Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_4/v9_420.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/IYNemgy00UkZRMfk5e>;
          Tue,  9 May 89 05:17:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue,  9 May 89 05:17:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #420

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 420

Today's Topics:
            Re: Meme me up, Scotty
        Re: Private spending for space science
      Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)
        Re: Private spending for space science
     SSI Description (Was Re: Private spending for space science)
        Re: Private spending for space science
        Re: Private spending for space science
           Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness
      Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)
        Re: Private spending for space science
           Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 May 89 19:44:03 GMT
From: dogie.macc.wisc.edu!indri!aplcen![e-mail]  (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Meme me up, Scotty

>...I suspect a meme is
>just an idea with tailfins, but I wanna know for sure.

If I understand it correctly, it basically is an idea with tailfins.  The
tailfins are basically the concept that ideas can go through natural
selection and some ideas have properties more conducive to spreading than
others, and thus spread more.

I don't see anything wrong with this concept itself, but I am skeptical of
over-applying it because it is often used in ad-hominem attacks:

"So many people hold opinions disagreeing with me not because they have
examined the facts and came to a different conclusion, but rather because
the opposing opinion is a meme which spreads easily."

"The two sides of this position have approximately equal validity; after
all, they're both memes.  So you can't say your position is better." [usually
not used too soon after the previous one, of course]

etc...
--
"Do you know what this is????"  "No, what?"  "I don't know either..."
  -- Who said it, what story?

Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!ins_akaa; BITNET: g49i0188@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: [e-mail]) (please, no mail to arrom@aplcen)

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

Date: Sat, 6 May 1989 14:20-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

I'm glad to hear that Jonathan is one of the people who put his money
where his mouth is. I also put int $300/yr to Space Studies Institute,
and $100/yr to another organization.

Jonathon and I might have some disagreements, but I'm sure he'll agree
with me that if you ain't puttin' your share into SSI, you should
probably just shut up and stop whining about the non-space program. If
you want to complain, pay your dues first. Money talks.

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

Date: 6 May 89 15:42:12 GMT
From: umigw![e-mail]  (steve emmerson)
Subject: Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)

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

>One may argue about NASA's current set of priorities, but as
>long as they remain, attacking manned spaceflight is a pointless waste
>of time for the unmanned-spaceflight advocates:  it will not put more
>money in their budgets.

I would not be surprised if Congress decided to rearrange it's space
priorities based on testimony that the manned program is grossly
inefficient.  That being the case, I would not be surprised if the
unmanned program received increased funding.

>I don't read the testimony in question as carrying any implication that
>anyone *seriously* proposes gutting the lower-priority projects for the
>sake of the shuttle or the station, either.  Fletcher is against it.
>And his questioners are not saying that it's a realistic idea:  they're
>presenting it as an absurdity to try to convince him to make station and
>shuttle cuts.

As I read the testimony, Fletcher appeared to be even _more_ against
the idea of cutting the shuttle or station.  And since a decision _will_
be made...

In budgets, push often does come to shove ;-).
--
Steve Emmerson                     Inet: [e-mail] [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               [e-mail]
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

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

Date: 7 May 89 02:39:30 GMT
From: osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu![e-mail]  (stephen)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

  Could someone brief us on what Space Studies Institute is doing?
  I sent for info a while back and never got it.

  ..Steve

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

Date: 7 May 89 04:34:20 GMT
From: thorin!alanine![e-mail]  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: SSI Description (Was Re: Private spending for space science)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (stephen) writes:
>  Could someone brief us on what Space Studies Institute is doing?
>  I sent for info a while back and never got it.

    Sure.  This is a reposting from last November.  This is mostly
drawn from published SSI material and the "Confidential Letter to
Senior Associates" they send to people who give them lots of money (I
recommend doing this :-). Corrections & enhancements appreciated, as
I expect I'll be posting and emailing this periodically in the future.

    Quoted material below is drawn from SSI's own literature; anything
else is mine. Please direct any further questions to me via email and
I'll attempt to answer.

---------------------------- clip-n-save ---------------------------------------

Quick summary:

    Space Studies Institute
    258 Rosedale Road
    PO Box 82
    Princeton, NJ 08540

    One year of the SSI newsletter for $25, but you should really send
    as much as you can afford. I'm in for $300/year and plan to
    increase the amount when I start making real money. Contributions
    are tax-deductible.

What is SSI?

   "The Space Studies Institute grew out of the research of Dr. Gerard
    O'Neill into the possibilities for human colonies in space,
    industry based on extraterrestrial materials, and the return to
    Earth of wealth generated in space."

