Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_7/V13_766.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-03 | 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/scQLPgq00WBwM8L04q>;
          Wed,  3 Jul 91 03:04:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  3 Jul 91 03:04:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #766

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 766

Today's Topics:
              Re: Fred's Operatic Death
             Re: Access to Space
           Re: CNN Report On Paris Airshow
             Re: Access to Space
            Re: Beanstalk analysis reprise
      Re: Excavating (mining) gold in the space by NASA.
       Solar Terrestrial Bulletin - WWV & WWVH Schedule Changes
              Re: Fred's Operatic Death

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: 17 Jun 91 12:49:50 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!crdgw1!gecrdvm1![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Fred's Operatic Death

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says:
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>The kind of arrogant attitude you project with statements like "astronaut
>>groupies" and implying that pro-manned space people call finaciers "Bean
>>counters"  makes me discount your arguments.
>
>"Astronaut groupie" is a description based on observations of people
>flocking out to Edwards to watch the Shuttle land, getting astronaut's
>autographs, and worshipping deceased astronauts as martyrs.  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.

>
>Some of these people do in fact call the politicians who fund their
>programs, and people who keep track of those funds, "bean counters".
>_That_ is arrogance.  There have been at least 3 examples of this
Why is it arrogance?  If you count beans, you're a bean counter.
nothing wrong with being called a pencil pusher, a desk jockey, etc,
etc.  Now, if they call you a honeywagon you had best don your gloves,
cause thems fighting words.
>statements.  Quit wasting my tax money making self-serving posts to the
>net.  Quit wasting my money on engineer-welfare projects like Fred.  Get a
>real job.
>
hey, guess who woke up and found Fred still funded?



>
>--
>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: 17 Jun 91 22:05:10 GMT
From: sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Access to Space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>We could also have a thriving space exploration
>>and science program if the greedy astronaut programs were not soaking
>>up the bulk of the funds.
>
>In the short run, yes. In the long run we are far better off building the
>infrastructure.

We need self-sufficient infrastructure, which is what I have been
advocating.  You have been promoting 1960's tin cans, which have
nothing to do with infrastructure or the economical habitation of space.

Meanwhile, most of the technology and exploration needed to expand our
self-sufficient infrastructure remains unfunded, due to the neglect of the
NASA leadership and promoters of astronaut programs such as yourself,
greedily soaking up the bulk of the funds for short-term, astronauts-now
projects.


>Doing so wold reduce costs to LEO and permit a lot more
>to be done.

Sorry, we have been following your strategy for 20 years and the cost
to LEO for astronauts has _increased_, not decreased.

Furthermore, over 90% of the self-sufficient industry is in GEO and SSO,
not LEO.   Putting $multi-billion centralized satellites in LEO is
pork barrel, not infrastructure.


>Eventually we would get to the point where PhD students could
>send their own probes out. That will produce far more results in the long
>run than your short term approach.

Why do you think I am advocating the development of Iridium-type technology?
We need to move towards the next generation of space technology, not
backwards to the 1960's.

As for the silly "long term vs. short term" rhetoric, decades-long
projects that develop little new technology are far worse for the
future than quick, short-range projects that advance the state of the
art.  Worse still are short-range programs to launch a tiny number
of astronauts in tin cans by the next decade, instead of doing the
hard work needed to develop self-sufficient industries that can be used to
build economical habitats over the longer term.


>>The Europeans have quite substantial access to space via Ariane and Giotto,
>>et. al., with astronauts nowhere  in sight.
>
>And yet they still feel the need to build Hermes so they can have a manned
>program.

Only as a sad mimicry of the U.S.   Europe (largely France) also has
its astronaut groupies.  Most of the space scientists and commercial
space people in Europe are opposed to Hermes, just as most of these
people in the U.S. are opposed to Fred.  Even as we speak, Ariane 5 is being
redesigned from a large satellite carrier into an HLV whose only purpose
in life will be to lift two astronauts into LEO.  Every nation in
Europe except France has been trying to stop this nonsense.  Sadly,
France has not learned from our mistakes (and their successes).
Europe will probably lose its leadership in the commercial space
launch field by the end of the decade, for the same reasons the U.S.
lost that leadership to Europe in the 1980's.


