act (actually acts since it was amended
>so often) existed to CREATE a market for large scale passenger traffic. The
>government moved mail because it was there. The backers of the bill would
>have been just as happy if they where hauling sand or even nothing.

Actually, Gov. moved the mail because passengers were still afraid of the
airplanes.  It was the fed's thought that people would become more confident
(and hence pay to fly) as they got used to seeing planes more often.  And
by God, they were right!  Wonder how often THAT'S happened?

>>Airplanes were proven as mail carriers before the Act.

They were also proven as fighter planes.

       - Just a few factoids for thought.

Tom
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 17:06:21 GMT
From: fs7.ece.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!netnews.srv.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]  (Gerry Roston)
Subject: CMU Ambler on National Geographic Explorer on TBS


Sunday, 16 June 1991, 9:00pm:

  The CMU Ambler will be featured in a 15 minute segment of National
  Geographic Explorer on TBS.  This is the material filmed by
  Mark Knoebling during the period around the December NASA demo.
  It contains footage of the preparation for and giving of the
  demonstration to NASA in which the Ambler walked around the
  Planetary Robotics Building without a a safety sling.

--
Gerry Roston ([e-mail]) | A man's ethical behavior should be based
Field Robotics Center,          | effectually on sympathy, education, and
Carnegie Mellon University      | social ties; no religious basis is
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | necessary.  Man would indeed be in a poor
[phone]                  | way if he had to be restrained by fear and
                                | punshiment and hope of reward after death.
                                | Albert Einstein

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

Date: 14 Jun 91 00:53:39 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: LSPA Credit Assignment (was Re: The Coalition for Science and...)

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

>I thought the NSS chapters in Tucson and San Diego were behind the
>Launch Services Purchase Act.

That is correct. Jim was (is?) a member of the San Diego chapter and
deserves a lot of credit for this legislation along with the other
members of those chapters.

>Now that a number of recent NSS publications have taken credit for the
>LSPA (for both NSS and Spacecause), I'm curious how those who were
>"fighting in the trenches" (Jim? Allen?) feel about the support they
>received from the national NSS organization -- excellent?  adequate?
>negligible?

By and large I would call the support late and negligible with one
exception. Glenn Reynolds of the NSS legislative committee wrote a
letter on behalf of NSS to Representative Roe at a very critical
time. One of my sources later told me the letter did have an impact
and helped the bill move forward. Glenn also said he would push through
phone tree alerts if needed (although by this time they where not
needed).

NSS has signed on as a supporter of the Omnibus bill to be introduced
soon. I hope they will be active supporters.

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

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 12 Jun 91 19:51:30 EDT
Resent-From: Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Sun, 9 Jun 91 02:06:28 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #625
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

Re: Asking why (Chain Post)

>>1) Why do we (space enthusiasts) want to explore space?

>Manifest Destiny

The same reson the first cell split.  Life Spreads! (Cosmic Law 1.0.42 sec 38)

Tom
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 12 Jun 91 23:51:39 GMT
From: comp.vuw.ac.nz!waikato.ac.nz![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Mars or bust!

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes:
> This came in this morning, reprinted without comment:
>
> Los Angeles Times
>
>     WASHINGTON - a presidential panel introduced an ambitious but
>   controversial program Tuesday to land Americans on Mars by the year
>   2014, which includes establishment of a permanent human settlement on
>   the moon and the use of nuclear-powered rockets to ferry astronauts and
>   supplies on interplanetary missions.
> >
>     "The report is very long on how from the engineering standpoint. But
>   it doesn't make a very persuasive case on why we should be doing it,"
>   Pike added.
> --
> bill davidsen    ([e-mail] -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
>         "Most of the VAX instructions are in microcode,
>          but halt and no-op are in hardware for efficiency"

    Could any one tell me how to get hold of a copy. Note that I'm in New
Zealand so there may be some export of technology problems (hell, we won't even
take your nuclear ships and you want to give them to us :-). Also could someone
recomend a decent source of information on sci.space type topics. ie
periodicals etc.

Pete Smith
Uni of Waikato (Y-cat-O)

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 00:41:36 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Fred Vote Thursday

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Frank Radley) writes:
>   We have been on schedule all along.     Why do people
>keep complaining the hardware has not been built, we have to design
>it first.....and we have not even had a PDR yet.

    Because when Reagan directed NASA to build a space station within
a decade in the 1984 State of the Union Address, we thought NASA could
do so.
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])
    __@/

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 00:20:58 GMT
From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa![e-mail]  (Charles Frank Radley)
Subject: Re: Lost satellites



The Soviets have not demonstrated a capability to safely
put humans into GEO, they are confined to LEO.
   Nobody from the USSR has flown above about 300 km.

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 23:11:13 GMT
From: sugar!taronga![e-mail]  (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: talk.politics.space (was Re: sci.space.moderated)

[e-mail] (Peter L. Thomas) writes:
> I'd like the UFO people to take their talk
> to the appropriate alt.news.group.  :-).

Don't they hang out in sci.skeptic (a poorly named talk group for humanists
to have it out with parascience types)?

I'd personally like to see a misc.activism.space group, actually.
--
Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  Taronga Park BBS  [phone]/n/8/1
 Taronga Park.    'U`       "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"

Back from Australia... if this mail seems old, that's why.

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

Date: 11 Jun 91 19:17:43 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!wuarchive!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv![e-mail]  (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Traxler says:  WAKE UP!!!!

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>Bob Traxler, whether he cares about it or not, has sent out a strong
>message to NASA and the space community -- WAKE UP!!!  He may go down
>in history as the politician who turned around the space program, starting
>a second Golden Age of exploration and technology -- and quite possibly
>paving the way for the move of human civilization into the cosmos.

More likely he'll go down in history as the *former* Chairman who embarrassed
his committee by pushing an agenda that was shot down in flames by a two
to one margin on the House floor.

Gary

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #742
*******************