Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_2/V16NO290.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 34KB

Date: Mon,  8 Mar 93 05:16:56
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #290
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon,  8 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 290

Today's Topics:
                   Alternative space station power
                    Australia & the Space Station
                            a whining shit
                                Charon
     Electronic Journal of the ASA (EJASA) - March 1993 [Part 2]
                           Gaspra Animation
                         Meteorite Collecting
                          mystery satellite?
                 PFF Mass Reduction (Was Re: Charon)
                        Spot the anon poster!
                             SSF_REdesign
                  The courage of anonymity (2 msgs)
                      Water resupply for SSF (?)
                            Without a Plan

    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: Mon, 8 Mar 1993 00:14:19 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alternative space station power
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>>I doubt it very much.  Have you *looked* at thermocouple efficiencies?
>>They are, roughly speaking, terrible... even by photovoltaic standards.
>
>Not necessarily: Thermocouple efficiencies depend on the temperature
>at which waste heat is rejected. Ideally, you could lower that down
>to 3 deg Kelvin...

Actually, about 25K is the best you could do.  There is more out there
in the sky than the microwave background radiation.  Starlight, the
Zodiacal light, etc., all contribute.

>... However, even getting close to 3
>Kelvin would be unrealistic. In Earth orbit, for example, you would
>have to point it away from not only the Sun, but also the Earth and
>Moon. You would also need near perfect insulation between the cold
>plate and the rest of the craft...

Indeed so.  The usual rule of thumb is that you could get 70-80K in
the neighborhood of the Earth, if you worked hard with sunshades and
earthshades and insulation -- not a very practical approach for big
arrays.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 05 Mar 93 19:02:42 GMT
From: Ralph Buttigieg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Australia & the Space Station
Newsgroups: sci.space

* Original Sector  : SPACE
* Original To      : All (3:713/635)

Acording to the current edition of the CSIRO's Space Industry News (SPIN)
there could be an important involvment by Australia in the US Space Station.
It seems that the Russian Soyuz capsule will likely be the ACRV (the
station's lifeboat). If so, Australia is the number one landing site. At the
Station's orbital path, Australia is the only large land mass with enough
space, few trees and quick access to emergency care. In November 1992 a
joint assessment team from the ASO, NASA, the CAA and the Russian Soyuz
Office examined four representative sites and found them all suitable.

ta
Ralph

--- Maximus 2.01wb
 * Origin: Vulcan's World-Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635)

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

Date: Mon, 8 Mar 93 02:55:00 GMT
From: Jay Maynard <[e-mail]>
Subject: a whining shit
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space

After posting an article once again defending his posting of a tabloid account
pretending to be the last words of the Challenger crew, and claiming that
posting anonymously took more courage than posting behind one's name (that one
*REALLY* set the bullshit flag), the idiot using the anonymous service writes:

>Right.  So -- Anne Frank should have kept her kvetching trap shut, right,
>right, Mr. Kulawiec?

This comparison is one of the most odious I've seen in a long time. Anne Frank
was at danger of her life. You are not.

...that is, unless the readers you cowardly offended in sci.space catch up
with you.

--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
[e-mail]      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Support your local medical examiner - die strangely." -- Blake Bowers

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

Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1993 00:26:59 GMT
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Charon
Newsgroups: sci.space

Why does Goldin want the Pluto Fast Flyby craft to mass less than
110 kg, vs. the 165 kg strawman proposal? Does he hope to use something
smaller than a Titan 4 to launch them?

(See Eos, Transactions, AGU v 74 # 7, 17 Feb 1993 for a nice overview
of PFF.)

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

Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1993 23:05:20 GMT
From: Larry Klaes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Electronic Journal of the ASA (EJASA) - March 1993 [Part 2]
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.misc,sci.geo.geology,alt.sci.planetary

    in the distance.  The images also revealed that the penetrometer had
    dropped itself right on top of one of the ejected camera covers.

