Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_3/V15NO333.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 41KB

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 92 05:02:56
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #333
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 22 Oct 92       Volume 15 : Issue 333

Today's Topics:
                   Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
                         High School project
      Sen. Al Gore on the American Space & Aeronautics Programs
                Space for White People only? (2 msgs)
                         Telescience Workshop
TheSouth rose (was Re: Weather satellites & preventing property damage)

    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: 21 Oct 92 02:35:06 GMT
From: "Shadow.,,," <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>Furthermore, I think that
>>asteroid mining missions (and the volatile extraction missions that
>>will likely precede them) should use the same launchers as comsats,
>>instead of demanding their own special-purpose hardware.

I have a big problem with mining asteroids and mining on the moon theories.
And that is, for a mine to be of economic value, there has to be a relative
enrichment process which creates a local abundance of mineral wealth.
Guys, this just isn't possible. Sure, there are predominantly Fe-Ni
asteroids floating about there in space, but there aren't REALLY enough
of them in close proximity, close enough to Earth or the Moon to warrant
going out, mining them and carting them back OR sending them back to Earth
in order to refine them here. Silicate structures are incredibly resistant
to refinement. I mean, sure! you can mine for sillica as well, but metals?
Not a chance. I had a good laugh last night when the beyond 2000 show
announced proudly that they would use the moon as a source of metals.
Grin. Hey, guys... mineral deposits form from two big groups of processes,
and both of them involve flowing/moving water and lots of spare time.
There is no way that the moon has had sufficient surficial water to develop
erosional enrichment deposits, and no way that there has ever been enough
water around for "crustal" hydrothermal processes when the moon was still
relatively molten inside. So, all that remains is aolean differentiation..
and there is no wind on the moon! Asteroid impacts wouldn't really help
much, unless you find old impact cores of metal-rich meteorites.
    In all, you'd never cover the cost of mining a deposit because
there wouldn't be any deposits of ore grades anywhere near the richness
of those on Earth. Even with technological advances, what we'd need is
an unmanned machine which needs no energy input, capable of operating
for many years and using a refinement process which hasn't yet been
devised... and probably won't ever be.
    The moon will not be our mineralogical saving grace. If you want
to mine metals, go look on Mars. Maybe- and that's a BIG maybe there
once existed the propper conditions on Mars, or maybe the wind has
differentiated heavy from light minerals. But then, you can increase
your transport expense.

There are no amphiboles on the moon.

Brad.

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

Date: Wed, 21 Oct 92 12:43:43 GMT
From: "Charles A. Lind" <[e-mail]>
Subject: High School project
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Sexton) writes:
>information about mars.


See most recent issue of Astra.

Chalres

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

Date: 21 Oct 92 09:05:22 GMT
From: Clinton for President <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sen. Al Gore on the American Space & Aeronautics Programs
Newsgroups: sci.space

                    STATEMENT BY SENATOR AL GORE
                     Goddard Space Flight Center
                       Monday, October 19, 1992

      This afternoon, I want to speak to you about aeronautics and
 space.  Because I believe in the importance of this subject for the
 future of the country, I will also be delivering a second speech on
 other aspects of this same challenge later this week in Florida.  But
 in order to appreciate the magnitude of what we confront, it is
 necessary to begin with a discussion of the larger context.

      America is the greatest nation on Earth.  But for more than a
 decade, our leaders in Washington have failed to invest in this
 country.  They have failed to invest in American jobs.  And they have
 failed to invest in the means to develop those new technologies that
 are needed to drive our national economy.

      After twelve years of Republican control of the presidency, the
 people of our country can hardly avoid drawing some sobering
 conclusions about the results of the Reagan/Bush/Quayle economic
 policies.  A variety of indicators illustrate the dismal performance
 of the American economy during this time.

      Ten years ago, American workers earned higher wages than workers
 in any other country.  Now we're 13th and falling.  Our competitors
 are growing more and earning more because they educate their people
 better, invest more in their future, and organize their economies to
 compete.  The American people, on the other hand, are suffering from
 policies that have resulted in the worst economic record in fifty
 years:  the slowest economic growth, the slowest job growth, and the
 slowest income growth since the Great Depression.

