Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_7/V13_764.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-02 | 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/scQK0De00WBw07wU4b>;
          Wed,  3 Jul 91 01:26:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  3 Jul 91 01:26:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #764

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 764

Today's Topics:
          Re:  SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
  Re: Platinum-group metal concentrations in earth-crossing objects
              Re: Fred's Operatic Death
            Re: Beanstalk analysis reprise
        Re: IGY and the dawn of the Space Age
             Re: Access to Space
              Re: Fred's Operatic Death
           Re: CNN Report On Paris Airshow
        Re: IGY and the dawn of the Space Age

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: Sat, 15 Jun 91 09:49:18 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: crash![e-mail]
Subject: Re:  SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

Charles J. Divine writes:
>[ bunch of stuff about Traxler/Green porkbarrel deleted ]

Complain about Traxler/Green's porkbarrel if you want, but its sort
of like a Dr. Mengele complaining about his patients' bad attitudes.

Get rid of the really big problems first and the other problems, like
SSC and EOS, will be much easier to deal with.  That is, in fact, why
true porkbarrel devotees are so obsessed with supporting Fred no matter
what the cost.  In the words of one House staffer (not on the space
committee) "It's a fire sale.  Everyone is cashing in their chips."
The debate was even more intense than the civil rights act!

This issue is such a wonderful spot-light, exposing the real evil in Congress
for all to see.  We're talkin' Judgement Day here.  The list of Congressmen
who fought for Fred is a distilled and purified essence of why people hate
government more than ever.  Names are named.  The evidence is on video tape.

The FBI never did such a well-designed sting operation.

>shaping the activities of large corporations.  A very considerable part of
>the cost in developing and building Fred lies in the current need to play
>some very nasty political games (e.g., NASA has learned DOD's trick of
>putting a subcontractor in every Congressional district).

So.... DON'T BUILD FRED!

The only NEED to play some those nasty political games comes from the
big project approach to space.  Unlike DoD, there is no good reason JSC
has to choose activities that require large projects.  They could pursue
lots of small ones and quickly synthesize enough of a market for space
services that the private sector would build the REAL WORKING space
industry we actually need.  The history of Adam Smith vs Karl Marx and
the market vs communism is on my side in this argument and very clearly
against JSC and its minions.  The fact that aerospace contractors prefer
to be spoon-fed government capital rather than risking their own is not
sufficient justification to ignore history and stew in this kind of
political garbage.  When you're 85 years old and still sitting in a high
chair drooling Gerbers, maybe it's time to either pick up the spoon and
feed yourself or (horrors) RETIRE ALREADY!

Lots of small projects also have the political advantage of spreading
out the money across districts so as to "buy constituency" but
in a way that is difficult to manipulate politically.  In other words,
you depoliticize space with small diverse projects, but you still
have constituency.  Combine that with the synthesis of a commercial
market, which makes Adam Smith instead of Karl Marx work for you,
and you have a compelling argument for axing JSC/Fred et al and
going small science, exclusively.

>To eliminate the
>very considerable waste one sees in political managed activities, I recommend
>finding ways of changing the fundamental situation, not wasting time going
>after a fairly minor player (NASA) in a very nasty game.

Waste isn't the problem.  If JSC were simply wasting the money we
send it, I wouldn't give a hoot.  JSC is, quite deliberately and for
obvious reasons, making it virtually impossible to raise real private
space capital (as opposed to politically connected space capital).  If
you want to talk about a "nasty game" talk about THAT game.  Kill
JSC DEAD DEAD DEAD and we might have a chance of creating markets for
space goods and services thereby attracting private capital to the
field.  Then we could get on with dealing with the real problems that
affect our technology competitiveness which related to needed fixes in
our securities laws and tax policies -- not which big techno-project
to blow our wad on for the next N decades.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      619/295-3164               The Coalition for
PO Box 1981                                   Science and
La Jolla, CA 92038                             Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 17 Jun 91 13:28:09 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!yale.edu!ox.com!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Platinum-group metal concentrations in earth-crossing objects

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

>>Why process in Earth orbit?  Seems to me that you could do quite a
>>lot, in terms of smelting, or whatever, by processing during the
>>transfer orbit.  Sure, it would take a few years, but so what?

>Two problems: lifting the heavy processing equipment out to the
>asteroid,

That shouldn't be a problem. After all, most of the energy and cost
is spent getting to LEO. After you get to LEO you are half way to
anywhere.