        VENERA 14 relayed data to Earth for fifty-seven minutes.  In
    that time the lander revealed that its surface sample was similar in
    composition to tholeiitic basalt, a common mineral on Earth with low
    potassium levels.  Also in contrast to its twin lander's findings,
    the probe recorded two possible and very small seismic events from
    about three thousand kilometers (1,800 miles) across the planet.

        New Mission Directions

        The successful mission of VENERA 13 and 14 had achieved another
    milestone for the Soviet Union in its exploration of Venus.  As in
    the past two decades, the sending of spacecraft to the second world
    from the Sun was far from over.  Both the Soviets and the United
    States were focusing on the deployment of spacecraft which could
    map the planet's surface from orbit with more sophisticated radar
    than that carried by the PIONEER VENUS Orbiter in 1978.

        The Soviets were also working on a very ambitious expedition
    which would not only land on Venus again but place two balloon probes
    in its thick and wild atmosphere at the same time.  This would allow
    scientists to study the planet's air for several days in a row rather
    than with the quick plunges of earlier probes.  These new missions
    would truly reveal the entire planet to humanity in the coming years.

        Bibliography -

         Barsukov, V. L., Senior Editor, VENUS GEOLOGY, GEOCHEMISTRY, AND
           GEOPHYSICS: RESEARCH RESULTS FROM THE U.S.S.R., University of
           Arizona Press, Tucson, 1992

         Beatty, J. Kelly, and Andrew Chaikin, Editors, THE NEW SOLAR
           SYSTEM, Cambridge University Press and Sky Publishing Corp.,
           Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1990

         Bova, Ben, and Trudy E. Bell, Editors, CLOSEUP: NEW WORLDS,
           St. Martin's Press, New York, 1977.

         Burgess, Eric, VENUS: AN ERRANT TWIN, Columbia University Press,
           New York, 1985

         Burrows, William E., EXPLORING SPACE: VOYAGES IN THE SOLAR
           SYSTEM AND BEYOND, Random House, Inc., New York, 1990

         Fimmel, Richard O., Lawrence Colin, and Eric Burgess, PIONEER
           VENUS, NASA SP-461, Washington, D.C., 1983

         Gatland, Kenneth, THE ILLUSTRATED ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SPACE TECHNOLOGY,
           Salamander Books, New York, 1989

         Greeley, Ronald, PLANETARY LANDSCAPES, Allen and Unwin, Inc.,
           Winchester, Massachusetts, 1987

         Hart, Douglas, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOVIET SPACECRAFT, Exeter
           Books, New York, 1987

         Harvey, Brian, RACE INTO SPACE: THE SOVIET SPACE PROGRAMME,
           Ellis Howood Limited, Chichester, England, 1988

         Johnson, Nicholas L., HANDBOOK OF SOVIET LUNAR AND PLANETARY
           EXPLORATION, American Astronautical Society, Univelt, Inc.,
           San Diego, California, 1979

         Koppes, Clayton R., JPL AND THE AMERICAN SPACE PROGRAM: A
           HISTORY OF THE JET PROPULSION LABORATORY, Yale University
           Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 1982

         Lang, Kenneth R., and Charles A. Whitney, WANDERERS IN SPACE:
           EXPLORATION AND DISCOVERY IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM, Cambridge
           University Press, New York, 1991

         Montoya. Earl J., and Richard O. Fimmel, SPACE PIONEERS AND
           WHERE THEY ARE NOW, NASA EP-264, Washington, D.C., 1987

         Murray, Bruce, Michael C. Malin, and Ronald Greeley, EARTHLIKE
           PLANETS: SURFACES OF MERCURY, VENUS, EARTH, MOON, MARS, W. H.
           Freeman and Company, San Francisco, California, 1981

         Murray, Bruce, JOURNEY INTO SPACE: THE FIRST THREE DECADES OF
           SPACE EXPLORATION, W. W. Norton and Company, New York, 1989

