Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_4/V16NO471.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Tue, 20 Apr 93 05:00:02
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #471
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 20 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 471

Today's Topics:
                           Ages of Planets
                          Astronomy Program
                        Biosphere II (2 msgs)
               Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?
     Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration.  May 7  Crystal City
                      Magellan Update - 04/16/93
                             NASA "Wraps"
                        Orbital RepairStation
                Orion drive in vacuum -- how? (3 msgs)
                       Shuttle Launch Question
        Sixty-two thousand (was Re: How many read sci.space?)
                          Soviet space book
                Space class for teachers near Chicago
                       Space Clippers launched
                         Space on other nets
    Vast Bandwidth Over-runs on NASA thread (was Re: NASA "Wraps")
             What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?
      Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

    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: Sun, 18 Apr 93 23:26:50 EST
From: Glenn Hansen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ages of Planets

Hi,
    If the ages of the planets are known what are they?
    Or, if they aren't known, what is the most believed
    theory as to the order of their formation (ie. which
    planets formed first) ?

    This info would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 13:49:05 GMT
From: M{kel{ Veikko <[e-mail]>
Subject: Astronomy Program
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(kevin marcus) writes:

>Are there any public domain or shareware astronomy programs which will
>map out the sky at any given time, and allow you to locate planets, nebulae,
>and so forth?  If so, is there any ftp site where I can get one?


   There are several star map programs available.  Your
   job is to choose that you like.  Try anonymous-FTP
   from:

    ftp.funet.fi:pub/astro/pc/stars
                   pc/solar
                               mac
                   amiga
                   atari

                    regards,
                    -Veikko-

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

Date: Mon, 19 Apr 93 13:20:13 BST
From: Greg Stewart-Nicholls <[e-mail]>
Subject: Biosphere II
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <1q1kia$[e-mail]> Pat writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In <1q09ud$[e-mail]> Pat writes:
>>>Why is everyone being so critical of B2?
>> Because it's bogus science, promoted as 'real' science.
>It seems to me, that it's sorta a large engineering project more
>then a science project.
  Bingo.
>B2 is not bench science,  but rather a large scale attempt to
>re-create a series of micro-ecologies.   what's so eveil about this?
 Nothing evil at all. There's no actual harm in what they're doing, only
how they represent it.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 .sig files are like strings ... every yo-yo's got one.

Greg Nicholls ... [e-mail] (business) or
                  [e-mail] (private)

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

Date: Mon, 19 Apr 93 13:57:12 BST
From: Greg Stewart-Nicholls <[e-mail]>
Subject: Biosphere II
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <1q77ku$[e-mail]> Pat writes:
>The Work is privately funded,  the DATA belongs to SBV.  I don't see
>either george or Fred,  scoriating IBM research division for
>not releasing data.
   We publish plenty kiddo,you just have to look.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 .sig files are like strings ... every yo-yo's got one.

Greg Nicholls ... [e-mail] (business) or
                  [e-mail] (private)

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

Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 12:55:47 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark Brader) writes:
>> > Can these questions be answered for a previous
>> > instance, such as the Gehrels 3 that was mentioned in an earlier posting?
>
>> Orbital Elements of Comet 1977VII (from Dance files)
>> p(au)          3.424346
>> e              0.151899
>> i              1.0988
>> cap_omega(0) 243.5652
>> W(0)         231.1607
>> epoch       1977.04110
>
>
>> Also, perihelions of Gehrels3 were:
>>
>> April  1973     83 jupiter radii
>> August 1970     ~3 jupiter radii
>
> Where 1 Jupiter radius = 71,000 km = 44,000 mi = 0.0005 AU.  So the
> 1970 figure seems unlikely to actually be anything but a perijove.
> Is that the case for the 1973 figure as well?
> --
Sorry, _perijoves_...I'm not used to talking this language.

John Garland
[e-mail]

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

Date: 19 Apr 1993 15:30:54 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration.  May 7  Crystal City
Newsgroups: sci.space

AW&ST  had a brief blurb on a Manned Lunar Exploration confernce
May 7th  at Crystal City Virginia, under the auspices of AIAA.

Does anyone know more about this?  How much, to attend????