      The sad truth is that we have 1.4 million fewer manufacturing
 jobs now than four years ago.  And, after twelve straight years of
 trickle-down economics, some important industries of the future have
 been devastated in the United States.  For example, during this era
 of Republican stewardship of the economy, virtually the entire
 domestic electronics industry vanished.  One after another, our
 leading firms have surrendered in the battle against foreign
 competitors.  While Reagan and Bush stood by on the sidelines, our
 electronics firms were out-matched and out-gunned by foreign
 competitors who are subsidized by their governments.  It's the
 outcome you might have expected under a president whose chief
 economic advisor reportedly claims that it makes no difference
 whether the United States exports silicon chips or potato chips.

      If you search long and hard in some stores you might discover
 what appears to be a familiar American brand name.  But don't be
 fooled.  Take a look at where the product was actually manufactured
 and you'll learn a different tale.  I can tell you this much about
 the story's ending:  it won't conclude with the line "Made in
 America."

      The same story has been repeated over and over again in
 industries where the U.S. was once a leading manufacturer.  In fact,
 its easier to name the sectors of our economy that have NOT been
 wiped out by foreign competition than where we used to lead, since
 that list is so much shorter.

      Our last surviving crown jewel is the American aerospace
 industry.  As a source for technological innovation, it has
 far-reaching implications for every sector of the American economy.
 Indeed, it holds one of the keys to future prosperity of the United
 States.  It is the one area where our advantages in technology and
 quality have been so great that not even George Bush's Hooveresque
 do-nothing approach to the economy could destroy them.

      But this is no time for false confidence.  Every one of us in
 this room knows that aerospace is next on the hit list.  The
 footsteps of our rivals in Europe and Asia are getting louder and
 louder.  Even the Russians are starting to sell their aerospace
 technology around the world.  The time when we could assume a
 continued American supremacy in aerospace is gone.  And President
 Bush's hands-off economic policies have dangerously weakened the
 ability of American aerospace to fight back.

      It is therefore crucial that the government begin to focus its
 efforts on preserving our aerospace industries.  But the Bush
 Administration is continuing to indulge in the same wishful thinking
 that has helped destroy other sectors of the economy.  Believe me,
 I'm talking from first-hand experience.  As Chairman of the Senate
 subcommittee that writes NASA's authorization bill, I have battled
 every year with the Administration on priorities in aerospace.

      Because of the failed policies of the last four years, our
 national space program is as lost as a satellite thrown out of its
 orbit.  George Bush and Dan Quayle have perilously weakened our space
 program.  The late arrival of Dan Goldin to NASA raises
 possibilities, but the results of his efforts remain unknown.

      During the last four years, the Bush/Quayle Administration has
 failed to establish strategic priorities for the space program.
 Instead, this Administration has taken to throwing out half-baked
 ideas, regardless of their cost to taxpayers, hoping that the money
 to pay for them will materialize out of thin air.  They have no idea
 of what is needed to strengthen NASA and preserve America's
 leadership in space.

      As a result, NASA has been forced to try to do too much with too
 little.  At the same time that the Congress and the President agreed
 to the Budget Enforcement Act, which imposed a cap on future spending
 increases, George Bush and Dan Quayle, acting as Chairman of the
 National Space Council, began their push for several costly new space
 initiatives.

      By far the biggest of these came in 1989, when the President
 declared that he intended to send humans back to the Moon and on to
 Mars by the year 2019 -- the so-called Space Exploration Initiative.
 For once, George Bush may have had a vision, but its absurdity became
 apparent as cost estimates for a mission to the Moon and Mars were
 put at anywhere from $100 to $400 billion.

      Keep in mind that Bush unveiled this plan at a time when we were

 trying to refurbish the Space Shuttle program, fund development of
 the Space Station Freedom, and launch the Mission to Planet Earth,
 all from a space budget that was already constrained.