         Nicks, Oran W., FAR TRAVELERS: THE EXPLORING MACHINES, NASA
           SP-480, Washington, D.C., 1985

         Smith, Arthur, PLANETARY EXPLORATION: THIRTY YEARS OF UNMANNED
           SPACE PROBES, Patrick Stephens, Ltd., Wellingborough, Northamp-
           tonshire, England, 1988

         VOYAGE THROUGH THE UNIVERSE: THE NEAR PLANETS, By the Editors
           of Time-Life Books, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia, 1990

         Wilson, Andrew, JANE'S SOLAR SYSTEM LOG, Jane's Publishing, Inc.,
           New York, 1987

        About the Author -

        Larry Klaes, EJASA Editor, is the recipient of the ASA's 1990
    Meritorious Service Award for his work as Editor of the EJASA since
    its founding in August of 1989.  Larry also teaches a course on
    Basic Astronomy at the Concord-Carlisle Adult and Community
    Education Program in Massachusetts.

        Larry is the author of the following EJASA articles:

        "The One Dream Man: Robert H. Goddard, Rocket Pioneer" - August 1989
        "Stopping Space and Light Pollution" - September 1989
        "The Rocky Soviet Road to Mars" - October 1989
        "Astronomy and the Family" - May 1991
        "The Soviets and Venus, Part 1" - February 1993


      THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE ATLANTIC

                          March 1993 - Vol. 4, No. 8

                           Copyright (c) 1993 - ASA

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

Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1993 04:04:35 GMT
From: Ralph Seguin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gaspra Animation
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary,comp.sys.amiga.tech

>taken by the Galileo spaecraft shortly before its closest approach to the
>asteroid in October 1991.  The animation is in FLI format.  Using anonymous
>ftp, the animation can be obtained from:
>
>        ftp:      ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3)
>        user:     anonymous
>        cd:       pub/SPACE/ANIMATION
>        files:
>                  gaspra.fli
>                  gaspra.txt (see below)

Ok.  Does anybody have an ANIM version of this, or an Amiga .FLI player?
.FLI datatype?

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

Date: 6 Mar 93 01:17:51 CST
From: John Liskey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Meteorite Collecting
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

I am curious if there are any other semi-active collectors of meteorites other
than myself on here? Or even someone who studies them?

If so drop me some email!

John Liskey
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 8 Mar 93 06:55:39 GMT
From: Matt Bartley <[e-mail]>
Subject: mystery satellite?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Last night (7 Mar. UTC) I was visually observing the Hubble Space
Telescope.  I tracked it starting around 3:10 UTC and kept it in sight
until it eclipsed around 3:15 UTC.

While I was tracking it though, around 3:14 UTC I saw another bright
satellite enter the field of view of my binoculars.  This was at about
35 degrees elevation and 150 degrees azimuth.  It headed toward the
southeast sky and eclipsed about a minute later.

My location is 33d 49' 1'' N
              117d 48' 11'' W
    (Orange, CA - not the location of this news site)

Whatever it was, it isn't on any of the databases distributed on
archive.afit.af.mil.  This is the 3rd time I've unexpectedly seen
satellites when I've been looking for other ones.  Is there any way to
determine what they are?  What kind of observation is needed to
establish their orbit?

--
Internet: [e-mail]                   Matt Bartley
UUCP: [e-mail]                    73 de N6YWI
ICBM:   37  25' 30''  N      Cost of this message has been billed to
       122  10' 00''  W      US government as indirect research cost.

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

Date: 8 Mar 1993 02:40:23 GMT
From: Jeff Foust <[e-mail]>
Subject: PFF Mass Reduction (Was Re: Charon)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In a recent article [e-mail] (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>Why does Goldin want the Pluto Fast Flyby craft to mass less than
>110 kg, vs. the 165 kg strawman proposal? Does he hope to use something
>smaller than a Titan 4 to launch them?