Anyone want to go?

pat

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

Date: 19 Apr 1993 20:26 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Update - 04/16/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager

                        MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                            April 16, 1993

1.  The Magellan mission at Venus continues normally, gathering gravity
data which provides measurement of density variations in the upper
mantle which can be correlated to surface topography.  Spacecraft
performance is nominal.

2.  Magellan has completed 7225 orbits of Venus and is now 39 days from
the end of Cycle-4 and the start of the Transition Experiment.

3.  No significant activities are expected next week, as preparations
for aerobraking continue on schedule.

4.  On Monday morning, April 19, the moon will occult Venus and
interrupt the tracking of Magellan for about 68 minutes.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.

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

Date: 18 Apr 1993 13:56 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NASA "Wraps"
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>I don't care who told you this it is not generally true. I see EVERY single
>>line item on a contract and I have to sign it. There is no such thing as
>>wrap at this university.
>
>Dennis, I have worked on or written proposals worth tens of millions
>of $$. Customers included government (including NASA), for profit and
>non-profit companies. All expected a wrap (usually called a fee). Much
>of the work involved allocating and costing the work of subcontractors.
>The subcontractors where universities, for-profits, non-profits, and
>even some of the NASA Centers for the Commercialization of Space. ALL
>charged fees as part of the work. Down the street is one of the NASA
>commercialization centers; they charge a fee.
>

You totally forgot the original post that you posted Allen. In that post
you stated that the "wrap" was on top of and in addition to any overhead.
Geez in this post you finally admit that this is not true.

>Now, I'm sure your a competent engineer Dennis, but you clearly lack
>experience in several areas. Your posts show that you don't understand
>the importance of integration in large projects. You also show a lack
>of understanding of costing efforts as shown by your belief that it
>is reasonable to charge incremental costs for everything. This isn't
>a flame, jsut a statement.

Come your little ol buns down here and you will find out who is doing
what and who is working on integration. This is simply an ad hominum
attack and you know it.

>
>Your employer DOES charge a fee. You may not see it but you do.
>

Of course there is a fee. It is for administration. Geez Allen any
organization has costs but there is a heck of a difference in  legitimate
costs, such as libraries and other things that must be there to support
a program and "wrap" as you originally stated it.You stated that wrap
was on top of all of the overhead which a couple of sentences down you
say is not true. Which is it Allen?

>>>Sounds like they are adding it to their overhead rate. Go ask your
>>>costing people how much fee they add to a project.
>
>>I did they never heard of it but suggest that, like our president did, that
>>any percentage number like this is included in the overhead.
>
>Well there you are Dennis. As I said, they simply include the fee in
>their overhead. Many seoparate the fee since the fee structure can
>change depending on the customer.
>

As you have posted on this subject Allen, you state that wrap is over and
above overhead and is a seperate charge. You admit here that this is wrong.
Nasa has a line item budget every year. I have seen it Allen. Get some
numbers from that detailed NASA budget and dig out the wrap numbers and then
howl to high heaven about it. Until you do that you are barking in the wind.

>>No Allen you did not. You merely repeated allegations made by an Employee
>>of the Overhead capital of NASA.
>
>Integration, Dennis, isn't overhead.
>
>>Nothing that Reston does could not be dont
>>better or cheaper at the Other NASA centers  where the work is going on.
>

Integration could be done better at the centers. Apollo integration was
done here at Msfc and that did not turn out so bad. The philosophy of
Reston is totally wrong Allen. There you have a bunch of people who are
completely removed from the work that they are trying to oversee. There
is no way that will ever work. It has never worked in any large scale project
that it was ever tried on. Could you imagine a Reston like set up for
Apollo?

>Dennis, Reston has been the only NASA agency working to reduce costs. When
>WP 02 was hemoraging out a billion $$, the centers you love so much where
>doing their best to cover it up and ignore the problem. Reston was the
>only place you would find people actually interested in solving the
>problems and building a station.
>

Oh you are full of it Allen on this one. I agree that JSC screwed up big.
They should be responsible for that screw up and the people that caused it
replaced. To make a stupid statement like that just shows how deep your
bias goes. Come to MSFC for a couple of weeks and you will find out just
how wrong you really are. Maybe not, people like you believe exactly what
they want to believe no matter  what the facts are contrary to it.

