Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V13_6/V13_672.ZIP/V13_672

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-20 | 20KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/ccM5kjy00WBwM70k40>;
          Thu, 20 Jun 91 03:41:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 03:41:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #672

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 672

Today's Topics:
      Re: Fred vs. Exploration: head-to-head competition
              Re: Privatization
          Re: RE: USF, Inc. : Brought to you by the
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #577
             Re: Help for science writer
               Re: HLLV Lives?
         Small Body Resources (Re: Gibson & Sterling)
          Re: RFD:  sci.space.internat-coop
           Re: Galileo Antenna (was Re: Amputation)
              Re: Privatization
          Re: Extra Terrestrial Intelligence
          Re: space news from April 8 AW&ST
              Re: The Long Term
              Re: Good for the Japanese
              Re: Good for the Japanese

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 30 May 91 00:27:54 GMT
From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa![e-mail]  (Charles Frank Radley)
Subject: Re: Fred vs. Exploration: head-to-head competition

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

Comets and asteroids as early warning objects can be studied most
cost effectively by inexpensive terrestrial means.
CRAF / Cassinin contribute nothing there.
   What difference does it make if your house is flattended by a
chunk of granite  or a chunk of ice. !
>The study of comets, their fragments, and earth-crossing meteoroids
>can be justified in the interest of national security, at the very
>least. I don't see any private groups, for-profit or not, rushing
>out to do this.

>How much makeup will Mr. Crary's wife be buying if the next
>Tunguska event occurs over their house?

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

Date: 30 May 91 00:38:07 GMT
From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa![e-mail]  (Charles Frank Radley)
Subject: Re: Privatization



How will you ensure that the billions simply do not get embezzled if
a private concenr gets it ?
  I like the idea of a public government agency habndling sums of
money this big.   They are completely open to public scrutiny and
we know exactly where every penny gets spent.
   Large sums of money temp people to do some pretty weird things you know,
jjto that is the main problem with the S & L industry....

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

Date: 30 May 91 01:17:50 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: RE: USF, Inc. : Brought to you by the

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>...He [Mr. Fraering Philip] takes pride in the fact that the effort
>to make the Moon and Mars the domain of all mankind (All the peoples
>of the world) which no single nation could hold claim too was
>undermined by this L-5 group. If this is what L-5 represents I take
>back any thing good I ever said about it.  Further more Mr. Philip
>says the NSS should continue these same activities, If I were NSS
>I wouldn't get near Mr. Philip with a ten foot pole.  Real space
>buffs who want to see real progress in the advancement of space
>exploratory and developement should stear clear of negitive and
>destructive people like Mr. Fraering Philip.  If people like Mr.
>Philip have their way only one race and class of people will ever

This is a gross misstatement of Mr. Philip's stated views. The treaty
to which he refered would have prevented ANYONE, even colonists, from
claiming any part of space. Mr. Philip's objections to the treaty stem
from this de facto outlawing of an extraterrestrial colony (since no one
would colonize anything while his home could not really be HIS.)

Mr. Philip's post ask many questions about your organization, its sponsors,
and its purposes. You have made no efforts to answer any of them. In fact,
you post consisted of personal attacks (such as calling Mr. Philip a Nazi or
a Communist,) distorting his statements (why, by the way, did you make NO
effort to quote him directly, since doing so is a simple and automatic
function of this system?) In addition, you many slightly factual statments,
that is, references to events and situations which were sufficiently close
to reality to decieve anyone no well informed on the subject. In fact,
the style of rhetoric you used IS characteristic of Nazi, Leninist and
other political groups whose intention is to decieve and/or force through
their views. It is NOT a form of discussion chosen by those who wish a
public and factual debate of policy. I must request that you either show
a greater willingness to discuss your postings or refrain from sending
them in the first place. (Please note, this is not to imply I have any
authority over what is or is not posted, nor that my request has any
authority behind it)

                        Frank Crary

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

Date: Thu, 30 May 91 09:32:22 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #577
News-Path: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!purdue!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ANDREW.CMU.EDU!space-request+

> Re: Powersats, Space Industrialization

In space, concentrated sunlight is cheaply available and easy to use,
and involves no new technology.  Whether such energy transmitted to
earth will ever be useful is, to me, of secondary importance.  If we
can manage biologically in space, that is where the part of mankind
which will develop and innovate will live.

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

Date: 30 May 91 22:59:53 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca![e-mail]  (Kenneth McDonald)
Subject: Re: Help for science writer


Perhaps I may get flamed for this but...

