Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_6/V16NO658.ZIP/V16NO658

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 38KB

Date: Wed,  2 Jun 93 05:18:10
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #658
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed,  2 Jun 93       Volume 16 : Issue 658

Today's Topics:
               Ariane V.57 / GALAXY IV Mission Summary
              Big Rock Can Hit Earth in Yr 2000 (2 msgs)
                  Detecting planets in other system
        Hey Ken! You awake? You exist? (LEO Cost; Return cost)
             Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO (2 msgs)
                          Moon Base (3 msgs)
                    musings of a space philosopher

    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: Wed, 2 Jun 93 03:27:59 GMT
From: Dean Adams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ariane V.57 / GALAXY IV Mission Summary
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.video.satellite

ARIANESPACE FLIGHT 57

The 57th Ariane launch is scheduled to place the Hughes Communications
GALAXY IV satellite into a geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) adapted for
the PVA (Perigee Velocity Augmentation) procedure, using an Ariane 42P
launch vehicle equipped with 2 solid strap-on boosters (PAP).  This will
be the 5th flight of an Ariane 4 in the 42P configuration.  It will be
launched from the Ariane launch complex ELA 2, in Kourou -- French Guiana.

The launch vehicle performance requirement for this mission
is 3,065 kg of which 2,988 kg represents the satellite mass.
The total vehicle mass at liftoff is 323,181 kg.


Required Orbit Characteristics:
  Perigee Altitude ..... 200 km
  Apogee Altitude ...... 27,673 km at injection (prior to PVA)
  Inclination ..........   7 degrees


The Ariane 42P lift-off for Flight 57 is currently scheduled on Wednesday,
June 9, 1993, as soon as possible within the following launch window:

     Kourou Time       GMT (06/10/93)    Los Angeles
     21:15 - 22:10     00:15 - 01:10     17:15 - 18:10


LAUNCH VEHICLE:

Ariane 42P.  This is a three-stage liquid fueled launcher with solid fueled
strap-on boosters.  The first stage (L220) is built by Aerospatiale, and is
powered by 4 liquid fueled Viking V engines.  The second stage (L33) is built
by MBB Erno and is powered by a single Viking IV engine.  Both the Viking IV
and V engines are manufactured by SEP.  The first and second stages use a
biliquid UH25/N2O4 fuel.  The third stage is built by Aerospatiale and is
the H10 "plus", with larger fuel tanks and increased performance over past
models.  It uses a cryogenic LH2/LO2 fueled HM-7B engine built by SEP.
The two strap-on boosters (PAP) are built by BPD and use a solid Flexadrine
propellant.  The fully assembled launch vehicle stands 54.5 meters high on
the pad, and it is equipped with the Ariane Short payload fairing (01).


Flight Profile:

 +01:31  Solid strap-on booster jettison
 +03:27  First stage separation
 +03:30  Second stage ignition
 +04:35  Fairing jettison
 +05:30  Second stage separation
 +05:43  Third stage ignition
 +18:11  Third stage shutdown / orbit injection
 +20:00  GALAXY IV separation
 +22:46  End of Ariane mission 57


Perigee Velocity Augmentation (PVA):

PVA is a procedure which optimizes the combined performance of launch
vehicle and satellite to increase the on-orbit life of the satellite.
For this mission, the Ariane 42P will lift around 280 kg of additional
satellite propellants, to an apogee of 27,600 km instead of the GTO
apogee of 35,975.  The Galaxy IV satellite will use its apogee motor
at the 3rd and 6th perigee to raise the apogee to the altitude normally
used for circularization of the orbit.  This will be the second time the
PVA procedure has been used by Ariane, the first being the successful
Ariane V.54/Galaxy VII mission.

The on-orbit life increase is due to the fact that the satellite apogee
motor does not need to propel the dry Ariane 3rd stage, which will remain
in the lower orbit of 200 x 22,673 km.  This procedure can only be used by
satellites equipped with a liquid bi-propellant apogee motor (which can
be restarted), and whose tank capacity allows fuel in excess of that
necessary for a standard GTO.  Due to the small inclination of the Ariane
mission (7 degrees), this capacity is often available when the satellites
are built to be launched from sites further away from the equator.
This combination of HS-601/Ariane 42P/PVA allows an increase of more
than one year of orbital life for the commercial use of the satellite.