The main reason to cut mass is to reduce the flight time to Pluto.  According
to my sources in the PFF team at JPL, each 10kg cut in s/c mass cuts the flight
time by approximately 3 months.  Thus you can shave > 1 year off the flight
time of the mission, which has many benefits.


--
Jeff Foust              [96 days!]    "You're from outer space."
Senior, Planetary Science, Caltech    "No, I'm from Iowa.  I only work in
[e-mail]             outer space."
[e-mail]            -- from Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

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

Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1993 02:32:55 GMT
From: peter bachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Spot the anon poster!
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,sci.astro,sci.space,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.usage.english

And I thought the anon poster was a Turing test. Now I am bummed
out.Unless of course the machine was programmed that way.!!!

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

Date: 05 Mar 93  16:37:02
From: [e-mail]
Subject: SSF_REdesign
Newsgroups: sci.space

Anton,

There are several possible new designs for SSF, ranging from a simple
cut-down of the current design - leaving a man-tended platform, to a station
using Russian components and launchers. The wild card in the speculation is
the US Senate race in Texas, which may result in the most conservative design
possible being selected soon.

At any rate, we will know within 90 - 180 days. If the process works poorly,
and the Texas Senate race intereferes, we may see a poor design, with Goldin
out the door shortly thereafter...

--- Maximus 2.01wb

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

Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1993 03:12:31 GMT
From: Dave Hayes <[e-mail]>
Subject: The courage of anonymity
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space

[e-mail] (8 February 1993) writes:
>As far as anonymous postings in general, the threats of
>personal violence that the Challenger post unearthed, for me,
>more than confirmed my decision to use it.
...
>I think it takes far more courage to post anonymously than to
>hide behind your affiliations.

May I humbly suggest a deeper perspective from which to view this?

An interesting phenomena of human nature is perceived when one
observes that, more often than not, people's writings are given
credibility based soley upon the perceived source.

Rarely is it the case that the content of the writings themselves
are perceived in an unbiased way, and then "tried out" or "tested"
to see if the ideas are workable or not.

In simple terms, who gives a damn where a concept came from? Is it a
concept or idea one can use? _Could_ what is being said be true?
Will it work, and will it work for the reader?

"Science" is supposed to be based on just this premise. It is
even more interesting that the most flak comes from a group
in a hierarchy professed to be guided by these ideas.
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
[e-mail]       [e-mail]         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Compassion will cure more sins than condemnation.

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

Date: 8 Mar 1993 02:20:14 -0500
From: "Mr. Michael Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The courage of anonymity
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space

     I don't think anonymous posting is a courgeous thing (usually),
but I do think cowardice has an important place in the world.  For
example, what if I want to say that consensual sex is a good thing,
men are not inherently evil, and women are not always superior to men.
If I had an employer who also happens to be a feminist (of the man-
hating, "Let's castrate 'em all!!" variety;  I'm not saying I disagree
with every feminist), I would really like to be able to post
anonymously.
     This sort of argument does not just apply to political issues.
What if I am a programmer and my employer thinks (s)he is one too?
If the boss thinks bubble sort is the best thing since sliced bread,
maybe anonymous posting would be the best way to publish an essay on
the wonderful superiority of quicksort.
     There are some people with whom one should not publicly
disagree under one's own name.  When you want to disagree with such
a person, cowardice is simply the intelligent way to do it.
     Of course, people will hide behind anonymity to post drivel,
but many people already post drivel without anonymity.  Some
anonymous posters are stupid cowards and some are smart cowards.
Do you really want to ignore all the smart cowards?

     -Mike Miller
     [e-mail]

--
This message has been known to cause cancer in laboratory animals.
The previous sentence, like this one, is false.

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

Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1993 06:33:27 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Water resupply for SSF (?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>The deployment phase is the single diciest part of a sail design...
>
>Nevertheless, you think a small group of volunteers can pull it off,
>no? ...