I think an extremely good series on science would focus on the downside.
For example, PBS over the last several weeks has been showing a series
called, "The Astronomers," all about the joy and romance of astronomy.
However, they don't happen to mention a few of the things that have
recently been mentioned in soc.college.grad, for example that the
average astronomy Ph.D. must now do an average of over 2 postdocs before
landing a job, and that this requirement is still going up.  The popular
press has adopted the scientific establishment as a fount of wisdom and
fulfillment for all involved, which is hardly the case--it might be
interesting to see some stories done about some of the problems.

Ken McDonald
[e-mail]

P.S. a notable exception to the above mentioned trend in the press was a
relatively recent article in Newsweek (Time?--they all look alike to
me), about the overproduction of scientist--yes, overproduction, not
under-.  A refreshing point of view.
.

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

Date: 28 May 91 13:33:30 GMT
From: attcan!telly!moore!eastern!egsgate![e-mail]  (Maury Markowitz)
Subject: Re: HLLV Lives?


 AWS> say that next year NASA will ask to buy two orbiters and in 93 they
 AWS> will start on NLDP. Both NASA and the Air Force are in agreement
 AWS> that NLDP is the way to go and they plan to divert funds from
 AWS> NASP and SSX to fund it.

  What every happened to the AMLS?

 AWS> This folks will be the Shuttle of the 90's. When it is over we
 AWS> will be $10+ billion poorer and have an expensive fragile launcher
 AWS> which doesn't work to show for it.

  Oh, well can I borrow your cystal ball for a minute?  I'd like to see
who's going to win the the Series this year :-).
  I don't know, but I don't consider the people at NASA to be STUPID.
Perhaps they made some mistakes with the Shuttle, but no one had built
one before.  I personally belive that they will learn from their
mistakes.
  I've heard a lot of "EVERYONE knows what's wrong with the Shuttle"
stories", so I'm going to give NASA the benifit of the doubt and include
them on the list as well.

Maury

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

Date: 31 May 91 04:00:07 GMT
From: sugar!taronga![e-mail]  (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Small Body Resources (Re: Gibson & Sterling)

ObCyberpunk: Anyone interested in this sort of thing *must* read
    The Helix and the Sword by (I think) John McLaughlinn.

[e-mail] (Fraering Philip) writes:
> Why is it that there seems to be a large group of people who want to
> have a direct launch manned Mars mission (and I don't mean the sort
> Paul Koloc would build) ?

They're confusing PR with goals. The means justify the end, and all that.
--
Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  Taronga Park BBS  [phone]/n/8/1
 Taronga Park.    'U`       "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"

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

Date: 31 May 91 22:09:22 GMT
From: uhccux!uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu![e-mail]  (Ralph Becker-Szendy)
Subject: Re: RFD:  sci.space.internat-coop

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>  I would like to ask that the following news group be formed as to
>meet the increasing need to debate this subject and to define over
>all feelings and views on how international(multinational)space
>activities in the future should be undertaken.  The newsgroup I
>would like to present is as follows: Sci. Space. Internat/coop.
>This newsgroup would offer an outlet for open debate and
>exchange of ideas about the future of international space related
>activities.  I feel this is now a very relevent topic which needs
>to be brought into a world forum such as VMSNEWS.  Thank you for
>any support or comments in this regards.
>--
>                                        Rick R. Dobson
>                                        Executive Director
>                                        United Space Federation, Inc.

Maybe I'm seeing monsters all over, but is there some hidden agenda
here? Is someone trying to sell the space station painted differently?
FREEDOM has nearly been killed by congress a few weeks ago.  The
administration and NASA are trying to revive it.  One of the larger
influences in that process is claims that killing the program now
would make Japan very unhappy, using a wonderful argument: The US has
to spend 85 to 180 billion $ on the space station, because if it
doesn't Japan won't contribute a few billion $ to it. Is the sudden
urge to discuss internation cooperation nothing but a ploy to support
the space station which nobody seems to want ?

--
Ralph Becker-Szendy                          UHHEPG=24742::RALPH (HEPNet,SPAN)
University of Hawaii                              [e-mail]
High Energy Physics Group                                  [e-mail]
Watanabe Hall #203, 2505 Correa Road, Honolulu, HI 96822         [phone]

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

Date: 27 May 91 15:50:37 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Galileo Antenna (was Re: Amputation)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Akerman) writes:
>...but I guess the question is whether the "umbrella" design of the
>HG antenna was used because of the flyby or if it had been intended for the
>spacecraft even if it had been launched by a Centaur upper stage from the
>shuttle.  Anyone know?

