Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_6/V15NO609.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 05:06:08
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #609
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 30 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 609

Today's Topics:
                   "Moonraker" -- fact or fiction?
                           "Slick" Goodlin
                   *** METEOSAT weather images ***
Comparative $/lb to LEO (Was: Stupid Shuttle Cost Arguments) (2 msgs)
Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
             Justification for the Space Program (3 msgs)
           Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
                         satellite costs etc.
                  Saturn lift capabilities (2 msgs)
                           SSTO vs. 2 Stage
   Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity (2 msgs)
    Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?

    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: 29 Dec 92 16:59:15 GMT
From: Erik Svensson FOA2 <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Moonraker" -- fact or fiction?
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space,sci.astro

[e-mail] () writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eidetics Int'l) writes:
>>
>>   In writing his stories, Ian Fleming was drawing upon his own
>>secret weapon.  That weapon was knowledge.  Fleming had been a
>>high-ranking officer of Britain's crack Intelligence agency
>>called MI-5.

>    This is, in fact, nonsense.  Flemings contribution to
>    intelligence was to act as a paper-pusher for Stephensons'
>    BSC in New York.  He had no training in, and never was, an
>    intelligence officer of any form.  He was, by all accounts,
>    an irritating little intel.-groupie.

I read somewhere that Fleming actually was trained for missions in Europe
during WWII. He flunked the course in Canada. I'll try to find it if there's
interest. IF it's true, then he would have been organized under OSS. MI5 did
not exist at that time, if I remember correctly. MI5, btw, is the UK counter-
intelligence agency. Read _Spy catcher_ for a humorous account of it's exploits
during the '60s.

cheers

--
Erik Svensson            Research Officer
Guided Weapons Division        National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
Stockholm            Sweden

net.address:     [e-mail]

"Another casualty of applied meta-physics!" -- Hobbes

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 20:11:55 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: "Slick" Goodlin
Newsgroups: sci.space

Last I heard of Slick Goodlin was ~3 years ago, he was president of
Burnelli Aircraft in Miami, Fl.  I corresponded with him, and he seemed eager
to answer questions, etc., and sent literature on Burnelli (which is a story in
itself!).

Dennis Dillman

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 17:27:40 GMT
From: Franck Roussel <[e-mail]>
Subject: *** METEOSAT weather images ***
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.geo.meteorology

Hello everybody!

I am interested in METEOSAT weather images. I know there are many
  anonymous FTP sites, such:
    - cumulus.met.ed.ac.uk  in directory /images
    - nic.funet.fi               ''      /pub/sci/meteosat
  where satellite images of World,Atlantic,Europe are displayed.

Does anybody knows about other anonymous FTP sites like those ?

Especially, is there a server at the Meteorological Space Center
  of Lannion (Brittany) ?  I tried the FTP site "lannion.cnet.fr",
  but after typing the command 'ftp lannion.cnet.fr' it answered me:
    'Connected to lannion.cnet.fr'
    '421 Service not available, remote server has closed connection'


Thanks for all answers to my questions
Roussel

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 16:31:24 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Comparative $/lb to LEO (Was: Stupid Shuttle Cost Arguments)
Newsgroups: sci.space

I *knew* that my assertion would catch your attention.

The Space Shuttle is the most expensive launch vehicle (per pound in orbit)
that exists today. I believe this, but cannot prove it.

The "official" NASA budget line item for the shuttle operation does not
include all shuttle-related expenses. During the 1990 authorization process,
Richard Truly was asked how much of NASA's budget went towards the shuttle -
his response was "about two thirds". Since NASA's budget then was about $14
million, it isn't hard to imagine shuttle launches at over $1 billion a pop.

Using a 50,000 lb. payload for the Shuttle to calculate its cost per pound
does not take into consideration the trivial fact that the Shuttle never
carries 50,000 lbs into orbit. Maximum payload weight for a safe abort is
40,000 lbs, and the shuttle rarely carries that much weight.

Finally, all of these figures ignore the development and construction costs of
the shuttles. Figure those in, and you get an average launch cost of $1.67
billion per pop.

I'm sure that Pegasus' launch costs are much lower than the Shuttle's all
things considered.

However, I freely that I hold this opinion largely on the basis of a gut
feeling, rather than the available numbers.