PAYLOAD:

Galaxy IV is the second satellite with a combined C-band and Ku-band
capability in the Galaxy fleet owned by Hughes Communications.  It is
the third Arianespace launch of the type HS-601 three-axis stabilized
satellite manufactured by Hughes Aircraft Company.

  Total mass at lift-off .... 2,988 kg
  Mass at GEO insertion ..... 1,692 kg
  Dry mass .................. 1,323 kg
  On-board power ............ 4,700 W (end of life)
  Nominal lifetime .......... 13.5 years
  Span of solar panels ...... 26.5 m
  On-Orbit position ......... 99 degrees west

 Transmission capacity:
   24/30 Ku-band transponders of 50W each.
   24/30 C-band transponders of 16W each.

 In-flight operations:
   Apogee motor ignition for PVA maneuver is at about 24 hrs after launch
   at the 3rd perigee, and about 60 hrs after launch at the 6th perigee.

   First apogee motor firing is at the 12th apogee, about 5 days after
   launch.  Further firings will be done at 14th and 15th apogee.

   Deployment of solar panels:  about 10 days after launch.


LAUNCH COVERAGE:

All Ariane missions are broadcast live via satellite from Kourou.
Coverage begins at 30 minutes before launch and continues until
all payloads have been deployed.  This mission will likely be carried
in the US on Galaxy 6 or Galaxy 7, but there is always the possibility
that another satellite could be used.  Live satellite coverage is also
normally provided for Europe.


-{ Dean Adams }-

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

Date: 2 Jun 1993 03:40:03 GMT
From: Henry Choy <choy@dvinci>
Subject: Big Rock Can Hit Earth in Yr 2000
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.environment,sci.physics,sci.astro

What's going to be done about Toutatis? It's reputed to be
one km wide and a close visitor of earth. It doesn't have
an invitation, but in the year 2000 it may come as close
as the moon's orbital radius, maybe even closer. Is anyone
thinking of
 - blowing it away?
 - carving it into little pieces?
 - changing its flight plan?
 - stopping it at customs?
 - revoking its visa?
 - hitching on for a joyride?
 - moving earth (and heaven too if it comes to that)?
 - what to think about after reading this?

--

Henry Choy
[e-mail]

If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing.           - unknown

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

Date: 2 Jun 1993 04:15:07 GMT
From: FICHTNER <[e-mail]>
Subject: Big Rock Can Hit Earth in Yr 2000
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.environment,sci.physics,sci.astro

In article <1uh7ej$[e-mail]> choy@dvinci (Henry Choy) writes:
>What's going to be done about Toutatis? It's reputed to be
>one km wide and a close visitor of earth. It doesn't have
>an invitation, but in the year 2000 it may come as close
>as the moon's orbital radius, maybe even closer. Is anyone
>thinking of
> - blowing it away?
> - carving it into little pieces?
> - changing its flight plan?
> - stopping it at customs?
> - revoking its visa?
> - hitching on for a joyride?
> - moving earth (and heaven too if it comes to that)?
> - what to think about after reading this?
>

Can you get me a more precise date on this?  I wanna start planning a "Big Rock
Party"...   no really.. I'm serious..

Big rocks are good things. ;)

--
Big Rocks in '00 ! Reserve your chair at ground zero now....

----  [e-mail]         Physics and  Astronomy
[e-mail], or [e-mail]
"Whattya mean I ain't kind?  Just not _YOUR_ kind!" - Megadeth
Wasting hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars every time I post.
Disclaimer: This is my opinion and YOU CAN'T HAVE IT.  So there.

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 05:05:29 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Detecting planets in other system
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> |> In a recent issue of Science there is a discussion of a project
>> |> to look for MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects - things like
>>                ^^^^^
>> |> planets, brown dwarfs, or even black holes in the galactic halo
>> |> that might account for some of the missing mass).
>> [......]

>> Sexism in research strikes again. Obviously, a modern, non-sexist name
>> for this phenomenon would be McHalos...

>It should be noted that MACHOs were so named to contrast them with the
>previously suggested WIMPS (weakly interacting amssive particles).

>Your post does suggest an interesting thought though...