Maybe.  In our case, our whole design ended up being driven by deployment
problems... and we ended up with something that would pretty definitely
work, but would be severely unsuited to the sort of precise shape control
needed for a mirror.  I don't think this was an accident; the more control
you want over the final shape, the harder deployment gets.

The problems are not unsolvable, but they are definitely beyond the current
state of the art.  This is a significant development item, not something
you can take for granted as a trivial detail.

>The uncertainties are similar for both Rosetta and comet mining,
>regardless of material volume.  These uncertainties weren't anywhere
>close to being a show-stopper.  The probe sends back detailed pix
>for over a month, so that the best site can be picked...

This isn't the hard part (although it's not entirely trivial, given
that the final approach isn't that precise -- see the recent paper
in the ESA Journal).  The hard part, as I said, is *surface operations*.
Wandering around nearby, taking pictures, even closing in for a gentle
landing:  these things are straightforward extensions of what we already
know how to do.  But when you're within (say) 1m of the comet and you
have to get something done, with time lags too long for teleoperation
and very little knowledge of surface properties... then you have stepped
into the Twilight Zone of guesswork and hope.

Again, these problems are not unsolvable, but solving them is not going
to be cheap or quick, and it's going to take more than one attempt to
get something reliable enough to be generalized to a mining system.
These are not solved problems; these are not easily-solved problems.
They are beyond the current state of the art, and it's not even clear
just how far beyond they are.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 7 Mar 1993 18:27 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Without a Plan
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes...
>
>Dennis, does  anice job of hitting the problems with space research
>on the nose.
>
>As i see it,  Research in space will only be fundable and viable
>for the masses as an economic venture  or a political goal.
>

What about freedom? The moon is an awfully long way from D.C. I have been
to lectures and had discussions with those who postulate a declaration of
independence of the users of an advanced SSF from their earthbound bretheren.
This paradigm was touched upon in Fallen Angels and to me is the most
thought provoking portion of the book.

>Columbus discovered the new world, while looking for a cheaper route
>to asia for spice and gold.

Columbus did what he did for Spain because Italian merchants already had
a cheap way to get to the orient. The westward route never became profitable
until the Panama Canal. Spain supported Columbus because they saw it as a
way to break the monopoly on oriental trade that the Medeci's and other
Florintine merchants had on world trade. I was shocked to read that one
bank in Florence in the late 1400's had a greater cash flow and made more
money on a year by year basis than the entire GNP of Elizabethan Britian!
So even then politics played a role in commerce. It wasen't a cheaper route
per se that the Spanish wanted, just one not dominated by the Italians.

>
>The american colonies were mostly funded as cheap places to store prisoners
>or places for political refugees to hide out.
>

The "quote" storing of prisoners did not begin until decades after the initial
settlements were begun in the Northeastern US.  Again, the primary reason
for the colonies was to act as a counterweight to the Spanish colonies of
South and Central America who were raking in billions to the treasuries of
the Castile. Also it was not until after the stunning victory in 1588 of
the British over the Spanish armada that began this policy. From a power
perspective the Brits wanted to exploit the land since the Spanish had
already exploited the nations of the rest of the Americas.


>Certainly explorers like the french and lewis and clark went for
>mapping or to seek exploitable resources.
>

The French and the Americans were mostly looking for the fabled Nortwest
passage that would give them better access to the orient than had the
Mediterranian nations. Remember at the time of Lewis and Clark the
Western expansion had not proceeded past St. Louis. In the interim, the
French and the Americans reaped the rewards of the fur trade by tapping the
animal resources of a virgin land. For all of their effort to blaze a trail,
the Nortwest is still the least developed portion of North America.

>But polar explorers went mostly as symbols of national pride.
>

Yep

>Certainly we as a nation are willing to put money into R&D  and science
>missions.  The planetary science program  does get a fair bit of money
>in real terms,  and the payoff from  astronomy work is unlikely
>in the next century.