--- Maximus 2.01wb

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

Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:57:36 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comparative $/lb to LEO (Was: Stupid Shuttle Cost Arguments)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John S. Neff) writes:
>It is common for the shuttle to fly without a full cargo. In your calculation
>you assumed that the payload was the maximum for the orbit. You figures are
>the lower limit to the cost per pound for the shuttle.

This is true for all launchers, actually.  It's not that rare for them to
fly with less-than-maximum payload due to other constraints, e.g. payload
volume, limits of deployment mechanisms, or a payload that simply doesn't
want hitchhikers for whatever reason.  It's somewhat more common for the
shuttle only because most shuttle missions are to low orbit and a large
fraction of non-shuttle missions are to Clarke orbit (where propulsion
systems for stationkeeping are invariably needed, so it's possible to
adjust fuel load to fully exploit the launcher).
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 20:14:36 GMT
From: Herman Rubin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Russ Brown) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <[e-mail]> writes:
>>
>>>> My arguement has the benefit of centuries of historical precedent
>>>> which is more than your "There will never be benefits worth the
>>>> expense" arguement you are spouting which can be
>>>> easily argued against using the same historical
>>>> information. Can I prove my assertion?
>>>> No. However, neither can you prove the contrary.

              ........................


>>Your argument is extremely similar to that of Marx that innovation will
>>be made when it should be by governments.  Right now the government has
>>an essential monopoly on space activities, and has also obtained almost
>>this position in many branches of scientific research.  THIS is the
>>problem; as Lee Iacocca stated, "In this business, you lead, follow,
>>or get out of the way."  Governments have amply shown that they cannot
>>lead or follow.  And unfortunately, they refuse to get out of the way.

>>Progress cannot be made when the Luddites are running the show.  It is
>>only perceived threats to the country which can get reasonable action
>>by any government.  Where would astronomy be if the attitude of such as
>>Paul Dietz prevailed?  Our benefits from astronomy are very few indeed.
>>Any society which tries to prevent people from climbing mountains is
>>oppressive, and the same goes for space exploration.



>Ah, but the real question is not, "should research be done?", but "how
>much?" and "to what end?" and "who pays?".

>We do get long-term benefits from exploration and research.
>We cannot predict all of those benefits.

>But would anyone care to provide $10E9 for flat-earth studies?  I
>believe that we need to discriminate.

Let those who want to support research decide.  But get the governments
out of the way, including out of levying taxes on money going to research.
If the government was not involved in the business of vainly trying to
manage charity, which it does in such a way as to make it financially
advantageous for at least many of those on welfare to do nothing about
the problem, and in the business of keeping our children very poorly
educated, and in general making it expensive to do anything of which
the government diasapproves, there would be the money for space activities.

There are those who have stated that they could put a base on the moon for
$10E10.  Somehow I doubt that the government could do it for 10, or maybe
even 100, times that.  But they cannot do it if the government multiplies
the price by 10 by requiring zillions of reports and studies.

If the government wants to encourage research, at least let all money donated
for that purpose be tax deductible.  There are major caps now; we are not in
the very high income group, but have already run into it, with no great amount
of itemized deductions.  But I see no hope of this country, or any other of
the present major countries, allowing human endeavor to flourish.  The only
hope of mankind is that we get out in space in enough numbers to found a
true space society.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 15:02:22 GMT
From: John McCarthy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
   References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
   Distribution: usa
   Organization: University of Rochester
   Lines: 29

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

   > Let me add to the previous post the estimate that the total amount of
   > matter humanity has processed in its history is less than 10^12 tons.

   Some interesting facts:

   Estimated mass of manganese nodules on the ocean floors:  ~ 10^12 tons.

   Average concentration of metals in nodules (percent)

       Element        World Average    Pacific Clarion-Clipperton Zone
       --------------------------------------------------------------
         Mn           18.6            25.4
         Fe           12.47         6.66
         Ni             .66         1.27
         Cu             .45         (not listed, > .45)
         Co             .27         1.02


   World-wide, nodules are estimated to contain billions of tons of
   copper and nickel, and enough manganese to supply current mine demand
   for that element for roughly 10,000 years.  Additional sources of
   metals (such as copper and cobalt) are available as crusts on the sea
   floor, and in massive sulfides deposited at mid-ocean ridges and then
   carried away by plate motion.

