Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_5/V16NO551.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Mon, 10 May 93 05:00:01
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #551
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 10 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 551

Today's Topics:
                  "365 days of the Shuttle flights"
              ASTRONAUTS---WHAT DOES WEIGHTLESSNESS FEEL
           Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing)
                         Drag-free satellites
                Gravitational Lensing  and  Astronomy
                        HST Servicing Mission
               landing at Edwards vs. the Cape (2 msgs)
                            Life on Mars.
             Low gravity for up to 60 seconds??? (2 msgs)
                          moon on goes image
             Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones)
                    Pat and the Big Dan  (2 msgs)
      To D. Palmer (was Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.)
         U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment
                         Vandalizing the sky

    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: 9 May 1993 19:39:37 GMT
From: Pawel Moskalik <[e-mail]>
Subject: "365 days of the Shuttle flights"
Newsgroups: sci.space

  NASA has recently released a statistical summary of "365 days in space" for
the shuttle fleat. I think it would be interestin to compare these numbers with
the numbers for the Soviet manned space program. I take into account only
the Soyuz flights which took place since 1981, that is during the time of the
shuttle program. That covers the last residency in the SALUT 6 station,
whole SALUT 7 program and ongoing MIR program.





"365 DAYS IN SPACE"
A STATISTICAL COMPARISON WITH SOYUZ/SALUT/MIR PROGRAM
As of STS-55 landing on May 6, 1993



                          Shuttle                  Soyuz

Missions Launched:        55                       30
Cumulative time:          366 days                 3306 days
Mission Success Rate:     98.181 percent           96.667 percent
                          (1 failure)              (1 failure)
Rendezvous Operations:    16                       31


Man-Years in Orbit:       5.7                      20.0
Individuals Flown:        164                      49
   foreigners:            16                       12
   women:                 19                        2
   individuals with
     multiple flights:    93                       17
Spacewalks (EVAs):        20                       45
Total EVA time:           223 hours                379 hours
space-walking astronauts: 22                       26


Payloads to orbit:        670                      0
Payload returned:         636                      0
Satelites deployed:        51                      4 ?
Satelites repaired:         3                      0
Satelites returned
          to Earth:         9                      0
Cargo to Orbit:           822 tons                 0 tons




Pawel Moskalik

      [e-mail]



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

Date: Sun, 09 May 93 19:52:03 GMT
From: George Hastings <[e-mail]>
Subject: ASTRONAUTS---WHAT DOES WEIGHTLESSNESS FEEL
Newsgroups: sci.space

PATE, DENNIS WAYNE ([e-mail] ) writes:
> Two years ago a took a tour of the Johnson Space Center with a group of fellow
> Human Factors Engineering graduate students.  Our guide was a manager in the
> Man Systems Dept. and a friend of our prof.  While showing us the mockup of
> space station Freedom (the pre-Clinton design), he pointed out a new project
> one of the groups was working on.  They had observed that some of the
> astronauts prone to developing motion sickness were not as succeptable to
> it once they had returned from a mission.  The positive side-effect apparently
> last for a couple of weeks, depending on the individual.  They hoped a reversal
> of the situation might also work (i.e. Get them motion sick on the ground,
> let them recover, and then boost them into space).  To accomplish this, they
> were constructing some type of miniature roller-coaster (that's how our guide
> describe the device).
>
> I don't know if the device worked, or if it was ever actually completed and
> used.  If anyone knows anything about it, please post.

     I don't know about THAT one, but the best "puke-maker" I
saw during my experiences in the cosmonaut training session in
Zhvuzhdny Gorodok was for the same prupose.
     There was a ..hmmmmm...  I guess I'd call it a
platform-glider swing: a device that consisted of a platform
about 2 X 3 meters, suspended at each of the four courners with
rods about 5 meters long, attached to the ceiling, hanging down
to about .5 meters above the floor. The device was designed to
swing forward and back along its longitudinal axis. With four
suspension points, the platform stayed parallel to the surface
of the floor at all times.
     Mounted on this self-leveling swinging platform was
something that looked rather like a barber's chair with
seatbelt. The chair ws motor driven to rotate at about 1
rotation per second. Strapped into the rotating chair with your
eyes closed, with the platform moving in great, swinging arcs
with your eyes closed, and flopping your head back and forth
from one shoulder to the other in response to a beeping tone
was enough to make you long for the relatively tame "octopus"
ride of an amusement park! This one was NOT amusing, but it
certainly was effective! 8-)
 ____________________________________________________________
| 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: 9 May 1993 07:47:36 -0400
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>Yes, there is too much paperwork, but let's not oversimplify the situation;
>>the two fields of endeavor are not the same and shouldn't be treated that way.