What is the payoff from the planetary program for the poor black in South
Central Los Angeles or anywhere else for that matter. Believe me I support
planetary science but this engenders part of my whole point. What is the
purpose of this effort? How does it postively effect life here. Knowledge
simply for the sake of knowledge; is that enough to justify the program?
Will mapping Charon and Pluto add to our knowledge of the global variance
in temperature on earth? Should we even use utilitarian arguments to
bolster the unmanned space program?  These are the types of questions that
should be raised and answered by a philosopy that supports a purpose to
what we are doing. Until we can do this we merely fight a tactical battle
with other special interest groups that say that they can achieve the goals
that the space program has relative to improving the lot of man for much less.

>
>However manned space to-date is a cadillac program.  it's been done for
>reasons of Glory,  and not much economics.  Until manned space can
>find an economic route, it will remain a lab bench process.

But Pat the manned program in the 60's was the single beacon of hope in
a world that seemed headed toward destruction both from the bomb without and
the social upheaveals from within.  Within that context it is easy to see
why the most popular program ever to be on television, with its next generation
follow on is still on television 27 years after its debut. The manned
space program has always had one overreaching idealistic metaphor; hope for
a better future, hope for peace, and hope that together we can solve the
problems of the world. While technocracy in the last twenty years has devolved
into failed programs in every sphere that it touched, the beginning, burning
vision of Von Braun, Goddard, Ley and others still lives on as the primary
justification of the manned space program.  It is wrong to apply the
cost/benefit analysis to the manned space program. We can never quantify the
hope that it brought and how that hope changed the lives of those who
took heart in that hope.  In the 90's as global ecological problems seem
to be replacing the problems of the cold war and the bomb, the space program
and its potential contributions to solving the environmental problems should
be emphasized. This may rekindle the hope that lately has been waning, that
we can make it as a civilization and as free men and women.  Remember that
in all of the environmetal scenarios that are out there, the loss of
individual freedom is a PREDICATE to solving the problems, with the sole
exception of the space option.

>
>Genetic technologies were  lab bench ideas until the 70's  when it turned
>out there was big money prospects in them.  Now Genetic technologies
>are multi-billion dollar investments.
>

Agreed, so were communications satellites until the 1970's. The only reason
that GEO comsats ever made it was because the government subsidized the
launchers, the development costs of the satellites, (along with Hughes) and
legitimized the whole system by setting up INTELSAT, thus assuring the
common carriers AT&T ITT and others that this would not compete with
existing CHEAPER transatlantic but would allow them to profit by giving them
the keys to the store.

>NASA has lost sight of it's mission.  it has been pursuing GLory at
>the expense of Economy.   We don't need in the critical sense,
>a manned lab,  what we need are low cost technologies to provide
>that lab.  Then the market will provide the lab.
>

Fromt day one NASA's mission has been prestige building and showing forth
the flag of America to the rest of the world. Since Apollo NASA has been
adrift, even though when STS 1 was launched it was hearlded by the world
as showing that America still had what it took to do great things. I agree
that we need low cost technology but those are merely words unless there is
a purpose for having low cost technologies. What technologies are you talking
about? The market has been singularly reluctant to bring new technologies
to the market in the last decade. Even with the silicon revolution still in
progress we have not made a single fundamental discovery outside of
high temp superconductivity (which by the was was developed here at UAH by
a single graduate student under direction of faculty with no big budget) in
the last 15 years. State direction in technolgy is a two edged sword. Only
those technologies that pass the cost/benefit analysis are accepted and by
definition a fundamental discovery cannot be calculated in its value until
it has been discovered.  This is the primary reason that I support SSF. Because
we do not know what we will discover up there but we do know that in a
unique environment such as space, things work differently. The question is
is this unique environment worth the trouble and the cost. Based upon
what we do know about the POTENTIAL up there I say yes. If we get up
there and in thirty years find out that there is nothing that we can do
up there better than here, or if we make no new fundamental discoveries that
will significantly aid the general welfare of our nation, then we will be
actually saving future generations money by finding out now.  If there
are fundamental discoveries that aid the general welfare of our nation
and the world then the question is answered and we go onward and upward.