>and the round-trip light time for teleoperation.

So we send people.

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

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

Date: 17 Jun 91 22:22:05 GMT
From: ucselx!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!caen!dali.cs.montana.edu!ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Fred's Operatic Death

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:

>I go out to Andrews Air Force base, talk with the fighter pilots,
>and have respect for their accomplishments?

Good for you.  Fighter pilots have a vital role in defense, and
it takes only a tiny fraction of the defense budget to support them.
The same cannot be said for astronauts.


>He pays taxes too.

From his paycheck which is 100% funded by the IRS, he pays perhaps
30% back to the IRS.  BFD.  I said his pro-astronaut posts were
"self-serving" and they are; they serve to provide revenue for the
paychecks of himself, his boss, and his co-workers at JSC.  The same cannot
be said for my postings.  My employer sells computers to voluntary
purchasers. I do not derive revenue from any of the subjects discussed.

Of course he has a right to his self-serving propaganda; I also have
a right to point it out for what it is.


>Personally Nick, I think if we were pouring money into Asteroid Hunting

I don't propose to "pour" anything more than a tiny fraction of what the
astronauts are wasting.  Even that small fraction the astronaut groupies
want to keep for their own programs, as the recent Freddy Krueger war
so sadly confirms.



--
Nick Szabo            [e-mail]
Embrace Change...  Keep the Values...  Hold Dear the Laughter...
These views are my own, and do not represent any organization.

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

Date: 18 Jun 91 03:34:12 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!Neon![e-mail]  (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Beanstalk analysis reprise

I didn't get in on the beginning of this argument, but I want
to make one general point.  While all inventions are subject to
the laws of physics, arguments that the laws of physics forbid
some achievement often have holes.  Moreover, it is invention
that finds these holes.  Arguments that beanstalks can't work
have holes too.  Here's one.

Suppose we build the beanstalk from the bottom up to the top
of the atmosphere, and hang the upper part from synchronous
orbit down to the top of the atmosphere.  That way the part
built up from Baker Island can be thick and strong where the
winds are and can also be dynamically stabilized.
--
John McCarthy


"The people of the antipodes, gazing at the moon when for us it is only
a small crescent, remark, 'What a splendid brightness!  It's nearly full
moon'" - Stendhal, Memoirs of an Egotist

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

Date: 18 Jun 91 19:04:14 GMT
From: agate!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!Neon![e-mail]  (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: IGY and the dawn of the Space Age

I indeed errored in writing Explorer instead of Vanguard.  The error
was especially bad, since Explore was the name of the von Braun
project.
--
John McCarthy


"The people of the antipodes, gazing at the moon when for us it is only
a small crescent, remark, 'What a splendid brightness!  It's nearly full
moon'" - Stendhal, Memoirs of an Egotist

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

Date: 18 Jun 91 23:32:22 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Access to Space

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

>>Communications satellites are a service.  The service sector of the
>>economy does not create signifigant real wealth,

>If the ability to communicate instantly across the planet does not
>constitute "wealth", what does?   My particular business, Sequent,
>would lose over half of its revenues if we couldn't talk and send
>faxes to our European offices via satellite.

If you couldn't talk to Europe instantaneously, would the demand for
computers in Europe be less?  No, there would just be two companies
instead of one, or several companies.  All advanced communications allows
Sequent to do is expand the scope of its operations.  It does not actually
create wealth.

(Considering our experiences with the Sequent I am on now, cutting your
satellite links might be a good idea...but that's another article. :-)

>Perhaps we could also say that steel mills and airplanes don't
>create real wealth, because that's merely manufacturing and
>transportation.  Only farms that make food are real wealth.
>Ad absurdum.

Manufacturing indeed creates wealth, as it adds value to something.  What
does a comsat add value to?  Airplanes don't create wealth, either, they
just provide a service.

>I find your arguments quite astounding.  Perhaps what you are really
>trying to say is that, because the industry does not employ astronauts,
>you don't care about it?

Perhaps you have a hole in your head, too.

Where did I say I do not care about the communications satellites?  I think
they're a great idea.  I am taking issue with your statement that comsats
are a self-sustaining industry, because they're only industry in the loosest
sense of the word.  Asteroid mining (manned or unmanned) would create wealth.
Space-based materials processing would create wealth.  Solar power satellites
would create wealth.  Communications satellites don't create wealth.  Do you
see what I am getting at?

