Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V09_6/V9_618.ZIP/V9_618

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 20KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 5247;andrew.cmu.edu;Todd L. Masco
Received: from glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/EZ09l0q00VA:88Sk4w>;
          Sat,  2 Sep 89 23:36:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/.Outgoing/QF.4Z09kaa00VA:E8Cmhx>;
          Sat,  2 Sep 89 23:36:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from BatMail.robin.v2.10.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu.sun3.35
          via MS.5.6.glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu.sun3_35;
          Sat,  2 Sep 89 23:36:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat,  2 Sep 89 23:36:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Todd L. Masco" <[e-mail]>
To: +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail]
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #618
X-Kibology: Allowed

             SPACE Digest V9 #619
             --------------------

        Subject: Re: Public Interest in Space
        Subject: Re: Public Interest in Space
       Subject: Re: Bush's Speech -- anyone still need a copy?
           Subject: Re: shuttle vs. heavy boosters
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
          Subject: Re: Quick and Dirty Won the Race
           Subject: Re: Space:  The Final Frontier
               Subject: Re: Space Quest


------------------------------
From: [e-mail] (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Re: Public Interest in Space
Date: 6 Aug 89 01:54:30 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (david Fridley) writes:
>...    Further, I am willing to put money where my mouth is, it
>is just that my meger salary will not support a space program.  WE WHO ARE
>INTERESTED IN A PRIVATE SPACE PROGRAM MUST ORGANIZE. Are there enough
>interested persons to do it?

Like I said before, I should be getting a machine on the internet so that
we could have some sort of centralized "base" to work from.  My company
will supply the machine.  I'll be putting my money where my mouth is
too; I'm self employed, so my company's money is my salary.

>If we participated in a joint space program with the countries which we are
>arming ourselves against ...

Do you think that is a good idea to start working with now -- before we
have anything tangible to speak of?  I mean, that might scare off some
people, and maybe it would be better for public relations if we stayed a
bit conservative right now and didn't touch on that subject unless we
had to.  That should come later once we're organized and we've been
reconized.
- Daniel
------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: Public Interest in Space
Date: 6 Aug 89 03:03:38 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (david Fridley) writes:
>I am infavor of a private space program, because I believe that most people
>(read the government) are not but I think that enough people are interested
>to get it done.  Further, I am willing to put money where my mouth is, it
>is just that my meger salary will not support a space program.  WE WHO ARE
>INTERESTED IN A PRIVATE SPACE PROGRAM MUST ORGANIZE. Are there enough
>interested persons to do it?

I think there are enough interested scientists and engineers (as well
as businessmen, lawyers, and public relations people) to provide the
necessary expertise.  The question is one of financing -- pooling
salaries just won't do it (besides which, the companies that pay those
salaries might be a bit perturbed at their employees spending the
majority of their time on this venture).

Any serious space effort will require serious venture capital.  The
question is whether any venture capitalists are willing to invest in
space exploration and development.

Does anyone know how Amroc and SSI (the launch firm, not the research
institute) got their initial funding?

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: Bush's Speech -- anyone still need a copy?
Date: 6 Aug 89 02:55:07 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I recently posted Bush's speech calling for new space goals on the net, along
>with a press briefing by NASA Administrator Truly.
>
>What reaction do people have to Bush's speech?
>
>I felt it was a bit, well, "wimpy", but the best thing we've gotten out
>of a President in recent years.

I'd have to agree.  It was a lot less than I wanted, but a lot more than
I expected.....

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: shuttle vs. heavy boosters
Date: 6 Aug 89 04:41:10 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:
>>I would welcome an explanation of how a heavylift booster would have
>>come about in the absence of the shuttle...
>
>Military.

For what military mission?  The USAF is currently using expendables for
almost everything, with only minimal reliance on the shuttle.  Practically
the only payloads they're using the shuttle for now are a few that were
designed early in the shuttle era and hence are a bit heavy for Titan 4
(whose development was also delayed several years while the USAF battled
the shuttle-as-sole-launcher policy).  They have openly and loudly said
that that mistake will not be made again, and all future operational
payloads will be Titan-compatible; they don't seem to feel that this
represents a major handicap.  Why would they have developed a heavylift
booster?

(SDI wants a heavylift booster, but they haven't been able to make their
case well enough to get near-term funding for one.  They don't count
unless you can explain how the absence of the shuttle would have greatly
accelerated their development schedule and improved their Congressional
support.)
--
1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo.  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]
------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey W Percival)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
Date: 6 Aug 89 21:37:51 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>there were European fishermen working the Grand Banks off Newfoundland
>routinely not very long after Columbus.  (Don't have exact dates on hand.)



The Basques were working the Grand Banks centuries before Columbus.
--
Jeff Percival ([e-mail])
------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Nick Watkins)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
Date: 6 Aug 89 15:37:25 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:

> "We walked on the moon --    ((    Tom Neff
>     you be polite"         ))     [e-mail]

I am delighted that Henry Spencer cannot recognise a (presumably) tongue
in cheek quotation from his fellow Canadian Joni Mitchell. The song
if memory serves is "Don't interrupt the sorrow" from "Summer Lawns".
Seems apposite music for the Apollo 11 wake.