>Diving has been around for centuries,  but the developement of key technologies
>allowed it to flourish.
>
>Cheap, light, effective air compressors/pumps.    Strong light glass
>for visors.   Water-proof suits   and neoprene wet suits.
>oxygen re-breathers.  Strong light air tanks.  high performance fins.
>cheap, accurate pressure and depth gauges.
>Scads of underwater tools,  Advanced breathing mixs.  Effective
>diving tables for dive medicine.
>
>There have always been riches in the sea,  but they weren't reachable
>until the technology improved.
>

But none of these technolgies would have been developed when they were without
the military imperative of WWII to drive them. They would have happened
eventually but diving technology would be no where near where it is
today without its effective implementation by the military for use in war.

>caisson disease killed hundreds.  Off shore platforms used to be limited
>to ~100 ft for numerous reasons,   now drilling in 1 mile of water
>is practical.
>

These are nice logical steps toward the future. You forget that the oil
technology that you speak of was developed originally by Hughes with the
Glomar series of "research platforms" that were funded by the CIA to
scoop Russian subs off the floor of the pacific. In the first case finding
a cure for a disease directly, positively effected the general welfare
of the nation and the world. In the second, the indirect effect of enabling
the exploration of new hydrocarbon resources is to make energy more
available for our pet cars.

>What the space program has never done, is deliver one of two things.
>Either Cheap technologies  or A worthwhile goal.
>

I beg to differ here. The phone you speak on for long distance and the
computer that you use to read this message were developed both by and
for the space program, at least in their genesis.  It has been the
genious of the marketplace to take these technological developments and
capitalize on them. Remote sensing has done much to lower the cost
of monitoring our environment and the potential of the future LEO
constellation comsats is mind boggling.

The manned program has effected medicine probably more than any other
field of space effort.  Our efforts to understand the human body in extremes
of operation and the technology required to to the monitoring has been
directly and successfully tranferred to the private sector. My best friend
was able to live a year and a half longer because of advances in monitoring
the human body enabled the early detection of his cancer. What is the
value that you place on that year and a half?

What about the recent hurricane in Florida. Because of satellites we lost
only 11 lives.  A similar hurricane earlier in this century in the same
area cost hundreds of lives. How do you do a cost/benefit analysis on that?

>I am a sport diver.  i don't do it for pay, i do it for fun,
>just as i used to fly for fun.  I do it because it's affordable, on a
>upper middle class income.
>
>The people who opened the american colonies didn't come here because it
>was fun, they came because they could marginally afford it, and they had
>a goal.  FREEDOM.  Canadian oil men work in hellish areas, for the money.
>

Most could not even afford it. They came as indentured servants, or willing
white slaves in order to escape a too structured life and gain riches for
themselves and their posterity. Military issues were important as well.

>The space program has not been able to either provide  cheaper technologies
>or worthwhile places to go.
>
>If NASA were to work on :  Hard Suit/ Skin suit technologies, that would
>be a plus.
>
>Cheap ELVs  or SSTO's, that would be good.
>
>Closed cycle  life support
>
>Native materials exploitation programs.
>
>All these areas have been given frankly lip service.  in favor of
>Glory programs.  Until they make a goal,  Cheap access to space,
>it will remain a minor program.
>
>pat

No if you truly look you will see that it is the politicians that have
given lip service to the ideas that you state above, not NASA. I have
re-read a book that was published right after the Apollo 11 landing that
showed neat pictures of multiple LEM launches and resource exploitation and
closed cycle life support, but as I spoke of in my previous post, it is not
worth that is supported but expediency. We have no plan, George Bush tried
but retreated in the face of opposition. It has to come from us now and
now is the time to develop a plan and take the lead from the politicians
and do it ourselves.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 290
------------------------------