>>Kinda funny isn't it that someone who talks about a problem like this is
>>at a place where everything is overhead.
>
>When you have a bit more experience Dennis, you will realize that
>integration isn't overhead. It is the single most important part
>of a successful large scale effort.
>

I agree that integration is the single most important part of a  successful
large scale effort. What I completly disagree with is seperating that
integration function from  the people that are doing the work. It is called
leadership Allen. That is what made Apollo work. Final responsibility for
the success of Apollo was held by less than 50 people. That is leadership
and responsibility. There is neither when you have any organization set up
as Reston is. You could take the same people and move them to JSC or MSFC
and they could do a much better job. Why did it take a year for Reston to
finally say something about the problem? If they were on site and part of the
process then the problem would have never gotten out of hand in the first place.

There is one heck of a lot I do not know Allen, but one thing I do know is that
for a project to be successful you must have leadership. I remember all of the
turn over at Reston that kept SSF program in shambles for years do you? It is
lack of responsibility and leadership that is the programs problem. Lack of
leadership from the White House, Congress and at Reston. Nasa is only a
symptom of a greater national problem. You are so narrowly focused in your
efforts that you do not see this.

>>Why did the Space News artice point out that it was the congressionally
>>demanded change that caused the problems? Methinks that you are being
>>selective with the facts again.
>
>The story you refer to said that some NASA people blamed it on
>Congress. Suprise suprise. The fact remains that it is the centers
>you support so much who covered up the overheads and wouldn't address
>the problems until the press published the story.
>
>Are you saying the Reston managers where wrong to get NASA to address
>the overruns? You approve of what the centers did to cover up the overruns?
>

No, I am saying that if they were located at JSC it never would have
happened in the first place.

>>If it takes four flights a year to resupply the station and you have a cost
>>of 500 million a flight then you pay 2 billion a year. You stated that your
>>"friend" at Reston said that with the current station they could resupply it
>>for a billion a year "if the wrap were gone". This merely points out a
>>blatent contridiction in your numbers that understandably you fail to see.
>
>You should know Dennis that NASA doesn't include transport costs for
>resuply. That comes from the Shuttle budget. What they where saying
>is that operational costs could be cut in half plus transport.
>
>>Sorry gang but I have a deadline for a satellite so someone else is going
>>to have to do Allen's math for him for a while. I will have little chance to
>>do so.
>
>I do hope you can find the time to tell us just why it was wrong of
>Reston to ask that the problems with WP 02 be addressed.
>
I have the time to reitereate one more timet that if the leadership that is
at reston was on site at JSC the problem never would have happened, totally
ignoring the lack of leadership of congress. This many headed hydra that
has grown up at NASA is the true problem of the Agency and to try to
change the question to suit you and your bias is only indicative of
your position.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 12:42:37 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orbital RepairStation
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>The biggest problem with this is that all orbits are not alike.  It can
>actually be more expensive to reach a satellite from another orbit than
>from the ground.

But with cheaper fuel from space based sources it will be cheaper to
reach more orbits than from the ground.

Also remember, that the presence of a repair/supply facility adds value
to the space around it. If you can put your satellite in an orbit where it
can be reached by a ready source of supply you can make it cheaper and gain
benefit from economies of scale.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------58 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 08:08:32 GMT
From: Urban F <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space

Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]> writes:
> I feel sure
>that someone must have film of that experiment, and I'd really like to
>see it. Has anyone out there seen it?

I've seen a film of it, my memory may be faulty, but as I
remember it the vehicle was slightly over a meter long, with a
thick baseplate 30-40 cm in diameter. I think the narrative said
it was propelled by dynamite sticks. There were four detonations
within about 2 s, the second coming after about 2 m of flight in.
Max altitude seemed to be on the order of 50 m, but that is hard
to judge.
--
 Urban Fredriksson  [e-mail]

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

Date: 19 Apr 1993 15:41:28 GMT
From: "Peter J. Scott" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]> writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> Henry Spencer,
> [e-mail] writes:
> >The National Air & Space Museum has both the prototype and the film.
> >When I was there, some years ago, they had the prototype on display and
> >the film continuously repeating.
>
> Great! I'll visit the National Air and Space Museum at the end of the
> month with my wife, who was also working at General Atomic at the time.
> Once again netnews has enriched my life.

Sorry to put a damper on your plans, but I was there three weeks ago and
it wasn't there.  Not that I would have known to look for it, of course,
but I combed the space exhibits pretty thoroughly and something like that
would have caught my attention instantly.