      I remember an article that appeared in the trade press at that
 time.  It was an interview with a senior official at the Office of
 Management and Budget.  Questioned as to where the funds were going
 to come for this project, he cited:  increased tax revenues from a
 stronger economy.  We know what's happened to that assumption.  I
 almost fell out of my chair when I read this:  OMB also assumed that
 higher user fees for services like navigating the intercostal
 waterway system could be used to pay for this multi-hundred-billion
 dollar program.

      Imagine!  At the very moment that the budget deficits were
 reaching record levels, George Bush and Dan Quayle proposed a massive
 new program to be funded by pie-in-the- sky economic forecasts
 together with minor barge fees.

      During the last twelve years of the Reagan/Bush/Quayle
 Administrations, we have seen the national debt sky-rocket to more
 than $4 trillion.  Interest payments on that debt have risen
 accordingly, eroding our ability to undertake new initiatives.  As a
 result, NASA is forced to compete fiercely for funds with all other
 domestic discretionary programs.  Like it or not, NASA's budget can
 only grow now at the expense of programs for the poor and hungry, or
 our veterans.

      By failing to set priorities within NASA, by failing to make
 investments that strengthen the space program and create new jobs,
 the Bush/Quayle Administration has weakened every component of that
 program.  Each NASA program now competes directly with others for
 scarce funding.  The budget for scientific flights battles the budget
 for manned space flight.  The Space Station competes with the Mission
 to Planet Earth.

      The end result of this mismanagement are programs that are
 delayed, stretched out, or even canceled.  Scientific opportunities
 have been put on hold, and high-wage jobs in the aerospace and
 scientific communities have been eliminated.

      Probably one of the most critical issues facing the space
 program today is the need to reduce the cost of launching payloads,
 whether they be military, scientific, or commercial satellites.  Our
 only existing choices are the Space Shuttle, which currently costs
 more than $4 billion a year to operate, and decades-old technology in
 our fleet of expendable launch vehicles.  The urgency of this problem
 is readily apparent to everyone associated with the U.S. space
 program.

      Yet, with such an obvious task before them, this Administration
 has failed to make any progress whatsoever.  In fact, after several
 years of evaluating the question of which launch vehicle made the
 most sense, and after spending billions of dollars, we are still left
 with nothing.

      Right to the point, Dan Quayle and the National Space Council
 have failed to act decisively on the issue of developing a new rocket
 program.  The blame must lie squarely at their feet.

      As proposed by the Space Council, the U.S has been actively
 attempting to develop not one, not two, but three -- yes, three new,
 costly, and technically complex orbital launch systems:  the $12
 billion New Launch System, and the $15 billion National Aerospace
 Plane, and the Single Stage Rocket Technology program, which still
 has no price tag.

      In their own right, each of these systems may have some merit,
 even given the fact that the Space Plane and the Single Stage
 Technology program may provide significant benefits only in the
 long-term future.  But, trying to fund all three in the current
 budget environment is ridiculous.

      The Administration's New Launch System is a program that called
 for the development of a family of three launch vehicles built around
 a new, more reliable engine.  However, Quayle's National Space
 Council let politics determine how the NLS program would be
 structured.  Rather than tailoring the program to suit realistic
 launch needs of either NASA, the military, or the commercial launch
 industry, the Council made a politically expedient decision.  They
 saw the NLS as their last opportunity to develop a system capable of
 deploying the President's Star Wars program, as well as his Moon/Mars
 initiative.

      The end result was a $12 billion proposal that did not
 adequately serve the needs of NASA, the Air Force, or the companies
 competing for commercial launch contracts.  In particular, NASA has
 no mission requirement for the New Launch System.  Space agency
 officials testified to that effect earlier this year, saying their
 only plans to use the NLS were as a truck to carry supplies to the
 Space Station, well after the turn of the century.

      After wrestling with this program for the past two years, the
 Congress has terminated the New Launch System.  However, given the
 future funding stream for NLS, in which NASA and DOD each were asked
 to ante up $1 billion a year to this program, and the need to
 continue other high priority initiatives, there was no other choice.


