Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_2/V15NO264.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 17KB

Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 05:10:39
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #264
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 30 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 264

Today's Topics:
         Atlas E and F questions ( Actually Pershing missile)
                       Clinto and Space Funding
                      Clinton and Space Funding
                   Controversy over V-2 anniversary
 Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
                          Re: Porous Silicon
                        Satellite of the Month

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Sep 92 04:17:16 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Atlas E and F questions ( Actually Pershing missile)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>This is essentially a government-organized sounding-rocket service that
>>happens to be implemented by private contractors...
>
>... what about the Space Vector Corporation? They have been flying, selling
>and using the Minuteman I platform in various forms since the late 70's.
>Actually Deke Slayton's company (Now EER Systems) started by launching a
>Minuteman I second stage from Matagorda Island ...

There are other people using hardware designed for missiles too.  For
example, Orbital Sciences's Taurus launcher is basically a wingless
Pegasus on top of an MX first stage.

>... The issue is not nearly as black and white as you suggest.

Crucial difference:  as I understand it, these folks are basically paying
market prices for the rocket stages.  They're not getting large-scale
government handouts of surplus rocket hardware at fire-sale prices.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 29 Sep 92 10:09:02 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Clinto and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, rn11195@sage (Robert Nehls) writes:
> [e-mail] writes:
> :
> : Japan and Germany have relatively little military spending, and as a result of
> : this they can spend more on government support of civilian R & D programs.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Japan and Germany had a unique advantage in that they lost WWII, (this
> sounds stupid, but I'm talking about today, not 50 years ago) and weren't
> allowed to have militaries.

Exactly, so they didn't waste money on it (waste isn't quite the right word...
They didn't use the money as effectively as it could on civil R&D).

> Things were tough for them and they did do a lot of things right and for
> that they do deserve a lot of credit.

So stop denying them it!

> :
> : >Do you really think that it is a coincidence that
> : >the military and space budget cuts coincide with the Japenese gaining a
> : >technological edge?
> :
> : Come on... They've had an edge for a *lot* longer than that!
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>

[arguments that Japan only gained an 'edge' in the 70s]

Two comments: The Japanese were beating the socks off the UK and European ship
building industry long before the 70s military cuts. I think you're focussing
on the areas where the Japanese are *today* seen as superior and neglecting
those areas where they did well some time back. OK, shipbuilding isn't

necessarily technology driven, but it still requires substantial expertese and,
in this case, the backing of their government. Shipbuilding was the first
'tragetted' industry, in the sense that the Japanese government and industries
wroked together to become preeminant in the world. Cars was the next...

In addition, it seems that the Japanese have had a long term edge in the
'technologies' of personel and project management. You can suiggest that this
is because of their 'regimented society' etc etc and similar cliched comments,
but the fact is that these methods work when transfered to other countries
(like the UK) so it is *not* a cultural thing.

Also the Germans had a technological edge long before the Japanese...

> :
> : This is where that military money can and should be spent. However, the typical
>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Dave, this is exactly what I was talking about.  So many people can say
> where the money should go, but nobody knows where it goes when its cut from
> the military budget.  It just vanishes and leaves thousands of people out of
> work.  As I stated in my previous post.  Until the programs are set up to
> orderly divert the money to another R and D effort, it should stay in the
> military budget where at least it is doing some good.

If your government is not accountable in the sense that you can't find where
all your tax money goes, then there is something really wrong and someone (I
would suggest the person at the top, Georgie boy) deserves the chop!

I would suggest one area that need serious consideration are lung cancer
subsidies (ie. the money given to the tobacco producers which goes to subsidise
lung cancer all over the world) and other agricultural subsidies. At least
Europe ios making some moves on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), I have
seen no sign of similar moves in the US (though I may have missed them). Also,
a great deal of wasted GNP can be sorted out by changing your ridiculous legal
system (70% of lawers in the world are in the US, and all earning lots of
money that could go to real commercial use elsewhere), and getting your medical
system sorted. You can lambast the UK and other Eropean countries for having
doctrinally unsound socialised (gasp!) medical systems, but the fact is *our
health services are ****cheaper***** in terms of GNP than yours. The legal and
medical issues are in some sense linked too because fo the degree of litigation
in US medicine.