>Perhaps we could get corporations to sponsor the adopted names of classes of
>objects. Thus we'd have McHalos sponsored by McDonalds, the Burger King Quark
>instead of bottom, etc etc...

>Any other suggestions???

When neutrinos or WIMPS were first proposed to account for dark matter,
there was a whole string of subsequent proposals, where everyone
suggested their favorite sub-atomic particle. I've heard these
concepts described as a group as "Quark McNuggets."

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 02:57:07 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Ken! You awake? You exist? (LEO Cost; Return cost)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>By analogy, in a hundred years, our failures in the space program may
>be just a footnote to history, while our successes will be remembered
>by all.  This doesn't mean we shouldn't make mistakes.  The only way we
>can avoid making mistakes is to stop trying.

Nobody has any problems with mistakes Ken. The problem is that NASA is
far more interested in hiding mistakes than congronting them and learning
from them. NASA spent six years and several billion $$ on a station which
couldn't have been built. Yet NASA to the end insisted that everything was
just fine. Station managers where informed by several memos over ten
months that WP 02 was out of control yet they showed more interest in
cvering up the problems and pretending they whern't there than fixing

them. They allowed a small problem to grow into a $1 billion overrun.

I myself, expect mistakes. I also expect them to be learned from.

  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."             |
+----------------------15 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 03:33:34 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>Already done Dennis. A very conservative estimate would be that a typical
>>replacement to a typical satellite could be built and luanched for about
>>$225 M which is less than half the cost of a rescue mission.

>Hi there Allen. Nice to Meet you this weekend and glad you could come by.

I enjoyed it as well. Thanks for having us.

>Still you are clueless however on how this industry works I see.

Poor me, all I did was work in it for ten years.

>What about scheduling of the manufacturer for the increased temporary
>production rate?

Somehow I don't think the manufactures wouldn't mind.

>What about lost revenue? This is the case on ANY
>commercial satellite not just intelsat.

Since few if any avail themselves to this option and the only ones who
do, do it with huge subsidies, this clearly isn't a factor.

>>Perhaps YOU would like to show us a case where it was cost effective?
>>In spite of your complaints, we haven't seen one.

>Marginal Cost of Shuttle Mission
>$37 million (From Space News a few months ago)

Marginal cost of what? Divide the Shuttle hardware line item in the budget
by the flight rate and you will see that they consume $100 to $200 million
per flight.

Besides, you are claiming that satellite rescue can justify Shuttle. This
means it is a common useage and therefore its costs MUST be fully burdened.
That makes the cost of the flight is over $550M.

I will repeat my criteria for allowing you to play these accounting games:
convince GM to routinely sell you cars for the incrimental cost of the car.
When you can do that, I'll accept the use of the incrimental cost of
Shuttle flights.

Until then the market for satellite rescue/repair must be regarded as
non-existant (without huge taxpayer subsidy of course).

>Now we get to hear Allen's tired ol diatribe about the billon dollar shuttle
>again.

After you graduate Dennis and begin work in the real world, you will find
your employer doesn't consider proper cost accounting a 'diatribe'. Your
contract administrators will get most upset with you if you do.

>Fact is that the Shuttle was lauched an extra time for that mission.

Shuttle flew eight times that year. Are you saying that the normal
flight rate is only 7 flights? fine with me, but you have just added
about $50M to a typical Shuttle flight. So now your saying a Shuttle
flight costs $600M.

I never thought you would say Shuttle flights where even more expensive
than I said they where!

>The standing army would have been in place whether or not the shuttle
>launched the extra time so the cost is only the marginal cost of the mission.
>Since the marginal cost is $37 million and the charge to Intelsat was
>$85 million, Nasa made a cool $48 million dollars and gained an enormous
>amount of experience in EVA activity. So where is the loss Allen?

Sounds like we lost it on all the other Shuttle flights. Of course, we
need some creative accounting to do this. I urge you not to do this when
you start working in the private sector, it will land you in jail.

>Also I just had to get this in. Are you going to charge DCX for the thermal
>protection system developments for the Shuttle that is being applied to
>the DC series?

I wold use the normal accounting methods. I am willing to hold DC to those
numbers and I point out that is far stricter than I do for Shuttle.