      Nevertheless, we must improve our ability to access space.  In
 the near-term, there are several small, affordable steps that will
 move us toward that objective.  First, we must continue to improve
 the safety and reliability of the Space Shuttle.  NASA's Assured
 Shuttle Availability program is a valuable initiative that will help
 maintain a viable manned transportation capability into the next
 century.  Equally important is the continuation of the Advanced Solid
 Rocket Motor program.

      We also need to upgrade our existing fleet of expendable launch
 vehicles.  The Titan, Atlas, and Delta are all derived from ballistic
 missiles that were originally developed in the 1950's.  Since then,
 they have been considerably modified to improve their ability to
 launch satellites.  But additional improvements are both possible and
 needed.

      Unfortunately, just as the Bush Administration has ignored the
 need for investment in our nation's future in so many other areas, so
 President Bush has done nothing to invest in the future of our
 commercial launch industry.   On several occasions, my colleagues and
 I in the Congress have advocated the creation of a small, technology
 development program within NASA to upgrade our existing fleet of
 expendable launch vehicles.  Yet, despite its modest price tag and
 strong support from NASA and industry, the Administration has refused
 to endorse our initiative.

      I support the concept of developing new engine technologies for
 our expendable launch systems, as that will be the core of any future
 launch program.  However, any decision to develop the next generation
 of launch vehicles must be based on cost-effective criteria with a
 clear concept of mission requirements in mind.

      The record is equally grim when it comes to the Administration's
 support of the U.S. commercial launch industry.  In 1986, in the
 aftermath of the Challenger accident, President Reagan announced that
 the Space Shuttle would no longer launch commercial communications
 satellites, leaving them to the domestic commercial expendable launch
 industry.

      In 1986, however, there was no domestic commercial industry.  At
 the time, the United States, through NASA, launched 50 percent of the
 world's communications satellites.  Ariane, the French
 government-supported launch company, controlled the other 50 percent.

      In just a few short years, we have witnessed a dramatic change
 in this situation.  Ariane continues to launch and soon will be
 introducing a new rocket with improved capabilities.  Other
 competitors have surfaced, including the Chinese and the Russians,
 who are willing to enter the satellite launch market by buying their
 way in with very low subsidized rates.  And, just around the corner
 are the Japanese, who also hope to get into this limited market.

         Today, as a result of Presidential policy, we have a
 situation where private American companies are forced to compete head
 to head with foreign governments who provide launch services.  What
 has been the response of the Bush/Quayle Administration?  At least
 recognizing there was a problem, the National Space Council in 1990
 issued its Commercial Space Launch Policy, which outlined planned
 steps to secure an international agreement on the government
 subsidies and the pricing of commercial launch services.  However,
 two years later, we have heard little, if anything, about when these
 "rules of the road" negotiations will result in an agreement that
 will help U.S. companies.

      Then there's the fact that we've been burned by the People's
 Republic of China.  The 1989 bilateral agreement with China limits
 the number of American-built satellites that they are to  launch and
 requires that they charge fair prices.  In addition, the Chinese
 agreed to abide by international rules on the sale of ballistic
 missiles to other countries.

      But the absence of any enforcement provisions has allowed the
 Chinese to violate the launch agreement with impunity.  Knowing that
 the Bush Administration will never challenge them, the Chinese have
 repeatedly offered to sell launch services at rates substantially
 below world prices.  After all, if George Bush will do nothing to
 sanction the Chinese after the human rights atrocities that occurred
 following the student democracy uprisings in Tiananmen Square, why
 should the Chinese worry about the U.S. government challenging them
 on a simple commercial launch agreement?  Adding to these insults,
 the Chinese have sold their military rockets to countries such as
 Syria.  Most recently, ignoring protests by his own Transportation
 Department, the President has permitted five additional
 American-built satellites to be launched by the Chinese.  President
 Bush really is an incurable patsy for those dictators he sets out to
 coddle.

      Earlier this year, as a part of the summit with President
 Yeltsin, the Bush Administration gave approval to launch an
 American-built communications satellite on the Russian Proton
 rocket.  I have called for increased cooperation with the post-Soviet
 space industry in Russia.  But by making this decision without a
 framework for considering how American industry and American jobs
 would be affected, the Bush Administration has put the cart before
 the horse.