>Please explain why they are different.  Not why system X needs to be treated
>differently from system Y, because that happens all the time within each
>field, but why the two *fields* are *fundamentally* different and *must*
>have different rules.

*Fundamentally* different?  No, the two fields are not *fundamentally*
different; airplanes and rockets both use engines that depend on the action-
reaction principle to drive an aerodynamic structure through the air.  At that
level, no, there are no fundamental differences.

At a more practical level, however, I can think of one signifigant difference:
airplanes are designed to stay in one piece, whereas most rockets are designed
to drop large chunks of high-velocity metal from altitude, which eventually
includes the entire vehicle.  When every launch of a vehicle *requires* the
possibility of injury or damage on the ground, I expect some extra level of
precaution.

The relaxation of rules for DC-X and the fact that it comes back in one piece
in a controlled and powered landing are *not* unrelated facts.  If rockets
had been developed this way from the start, I am sure there would be few if
any differences in the restrictions.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 18:36:59 GMT
From: "Matthew R. Feulner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drag-free satellites
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1s3jqi$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Isaac Kuo) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
|>
|> >The earth's mass distribution is not spherically symmetric, so neither
|> >is its gravitational field.  The small differences from spherical can
|> >be expressed as a series of generalised harmonic functions (modified
|> >Lagrange polynomials for latitude dependence by sin/cos terms for longitude).
    ^^^^^^^^
              Legendre
|>
|> Well, you can certainly express any smooth function as the sum of an infinite
|> number of harmonic functions.  I wouldn't, and neither would any other
|> mathematician, call such summands "harmonics".

Like it or not, people in the orbit business will know what you're talking
about when you say harmonics of the gravity field.  It's a lot easier to
say that than "coefficients of the spherical harmonic expansion of the
earth's gravity field", which I would hope would satisfy you.

|> In any case, the small difference from spherical that the Earth is is
|> ridiculously small.

Not so.  Since LEO (low earth orbit for the mathematicians) is only at an
altitude of a few (2-3) % of the radius of the earth, these HARMONICS are very
important.

|> Even if the Earth were significantly flattenned, it would be flattenned on
|> the axis of rotation, and thus the gravitational field does not rotate and
|> thus no orbiting satellite can derive energy from the non-changing
|> gravitational field.

What a proof!  Why didn't I think of that?  I haven't seen the references
myself, but it's possible it's supposed to gain energy in the sense that
the mean semi-major axis is increasing - not necessarily in the total energy
sense.  Or it could be total energy.

You shouldn't be so quick to nitpick.  Why don't you actually look up
some of the references given in other posts if you don't believe it.

Matt
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 9 May 1993 20:12:47 GMT
From: James Davis Nicoll <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gravitational Lensing  and  Astronomy
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

    I just read Drake's book on SETI, and in  it he mentioned
that past  about 550 AU, the sun's gravitational lensing effect
could be used   to study other stars. Now,  550 AU is a serious bit of
distance, and current propulsion systems appear to me to make
placing an observational package out that far more time-consuming
than current funding systems make prudent. Is a 550+ AU observatory
(Unmanned, of course) something I might expect to see before I
croak, or is it something  my grandkids might hope to see?

    How de you deliver a payload to 550 AU in a reasonable
(a few decades) time?

                            James Nicoll

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

Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 01:48:41 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: HST Servicing Mission
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro

In article <1se2o5$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
> William,  what you are discovering is that the communication
> methods in NASA are not real efficient.  now imagine.  a bit of
> information like that, that is important to your Job, does not
> get to you until you read about it out here.  Now think of
> something big, like SPace Station Fred.  How much imformation
> that should be going to the right people isnt.
>

Let's hope that someone remembers to tell the astronauts!  They were all
here a couple of weeks ago, and told us about the mission, but I didn't
hear any mention of a re-boost.