>What about the knowlege gained at high mach Numbers by the
>Shuttle that is a crucial input to the design of the DC series. The shuttle
>is the ONLY platform that gets aerodynamic information at Mach numbers
>between 18 and 25. {

Actually, that's not true. The aerodynamic database for DC comes from
classified work done for ICBM warheads. Don't assume that the only work
done on a subject is the stuff you know about.

>Lighten up Allen. Shuttle ain't perfect but it is a necessary step in the
>process.

So why should Shuttle get special treatment? As to it being a necessary
step, maybe or maybe not. But if we are going to make progress, we must
not waste billions just to serve our emotional attachment.

>Also you do love to blur the English language when it comes to
>talking about shuttle reuse.

I simply ask if you would consider your car reusable if it acted like
Shuttle. don't blame me if your uncomfortable with the answer.

>I suggest you read a little history about jet
>engines. The early ones only lasted about 10 hours before major rework had
>to be done to them. This is the F-80, F-84 jets and their engines. It is
>only through 48 years of development and further testing that they have
>reached the reliablilty that allows the airlines to skimp on maintainence.

More like five or ten years. Same cannot be said for Shuttle.

But if you want reusable rocket engines, I suggest you look at the RL-10.
This 30 year old engine is being used over and over again without
maintenance in the current DC-X tests.

It can be done, just not the way NASA is doing it.

>There was no answer as you well know at the presentation about the RL-2000
>for the DC-series.

I thought he gave an excellent answer. Most of the RL-200 engine exists
today. The only open questions can be ansered for $50M.

>You know that a new engine is going to cost 5 billion
>dollars to develop as the DC folks know.

It might cost NASA that much, but not DC. The STME contractors say it
can be built for $1B if streamlined procurement is used, you need NASA
to make it a $5B program.

For that matter, the RL-10 has been upgraded by a factor of three (soon
to be six) on time and on budget. Better still, GD paid for the upgrades
and didn't charge us taxpayers a cent.

>Hell the Japanese folks know this
>ask them abou the LE-7 and it is "just" an upgrade of existing engine
>technology. Those folks ought to take up the suggestion that I made to
>talk to NASA about J-2's.

Your J-2 suggestion is a good one as a fallback. The problem is that
using the J-2 would cut payload of a DC-1 to 5,000 pounds. Now this
isn't a serious long term problem since when it gets flying you can
continuously improve it to get the weight down and impulse up.

They have already looked at this and if RL-200 fails, I suspect they
will either go with J-2 or perhaps the Russian RD-170.

>Also could you answer a question. Have any tests
>been run (I fugure they have but would like to know the numbers) on the
>longevity of the RL-10's? How many thousand seconds have they fired without
>rebuild or reinspections?

They have been having tests every day. All four engines are working
just fine and haven't needed any maintenance so far. The RL-10 is built
to fire for several thousand seconds with over 16 restarts.

>By the way I was happy to meet you and Josh and all the other sci.spacers
>even the floating guitar player from fermilab!

Ditto.

  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."             |
+----------------------15 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 03:39:21 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>>It is real funny for me to read the "experts" talking about the cost of...

>>Are you perhaps suggesting that YOU are an expert?

>You betcha bucko.

I'm sorry Dennis, I think your a very smart person but you don't even have
your BS degree yet. To call yourself an expert satellite systems engineer
is pushing it a bit. I fully expect that someday you will be an expert,
but not yet.

>In addition I have attended over a dozen
>"professional" conferences over the last three years where I have presented
>along with every single major manufacturer on the planet except the chinese.

That's not very hard. get your paper in a peer review journal.

    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."             |
+----------------------15 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 05:15:47 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Zubrin has a proposal called lunar direct= to test out the
>>Mars direct gear, in space and in a partial environment.
>>Also to establish at least some science bases on the far side.

>>Now any changes to the hardware for Mars, and some guy from TI
>>will start arguing that it's a whole new bird and utterly
>>unknown or trustable.

>Rather depends on just how much "any changes" are.  If he wants to
>change the tanks, the engines, a bunch of auxiliary hardware -- in
>fact, everything but the structural members of the vehicle -- I would
>expect any reasonable person to assume it's pretty much a new and
>untested bird.

Zubrin's Lunar hardware is identicle to that required for Mars Direct,
except for the landing stage: The aeroshell/parachute is replaced
by an additional propulsive stage.