      Neither the market for launch services nor our competitive
 position is secure enough to allow our government to make casual
 decisions about the future of our space launch industry.  The
 emergence of competitors from non-market economies increases the
 opportunity for predatory pricing -- the very same economic weapon
 that foreign countries employed in the 1980's to target and destroy
 the American manufacturing base.  Our first priority must be to
 secure agreement from all parties on how commercial launch services
 will be priced and ensure that effective means of enforcement are in
 place to make such an agreement work.

      Having said that, I remain committed to the belief that the
 United States should be prepared to work together with our
 traditional allies in Europe and Japan, as well as Russia.  Greater
 U.S.-Russian cooperation in space will benefit both countries,
 combining the things that we do well with the things that others
 perform well and we do not.

      I believe in the importance of cooperating with the Russians in
 space.  In 1988, I proposed a future mission to Mars, but only
 provided the Soviets were involved from the beginning in planning and
 financing such an enterprise.   Most recently, in March of this year,
 when it became readily apparent that the U.S. was missing a golden
 opportunity to acquire Russian aerospace assets and technologies at
 fire-sale prices, I wrote President Bush, urging him to act
 expeditiously on offers coming from the former Soviet Union.

      We must remain open to such "win-win" situations that benefit
 the people of both nations.  To every degree possible, we should use
 space as a means for building bridges between our nations.

      Given the importance of our aerospace programs, well-conceived
 action is clearly needed.  What can and should be done?  First, we
 need to make the space program more cost-effective and flexible.
 Spending more wisely in line with our established priorities will
 enable us to preserve jobs and ensure that the United States remains
 a leader in space.

      We must start to focus our efforts on initiatives which will
 strengthen our space and aviation programs, and create new job
 opportunities in the aerospace and scientific communities.  Priority
 should be given to the development of cost effective and reliable
 launch systems, environmental monitoring systems, technologies for
 commercial aviation, and satellite communications technologies.

      The findings of the Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S.
 Space Program, the so-called "Augustine Committee", offer a good road
 map.  I agree with the Committee's conclusions that within a balanced
 civil space program, space science must continue to be our highest
 priority.  In particular, the Mission to Planet Earth, which will
 provide critical data on global environmental change, must be
 developed as quickly as possible.

      The Mission to Planet Earth is by all odds NASA's most important
 mission.  I have advocated that we proceed with this mission as
 quickly as possible, arguing in several instances that mission
 objectives should be accomplished more quickly than NASA had
 proposed.  In that regard, we must better utilize data already
 collected on the Earth's atmosphere, land masses, and oceans,
 hastening our understanding of changing environmental systems.

      Secondly, Bill Clinton and I agree that we must move forward to
 complete development of the Space Station Freedom.  This program will
 present the United States with unique opportunities for world
 leadership in science and technology.  It will enable research in a
 weightless environment and is expected to yield many new developments
 in materials, electronics, and medicine.  The Space Station also will
 serve as a test-bed for technologies that may one day be adapted for
 use on Earth, including water and air purification systems and
 robotics for conducting high-risk tasks.

      The Space Station will serve as an anchor for the aerospace
 industry, particularly during a time when highly-skilled defense
 workers are being displaced by cut backs.  During this period of
 declining defense spending, programs like the Space Station Freedom
 will help stabilize our Nation's industrial base. Any effort to
 cancel this program will be opposed, because taking such a course
 would only exacerbate an already difficult situation.

      We also must continue to learn about other planets in our solar
 system.  This knowledge will improve our understanding of our own
 world and stimulate advances in computers, sensors, image processing,
 and communications.  And, although we cannot yet commit major
 resources to human planetary exploration, this dream should be among
 the considerations that guide our science and engineering.  Because
 the entire world will share the benefits of human planetary
 exploration, the costs for any such projects should be borne by other
 nations as well as the United States.