--
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax            |  Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc      @ uk.ac.ox.astro        |           Saint Germain...
================================================================================

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

Date: 30 Sep 92 05:54:24 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff Privette) writes:
>
>TIME interviewed a group of the nation's leading economists (gee, I didn't
>see Thomas' name...) and asked them to comment on various aspects of
>both Bush's and Clinton's economic plan.  As a sneak preview, *none*
>of these professionals expressed the right-wing paranoia so beautifully
>displayed by Thomas.  They did have some doubts about both Clinton's and
>Bush's planned policies, however there was a slight majority consensus
>that Clinton's would result in better long term growth.  Of course the
>objective reader may choose to ignore the comments of talented professionals
>and accept the statements of a single armchair quarterback (read "Thomas").
>Weirder things have happened...

Taken in a vacuum, Clinton's professed economic plans don't look that
bad. Unfortunately US government economics doesn't take place in a
vacuum. The Democrat Congress dominates where, when, and how much is
spent on various programs. They have a 50 year track record of ignoring
Presidential budgets and doing as they please. A Democrat in the White
House has a slightly better chance of getting some of his programs
enacted, but only at the cost of rubber stamping a lot of other programs
demanded by Congress. The net result is much greater government spending
and a much worse deficit. Bush isn't much better, but his hands off
policy, and use of the veto, at least keeps spending down a little and
avoids destructive tinkering with the working of the business cycle.
Many of the leading economists say that the US would already be well
into recovery if it weren't for the massive tax hike that Congress
wrangled out of Bush. He now admits that was a tragic mistake, but
Congress hasn't. How many tax hikes do you think they can get
past Clinton? How much extra social spending? How much bigger will
the deficit be in four years? In economic terms, it's the *weasels*
in Congress that have to go, the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave
is of less consequence. International affairs is the major province
of the President, and there Bush's record is much better. Do you
believe Clinton can do better than an experienced leader like Bush
with his military and spook experience?

Gary

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

Date: 29 Sep 92 17:57:17 GMT
From: Urban F <[e-mail]>
Subject: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>Monday I heard a news account that ceremonies to celebrate this
>event have become a matter of controversy.

Yes, and so much that the German aerospace industry has cancelled
its plans on any celebrations on Oct 3:rd.

>In this country, the Confederate Air Force is allowed to tell us what
>a great plane the B-17 was without visible interference...

Well, you aren't currently trying to enter a union with those who
got bombed by it, are you? And didn't the CAF get some interference
when they wanted to celebrate by dropping a simulated A-bomb from
a B-29?
--
 Urban Fredriksson   [e-mail]  ([e-mail])
 "In order to make someone a nervous wreck, apologize while they still
  haven't used their best arguments." -- Runer Jonsson

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

Date: 30 Sep 92 06:33:41 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>Wingo posted the following:
>
>> No we are not still mining huge amounts of coal. We are mining less
>> coal today than in the seventies.
>
>This is quite wrong.  From the 1992 World Almanac:
>
>    Year    US Coal Production (million metric tons)
>    -----------------------------------------------
>    1970        612.7
>    1975        654.6
>    1977        697.2
>    1979        781.1
>    ...
>    1988        950.3
>    1989        980.7
>    1990           1035.9
>
>Production is up 32% from 1979 (the top year for US coal production in
>the 70s) to 1990.  US production grew about 2.6% per year.
>Consumption by US electric utilities grew 46% over that period, or
>about 3.5% per year, to 771.5 MMT in 1990.
>
>The only grade of coal that we mine less of now than in the 70s is
>anthracite, which accounts for about 0.3% of US coal production.