From the point of view of transportation equipment (what Zubrin looked
at) the Moon is a fair test for Mars. But once you look at hardware
for use on the surface, the Moon stops being a valid test, since the
environment is radically different.

                                                     Frank Crary
                                                     CU Boulder

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 05:19:25 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gopinath Kuduvalli) writes:
>>Since when are "flags and footprints" and mining the only alternatives?
>>There are many other reasons for long-term of permanent presence, that
>>have nothing at all to do with mining.

>Pray tell, what *are* these other reasons for long-term permanent presence
>on the moon, mars or wherever in space?

The completely unacceptable (politically) but most direct answer is,
"Manifest Destiny": The future is not on one, crowded, resource-depleated
world.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 05:37:45 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Janow) writes:
>> You _could_ test a few aspects of a Mars mission there, but there is no
>> reason why you _have_ to. The question becomes one of balancing the
>> benefits of Lunar testing against their costs. At this point, the added
>> costs would make a Mars mission impossibly expensive and set the timetable
>> back long enough that politically the mission wouldn't be funded. So I
>> think it's safe to say that the costs of Lunar testing outweigh the
>> benefits.

>Yes, for an Apollo-type Mars mission, a Luna base project would be a waste of
>money.

Actually, for any sort of Mars mission: The Lunar and Martian environments
are far too different for such testing of surface equipment to be
possible, let alone meaningfull (I just presented a paper on Martian
spacesuits, and I can assure you that the optimum design wouldn't
work at all on the Moon.)

>...However, if the goal is the development of space, including industry
>and long-term communities, then it may make economic and political sense.

If that is the goal, Lunar missions/bases make sense on their own. Slaving
a Mars mission to these goals, however, will simply kill it: A long-term
Mars project can stand alone, but if the Moon is politically mandated
as a precondition, Mars is beyond any reasonable budget.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder

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

Date: 2 Jun 1993 03:25:40 GMT
From: Jeff Bytof - SIO <[e-mail]>
Subject: musings of a space philosopher
Newsgroups: sci.space

(from "Pace" magazine, August 1969, pp. 22-23):


       MAN'S SURVIVAL RESTS ON GOING INTO SPACE NOW
       --------------------------------------------

                    by Earl Hubbard

       The tradition of all life is the decision to
       transcend - to overcome every obstacle to life,
       to explore every new frontier.  If we continue
       in the tradition of our race, we will go into
       space.  If we reject that tradition and choose
       not to go, we face a predictable future of
       impotence phasing into devolution.


                    PRESERVING LIFE
                    ---------------

If we do not go into space:
---------------------------

   Everything we have done on earth to prolong life is now militating
against us.  If we can live for indefinite periods by replacing organs, if all
the children born can live (which is our hope), if we can in fact feed and
house more people, there is going to be increasingly less room to
move about, less freedom, less opportunity.

   The earth is a closed system - a predictable system.

   With more and more people, the effort to sustain life will gradually
absorb so much of the earth's resources that the effort to build the means
of moving into the universe will have to be turned in the direction of
sustaining life.

   If people who life long lives do not turn their attention out toward
a new place to go, and if everybody born lives, and if we spend all our
time trying to behave and to get along, we will create an explosive situation.
The spirit of man will be broken because he will feel that everything
he has done in the past is a humiliation.  The idea of sustaining life
will turn out to be something diabolical rather than good; the idea
of having children will be called unnatural because it creates more
problems.  We could engender an attitude that there is no future here.

   But now, at this moment, it is within our grasp to commit the most heroic
act in all history: to carry man's destiny to the stars.

If we do go:
------------

   In the universe all acts to preserve life make sense.  As man
emerges into outer space, a prolonged life span becomes essential.
To cross the vastness of the universe man must be able to live indefinitely.
He will conceive of Earth as a beginning - a birthplace and incubator.
The reverse will be true if man stays on Earth; a brief life span will
become imperative.


                     FRUSTRATION AND FRONTIERS
                     -------------------------

If we do not go:
----------------

   Man cannot survive without frontiers.  Historically, absence of a
frontier has preceded the decline of nations, religions and social
systems.  Fidelity and frontiers go together.  So the answer to
the question "Can mankind survive on this earth alone?" is "Yes,
the body can, but no, the spirit of man cannot."