      The United States must more aggressively support the development
 of new aviation technologies and under a Clinton/Gore
 Administration, NASA will give higher priority to developing cleaner,
 quieter, more fuel efficient aircraft.  The United  States has
 consistently been a world leader in commercial aircraft development.
 Other countries, including Japan, Taiwan, and Korea, seeing the
 success of the Europeans with Airbus, are increasingly willing to
 subsidize their aerospace industries.  It is therefore incumbent upon
 our leadership in Washington to target our R&D efforts to ensure that
 U.S. aircraft manufacturers can effectively compete on the
 international market.

      Foreign government-subsidized competition has already taken a
 significant toll on American aerospace businesses and their workers.
 Because of subsidies to Airbus for the development of new aircraft
 technologies and in selling the resulting aircraft, it has cut into
 the market share of Boeing and surpassed McDonnell Douglas as the
 world's second largest commercial aircraft producer.  McDonnell
 Douglas has been forced to look for a massive foreign investment just
 to stay in business.

      The weakness of our commercial airline industry is also a
 worrisome factor that must be resolved.  Because of the continuing
 weak economy, and Reagan/Bush policies that encouraged leveraged
 buyouts, our domestic airlines are suffering through a sustained
 period of record financial losses.  In fact, in the last two years
 alone, our domestic air carriers have lost close to $6 billion.  As a
 result, orders for new aircraft have been canceled by virtually every
 airline, large or small.

      I welcome the recent report released earlier this month by the
 National Research Council, which brought together a panel of
 aerospace experts to review where U.S. policies have failed and to
 recommend what must be done to sustain our commercial aircraft
 manufacturing industry.  I support their recommendations calling for
 an increased emphasis by the Federal government on new subsonic
 technologies, so that we may preserve our preeminence in this
 important industry.  I am pleased that they agreed with Bill Clinton
 and me that we must also work to develop new high-tech, short-haul
 aircraft, including the tilt- rotor.

      Finally, it is imperative that before we make the decision to
 launch the next generation supersonic transport aircraft, they are
 proven to be environmentally acceptable.  The future use of all
 aircraft will be increasingly constrained by national and
 international restrictions on both emissions and noise.  It is my
 sincere belief that we must work cooperatively to avoid increasing
 the adverse environmental effects of aircraft on the ground and in
 flight.

      The reckless indifference to the fate of the aerospace industry
 by the Bush/Quayle Administration during the past four years has
 imperiled our competitiveness and our nation's economic future.  It
 is time for a change.

      We need leaders who will get our economy moving again and who
 will work to create and retain high-wage jobs in this country.  We
 need to replace the failed policies of the past with new ideas and
 new energy.  And we need leaders who understand the importance of
 space and aviation to our national well-being.

      Bill Clinton and I recognize the role our aerospace industry
 plays in preserving our national security and sustaining our economic
 well-being.  We are committed to investing in America and in American
 workers.  Bill Clinton and I are ready to move in a new direction
 toward a future where America competes to win.

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

Date: 21 Oct 92 13:21:12 GMT
From: Alan Carter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space for White People only?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James Thomas Green) writes:
|>                              ...I would argue that what we get
|> in return for the space program is well worth the investment.

I agree.

|> New technologies for medical uses, computer technology,
|> new materials, environmental sensing (it was a NASA sat. that
|> discovered the ozone hole) are but a few of the many spin-offs
|> of our investment in space technology.  Another, less tangible,
|> but no less real, spinoff is the ability to look upon our Planet
|> as it actually is:  A small fragle ball which is unique in our
|> Solar System in supporting large quanties of water and life.

Well, actually it was a British weather balloon that discovered the hole.
A NASA sat *did* see it, but the data were chucked out in validation
during ground processing.

From what I've read, the spinoff argument is a little weak. Many things
that are supposed to be spinoffs, such as ICs and Teflon, either simply
aren't, or had a healthy line of development before their technological
maturity made them worth considering for solving problems in the
space programme.