       Paul F. Dietz
       [e-mail]

Once we could dream that Howard Hughes had a project to harvest these
nodules.  Alas, it was only the CIA fishing for a Soviet submarine.
Apparently, one thing that prevents harvesting them is that lots
of countries want to regard them as common property and want to be
paid off by whoever actually does the harvesting.  Probably the main
reason why they aren't harvested is that there is no shortage of
metal ores at present.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

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

Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:10:54 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space,alt.rush-limbaugh

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>World-wide, nodules are estimated to contain billions of tons of
>copper and nickel, and enough manganese to supply current mine demand
>for that element for roughly 10,000 years.  Additional sources of
>metals (such as copper and cobalt) are available as crusts on the sea
>floor, and in massive sulfides deposited at mid-ocean ridges...

We'll be mining in space long before we exploit any of the sea-bottom
resources.  The socialists rule the oceans and don't want any dirty
capitalist mining venture making money off the "common property of
mankind".  The US State Department was on the brink of giving them the
rest of the universe too, but the L5 Society (may it rest in peace)
managed to block Senate ratification of the infamous Moon Treaty.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 17:51:58 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Randall Tyers) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary
>Coffman) writes:
>[...]
>>
>>Large scale imports from space face a dire problem in any event. What
>>are we going to do with all that extra mass? Earth's gravitational
>>field will so increase that no one will be able to stand if we bring
>>in too much from space. Ultimately we have no choice but to use and
>>reuse the materials here on Earth. Fortunately that is getting easier
>>and easier as technology advances.
>>
>>Gary
>
>If this was a joke (it has to be right?? doesn't it?) you should have
>indicated this in some manner. (eg. :-) or ;-) )  As your statement
>stands it raises doubts about your comprehension of very basic
>physics.

Well of course this was a form of reducto absurdum  argument. The
idea that we solve all our problems by dragging in more junk from
space eventually leads to the absurd case where we are overwhelmed
with all the extra junk. The Earth's mass isn't declining and doesn't
need bolstering. To date we haven't thrown any away except what's been
shot into space. The gauge reads full, not empty, so imports from
space are simply, and literally, overkill. Whether imports crush us
or not is simply a matter of scale, not principle.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 20:01:10 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

Well, thank you, Gary.

I asked you to name one example of a program run under your failure-
oriented management system ("Gosh, we know this isn't going to work,
but if we keep the program running long enough, we've got lifetime job
security, so don't try too hard, boys") that was a success.

Instead, you gave one example of a success-oriented program that
failed.

I guess by evading my question, you answered it. ;-)

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 20:06:05 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: satellite costs etc.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>Actually, henry.  both of you are sticking to the clarke orbit model.

>Most of the effort in the Telecom industry is oriented towards
>LEO comm sats.  store and forward or multiple fast relay satellittes.

Actually, Pat, just about all (Western) communications satellites,
in terms of numbers and (especially) in terms of dollar value, are
in GEO.  This may change in the future -- a number of companies are
banking on it -- but it certainly isn't true today.

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 17:57:54 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saturn lift capabilities
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Uh, Dennis, the ASTP payload was *not* a "full up" CSM; indeed, it was
>the lightest CSM ever flown manned, because it needed almost no main-engine
>fuel for its mission.  (In fact, it carried more RCS fuel than main-engine
>fuel.)  It weighed 12.7 tons.

A question: was a fully fueled CSM, flown in the ASTP launch inclination,
capable of reboosting Skylab?  Was it structurally feasible?  If so, when
was the decision made not to reboost after the AST-part of the mission was
over?
---
Gerald Cecil [e-mail]  919-962-7169
Physics & Astronomy, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA

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

Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:21:04 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saturn lift capabilities
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>...the ASTP payload was *not* a "full up" CSM; indeed, it was
>>the lightest CSM ever flown manned, because it needed almost no main-engine
>>fuel for its mission...
>
>A question: was a fully fueled CSM, flown in the ASTP launch inclination,
>capable of reboosting Skylab?  Was it structurally feasible?

I don't think the ASTP orbit was close enough to Skylab's to make this
practical.  I believe it was structurally possible.

Mind you, most of the science community thought the hardware and money
that went into ASTP would be better spent on another Skylab crew... and
they were probably right.  That might have provided a suitable opportunity.

