Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_7/V13_793.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-06 | 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/ocRLbTy00WBwALXk5K>;
          Sat,  6 Jul 91 04:05:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat,  6 Jul 91 04:05:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #793

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 793

Today's Topics:
           Re: Net Participation by Gov't Employees
     Re: URGENT: (Not Again!) Traxler Gambit: The Next Generation
              Re: Shuttling to the Cape
         Re: USF Reply from Rick R. Dobson ( Founder)
             Motorolla Satelites
            Re: Magellan GIF Images (FAQ)
             Subdividing the list
          Re: Democracy:  Easy Come, Easy Go
    NASA selects Fairchild Space to negotiate contract (Forwarded)
           Re: Solid-fuel Rockets and Ozone
             Re: Mining El Dorado
             Re: Hermes (was Re: (none))

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: 26 Jun 91 03:05:53 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu![e-mail]  (Larry Granroth)
Subject: Re: Net Participation by Gov't Employees

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Alan Batie) writes:
> [e-mail] (Wales Larrison) writes:
>>I normally refrain from making statements regarding the net conduct
>>of other persons on the net.  However, the recent imbroglio from
>>Nick Szabo regarding the postings of Mary Shafer and other
>>government employees has given me cause to comment.
>
> I must've missed the posting this references, but I'll state publicly
> here and now that I think Mary's posting are among the most intelligent
> and informative on the net, and would be extremely disappointed if she
> were driven away.
> . . .

I generally just skim subject lines on sci.space, but my impression
has been that Nick also presents intelligent and inoffensive discussions.
Frankly, many of his views, in my opinion, appear to be in line with
the majority of space physics researchers.

(I haven't noticed Mr Szabo participating in any personal attacks, but
Nick-bashing seems to occur frequently.)

-Larry    [e-mail]    IOWASP::GRANROTH

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

Date: 25 Jun 91 13:47:56 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: URGENT: (Not Again!) Traxler Gambit: The Next Generation

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil Fraering) writes:

>I heard about Sen. John Rockefeller's plan to help families: ...
>... Projected cost: some $ 50 billion a year. Means of payment:
>cutting Space Station Freedom.

[Phil goes on to point out that although the program costs $50 billion
 a year we only spend $2 billion on Freedom. Where does the other $48
 billion come from?]

Clearly Senator Rockefeller is trying to put one over on us. The best thing
to do would be to call or write to the Senator and ask just what he ment.
I just got off the phone asking the same question to the Senator's office.
Nobody there could answer the question. If you want to help drive the
point home, call the Senator's office at [phone] and ask him if he
ment to say that killing Freedom was enough to pay for his program. They
will ask you to call the children's commission. Do so and ask them the
same questions. If you don't like what you hear call the Senator back
and tell them your question wasn't answered. They will do whatever they
can to put you off; don't let them. Insist on an answer.

You can also write to:
  Senator John Rockefeller IV
  SH724 HS
  Washington DC 20510-4802

  Allen

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

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

Date: 25 Jun 91 23:25:42 GMT
From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttling to the Cape

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Larsen) writes:
>I recently heard on the radio that NASA finally has determined that it would
>be cost effective to land the Space Shuttle at Cape Canaveral.  This would
>replace the need to land it at Edwards Air Force Base and then fly it to
>Florida.  Supposedly this will save one million per flight.  That's a lot of
>taxpayers' money that they have been wasting for the past 10 years.  I know
>when the program first started NASA said that landing at EAFB would only be
>temporary.  Does anyone know why this practice lasted for as long as it did?

Because it's safer.  Edwards is a much more rational place to put a
spaceport, as opposed to a missile test range.  In particular, the weather
is much more predictable.  NASA keeps pushing for landings at KSC to save
time and money, but EAFB is unquestionably a better landing site.
--
"We're thinking about upgrading from    | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5."              |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 25 Jun 91 18:08:09 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!acm.rpi.edu![e-mail]  (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: USF Reply from Rick R. Dobson ( Founder)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>
>            ......................
>
>>          B)  A governing or regulatory body which would review
>>              proposed projects submitted by the planning body to
>>              be debated and either approved or disaproved.
>
>            ......................
>
>Not only do you propose to have a body to plan space activities, but
>also one which could disapprove such activities.  This is no way for
>anyone who believes in any form of individual freedom to act.
>
>I see the proposed USF as a means to allow an international body to
>stifle space activities, and nothing else.  Without the Cold War, I
>doubt if much of what has been accomplished in space would have been
>done.  International control means subjugation.
>--
>Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
>Phone: [phone]
>[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet)   {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)

  Ah, Herman, ever hear of Checks and Balances? A concept used in our
government.  You see, we have a body that proposes laws, (Congress) and one
who can disapprove them, the President.