--
This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
brain on news.  Any questions?    |    ([e-mail])

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

Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 19:01:58 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> >The National Air & Space Museum has both the prototype and the film.
>> >When I was there, some years ago, they had the prototype on display...
>> Great! I'll visit the National Air and Space Museum at the end of the
>> month...
>
>Sorry to put a damper on your plans, but I was there three weeks ago and
>it wasn't there.  Not that I would have known to look for it, of course,
>but I combed the space exhibits pretty thoroughly and something like that
>would have caught my attention instantly.

It wasn't especially prominent, as I recall.  However, quite possibly it's
no longer on display; NASM, like most museums, has much more stuff than it
can display at once, and does rotate the displays occasionally.
--
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 14:35:07 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle Launch Question
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jonathan McDowell) writes:

   My understanding is that the 'expected errors' are basically
   known bugs in the warning system software - things are checked
   that don't have the right values in yet because they aren't
   set till after launch, and suchlike. Rather than fix the code
   and possibly introduce new bugs, they just tell the crew
   'ok, if you see a warning no. 213 before liftoff, ignore it'.

Good grief. And I thought the Shuttle software was known for being
well-engineered. If this is actually the case, every member of the
programming team should be taken out and shot.

(given that I've heard the Shuttle software rated as Level 5 in
maturity, I strongly doubt that this is the case).

Nick Haines [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 13:40:43 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sixty-two thousand (was Re: How many read sci.space?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>Reid, alas, gives us no measure of the "power/influence" of readers...
>Sorry, Mark.

I think I can. Largely as a result of efforts by people reading this group
writing letters and making phone calls the following has happened:

1. NASA reprogrammed funds to keep NASP alive in 1991.
2. Efforts to kill DC-X and the SSRT progam where twice twarted
   (Feb. and June of last year).
3. Gouldin kept his job in spite of heavy lobbying against him.

This may not be what Mark was thinking of but it shows that the
readers of sci.space DO have power and influence.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------58 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Mon, 19 Apr 93 21:41:04 GMT
From: George Hastings <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soviet space book
Newsgroups: sci.space

     I have received my copies of Cosmonautics 1990 and
Cosmonautics 1991, as well as Soviet Space 1990 and Space
Station [MIR] Handbook from Aerospace Ambassadors with no
problem.
     I'm getting ready to FAX them some material in Huntsville,
and I'll include a printout of your inquiry.
 ____________________________________________________________
| George Hastings        [e-mail] |
| Space Science Teacher        [e-mail]      |  If it's not
| Mathematics & Science Center     STAREACH BBS: 804-343-6533   |   FUN, it's
| 2304 Hartman Street        OFFICE:       804-343-6525   |  probably not
| Richmond, VA 23223        FAX:          [phone]   |    SCIENCE!
 ------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 18:29:19 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space class for teachers near Chicago
Newsgroups: sci.space

I am posting this for a friend without internet access. Please inquire
to the phone number and address listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

"Space: Teaching's Newest Frontier"
Sponsored by the Planetary Studies Foundation

The Planetary Studies Foundation is sponsoring a one week class for
teachers called "Space: Teaching's Newest Frontier." The class will be
held at the Sheraton Suites in Elk Grove, Illinois from June 14 through
June 18. Participants who complete the program can earn two semester
hours of graduate credit from Aurora College. Please note that while the
class is intended for teachers, it is not restricted to teachers.

The class, which is being cosponsored by the United States Space
Foundation, will teach how to use space exploration as a teaching tool
to get students excited about learning and interested in science.

Classroom topics to be covered by the class include:
     > Living in Space
     > The Space Shuttle
     > The Space Station
     > NASA Spinoffs that Benefit Society
     > Principles of Astrodynamics/Aeronautics
     > The Solar System

There will also be simulated Zero-G training in an underwater space
station simulation, model rocket launches, observing sessions at the
Harper College Observatory, and field trips to the Adler Planetarium and
the Museum of Science and Industry.

Featured speakers include Jerry Brown of the Colorado based United
States Space Foundation and Debbie Brown of the NASA Lewis Research
Center in Cleveland, Ohio. Additional instructors will be provided by
the Planetary Studies Foundation.

