There is no such word as "Irregardless". Or "Degradate".
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 May 93 22:55:55 PDT
From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Letter in Space News May 3-9, 1993
Jim Bowery
PO Box 1981
La Jolla, CA 92038
Phone: 619/295-8868
Space News April 14, 1993
Springfield, VA 22159
To the editor:
Sooner or later, we must recognize that the government's best technology
investment is no investment at all -- it is the purchase of desired results.
Therefore, It would seem that proposals to lease space on privately developed
space facilities are the way to go.
However, Bruce Webbon's article "Make Station a Private Enterprise" feeds the
fallacy in our current technology paradigm when he says private enterprise,
rather than government, should build a space station because "the risk
inherent in offering the necessary facilities and services is minimal." Mr.
Webbon asks us to believe that the public sector is better equipped to take on
and manage technical risk than the private sector.
This begs the questions:
Is the government more intelligent about making technology investments? If
not, then do government dollars grow on trees? If so, then why is the
government demanding that I send it so much of my income?
In truth, the government functions best in proven areas with the least risk
such as roads, law enforcement and human capital. Government is the worst
where there are many politically acceptable excuses for failure, such as
technology development.
Since we, unlike our former communist enemies, have qualms about shooting or
imprisoning our public sector bureaucrats when they fail, we must leave the
risks of failure in those areas where accountability is inherent, such as in
the military and commerce.
When that happens, our long national malaise will be over.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 09:52:01 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Long term Human Missions
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro
In article <1993Apr28.133101.25145@rpslmc.edu> rek@siss81 (Robert Kaye) writes:
>
>Just a few contributions from the space program to "regular" society:
>
>1. Calculators
No, we have the Census Bureau to thank for practical calculators, though
Babbage was there first. Mechanical and vacuum tube calculators pre-date
NASA. Transistor calculators were manufactured independently of the space
program. TI is responsible for the IC used in modern calculators. Military
and space requirements *indirectly* drove IC development, but aren't primarily
responsible for it.
>2. Teflon (So your eggs don't stick in the pan)
No, Teflon was developed in the 1930s by Dupont. Making Teflon *stick*
to frying pans was a development of the sixties, but not a NASA funded
development as far as I know.
>3. Pacemakers (Kept my grandfather alive from 1976 until 1988)
Pacemakers have been around since the 1940s. *Implantable* pacemakers
required development of solid state devices and externally rechargable
power sources. Bell Labs and Exide had more to do with this than NASA.
NASA did fund telemetered biomedical monitoring equipment development
in the 1960s. That made development of *adaptive* pacemakers possible.
Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | |
------------------------------
Date: 3 May 1993 08:42:38 -0400
From: Pat <prb@access.digex.net>
Subject: NASA budget and STS costs
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <STEINLY.93Apr29173025@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>
>What fraction of the NASA workforce is civil servant
>as opposed to contractor and what are the rules on
>reduction in work force for civil servants?
>
My feel is NASA is about Half contractors these days.
Maybe a bit more, if you include all the work they shop out
that they used to do in house.
THe only rule for terminating civil servants, is you have to open
the door, before you boot them in the ass.;-)
Usually the Feds, offer buy out packages, or severance pay of
2 weeks/service year, up to1 years pay. it depends what
rules are in effect.
technically they don't have to offer any severance.
>eg, if say the shuttle program is terminated, how
>much is payroll reduced and how?
set sarcasm bit.
That depends on wether or not payroll reduction is part
of the deal. Right now we don't have a space program,
and we don't see a reduction in force
sarcasm mode off.
pat
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 03:15:20 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>
Subject: Vandalizing the sky.
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
rbunge@access.digex.net (Robert Bunge) writes:
>That's fine idea, but it only works if the lighting/power company even bothers to supply good light fixtures. For instance, a power company in Virginia
>recently asked a state commission for permission to sell more lights of various
>type. Yet, all of the different fixture that they sold and wanted to sell
Uh, why do they have to ask a state commision? Unless the state's buying...
Such a process will only increace the overhead to the power company
of selling different types of light, and will decreace the likleihood
that they will do so. And any efficient lights they might have been
planning in the future, go down the drain.....
>were bad designs - one that wasted the light. Thus, you couldn't even buy
>a good light from them. In most places, to get a good light, you have to
>either order it special at high cost or call a store in Arizona.
You could order it special. If enough people did so, it would be
low cost. Last I checked, you could use UPS to buy stuff in Arizona
before going there.
Finally, I'm sure your state has things like small factories and
machine shops. You could go into business making lights that are
cheaper to use (thanks to their higher efficiency and the
fact that they aren't wasting energy on broadcasting to space)
and therefore _better_ than the old style...
> At some
>point, society starts to make rules. Cars have to pass safety tests.
Five year plans have to be enacted or the planning for the economy
will fall apart.
>Companies have to meet pollution standards, etc..
As if the clean air act really cleaned up the air...
> There are two ways to achieve this: educate the public so that they demand good lighting or force code
>down the lighting companies backs. History seems to suggest that the latter
>is more likely to work.
_MY_ *experience* seems to suggest that you're trying too hard
to *educate* them (with the same methods used in American schools
to make any subject whatsoever as relevant and boring as Proto-Ugric)
instead of *selling* them on the idea.
...
>Agreed, so I won't respond again. It's important for all you spacers out
>there to realize that some people will object to various wild ideas that
>have been presented. Just like Congress, it would be best to consult
>the astronomers/lovers of the night sky before you try some PR stunt
>to boost public knowledge about space.
Well, wake up. Space is becoming a field of human endeavor
instead of just something we can look at from a long long
way away. There are practical space projects that could conceivably
(although probably not) cause lots of light pollution, and
have been argued against on those grounds, even though they
might open up such possibilities, that people could vacation on
Mars if they wanted really dark skies...
>Bob Bunge
>rbunge@access.digex.com
--
Phil Fraering |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 May 1993 14:53:19 GMT
From: Gene Wright <gene@jackatak.raider.net>
Subject: Will NASA's Mars Observer Image the Face on Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space
All consipiracy theories aside, (they are watching though :-)), will NASA
try to image the Cydonia region of Mars where the "Face
" is? If they can image it with the High resolution camera, it would
settle the FACE question once and for all. I mean, with a camera that
will have a pixel resolution of about 6 feet, we'd know whether all this
stuff is real or imagination.
Come on JPL and NASA folks, try to image it and settle this thing.