The "umbrella" antenna has been in the design all along.  It was ultimately
dictated by the desire to have an antenna diameter larger than the payload-
bay diameter of the launcher.  (Before twits start yelling about the evil
influence of the shuttle again, note that there is no US launcher with a
larger payload bay, and only the largest Titans even match the shuttle.)
It was fortuitous -- well, maybe -- that this produced a design that was
fairly easy to add a sunshield to for the Venus encounter.
--
"We're thinking about upgrading from    | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5."              |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 28 May 91 00:41:16 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Privatization

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (W.A.Simon) writes:
>    The Europeans and the Japanese have the same problem as we do:
>    it is big G. that keeps getting in the way...
>
The Japanese governemnt does NOT get in the way of industry. Their NASDA
coordinates space R&D work so as to enable private companies to comepete
the foreign companies and make a profit. NASDA is frequently and regularly
advised by commercial consortiums on the best (e.g. best for industry)
direction for this space research. The Japanese trade laws tend to protect
companies while they set themselves up, these trade laws are then allowed to
lapse after the new industries are ready to deal with foreign competitors.

                       Frank Crary

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

Date: 28 May 91 01:07:12 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Extra Terrestrial Intelligence

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen Walton) writes:
>Doubt if you'd want to take the risk of a colony being wiped out by
>a nearby supernova.  If we learned anything from SN 1987A, we learned
>that there is essentially no outward warning that a star is about to
>blow.

As far as I know, there were NO studies of SN 1987A before the supernova
occured. No one looked for "outward warning" that it was about to explode.
(Might you be thinking of a early mistaken identification of the proto-nova
e.g. star, which confused it with its companion? This came up about the
same time as the "pulsar")

                        Frank Crary

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

Date: 29 May 91 05:02:38 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from April 8 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Jarvis) writes:
>>.... [Hmm, I wonder if they've thought about the problems
>>of nuclear clustering?  One has to beware of interactions between reactors,
>>since they are unshielded and right beside each other.]
>>
>They are in the business of thinking about such problems.

Are they?  At least some of the nuclear-propulsion concepts currently being
noised around have been criticized as having too many rocket people and not
enough nuclear people involved.  One should not automatically assume that
subtle issues like this have been studied carefully.

My (dim) recollection is that nuclear-engine clustering was all but
abandoned in NERVA days due to nuclear interaction problems.

>>NASA is interested in Timberwind but is wary of public outcry and suspects
>>that commitment to a specific advanced reactor design is premature.  [They
>>would prefer to spend half a decade studying it first, as usual.]......
>>
>You don't just slap something like this together and launch it.

If you ever want to launch it, sooner or later you have to decide that
concept X has had enough studies and it's time to build something.  There
is nothing wrong with continuing studies, but they should not be confused
with developing useful hardware.  NASA currently has far too many studies
and far too little hardware development.  It's time to pick the half-dozen
most promising ideas and put some real development money into them, in full
recognition that at least a couple will probably be blind alleys.  "To find
oil, drill lots of wells."
--
"We're thinking about upgrading from    | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5."              |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 29 May 91 18:55:26 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: Re: The Long Term

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin S. Van Horn) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>>One year is long term? ...
>>
>>Well, in the US it is...
>
>Give me a break.  I'm always hearing about how American business doesn't look
>past the next quarter's profits.  But what do you call it when a group of
>venture capitalists finances a startup (like the one I'm working for -- MasPar)
>with the expectation that they'll have to wait maybe five years to see a
>return on their money?

An anomaly, when compared to the great majority of American businesses.
--

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 May 91 21:08:36 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Good for the Japanese

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

>Last I heard, the Japanese were contributing less than $3 billion -- 2.5%
>of the GAO estimate $120 billion cost -- to the Space Station,

According to a talk I attended on Freedom the international partners
are contributing about half of both the design, construction, and
operational costs. I suspect the numbers you are looking at only
give Japan's share of design costs. Together the partners have just
as much invested as we do.

I should also point out that the $90B operational costs you mention
can even now be cut in half by making NASA move to expendables.

   Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer |   DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten.         |
|   [e-mail]   |                                                         |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 30 May 91 14:57:54 GMT
From: eagle!venus.lerc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ronald E. Graham)
Subject: Re: Good for the Japanese

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...

>BTW, where were all the astronaut supporters screaming about
>"international agreements" when Solar-Polar got cut to feed the overgrown
>Shuttle budget?  What a bunch of hypocrites.

Solar-Polar.  What was once known as the International Solar-Polar Mission
(ISPM), and is now known as Ulysses, was not cut.  I figured you woulda
known that, though.  Ulysses had to find a new ride to space after the
demise of the Shuttle/Centaur program.  Which was based here at Lewis.  And
which was killed because of the concerns *of the astronauts* in the wake of
the Challenger tragedy.  So the astronaut supporters were right there.  And
Ulysses never died, just got delayed.

RG

One hypocrite who knows the skinny.

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #672
*******************