Ben

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

Date: Sun, 9 May 1993 16:47:50 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: landing at Edwards vs. the Cape
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) posts, from across the Eighth Dimension:

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

>>As for the takeoff and landing... an extra takeoff and landing or two in
>>a well-proven powered aircraft with substantial operating margins has got
>>to beat landing an unpowered orbiter with bizarre flying characteristics
>>and marginal landing gear in a crosswind at a site (the Cape) with only
>>one runway, solid obstacles to either side, and rapidly-changing weather.
>>--
> | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

>Henry,
>I appreciate your usually well-informed opinions.  Do I sense disfavor
>regarding the US space shuttle?
>If so, why?

>Space Shuttle is certainly the most successful spacecraft series in
>the history of mankind.  While I understand that the human race can...

Uh, what alternate universe are you posting this from?
Perhaps the one where the South won the Civil War?

>do better, it is all that "the powers that be" have given my generation.
>I for one am not interested in waiting 10 years for independent corporations
>to develop SSTO/DC-X/DC-3. ;-)

I waited twelve years for the shuttle to reach one _tenth_ of its
stated goals. It never happened. I'm not interested in waiting another
ten or twenty while projects like DC-X get forever put on the
back burner...

>I would rather see us use the orbiter and perhaps derivative heavy lift
>capacity to serve as a bridge between the difficult access of yesteryear
>and the hoped for (but as yet unproven) projections of regular access in the
>future (which DC-X/DC-3 will fill) .

The Shuttle has made the difficult access of yesteryear the difficult
and expensive access of today.

The only reason people don't notice this is because it's eating
more money than launching with Saturn ever did.

>Space shuttle- more people, more hardware, more trips than any other
>space vehicle.  Who can argue with the numbers?

More people, yes, at a greater cost per person than any other system.
More hardware, no.

More trips, no.

>Don't get me wrong,
>I like the DC-X idea...its Buck Rogers (recall, "People want Buck
>Rogers and that's us." from the Right Stuff).  In a way, I kind of
>envy the skunk works mentality of the DC-X effort, and I am really
>hopeful that it'll be a stunning success because I have got a ton
>of experiments that I would love to fly in to space.  Nevertheless,
>right now, shuttle is my only ticket into space. So, the old orbiter
>gets my support.  I hope that the shuttle program receives your
>unwavering support as well.

I'm afraid I can't do that in good concience. Why? Look at this:

>Really now, can we expect to be able to use DC-3/DC-X in space if we
>can't even automatically rendezvous & dock the orbiter with any target
>in orbit.

The Russians do it all the time. And why hold up the DC-X program
because of the Shuttle's failures?

With a cheap system, building an automatic docking system would be
trivial.

Let MacDac build a cheap launcher. After that, they can worry about
all the stuff the Shuttle doesn't have partially because it's too
expensive and finicky to use as a testbed.

>DC-X is good, but its unproven.  My prediction is that the
>preliminary phases of the program will go quite well.  But, that the
>US federal government will have insufficient funds to support
>development of the full DC-3 during the first term of the Clinton
>Administration.

First of all, the next vehicle will be the DC-X' or DC-Y.

Second of all, you could develop this program and a couple similar
ones for the money being spent on Shuttle. Which is why I can't
in good concience give the shuttle program my unwavering support.

>If MacDac can fund a fully orbital vehicle, GO for it!
>If it works, they should be given hefty profits (like billions).  But
>I'm not holding my breath...I'll just continue to root for them from
>the sidelines.

>Meanwhile, I hope the orbiter keeps on truckin'!

Each time it trucks (which isn't a term I'd use for a launcher that
has never met a scheduled launch) it hauls off into outer space on
an escape trajectory enough money to build DC-Y plus Boeing's TSTO.