--
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: 17 Jun 91 22:55:27 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: CNN Report On Paris Airshow

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John A. Weeks III) writes:

>The Soviets unvail the Mig-31.  The Mig is on static display
>and will fly at some point during the show.  It looks like
>an Eagle (twin tails) and is painted white with blue stripes.
>What more can one say after having a 4 second glimpse?

The MiG-31 isn't exactly a new aircraft; it's basically a reworked
version of the MiG-25, which was initially designed to counter the B-70
Valkyrie.
--
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: 18 Jun 91 00:29:57 GMT
From: mintaka!think.com!samsung!caen!ox.com!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Access to Space

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

>>In the short run, yes. In the long run we are far better off building the
>>infrastructure.

>We need self-sufficient infrastructure, which is what I have been
>advocating.

We have never had a self-sustaining infrastructure. Where it not for the
cold war we would have no launchers today. If the government assumes the
role it always had and makes the investment (which they have yet to do)
then we will have the infrastructure we need.

It would have been interesting to hear your agruements through history. You
would have complained about the nasty 'central planners' who where
subsidizing the trans-continental railroad. When the Kelly Act began
using govenrment money to build airports and encouraging with subsidies
large multi-engine aircraft no doubt you would have complained about
those 'pilot groupies' diverting diverting needed funds away from
baloon technology into their heavier-than-air 'tin cans'.

>You have been promoting 1960's tin cans, which have
>nothing to do with infrastructure or the economical habitation of space.

I have posted a lot on what I would do. It has little to do with tin
cans and everything to do with cheap access to space. The methods I
advocated will reduce cost to orbit by a factor of three. You claim it
will take 50 years to do (and under your ideas, it would) yet it
can be done in three.

What's wrong with 60's technology if it reduces costs?

>>Doing so wold reduce costs to LEO and permit a lot more
>>to be done.

>Sorry, we have been following your strategy for 20 years and the cost
>to LEO for astronauts has _increased_, not decreased.

Do you actually think we have been following the approach I advocate
for the last 20 years? I thought you understood it better.

>Furthermore, over 90% of the self-sufficient industry is in GEO and SSO,
>not LEO.

Nick, we have no self-sufficient industry anywhere in space. Nothing
ever launched in the commercial area has come close to paying the full
cost of their launches.


>>>The Europeans have quite substantial access to space via Ariane and Giotto,
>>>et. al., with astronauts nowhere  in sight.

>>And yet they still feel the need to build Hermes so they can have a manned
>>program.

>Only as a sad mimicry of the U.S.

I see. If you like it it is 'forward thinking efforts we would do well to
emulate'. When you don't like it it is 'sad mimicry of the US'. You can't
have it both ways, either they know what they are doing or they don't.

>Even as we speak, Ariane 5 is being
>redesigned from a large satellite carrier into an HLV whose only purpose
>in life will be to lift two astronauts into LEO.

Huh? Several problems here:

1. The main reason for Ariane 5 IS Hermes. Without Hermes there would be no
   need for Airane 5.
2. No design changes are being considered which will preclude using
   Ariane 5 for satellites.
3. Ariand 5 is NOT a HLV; it will lift about as much as a Titan IV.

>Every nation in
>Europe except France has been trying to stop this nonsense.

Hermes is overrunning but I suspect is will survive the meeting in
November.  As to it being nonsense, they did decide to build it and
they do think it is a good idea.

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

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

Date: 18 Jun 91 16:09:04 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!ptimtc!nntp-server.caltech.edu!sol1.gps.caltech.edu![e-mail]  (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Beanstalk analysis reprise

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Carter) writes:
>The terminal velocity of a cable of density 1.7 must be
>considered.  If the cable is only an inch or two in diameter
>and the lengths are not long enough to whip the ends up to
>high speed ("range-safety" equipment is indicated!), terminal
>velocity will not be high, and damage will be small.

I've never seen any proposal for a beanstalk that thin.

>>     The thread title says "Beanstalk reprise".
>
>Beanstalks are a class of tether.  Weren't you here for the lecture?
>
>>     Beanstalks aren't possible given today's technology. I
>>agree with you... again !!
>
>Agreed.  However, they are possible given MATERIALS known
>today.  This is a crucial distinction; we know what to shoot
>for, and even many of the physical processes required.