  Of course you want a body to disapprove projects, not every project
proposed will be worthwhile to do.
<------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Carpe Diem                             [e-mail]
                                       [e-mail]
"All that is gold does not glitter."   [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Jun 91 20:53:04 GMT
From: bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!bison!sys6626!inqmind![e-mail]  (Norman Paterson)
Subject: Motorolla Satelites

Would anyone have the knowledge as to whether or not Motorolla has settled
upon a firm to launch their satelites into orbit? I know that they have
decided and contracted out the construction of the satelites for their
Iridium program of 77 satelites in polar orbit. But have they awarded a
contract for the launching of these? Are they in the process of tendering
lauch services? Would be interested in knowing. Sincerely, Norman Paterson,
Winnipeg City, Manitoba CANADA.

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

Date: 26 Jun 91 01:48:03 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Matthew R Feulner)
Subject: Re: Magellan GIF Images (FAQ)

>
>     I've placed 16 more Magellan images in GIF format at the Ames SPACE
>archives, bringing the Magellan GIF total to 62 images.  All of the images
>are obtainable via anonymous ftp from ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3), and
>are in the pub/SPACE/GIF directory.
>
> ...
>
>     I've converted the images from the VICAR images I placed at the Ames
>site last week.  All of the GIFs are in a 640x480, 256 color resolution.

Sorry about this, but why doesn't my mac like these?  I download them to a
local UNIX machine in binary (or text) then to my mac, but none of my GIF
software likes them.

Thanks

Matthew Feulner
[e-mail]

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

Date:         Tue, 25 Jun 91 08:57:01 CDT
From: David Lowe <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Subdividing the list
To: "SPACE Digest/sci.space" <[e-mail]>


There have been several suggestions to change the format of this
discussion list.  Some have proposed to edit it and others have
suggested subdividing it in some way.  One idea was to divide the
forum into two lists, one of which would be peered and the other
absolutely unguided.  I have another suggestion.

The list could be divided into two forums on the basis of subject
approach.  The first forum could deal with all the political,
social, and institutional questions surrounding space
exploration.  On this forum we could read organizational charts
of international space agencies, learn how libertarianism will
save the world, and debate the economics of Fred.

The other forum would cover more technical issues.  The recent
discussions of extraterrestrial life, tethers, comet mining,
antenna deployment, and propulsion methods for interstellar
travel would belong here.

I realize that the world of ideas does not always subdivide
neatly and that participants would sometimes have comments to
make that defy simple categorization.  I also realize that not
all individuals would cooperate with the system I propose.
However, I believe that it work enough of the time to make this
forum less unwieldy.

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 08:15:27 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: crash![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Democracy:  Easy Come, Easy Go

Matthew DeLuca writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
writes:
>
>>When someone who is receiving tax dollars lobbies Congress to give them
>>more tax dollars, a positive feedback system is created that ultimately
>>undermines democracy itself.  When they actually FLY INTO WASHINGTON,
>>hang out in hotels, take Congressmen/staffers out to dinner or whatever,
>>they should be thrown in jail.
>
>This doesn't make sense.  Are you saying it should be illegal to talk
>to Congressmen outside of a formal panel hearing?  Or that it should be
>illegal for a government organization to ask for a larger budget?

The first sentence points out a fundamental control problem with our
present system of government.  The Hatch Act of 1939 tried to deal
with this problem, but it didn't anticipate the huge government funded
industry of the Cold War (of which NASA is a component).  Lobbyists needn't
be at hearings nor even be civil servants to be part of this problem.
This vicious cycle is at the root of programs like Frankenfred that
drive up the federal debt and alienate the people from their government.
We should strengthen the Hatch Act, via constitutional amendment if
necessary, to break this vicious cycle before it breaks our country.