Anthracite is mainly used for metallurgical purposes, steel refining.
We're doing less of that than in the past. Another business gone to
the Far East. Most power company coal is now coming from open pit mines
in the West. Much of Eastern coal is high sulphur that costs more to
pollution control. Subsurface mines are closing in the East. Alabama,
West Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania now have less subsurface mining
activity than in the 1970s. SIGECO has cancelled contracts with Indiana
mines and switched to low sulphur coal from Wyoming. Two of three subsurface
mines in my home county in Kentucky have closed in the last 5 years due to
lack of market for their coal. Our coal exports have declined as Japan and
other trading partners switch to more nuclear power generation and more
modern electric steel furnaces. Our surviving steel industry is also moving
away from coal. And home heating by coal has become almost extinct.

Coal production hasn't declined, but Eastern coal production has declined,
and coal use has switched from industrial and home heating to primarily
electric power generation thanks to TMI and the environmental movement's
fear of nuclear power. It's ironic that environmentalists fought the steel
industry's belching smokestacks, and now the belching is coming from power
plants forced to use coal by their protests. Meanwhile the primary energy
efficiency of the steel industry has declined because of the intermediate
conversion losses from coal to heat to electricity and back to heat. Like
the environmental movement, Dennis was extrapolating the local situation
to the global situation. Not always a sound methodology.

Gary

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

Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:16:24 GMT
From: John Fordemwalt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Porous Silicon
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Howard Smith) writes:

> I haven't seen the EE Times article, but it sounds very much like
> something I read about elsewhere--sorry, don't remember where, but
> it was recent.

From the EE Times article:

   "Experiments at SUNY suggest that a porous-silicon layer is able
    to trap 100 percent of the photons striking it, eliminating the
    additional anti-reflection processing step."

   [ Wayne Anderson, a SUNY researcher, states that ] "... it was
   concluded that the porous-silicon layer converts virtually all
   the light that is trapped.  That would make porous silicon an
   ideal candidate for high-efficiency solar cells."

> The article I read mentioned very high conversion efficiency for
> current -> photons.  I don't recall that it said anything about
> conversion the other way.  But there didn't seem to be anything
> fundamentally irreversable about the conversion process, so the 97%
> figure that you cite doesn't seem out of the question.  However..

You may also be thinking of the June 24, 1991 EE Times, page 39
article regarding "an all-silicon light-emitting diode."

> The catch is that the 97% figure would only apply to point source
> illumination at the single frequency for which the device was
> physically configured.

This is not clear from the article text, although it is implied that
these devices don't radically out-perform other solar cell technology,
just that they are simpler to make (no anti-reflection coatings
required for high efficiency).

In any case, the devices look pretty cool, with power generation,
photo-detection, and photo-emission applications.  Kudos to the SUNY
team!

--
Roger Arnold
[e-mail]
----------

John Fordemwalt
[e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Sep 92 20:25:28 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite of the Month
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,rec.radio.amateur.misc

Earth Satellite UARS Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (NORAD #21701,
COSPAR 1991-063B) was launched from Space Shuttle Discovery (mission STS-48)
on September 15, 1991. It is measuring changes and ozone depletion in the
stratosphere and mesosphere. This satellite is in an orbit inclined to the
earth's equator by 57.0 degrees. It makes one revolution every 96.2 minutes
and comes to within 575 km of the earth's surface and is most distant
at 581 km.

UARS is measuring changes and ozone depletion in the stratosphere and
mesosphere. It is beginning a sequence of evening passes for North
American observers.

UARS is roughly a sphere 4.6m in diameter and 9.8m long. It has 6 -
1.5m by 3.3m solar panels. I have observed UARS from Denver 4 times
since its launch once at +3 mag and another time at +1.

UARS             9.8  4.6  0.0  4.4
1 21701U 91063  B 92263.22531901  .00002399  00000-0  20993-3 0  1817
2 21701  56.9852 187.4931 0005294  93.7738 266.3903 14.96349665 55730
--
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 264
------------------------------