>Ken Hayashida
>[e-mail]

--
Phil Fraering         |"Number one good faith! You convert,
[e-mail]|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary

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

Date: 9 May 1993 18:22:24 GMT
From: Pawel Moskalik <[e-mail]>
Subject: landing at Edwards vs. the Cape
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article 59665  Ken Hayashida writes:


> Space Shuttle is certainly the most successful spacecraft series in
> the history of mankind.  While I understand that the human race can

??????   that is a matter of opinion. Compare today's launch schedule
with the schedule given in, say, 1984. Compare them both with the schedule
evisioned in 1978.


> Space shuttle- more people, more hardware, more trips than any other
> space vehicle.  Who can argue with the numbers?

It is indeed difficult to argue with numbers.

More people - yes !

more hardware - definitely not. This title belongs, I believe, to Soviet
                Soyuz launcher. With over 1000 flights and about 6-7 tons
        placed in orbit each time the total cargo delivered to
        orbit has to be more than 6000 tons.  The total for the
        shuttle is 822 tons. Shuttle total cargo is certainly
        superceeded also by Soviet Proton and by American Titan.

more trips - definitely not. Soviet Soyuz spacecraft has flown 67 manned
             missions, compared to shuttle's 54.


> Really now, can we expect to be able to use DC-3/DC-X in space if we
> can't even automatically rendezvous & dock the orbiter with any target


Automatic rendesvous and docking is not that difficult. Russians do it about
10 times a year.




Pawel Moskalik

[e-mail]

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

Date: 10 May 1993 00:37:27 GMT
From: Robert Clark <[e-mail]>
Subject: Life on Mars.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio

  In the June 1993 issue of _Final Frontier_ there is an interview with
Dr. Gilbert Levin who designed one of the life detection experiments on
the Viking missions.
  He's of the opinion that the data from his experiment is indicative of
life on Mars.

He gives several reasons for this:

 1.) His experiment was the most sensitive of the detection methods.

 2.) The three experiments were designed to detect different kinds
     of life so it should be expected that his gave the only repeated
     life signs.

 3.) One of the detectors was  known to not even be sensitive enough to
     detect life even in some Antartica soil samples known to contain life.

 4.) In some of the images of martian rocks, there are seasonal changes in
     their coloring similar to moss growing on terrestrial rocks.


   His detector is known as the Labeled Release Experiment. He claims
 that in numerous tests of his detector on terrestrial soil samples
 he never once got a false positive or false negative response.

   Before I read this article I wasn't aware that any of the experiments
 gave repeated life signs. Another thing that surprised me was that after
 all these years there still hasn't been a symposium convened to discuss
 the data returned by the Viking life experiments.



             Any comments?

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

Date: 9 May 1993 14:52:50 GMT
From: Claudio Oliveira Egalon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Low gravity for up to 60 seconds???
Newsgroups: sci.space

I wrote:
> Sometime ago I read in a NASA  pamphlet, that there is
> a jet (I guess it is the jet F-105, please correct me if I am
> wrong) (...)

I thought that I should  clarify a little bit my previous post.

The aircraft that I am talking about IS NOT the KC-135, neither
the Learjet  of NASA Lewis  but another one which I do not
recall exactly its name (may be F-105 or F-something else).
This aircraft is capable of producing low gravity for up to 60
seconds whereas the KC-135 can do it only for 25 to 30 seconds.
Please, have in mind that the KC-135 is NOT the only aircraft
that is capable of flying low gravity missions. NASA Lewis
has a Learjet which can do so for 15 to 20 seconds (the
KC-135 belongs to JSC). The T-38 and OV-10 can also fly
low-g maneuvers for a shorter period of time and many
other aircraft.

Does anyone have any idea which  aircraft is this one, how
many people  it can carry and how many parabolas it can
perform? As well as which NASA Center flyes it and whether
 it is still flying or not.

[e-mail]

Claudio Oliveira Egalon

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

Date: Sun, 09 May 93 19:59:28 GMT
From: George Hastings <[e-mail]>
Subject: Low gravity for up to 60 seconds???
Newsgroups: sci.space

    Talk to somebody there at Langley in the Public Affairs
Office about how to get in touch with Jack Reeder. Now retired
from Langley, Jack flew just about every kind of AC ever owned
by NASA, and when I was programs manager at the Langley Visitor
Center, I recall him talking in the cafeteria about
pulling G's and doing long-duration parabolic arcs!