The second sentence talks about the violation of existing statute
by civil servants and government contractors, who charge to government
accounting numbers to travel to Washington to engage in political
action.  The Federal Budget doesn't set up a line item that says or even
implies "$X for NASA civil servants and contractors to lobby for Space
Station Frankenfred."  Mischarging is a jailable offense.  Since these
people aren't being thrown in jail, the NASA inspector-general isn't
doing his job.  Therefore a special prosecutor should be established
within the Justice Department to investigate, prosecute and incarcerate
the criminals.

>>Since we appear unwilling to throw the rascals in jail as they should
>>be, the least we can do is provide free travel expenses to taxpaying
>>citizens with a countervailing point of view.
>
>If you want to lobby, fine, but you have to do it
>on your own money.  NASA has to use its own money...

I think this pretty much sums up the problem:  A government of, by
and for the government.  You seem to think NASA owns ANYTHING
independent of the taxpayers.  Sorry.  NASA is to do what it is told
to do with money and assets it is authorized to use.  It has no
ownership of anything.  When NASA uses money appropriated to build
Space Station Frankenfred to, instead, LOBBY for Space Station
Frankenfred, it is acting as though it OWNS that money, which it
does not.  Such lobbying is, therefore, theft from the public purse
and should dealt with accordingly.

>Btw, I think this was posted last month...can we be a little more prompt?

I respond promptly.  The network doesn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      619/295-3164               The Coalition for
PO Box 1981                                   Science and
La Jolla, CA 92038                             Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 25 Jun 91 21:00:45 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA selects Fairchild Space to negotiate contract (Forwarded)

Michael Braukus
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                           June 25, 1991
(Phone:  [phone] )

John J. Loughlin, II
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
(Phone:  [phone])


RELEASE:  C91-w

NASA SELECTS FAIRCHILD SPACE TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACT


    NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., has
selected Fairchild Space, Germantown, Md., for negotiations leading to
award of a 5-year cost-plus-award fee/level-of-effort contract to
provide engineering support services for the Space Technology Division
under the Engineering Directorate.  The types of support to be provided
include design, development, analysis, fabrication and qualification
testing of spacecraft hardware and software in support of Goddard's
many space science projects.

    The estimated value of the contract is approximately $52 million.
The contract is expected to be awarded to Fairchild Space by September
of this year.

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

Date: 26 Jun 91 00:17:12 GMT
From: usc!samsung!think.com!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Solid-fuel Rockets and Ozone

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steven S. Work 1st) writes:
>Has this been talk about in sci.space? IMO this is an important bit of news,
>if true. Any comments?

It's been talked about repeatedly, nay, endlessly.  It's pure bullshit,
self-serving technophobic lies.  Have I put that bluntly enough? :-)

The shuttle's effect on the ozone layer would be worth concern if it were
launching weekly like NASA once hoped.  NASA anticipated the issue, with
plans for liquid-fueled boosters.  As it is, while solid rockets in general
are pretty dirty, their contribution to the ozone layer's problems is
negligible.
--
"We're thinking about upgrading from    | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5."              |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 21 Jun 91 20:42:47 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss![e-mail]  (Paul Blase)
Subject: Re: Mining El Dorado

to: [e-mail] (Charles Frank Radley)

 CF> Ahem, It has been pointed out to me that nukes would make the
 CF> asteroid ore radioactive, and thus essentialloy useless for
 CF> most applications, certainly those involving manned presence,
 CF> and won't help electronic applications.
 CF>    I think I have decided I prefer conventiopnal explosives.

Maybe the two or three meters directly below the thrust point (crater),
but not the whole asteroid.

--- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR]
--
Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Jun 91 15:58:34 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Hermes (was Re: (none))

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fraering Philip) writes:
>How did Hermes become overweight? ...

The same way humans do:  one kilo at a time. :-)  Early weight estimates
for a space project are almost always optimistic, and the numbers grow as
engineering reality sets in.  In well-run projects they don't grow too
much, and a reserve is set aside early to cover a modest amount of growth.
In leading-edge projects or ones that have to be all things to all users,
e.g. Galileo or Fred, weight growth can be massive enough to endanger
the whole project.

Many people think ESA is making a mistake in trying to build a fairly
large and sophisticated spaceplane without some less ambitious preliminary
exercises first.
--
"We're thinking about upgrading from    | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5."              |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #793
*******************