Nick


--
Nick Watkins, School of Maths & Physical Sciences, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton
E.Sussex, BN1 9QH, ENGLAND
JANET: [e-mail]   BITNET: [e-mail]
Voice: [phone]
------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Rikhit Arora)
Subject: Re: Quick and Dirty Won the Race
Date: 6 Aug 89 17:20:48 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> the Sydney Morning Herald writes:
>
>  .. stuff deleted..
>
>>The US achieved the dubious honour of being first to the moon by
>>constructing the largest rocket that would ever fly...
>
> Nope, the third largest, after Energia and the abortive "G" booster.
>

Is this really true??  Henry, could you compare the payloads that could be
delivered to LEO by the Saturn V and Energiya?  (The third stage of the
Saturn V does constitute a legitimate "payload" to LEO!)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rikhit Arora                         |  Dept. of Chemical Engineering
Bitnet: cheehh@uhupvm1               |  University of Houston
Internet: [e-mail]         |  Houston, TX 77204-4792
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (David R. Shook)
Subject: Re: Space:  The Final Frontier
Date: 7 Aug 89 01:27:16 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jason Asbahr) writes:  (with some editing...)
>"Giant leap for mankind..."
>
>Not exactly cyberpunk, but...

No, but close enough.  After all, they had space stations
in Neuromancer, right? :^)

>Space colonization is the next step for humanity.
>... it seems that most Americans think of space as
>little more than a waste of tax dollars.

Very narrow minded of them.  At the *very* least, they should think of it as
a low priority use of tax dollars.

>I think we ought to put more energy into space station Freedom and a moon
>base than on the Mars exploration.  Bush is looking for another "first"
>for the American side of the space race, when we really need a permanent
>off-world "biosphere".  (Maybe a "biocube" - heh)

As I understand it, Mars is a very far off, romantic kinda arbitrary goal
to set our sights on and Bush plans on building the space station, etc.
first.  I expect that the republican rational for this is that "if you
can't have a war to boost the economy and make the numbers look good,
you might as well conquor space; that requires lots of industry and makes
lots of jobs.  Looks good on the resume, too."

> ... stuff about radiation in space ...

Just use lots of sunscreen...   :^)

>We should use the station as a permanent life settlement and as a
>mid-point stop on the way to the moon.  After a few years of
>experimentation and learning, we should use the gathered knowledge to
>build a scientific base on the moon.  Set up networks, grow plants, work
>on making the biosphere completely self-sustaining!

More or less what Bush is planning, though he does seem to be in a bit of a
hurry to get to Mars, doesn't he?

>We need a satellite workshop...  We need atmosphere-free telescopes...
>  We need to reap the benefits of zero-gravity technology!
>
>     We need to break the shackles that limit human expansion!
>
>And as for the "Exploratation Earth" idea, let the collective users fund
>it.

What exactly do we "need" all this stuff for?  Because it's neat?  To advance
Science (said with a loud, deep voice...)?  Because it's going to make lots
of money so's everyone will be rich?  I dunno...

Don't get me wrong, I think we need to explore space and build a space
station and all that.  But I think it's very important that we understand
why we're doing it.  Otherwise it won't sell and it won't have a proper
"direction" or "theme" or something, which may sound vauge but I think is
very important; If we're going to do this, we should do it right and
efficiently, rather than bumbling around, doing things for political or other
stupid reasons.

I mean, Jason here says "let the collective users fund 'Exploration
Earth'".  Frankly I don't know too much about "Exp. Earth", but I get the
idea that it involves solving problems on earth first.  Whatever.
But who does he think is going to fund the space station?  The collective
users of earth, that's who!  And why should they spend money on a space
station, when there are so many problems to solve down here?  I mean,
we're on the verge of destroying our planet, environmentaly if not atomicly,
we're going to run out of oil sooner or later, there are lots of homeless,
hungry people running around, and Ignorance
abounds.  (IMHO, Ignorance is our #1 problem and education should be
our #1 priority.)  Not to mention the national debt, etc.  It (a space
station) certainly isn't going to solve
the problems directly and it sure ain't gonna solve the national debt.
So what it comes down to is we have X amount of money/resources; how
can we best spend them to solve our problems and make life in the future
better for all?

So why build a space station?  Self sufficient and all that?  So when we
destroy Earth, we won't be wiped out as a species?  Is it really that
hopeless down here?  And if we can't survive on earth, what makes
you think we can survive in space?  Whatever.  Maybe we fucked up
and we'll do better next time.  Still not the best of reasons, IMHO.

So how DO we justify it?  Can we say that it will give the economy a
boost (via new jobs/new technology)?  But will that buy us more time
to solve our problems down here or will it just hasten our end?
(I mean we do have FINITE resources...)  No one's come up with much
convincing evidence that low grav tech is going to be all that valuable.
Actually, I do think we stand to
learn a lot by taking on a new chalenge of conquering the unknown and new
technology almost allways proves valuable in the long run, but do we
need this knowledge right now, and
at what cost?  Then again, who knows, maybe republican economics will work out
after all (see above).  And what the hell good is peering into the depths
of the cosmos going to do us?  I know we're all curious, but how much
are we going to spend to satisfy our curiosity?  And are we going to get
more value for our money, in the long run, by sending humans or robots
into space?  And are we going to be able to support ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, if
we don't solve our problems here on earth?