Perhaps thinking spinoff comes from not finding lots of gosh-wow
benefits, and needing something to cite. In real life however, the
most valuable activities tend to be day to day things. Global
communications that make this posting possible, and make shipping
so much safer. Understanding more about weather systems and what they
are likely to do next - still a question of vital importance to most
human beings. Prospecting for mineral wealth, and providing the
geologists with comparisons. Most geologists now study processes on
the moon or Mars during their course. Perhaps this news group could
try to compile an exhaustive list of the *boring* benefits of space
that many, many people partake of.

|> The future in space is just as promising.  Vast resourse
|> await us.  The metal in a single small asteroid would
|> supply us for decades or more, without strip-mining our
|> wilderness areas.

Far more promising. If we are capable of moving our activities and
interests off this one planet, it will be an evolutionary step
unlike any other in our history.

   Alan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Maidenhead itself is too snobby to be pleasant. It is the haunt of the
   river swell and his overdressed female companion. It is the town of showy
   hotels, patronized chiefly by dudes and ballet girls.

   Three Men In A Boat, Jerome K. Jerome, 1889
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Date: 21 Oct 1992 10:48 EST
From: "Philip A. Stehno" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space for White People only?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James Thomas Green) writes...
>I had a rather disturbing conversation Saturday evening.
>
>I was talking to a Hispanic Woman (a business major) who
>said that we shouldn't spend a single dollar on space
>because "it only benefits white people."  She was rather
>angry about the mere thought that any money at all was spent
>on space.
>
>This is rather disturbing.  Not because a single person
>has this opinion, but that because this seems to be a rather
>widespread opinion, both with Whites and Minorities.
>
    It's my oppinion that NASA has never PR'ed itself well.  If there is a
failier, it's front page news.  If it's a success it's a footnote to a
newscast or on page 100 section FF.

>I don't have the exact numbers, but I understand that this year's
>NASA budget is approximately $10 billion.  This sounds like a
>lot until you learn that the TOTAL Federal budget is about
>$1 TRILLION ($1000 billion).  Thus, NASA only gets about
>1/100th of the federal budget.  I would argue that what we get
>in return for the space program is well worth the investment.
>
    Actually its more like $14 Billion, but that is still small compared to
the total Gov't Budget.  The NASA budget includes both Space and Aeronautics
research!
>New technologies for medical uses, computer technology,
>new materials, environmental sensing (it was a NASA sat. that
>discovered the ozone hole) are but a few of the many spin-offs
>of our investment in space technology.  Another, less tangible,
>but no less real, spinoff is the ability to look upon our Planet
>as it actually is:  A small fragle ball which is unique in our
>Solar System in supporting large quanties of water and life.
>
    The collage of pictures from the departing Voyager probes showed it
best, I think, when earth was shown to be a barely distinguishable blue ball
from far out in space.

>The future in space is just as promising.  Vast resourse
>await us.  The metal in a single small asteroid would
>supply us for decades or more, without strip-mining our
>wilderness areas.
>
>So, what are your thoughts?
>
>
>/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: [e-mail] :-)~~~\
>| "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving    |
>| the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the     |
>| Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."            |
>|                  <John F. Kennedy; May 25, 1961>         |
>
>
  ========================================================================
==  Philip A. Stehno       (Cleveland Phil)     < When in doubt ...       ==
   ([e-mail])                >     /\    go fly a kite.
            ^^^^^^or lims01 or lims02 or scivax <    /____\
==                                               >     (_____(~~~~~       ==
  ========================================================================

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

Date: 21 Oct 92 10:42:39 GMT
From: Kazuo Yoshida NASDA/TKSC <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telescience Workshop
Newsgroups: sci.space

First Announcement

            NASDA International Telescience Workshop


            NASDA Tsukuba Space Center  Tsukuba,Japan

                   November 16 and 17, 1992

  NASDA is organizing and sponsoring the International
  Telescience Workshop on telescience activities for space.


  Objectives;

    The Workshop will enable exchanges of program and research
    information of telescience activities for space, will give
    participants the opportunity to discuss  requirements  and
    perspectives of Space Station  Freedom's  telescience, and
    will demonstrate Telescience Simulation Experiments.

  Organization;

    The workshop will be organized as follows;

      1) Exchange   status   information  of  each   partner's
         telescience activities.