There was a science fact article in ANALOG Science Fiction/Science Fact a
couple of years ago that concluded that, given our understanding of chemical
bonds, there was no material theoretically strong enough to build a beanstalk
on Earth (on Mars or the Moon, yes; on Earth, no), but that pinwheels would be
feasible.  Anybody out there who can point us to the appropriate issue of
Analog?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: [e-mail] | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

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

Date: 18 Jun 91 16:22:41 GMT
From: beguine![e-mail]  (John F. Miller)
Subject: Re: Excavating (mining) gold in the space by NASA.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
>The diamond cartel (de Beers) very stringently limits the supply of
>diamonds, to keep the price high.

DeBeers does not merely try to keep the price of diamonds high.  Their more
important goal is to keep the price of diamonds _STABLE_ and rising just
slightly faster than the overall inflation rate.  In the late 1970's and
early 1980's, inflation was running rampant, and speculators drove diamond
prices to very high levels (from which they subsequently collapsed).  During
that time, speculators were buying and selling diamond rough that would
normally go to diamond cutters.  DeBeers tried to curb the speculative
activity, since they knew the bubble would burst and have a harmful effect
on the entire diamond industry.  Prices have been rising very moderately for
the past few years (following the crash).

-- John Miller, Graduate Gemologist/Gemcutter/Analyst Programmer

--
  John Miller ([e-mail])
  Department of Pharmacology, UNC-CH School of Medicine
  1026A FLOB  (231H) CB#7365, Chapel Hill, NC  27599    Tel: [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 12:27:21 MDT
From: oler <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:[e-mail]> (CARY OLER)
Subject: Solar Terrestrial Bulletin - WWV & WWVH Schedule Changes
X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"[e-mail]"

                /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

                        SOLAR TERRESTRIAL BULLETIN

                              15 June, 1991

                        WWV & WWVH SCHEDULE CHANGE

                /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\


RADIO STATION WWV AND WWVH SCHEDULE CHANGE

     For those who obtain information from radio stations WWV or WWVH, please
note that the solar radio observatory responsible for measuring the 10.7 cm
radio flux has been moved from the Algonquin Radio Observatory (near Ottawa,
Canada) to the Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory (DRAO) in Penticton,
British Columbia, Canada.  As a result of this move, the daily 10.7 cm radio
flux measurements are now taken at 20:00 UT instead of 17:00 UT as was the
practice at ARO.  This has shifted the schedule for updates on WWV and WWVH.
The new daily data on WWV and WWVH is now provided at 21:18 UT instead of
18:18 UT.  This change was adopted in early June and is now permanent.


**  End of Bulletin  **

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

Date: 18 Jun 91 18:40:52 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!blacks![e-mail]  (Robbie)
Subject: Re: Fred's Operatic Death

[e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:

>You assume that he's supporting the manned space program because he
>works for NASA.  Have you considered that the converse may be true?
>Perhaps he works for NASA because he believes in the manned space
>program.

>Whether he's right or not is a completely different issue, but I think
>it's unfair to denigrate all pro-NASA posts from NASA employees as
>"self-serving propaganda."

>Usenet is not (yet) a major focus of political power in this country.
>Most people who post to the net do not believe their posts will have a
>major effect on national policy.  I believe that NASA employees who
>post their opinions are simply expressing their personal views and not
>attempting Machiavellian political maneuvers.

>While I think it would be senseless to accept their opinions as fact
>simply because "they're the experts", I think it's equally senseless
>to discard their opinions as propaganda simply because "they're paid
>by the IRS".  Their arguments, like anyone else's, should be weighed
>on the merits of the views expressed, and not upon the identity of the
>poster's employer.
>--

Oh, bless your heart, sir.  At JPL we specialize in remote sensing
instruments, but even so I have a deep gut level affinity for the
astronaut program.  (I also like Ray Bradbury, you see.)  I will duck
the rest of the discussion, primarily because my opinions are not
yet carefully considered, and neither do they reflect anything that
NASA thinks, but I will make one more small observation:

While the IRS may pay us, in some sense, they are but an agency, or a
bureaucratic means of government ends.  I prefer to think of the heirarchy
in terms of my boss, and his boss, and so forth.  In short, I feel that
as a NASA employee I don't work for the IRS--I work for Dan Quayle.

Rob Fatland
(My personal views only, not that of NASA, etc., ad infinitum)

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #766
*******************