You've gotten into a rut on your anti-astronaut crusade...it's starting to
color your perceptions of other people's articles.
--
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: 17 Jun 91 14:49:50 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!yale.edu!ox.com!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Fred's Operatic Death

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>This is very similar to the behavior of a rock band groupie.   I don't see
>>any reason to make my language less descriptive of reality.

>Reality is in the eye of the beholder.  I could probably say the
>same things about those who drool and wet their pants thinking about
>a robotic mission, but it probably wouldn't describe the majority of
>AI advocates.

As an 'AI advocate' I strongly agree. I have been involved in research
involving real time AI for several years. Most of it for embedded
aerospace applications. It is because of this experience that I very
much doubt we will see anything with anywhere near human capability
for a very long time (if ever).

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

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

Date: 18 Jun 91 09:20:34 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!udcf.glasgow.ac.uk![e-mail]  (Ian Woodrow)
Subject: Re: CNN Report On Paris Airshow

>An Ariane (sp?) rocket is on display.  It is set up in a vertical
>position.  Looks real cool.

That is always sitting at Le Bourget - it's part of the museum methinks.


--
W@@DY_______________________________________________________________________
 /Ian Woodrow, Computing Service, Uni of Glasgow, GLASGOW G12 8QQ, Scotland \
*  <Dog 'n' Bone:  041-330-4800         | e-mail: [e-mail]>      *
 \__________________________________________________________________________/

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

Date: 18 Jun 91 17:13:37 GMT
From: convex![e-mail]  (Dave Dodson)
Subject: Re: IGY and the dawn of the Space Age

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
There is a major error in this article.  Explorer was von Braun's satellite,
launched aboard a Jupiter C rocket, which had a Redstone first stage and two
solid fueled upper stages.  The solid fuel rocket in the Explorer's body was
the 4th stage.  Jupiter C was developed to test reentry vehicles for ICBMs.
If you are old enough, you may recall a 1956 or 1957 speech to the nation by
President Eisenhower stating that the reentry problem had been solved, and
displaying a reentry vehicle that had been launched aboard a Jupiter C.

What is called Explorer here really was the Vanguard project.

>There is a gap in Nick Szabo's account of the early space age.
>The President's Scientific Advisory Committee, which recommended
>the Explorer project, successfully recommended that Explorer use
     ^^^^^^^^                                        ^^^^^^^^
     Vanguard                                        Vanguard
>hardware developed entirely separately from military hardware.
>The explicit hope was that this would serve as an example of
>separating civilian from military use of space and would influence
>the Soviet Union to do likewise.  This had several consequences.
>
>1. It didn't influence the Soviet Union in the slightest, since it was
>based on a considerable misconception of what the Soviet Union was
>like.
>
>2. It required forbidding the von Braun group at Redstone from
>launching a satellite based on the Jupiter IRBM rocket.
>The von Braun group was ready much earlier.

As mentioned above, it was the Jupiter C rocket, not the Jupiter IRBM.
The Jupiter IRBM was the first stage later for the Juno rocket, which
was used in 1959 to launch several payloads past the moon.

>3. It made the Explorer project one of minimal capability -
                ^^^^^^^^
        Vanguard
>18 pounds - as compared to 200 and 2000 pounds for Sputniks
>I and II.  I'm not sure the reason for this was entirely
>budgetary; I suspect PSAC felt that any space activity would
>be regarded as science fictionary and wanted to be modest to
>preserve respectability.
>
>4. The shoestring Explorer project experience long delays
                   ^^^^^^^^
           Vanguard
>and then failed spectacularly twice two months after Sputnik.
>
>5. The von Braun group was given the go-ahead after Sputnik
>and successfully launched a satellite before the first
>successful Explorer launch.
            ^^^^^^^^
            Vanguard

Von Braun launched Explorer 1 on January 31, 1958, if I remember correctly.
This was about 90 days after he had been given approval to proceed with an
attempt to launch an earth satellite, and included the time to design, build,
and test the satellite, as well as assemble the Jupiter C and wait for good
weather.  The launch occurred less than 4 months after Sputnik 1.

>6. Purity was abandoned completely after Sputnik.

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

Dave Dodson                                     [e-mail]
Convex Computer Corporation      Richardson, Texas      [phone]

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #764
*******************