      2) Discuss technical aspects of telescience.

      3) Identify  requirements and perspectives of  the Space
         Station Freedom's telescience. The  panel  discussion
         will be scheduled for this purpose.

      4) Conduct Telescience Simulation Experiments.

  Language;

    The  working  languages  will  be  English  and  Japanese.
    Simultaneous translation from Japanese to English  will be
    provided during the presentation and discussion sessions.

  Technical Visit;

    A  facility  tour  of  the  tsukuba  Space  Center will  be
    schedured on November 17 from 13:00 to 15:00. Those wishing
    to attend are requested to fill in the registation form and
    forward  it  to  NASDA  prior  to  November  1, 1992.  This
    information is necessary for the access to be authorized to
    the various NASDA Space Center facilities.

  Registation Fee;

    Free.

  Social Events;

    There will be a cocktail party on Monday, Nov. 16 at  6:00
    p.m.

  Accommodations;

    Around  the  Tsukuba  Area,  hotels  of  moderate rate are
    available. Two types of room, single  of  double,  can  be
    reserved by the Workshop secretariat.
    (See hotel reservation form.)

  Agenda;

    Monday November 16th;

      (Tentative Program abstracts)

       9:00   Registration
       9:30   Opening
       9:45   Status information exchange of telescience
              activities in Space Station partners.
      12:00   (Lunch Break)
      13:30   Technical discussion of telescience.
      16:10   Panel discussion for requirements and
              perspective of Space Station Freedom's
              telescience.
      17:30   Break

    Tuesday November 17th

      (Prelimanary Agenda; Each participant's contribution
      will be appreciated)

       9:30   Opening and outline of Telescience Simulation
              Experiment.
      10:00   Start the Crystal Growth experiment using a
              BBM of the image furnace.
      10:30   Start cell cultivation the image Processing
              Experiment.
      11:00   Start the CELSS trouble shooting experiment.
      12:00   (Launch Break)
      13:00   Facility Tour of Tsukuba Space Center (about
              2 hours)
      15:00   End of the Crystal Growth experiment.
      15:30   Filling out Evaluation Sheets.
      16:00   Adjourn.

  Transportation;

    A. From Tokyo to Tsukuba;

      1) Highway  express  bus  from  JR (Japan  Railway)  Tokyo
         station to Tsukuba  Center. The  bus departs  from  the
         South  side  of  Tokyo  station  Yaesu  Exit  every  15
         minutes,  and   takes  about  75  minutes.  At  Tsukuba
         Center, catch the taxi to Tsukuba Space Center.

      2) JR Joban line from Ueno station; Get off at Arakawa-Oki
         station,  and change to the local bus to Tsukuba Center
         or to Tsukuba  University Center. The local  bus  takes
         20 minutes from Arakawa-Oki station  to  Tsukuba  Space
         Center.

    B. From Hotel to Tsukuba Space Center;

         A shuttle bus   will be available  from  the hotels  to
       Tsukuba  Space  Center every morning and evening.

  Tsukuba City;

    Tsukuba  City has been developed for science and  technology
    research.  Beginning about 15 years ago. almost all national
    research  institues  in  the  Tokyo area  have been moved to
    Tsukuba to form a science and technology center of excellence.

  For Additional Information;

    Contact; Mr.K.Matsumoto, SS Program Dep., NASDA,
    Tel. [phone], Fax. [phone],

    E-mail; [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 13:40:54 GMT
From: "David B. Snyder" <[e-mail]>
Subject: TheSouth rose (was Re: Weather satellites & preventing property damage)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>It worked, too.  Southerners put us on the Moon.  I don't think
>Yankees could have done it in eight years.

At Lewis there is a persistant rumor that they could not have done it
without some help from North of the Mason-Dixon line.  Unfortunately
I don't remember the details.  Was it something about fuel type? or
something about restarting engines in free-fall?  |-)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
david b. snyder                   |  The Persistant Planetology Speculation:
email: [e-mail] |  Where there's a rill there's a ray.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 333
------------------------------