---
 ____________________________________________________________
| 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: Sun, 09 May 93 20:12:54 GMT
From: George Hastings <[e-mail]>
Subject: moon on goes image
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology,sci.astro,sci.space

Rob Unverzagt ([e-mail] ) writes:
>
> The images in question were not about the moon in the image
> but about a lunar eclipse in the image.  If we're talking
> about the same images -- maybe my memory is failing.
> The eclipse images were from GOES on 17 October 1986 at
> 1800 UT.

    Actually, the images referred to in the original post WERE
of the Moon itself, just off the Earth limb, and NOT of the
lunar shadow on the clouds off the coast of Baja California in
July, 1991 that I saw quite some time ago.
    The two images referred to were the taken on (I believe)
April 30 of this year at the same time, one in visible
wavelengths and one in IR. The IR image was pretty well
saturated, and just showed a white disk, but the visible
wavelengths actually showed some of the lunar features.
 ____________________________________________________________
| 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: 9 May 93 19:40:14
From: Henry Minsky <[e-mail]>
Subject: Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Can anyone tell me what Neil Armstrong's real first words were after
he stepped out of the apollo 11 lander? Someone told me that they were
something like "The soil is sandy and loose, I can kick it around with
my toe" or something like that.

(I would be grateful if anyone could please send a copy of your reply
via email to [e-mail], or post it if you think it is of general
interest).

Thanks very much!

Henry

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

Date: 9 May 1993 12:24:14 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pat and the Big Dan
Newsgroups: sci.space

McDonnell Douglas hopes that if they prove the DC-X
rapid sorty process,  that Military and commercial
customers will leap for orders.

Right now all their hopes are pinned on proving 8-24 hr
tuyrnaround times....

now what i found interesting is they seem rather cool
on the use of plug nozzles.   they think that the aerodrag
on re-entry  makes the concept less workable.   and they have
better hopes on extensible nozzles....

pat

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

Date: Sun, 9 May 1993 16:40:18 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pat and the Big Dan
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>a new industry coalition is forming the national spacelifter
>>>consortium, formed of 5 companies...
>>   Actually, it's Lockheed, GD, Martin, Rockwell, and _Boeing_. :-)...
>>... According to sources within the beltway,  MDC supposedly
>>was invited to participate, but declined...

>Thank heavens there is *one* competitive company left.

>This consortium has a distinct smell of "let's make sure there's some
>easy pork for everybody on this one".

I heard that since Semantech worked out so well in making the
US the overlord of the computing industry, that the Clinton
administration wants to apply that approach _everywhere_.

(Never mind that according to T.J. Rodgers Semantech didn't work,
and that if a group of private comapnies on their own did this, it
would be against the antitrust laws... supposedly the fact that
the de-facto monopoly has socialist connections makes it OK... bleach!)

>SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

Best one I've seen so far (don't remember who said it):

"AIX looks like it was written by a pretty smart space alien
who had heard about Unix from another pretty smart space alien,
but their universal translators were broken and they had to use
hand/tentacle gestures a lot."

Haven't told it to Nick Szabo yet...
--
Phil Fraering         |"Number one good faith! You convert,
[e-mail]|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary

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

Date: 9 May 1993 17:53:19 GMT
From: Chris Metzler <[e-mail]>
Subject: To D. Palmer (was Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David M. Palmer) writes:
|> [e-mail] (Ross Smith) writes:
|>
|> >I don't know what you mean by 'edged', but surely there are two other
|> >possibilities for an isotropic distribution: near interstellar (up to
|> >~100 pc, i.e. within the disc), or the Galaxy's corona?
|>
|> You see fewer faint (presumably distant) bursts than you would expect from
|> the number of bright (presumably nearby) bursts, assuming that they are
|> uniformly distributed in space for as far as we can see.
|> We are near (within 10% of) the center of a spherical distribution
|> of gamma-ray burst sources.
|>

Wait a second . . .that's not necessarily true, is it?  I mean, I KNOW
the V/Vmax test shows a value of less than 0.5.  But drawing the
conclusion that this means they're distributed nearby requires the
assumption that the space over which they are distributed can be
described as Euclidean . . .and thus, that they're distributed nearby.
When doing the V/Vmax integral, the volume element 4*\pi*r^2 dr only
applies if it's an integral over a fairly small volume.