>If so, when
>was the decision made not to reboost after the AST-part of the mission was
>over?

It's important to bear in mind that, with program plans and air-drag
forecasts as they were in the mid-70s, it was clear that Skylab would
not re-enter until well after the shuttle was flying and something
could be done about it.  There wasn't any feeling of urgency about
reboosting Skylab.  Then the US scrapped its remaining manned-spaceflight
capability, the shuttle schedule slipped repeatedly, and air drag
ran well ahead of schedule...  The Skylab rescue mission progressively
moved up in the shuttle manifest until it was scheduled for only the
second flight, but even that wasn't good enough in the end.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 19:46:24 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO vs. 2 Stage
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Dunn) writes:

>        We have been launching staged rockets for nearly half a century.  I
>think the problems of staging, if not trivial, are solvable.  Certainly,
>historical evidence indicates that staging is less of a technical challenge
>than SSTO operation.

Bingo!

Okay, now we've gotten to the crux of the problem.

You simply do not understand the difference between a converted
artillery rocket, which we have been launching for nearly half
a century, and a single-stage-to-orbit *spaceship*.

Saying that launch vehicles should be multistaged like ICBMs
makes as much sense as saying that airplanes should be shaped
like cannonballs.

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 19:08:20 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>   Now I'm totally confused, Allen. Wasn't this discussion about the
>   Shuttle's launch rate? I thought that you previously belittled a
>   25% increase in launch rate, to which I took exception.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. No, I suspect 10 flights a year is possible.
I doubt 12 can be done without MAJOR changes.

But given the very poor record of Shuttle performance to schedule, I assert
the burden of proof is on you to show 12 can be done. I'll accept any two
consecutive calendar years with 24 launches.

>   I'm still waiting for your explanation as to
>   why 25% is a good increase for one, but not another.

A DC is simple and reliable enough that 50 flights a year is reasonable
with the specified ground crew. At 10 flights a year a DC ground crew
has lots of idle time so not only are more launches possible, they
will also work to lower costs. Increasing utilization by 25% should
be no problem (if DC works).

With Shuttle, 10 flights a year utilized everything pretty much 100%.
Adding more flights under these conditions means that costs must go up.

>   it is very difficult to compare
>   Shuttle with the expendables

Nobody puts people into space just for the hell of it. They are there to
perform tasks. Given that, one can ask what those tasks are and wonder
if there are cheaper ways to do those tasks. We can also decide if the
tasks are worth doing at the price we must pay.

I assert that there are no payloads which must fly on Shuttle and are
worth flying. If you are going to disagree, please do so with a cost
analysis or your arguement will be meaningless.

Don't you see the damage you are doing to manned space here? Manned space
is seen as a boondogle and nothing more than a jobs program for aerospace.
Your astatements that Shuttle must fly regardless of cost only reenforces
that view. You are making it easier for our opponents to harm us.

>   ratings show Shuttle to be the most powerful launch system in the
>   free world. Depending upon whom you ask, it's either alot more capable
>   than Titan, or just a little.

There isn't a payload in existance today which can't go up on either.

As to being more powerful, only if you are spending somebody else's
money.

>   Only the DC is presently envisioned to have more or less the same
>   attributes as Shuttle, and we both know there is no way Shuttle can
>   ever compare favorably to a paper launch system.

This is bogus. By this arguement nothing new should ever be built. If
you have specific complaints about DC, state them. The arguement 'well
all projects have problems therefore DC will have problems and therefore
it won't work' is bullshit.

>   Pegasus was new and
>   revolutionary too, and it has spent the past eighteen months sitting
>   in an assembly plant.

More of the same; I'll bet you $50 that it starts flying regularly. Well?

     Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------116 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 19:15:24 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>  Space Shuttle is also the only system designed to be used repeatedly,

The design goal was to build a vehicle which would provide cheap, routine
access to space. Reusability was simply the method selected. Shuttle failed
all of its major objectives.

>  is the only system capable of returning very heavy payloads to Earth,

Considering that there are no heavy payloads to return to Earth, this
cannot be considered an advantage. Especially for the billions it costs
us.

>  Shuttle is also as much a technology demonstrator as it is a launch
>  system.

Not according to NASA. To them Shuttle is *THE* Space Transportation
System. To them it is an operational vehicle.

>  That the technology proved to costly to replace the expendable
>  market is beside the point.