   It is not the body of man that is in rebellion; it is the spirit
of man.  The urge to transcend without a frontier spells frustration;
and affluence fans frustration's flames, as students have demonstrated.
Man without a frontier is a force without a future, energy without
an outlet.

   The universe is now man's frontier.  Curing poverty is not a frontier
because we have the means to end poverty.  What we lack is the will.
There is no challenge on earth for which, if we have the will, we
do not possess the means of solution.  All earthly problems are
hygienic problems and solving them does not lessen frustration
but increases it.

If we do go
-----------

   The force of frustration, placed on the former frontiers of America,
forged the future of the United States.  We are a ghetto nation,
built by the frustration of the Old World.  This energy, placed on
the present frontiers of the evolution of mankind, could forge
the future of a race capable of survival in the universe.

   The force of frustration could power the earthly means of man's
transcendence.

   The ghettos of despair - rich and poor - now offer the world the
greatest resource of energy it has ever possessed: people ready to
build the future.  They are reservoirs of the energy of transcendence.
This energy released can save mankind.

   Today, all the world is becoming a ghetto; not because there is not
enough room for the body or potentially enough food for the body, but
because human awareness is expanding and traveling with the speed of light
through the communication network to the minds of all men.  All men
are becoming aware that they are one and, as one, they are afflicted
with the anxieties and pains and problems of one body.  The urge
to transcend is now bottled up in this body with no place to move.
It seeks a natural form of egress to move on, to evolve on, in
response to what appears to be a Creative Intention.


                       WELFARE PROGRAMS
                       ----------------

If we do not go
---------------

   The primary effect of serving the hygienic needs of man is to
increase the urge to transcend.  With an increase of health there is
an increase in the desire to transcend.  To the extent that welfare
programs succeed in solving hygenienic problems, they are activating
man to seek some transcendent goal.  Hungry people dream of food.
The well-fed dream of the future - a dream which without fulfillment
could become a nightmare.  We must offer real hope, real meaning,
a challenge commensurate to human pride - the challenge of the universe.

If we do go
-----------

   NASA represents the hope of the greatest welfare program ever
conceived by man, for NASA represents the hope of mankind's evolution
into the universe.

   Job training should be related to projects concerned with the evolution
of man, to the growth of transcendent industries - those concerned with
building a better future.  Examples:  the aerospace industry that builds
for a specific challenge; pharmaceutical companies concerned with
transcending pain, death and disease; computer utilities concerned with
decision-making problems of man; electronic companies concerned with
transcending man's slow reactions.

   Such industries are evolutionary in that they do not seek to repeat -
but to move on.  The repetitive factor is relegated to the machine.
The transcendent industries require men of aspiration capable of constant
change.  The stigma of pity goes.  All men are needed.


                     MENTAL DEVELOPMENT
                     ------------------

If we do not go
---------------

   We do not know what the brain can do at full capacity.  No challenge,
so far, it has been estimated, has tapped more than 15 percent of man's
mental capacities.  With that 15 percent we have evolved the means of
solution to most of our pressing problems.  Only the will is lacking.
The carrying out of all the things we can and must do, the care of
people, the making right of wrong, demands effort to meet our moral
commitment to the evolution of man.  But if we stay on the earth we
may use less rather than more of our mental capacities to survive for
the brain insistently duplicates the requisite mundane tasks this
life-support system represents and requires.  We see warning signs
already as some people in the developed world deliberately dull their
minds and deny their reasoning power with drugs.

If we do go
-----------

   The curious fact is that the capacity to leave the earth is the most
distinctive act of man; it sets him apart from all other life on this
earth.  Only within this new environment of the universe will we begin to
see what man is really capable of.

   Man's brain in an earth environment with gravity, pollution, noise
and conflict is not operating in the most advantageous environment.
In the immaculate space above us, this mind will have only challenge,
and practically no pollution of noise, odor, conflict.

   The brain has recently revealed a capacity to externalize low-level
body-serving functions through computers and cybernetics.  It is
as though the mind were divesting itself of earthly chores, ridding
itself of mundane work for some greater tasks.


                          MORALITY
                          --------

If we do not go
---------------

   The basis of morality is survival.  Morality means a concern for
the future of mankind.  Without faith in that future, there will be
no morality.  Modes of conduct and moral behavior are the tail of
the comet, not the comet.  The comet is the aspiration to transcend.
Fidelity to that aspiration is the only assurance of fidelity of
conduct.