The social highlight of the class will be a dinner banquet featuring
Space Shuttle Payload Specialist Byron Lichtenberg, currently President
of Payload Systems, Inc. Lichtenberg was a member of the crew of STS-9
which flew in November 1983. The banquet is scheduled for Thursday, June
17.

The registration fee includes transportation for field trips, materials,
continental breakfasts, lunches, and the special dinner banquet. Guest
tickets for the dinner banquet are also available.  There is an
additional charge to receive the two hours of graduate credit. For any
additional information about the class, contact the Science Learning
Center at [phone].

Or write to:
Planetary Studies Foundation
1520 W. Algonquin Rd.
Palatine, IL 60067

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

Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

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

Date: Mon, 19 Apr 93 17:40:51 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Clippers launched

>  SPACE CLIPPERS LAUNCHED SUCCESSFULLY

When I first saw this, I thought for a second that it was a headline from
The Star about the pliers found in the SRB recently.

Y'know, sometimes they have wire-cutters built in :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 19 Apr 93 21:33:34 GMT
From: George Hastings <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space on other nets
Newsgroups: sci.space

   We run "SpaceNews & Views" on our STAREACH BBS, a local
operation running WWIV software with the capability to link to
over 1500 other BBS's in the U.S.A. and Canada through WWIVNet.
   Having just started this a couple of months ago, our sub us
currently subscribed by only about ten other boards, but more
are being added.
   We get our news articles re on Internet, via ftp from NASA
sites, and from a variety of aerospace related periodicals. We
get a fair amount of questions on space topics from students
who access the system.
 ____________________________________________________________
| George Hastings        [e-mail] |
| Space Science Teacher        [e-mail]      |  If it's not
| Mathematics & Science Center     STAREACH BBS: 804-343-6533   |   FUN, it's
| 2304 Hartman Street        OFFICE:       804-343-6525   |  probably not
| Richmond, VA 23223        FAX:          [phone]   |    SCIENCE!
 ------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 16:58:30 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vast Bandwidth Over-runs on NASA thread (was Re: NASA "Wraps")
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, Dennis writes about a
zillion lines in response to article <[e-mail]>,
in which Allen wrote a zillion lines in response to article
<[e-mail]>, in which Dennis wrote another zillion
lines in response to Allen.

Hey, can it you guys. Take it to email, or talk.politics.space, or
alt.flame, or alt.music.pop.will.eat.itself.the.poppies.are.on.patrol,
or anywhere, but this is sci.space. This thread lost all scientific
content many moons ago.

Nick Haines [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 14:28:02 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

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

   >This is turning into 'what's a moonbase good for', and I ought not
   >to post when I've a hundred some odd posts to go, but I would
   >think that the real reason to have a moon base is economic.
   >
   >Since someone with space industry will presumeably have a much
   >larger GNP than they would _without_ space industry, eventually,
   >they will simply be able to afford more stuff.

   If I read you right, you're saying in essence that, with a larger
   economy, nations will have more discretionary funds to *waste* on a
   lunar facility. That was certainly partially the case with Apollo,
   but real Lunar colonies will probably require a continuing
   military, scientific, or commercial reason for being rather than
   just a "we have the money, why not?" approach.

Ah, but the whole point is that money spent on a lunar base is not
wasted on the moon. It's not like they'd be using $1000 (1000R?) bills
to fuel their moon-dozers. The money to fund a lunar base would be
spent in the country to which the base belonged. It's a way of funding
high-tech research, just like DARPA was a good excuse to fund various
fields of research, under the pretense that it was crucial to the
defense of the country, or like ESPRIT is a good excuse for the EC to
fund research, under the pretense that it's good for pan-European
cooperation.

Now maybe you think that government-funded research is a waste of
money (in fact, I'm pretty sure you do), but it does count as
investment spending, which does boost the economy (and just look at
the size of that multiplier :->).

Nick Haines [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 14:44:27 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Gene Wright ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation
: who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a year.
: Then you'd see some of the inexpensive but not popular technologies begin
: to be developed. THere'd be a different kind of space race then!

I'm an advocate of this idea for funding Space Station work, and I
throw around the $1 billion figure for that "reward."  I suggest that
you increase the Lunar reward to about $3 billion.

This would encourage private industry to invest in space, which
should be one of NASA's primary goals.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "Better.  Faster.  Cheaper." -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 471
------------------------------