Execpt that it's function WAS to replace expendables.

For a long time it even did replace expendables. That was because the
satellite makers found a bunch of suckers willing to fork over the
subsidies.

BTW, another accomplishment of Shuttle was to turn over 60% of the free
world launch market to Airiane. Funny how Shuttle supporters never
mention that one.

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------116 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 20:04:44 GMT
From: Edmund Hack <arabia!hack>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Shuttle's costs were all accounted for too. The customer, the US
>>taxpayer, wanted R&D done to develop a reusable spacecraft. NASA
>>did it, and that public domain database of technologies is what
>>the taxpayer got for his money, not bent metal.

[flamage deleted]
>
>Furthermore, you are wrong in stating that the information is
>in the public domain.  It is the property of the United States
>Government.  Any taxpayer who wants to use this information has
>to pay (again) for the privilege.

How do they have to pay except for copying costs?  Certain parts of the
shuttle design may be either classified (i.e. the comm crypto gear) or
proprietary (some of the COTS equipment), but the bulk is available for
copying costs.  If I want a copy of the schematics, I find a copying
cost charge reasonable.
>
>>NASA is not supposed to be in the fabrication business.
>
>You're right.  So why do you support NASA being in a business
>that it is illegal for them to be in?
            ^^^^^^^
Please cite the _exact_ basis for this statement, i.e. the part of the
U.S. Code or the appropriations laws that make it illegal to fabricate
things.  Either that or be more careful in your flaming.  Accusing NASA
of illegal acts without basis is impolite at the minimum.

Also, this thread has gone about as far as it can go.  Please save
bandwidth and disk wear and tear and _drop it_.  Please.

--
Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
[e-mail] - I speak only for myself, unless blah, blah..
"You know, I think we're all Bozos on this bus."
"Detail Dress Circuits" "Belt: Above A, Below B" "Close B ClothesMode"

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


Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!ogicse!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!alexia!trumpins
From: Barbara Trumpinski <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:38:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.C017ny.1r
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: Net Noise owner <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 69
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <[e-mail]> writes:

paul:
>>Theories have to be
>>falsifiable to be useful.

norman:
>Untrue. Theories need only be logical, and self-consistent
>with experience, to
>be useful. Theorists develop and study theories that lack
>definitive proof all the time.

paul:
>>In practice, you *will* have to argue that
>>a project has specific benefits or it will not be funded (or, rather,
>>you won't get funded for your *next* project, as with Apollo).

norman:
>And this is what is wrong with the whole system. Hundreds of
>examples of
>pure science leading to unforeseen applications and unheard of prosperity
>are ignored in favor of safe, incremental development which barely
>keeps our economic head above water. This is not the way our society
>became great. Taking risks use to be the ideal in this
>country and lead to our greatest achievements and our economic
>and technical superiority.  We have lost these benefits due to our
>timidity and lack of foresight.

barbara:
right on, again.  you can go back to einstein, even.  dreams and risks
and being willing to run with an idea will get us back on top...and i
am sure that even paul will be willing to admit that the united states
is a second rate power as far as technical application and lower rated
than that as far as education goes.

not only that...you are WRONG if you think that the economy is doing
well... or do you not know anyone who has lost his/her job in the last
year (in any area from the auto industry to research...this is because
of various reasons...for example, making funding for research
dependent on political favor....or because other countries do a better
job at producing goods that WE could produce....which is because of
p-poor management and education...this can be flowcharted and mapped
out and dragged on...but i won't

....

i am NOT a scientist...or a researcher...or even anyone important.  i
am a simple library tech.  however, i deal with the real world in ways
you gentlemen probably can't imagine...my life has been directly
affected by the economy...and by the lousy education system...and by
the overwhelming lack of spirit in the u.s.

i STILL have dreams...i know that i am never going to the stars...but
someday, maybe, my children will...or maybe even the college students
i know/work with will be able to have the adventures or do the
exploring that i can only dream about in between chapters of my
latest science fiction novel...

paul, what are your dreams?

barbara

--
***************************************************************************
conan the librarian a.k.a. kitten           /\ /\  barbara ann
"my life's a soap opera, isn't yours?"      {=.=}
                                              ~   [e-mail]
"love is the wild card of existance"
                          rita mae brown

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 609
------------------------------