   With transcendent aspiration comes a transformation.  No amount
of calisthenics or cosmetics can make a face beautiful.  The light
of aspiration causes the illumination called beauty, vitality or
charisma.

   If nobody on this earth is going anywhere, how long will moral
behavior be relevant?  With no future for the race beyond this earth
we might get an upside-down morality - one that sanctions homosexual-
lesbian conduct and frowns on sexual relationships between the sexes.
Mysticism would be accepted, rational awareness would not.  Total
impotence would be the goal.  Contemporary indications of this attitude
are already becoming apparent, particularly in the world's largest
cities.

If we do go
-----------

   A frontier morality is a survival morality.  Without a frontier
there is no apparent need for morality; but on a frontier, the need
is obvious.

   Long hair, pot and promiscuity may be debatable in a dormitory,
but on the frontiers of space there is no debate.  The right to do
as you please is not debatable on the frontiers of space.  The right
to opt out may be debatable in a dormitory, but not on the frontiers
of space.

   Hygienic morality is important, but without the frontier it appears
purposeless.  The survival of the race of man in space is the new
basis of morality.  Dope, sadism, masochism, sex obsession are nonsurvival
techniques for such a space race.  All criticism of these deadly
manifestations will shift from a question of semantics to one of
survival.  To produce a space race we must produce the best possible
human being.  A space race cannot smoke or drink or be undisciplined.
Most of the moral strictures that were once sound will discover a new
basis - that of space survival.

   If we assume survival depends on man's evolution, we have a basis
of judging what is right and what is wrong on all levels of life.  We
have a basis as rudimentary and clear as in the early tribal life of
man.  We are now, again, at such a simple stage.  We are attempting
to fend for ourselves in a universe which appears alien and in which
we must demand of ourselves our best in order to survive at all.


                        CYBERNATION
                        -----------

If we do not go
---------------

   As our own bodies are maintained in an automated manner, so the
body of mankind is increasingly maintained by automated means.  Man
is no longer in the business of life-support.  His work is becoming
ever more cybernated.

   To remain on this earth will demand of man an increasing capacity to
do less.  If man stays on Earth, his role will be a passive one,
his function only to exist.  He will be creating a lesser species.

   The pursuit of the "arts of civilization" - the arts, sciences
and beautification of life - is not, historically, an end unto itself,
but an expression of the urge to transcend, the desire to seek and
serve a Creative Intention.  Trace all art back to its source and you
will find a church.  The source of art is the urge to transcend.  If
we decide not to go into the universe, we will have to pacify the
urge to transcend and cut ourselves off from the source of art.

If we do go
-----------

   Now that man is being emancipated from the household chores of
Earth, he is free to seek his manhood among the stars.  Cybernation
on earth means the minds of men can focus on the creation of a new
and greater species of man capable of thriving in the universe.

   Because he need no longer be concerned exclusively with the search
for food, clothing and housing, because he need no longer be a
producer and maintainer of material goods, man is capable of looking
beyond himself.  Cybernation is the essential first step in the
evolution of a space race.


                        SURVIVAL
                        --------

   The issue today is whether man will turn inward and decline or
turn outward and evolve, whether he will seek and explore new planets
to live on or remain and die on this one.

   Man's only option for survival is to evolve into the universe -
an option that provides the basis for full employment, for a
meaningful education and a world union, for uniting all who seek
to know more of the Creative Intention, a basis for meaningful
education; an acceptable basis for morality; the basis for a welfare
program; and the proper employment of frustration as the force to
forge new frontiers and a reaffirmation that families are most
meaningful on a frontier.

   The basic option for survival is now and always has been the
acceptance that we live within an intentional universe, and that
man serves some greater purpose than the care and feeding of his
own body.

   It is not a question of materialism vs. non-materialism.  It is
a question of whether we assume the universe to be intentional
or unintentional.  Here lies the constant option for survival.

   It is not a question of either solving the problems of earth
or going into space.  It is a question of both.  It is a question
of emancipating the best of man.  The way to achieve the goals
of the human race is to take the step into space - now.


                       -END-


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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 658
------------------------------