But going out and exploring space does "feel right" to me.  At least, if we're
going to build truely self-sufficient colonies in space, we're going to have to
learn a lot of environmental science to make it work, and we're going to
have to develop a near-utopic micro-community, or things could get out of
hand REAL fast.  And I'd be the first to say that Knowledge is good stuff.
Exploring space is also certainly a better way of "investing" our earnings
than building bombers and fighting wars.

I just think we need to figure out our priorities, figure out why we're
doing things, and balance our spending accordingly.  And, oddly enough,
I'd much rather have the government spending money on space
stations than bombers; it's the only
thing that Bush has actually DONE (sorta) so far that's made me happy.

All right, enough blather.  What do y'all think?  Follow-ups to
alt.cyberpunk, or e-mail me directly.  I don't follow sci.space, just wanted
some more feed back.


>           -Jason Asbahr
>
>Today, the world.  Tomorrow, the stars!

Funny, I think that's what I was trying to say...

Dave.         ([e-mail])
------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Re: Space Quest
Date: 7 Aug 89 03:23:07 GMT


Here's my reply to an e-mail letter from Amanda Baker.  Also, this sums
up everything about the goals for Space Quest so far.
<SUMMER: CBC04197 AT UDACSVM.BITNET  (UNTIL AUG 29 1989)>
<PERMANENT: BAKER%SPVA.PH.IC.AC.UK AT UKACRL.BITNET  (until summer'90 ish)>

>I've been reading your stuff in the Space digest, and what you are proposing
>sounds interesting. I think I have missed some of your postings, though.
>I'm interested to know what firm plans/ offers of commitment etc you have
>got so far?

Here are my immediate goals.  Once I get back from my vacation in three
weeks, I will start to write a business proposal (with the help of
professional managers) for the Space Quest Foundation.  This is necessary
so that everyone, including myself, will know exactly where Space Quest
will be going and how we'll be getting there.  All of the details of how
we will be getting financial support, etc, will be included.  After about
one month further, we will probably file to become a non-profit
corporation and engage in finding stock holders.

Once Space Quest is official, we should have a computer on the internet
through the University of Delaware.  I haven't talked to them about it
yet, but I work for EE/CIS and know everyone who I would need to know.
Putting the computer on their net will be no problem.

The first official task to start on will be to write a second business
proposal for a (for-profit) corporation.  This corporation will be
planned and organized by Space Quest.  This second corporation will be
primarily owned by ALL the space contractors and will be run just like
any other corporation.  Once the second corporation is set up, Space
Quest will be dissolved or function soley as an information center --
we will not attempt to control the corporation in any way, what-so-ever.
If they want us, then the new company can hire the individuals involved.

This second corporation will be an administrative one which will
effectively be competition for NASA and other countries' space programs.

The administration will handle every level of the space industry from
designing and constructing launch vehicles, designing and constructing
space stations, finding customers for occupying the space stations,
launching vehicles to the station, and controlling the ground crews,
astronauts, and space station crews.

Since the space contractors will be OWNING the administrative
corporation, they will have their own designers and engineers using
components from their respective parent companies.  Since they are not
working for NASA, the costs should be much lower.  Hence, lower prices
for building things.

There will be plenty of customers for the space station to provide a
nifty income for the space contractors.  Since the customers will have
to use the contractors' own vehicles and ground support to get modules
to the space station, there is money to be made.  Also, if the
customers need to attach a module to the station, then the contractors
could charge 'rent'.

Also, since this will be a heftier space station than NASA's, it will be
designed in such a way to allow tolerable living environments
(rotational units to simulate gravity, etc) for dormitories for the
crews.  But more on the designs later, once we've become organized.

I am a computer science major at UDel and am working on a distributed
database system for wide area networks (WANs).  Once that is completed,
I will develop a CAD and simulation package on top of it for us to do
design proposals.  I have my own software company which is giving me an
income and will allow me to work on this project.  I expect to have the
basic system completed in about two years which is when I should be
graduating.

This CAD system for WANs will allow members of The Space Quest Foundation
to work on designs from where ever they want (on the internet) and still
have the benefit of seeing what everyone else is working on.  I can't go
into any further details, but hopefully you get the general idea.


So far, I have gotten a few people who said that they would like to help
in any way that they can.  Also, I have lots of friends who will spread
the word to their university campuses once we're officially organized.

Although this organization is not restricted to students, I think they
will be the majority of the active members since they have the most time.
In the beginning, Space Quest will be for volunteers, so people with
dependents wont be able to spend lots of time.

Once Space Quest becomes a non-profit corporation and gets some
investors then we will be hiring people.  That is one of the areas that
the business proposal for Space Quest will cover.  I don't know what
kind of time scale we'll be dealing with on that subject.  Again, wait about
two months or for the proposal.

- Daniel

*** End of Space Digest V9 #618 ***