Mao and Paczynski (ApJ Lett, v388, L45) considered a cosmological
distribution, and showed that that a cosmological distribution of
GRB's produces V/Vmax of less than a half.  Almost all the "volume"
of space that we can see comes from a redshift of less than 1; so
cosmologically speaking, you EXPECT there to be a "central concentration
effect," because as you go further and further out, you don't pick
up that much more volume.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.


--
SNAILMAIL:                                       AT&TMAIL:
Chris Metzler                                    313-764-4607 (office)
Department of Physics, University of Michigan    313-996-9249 (home)
Randall Lab, 500 E. University
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1120 USA

E-MAIL:  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 9 May 1993 12:53:59 GMT
From: Herman Rubin <[e-mail]>
Subject: U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,sci.research,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,misc.education

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kenneth I. Laws) writes:
>> From: [e-mail] (Jason Christian)
>> Program staff is well aware (or was
>> in the mid-80s) that the research proposal may describe work that is now
>> being completed, and that the funds being doled out at the moment
>> may well be spent on some other work.

>Program directors are aware that such things happen.  However,
>they do not (as a rule, and as policy) recommend funding if they
>have evidence that this is happening in a specific case.

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

                            Even
>NSF program directors have no authority to authorize complete
>changes in scope or direction without further peer review.
>Division directors have somewhat more authority, but grants are
>contracts and the contractual terms must be observed or renegotiated.
>The only permitted flexibility is that built into the NSF grants
>manual, taken to be part of the contractual terms.

>If you know of proposal mills that are routinely hoodwinking
>NSF and the peer-review process, I urge you to bring the matter
>to the attention of NSF.  I can help provide contacts of whatever
>informality or formality you desire.

>                -- Ken Laws
>                   Former NSF PD

It looks like you were part of the problem.  Except for projects which
involve gathering of data, or really extensive computation, no good
researcher is able to say what is going to be done a few months from now.

Real original research consists largely of breakthroughs, flashes of
insight, serendipity, etc.  True, one can say that one is going to
consider certain topics, but I doubt that an investigator will give
back the rest of his research funding if the proposed research is
either completed or turns out to be impossible.  If we want to have
good research, we must "decontractualize" it.  It may even be that
a top researcher in a field will know too much and fail to see the
obvious, which a newcomer, not yet being in a rut, will find.

So if we want to have good research, the way to do it is to give those
with ability the freedom and facilities to grope.  If it is too much more
than groping, it is filling in the details, dotting the i's, and crossing
the t's, not real research.  You can make time and facilities available
for thinking to be done, but directed thinking has not worked, is not
working, and cannot work.
--
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: 9 May 1993 17:32:04 -0700
From: Ben Delisle 02/15/93 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vandalizing the sky
Newsgroups: sci.space

    Why not just get enough people to gether to pressure a boycot
of any product or service that is advertised on a 'space billboard'.
I for one would go so far as donate part of my meger paycheck to someone
who can and will shoot it down some how. Maybe some sort of jet launched
missle or if the R&D progresses far enough to punch holes in it or carve it up
with some sort of laser. There would be little or no legal recourse of the
billboard owner since it is not in the (space) of any national entity.
Furthermore, an attack on such a structure would probably be best launched
from well beyond the boarders of any nation such as in international waters,
airspace or real space; thus helping to prevent  governmental (most
likely American) action.
    The problems of this is that people could use this logic to
attack useful and good things in orbit such as communications or weather
sattilites.
    There was a discussion of the idea of 'space billboards' to advertise
to the masses on a talk raido station recently. The general consicenous
was that putting several mile long milar ads into LEO was the greatest
concept of stupidity of all time. I agree. The man that wants to do this
is the greatest idiot in all of history.
    There are enough problems trying to see the night sky with all the
light and air pollution we currently experience. As it is now
one must travel many miles away from any town to see lots of stars
Such a thing would destory the bueaty and wonder of a stary night.

--
[e-mail]  [e-mail]


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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 551
------------------------------