   "SSI's first goal is to complete the hardware research that will
    make possible the productive use of the abundant resources of
    space. Its second goal, for which the attainment of the first is
    essential, is to bring about the formation of a private or
    government space program, in the US or abroad, on the economic
    scale of the Alaskan Pipeline, to exploit those resources
    carefully without environmental damage. Once these critical steps
    are taken, we at SSI feel that the construction of human
    colonies in space will be an inevitable result, and with it
    the opening of a new ecological range for humanity."

What has SSI accomplished?

    * Development of several generations of working mass drivers,
      designed to transfer lunar material into space at very low cost.

    * Completed and ongoing research projects in such areas as:

    - Near-term use of shuttle External Tanks.
    - Construction of Solar Power Satellites using mostly (>99% by
        mass) extraterrestrial materials.
    - Asteroid retrieval and mining scenarios.
    - Low-cost lunar polar prove to search for volatiles. One
        high-risk concept would be launched from a shuttle
        Get-Away Special canister and achieve lunar orbit in 2
        years using an ion drive.

    * Chemical and physical processing of lunar materials:

    - HF acid leach process for chemical separation, developed by
        Rockwell under contract to SSI.
    - Magnetic and electrostatic separation techniques.
    - Glass/glass composites and concretes from lunar regolith for
        use as bulk construction material.

    * Lunar Systems Study focusing on "the most cost-effective means
    of initiating space resource utilization at the earliest
    possible date."

    * Runs the biennial Princeton Conference on Space Manufacturing
    (coming up May 10-13 1989), and co-sponsors other conferences
    including the annual Space Development Conference.

How is SSI funded?

   "In order to maintain its independence and therefore its ability to
    carry out research on a logical, continuing basis unaffected by
    politics, the Space Studies Institute draws its main support from
    a large number of individual donations... Support for SSI includes
    donations given annually by Subscribers, and on a five-year pledge
    basis by Senior Associates."

    In the longer term, SSI owns a substantial amount of stock in
    Geostar Corporation. Geostar was founded by O'Neill and offers
    satellite location and messaging services. This is potentially a
    very lucrative market. If Geostar succeeds, SSI's share of the
    company will provide "a value sufficient for the Institute to
    carry out its full program including actual operations in space."

What SSI is not:

    SSI is not dependent on government funding. O'Neill was burned by
    this before and seems to want to avoid government entanglements at
    all costs.

    Despite being supported by individuals, SSI is not a membership
    organization such as NSS or the Planetary Society.    What you get
    is a bimonthly update from the Institute and periodic requests for
    more money targeted to specific new research projects. The only
    reason to join is if you believe, as I do, that SSI stands a good
    chance of success. If you do believe this, SSI provides a great
    opportunity to put your money where your mouth is.
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])    __@/
    SUSHIDO: the Way of the Tuna

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

Date: 7 May 89 02:59:51 GMT
From: thorin!alanine![e-mail]  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Jonathon and I might have some disagreements, but I'm sure he'll agree
       a
>with me that if you ain't puttin' your share into SSI, you should
>probably just shut up and stop whining about the non-space program. If
>you want to complain, pay your dues first. Money talks.

    Damn straight. My usual offer of more info about SSI on email
request goes here.
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])    __@/
    ``There ain't hardly nothin' cuter nor a sleepin' baby tad
      lessen it's a pork chop'' - Churchy La Femme

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

Date: 7 May 89 04:29:39 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Baxter) writes:
>>    To get guaranteed govt. support for the CDSF, for example.
>
>To get government to purchase hardware and services from companies that
>are willing to provide it, rather than developing, building and
>operating it in house...

It is important to decide whether one gives priority to ideological purity
or to spaceflight.  While I agree that it would be nice if the government
were not involved at all, if spaceflight has priority then the government
does have a role to play.  Specifically, the same role it played for
aviation:  developing technology, and encouraging commercial activity by
guaranteeing markets until commercial demand materializes.  This approach
was outstandingly successful for getting commercial aviation going quickly.
The government-does-everything approach to spaceflight, by contrast, has
been a disaster.
--
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 May 89 03:35:29 GMT
From: umigw![e-mail]  (steve emmerson)
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness

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

>Of course it's
>not safe; so what?  Don't you think Christa McAuliffe understood that?

Probably not completely, and I would be very surprised if her family did.

On the other hand, if one is made fully aware of the risks, I agree with
you.
--
Steve Emmerson                     Inet: [e-mail] [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               [e-mail]
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

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

Date: 7 May 89 03:45:25 GMT
From: umigw![e-mail]  (steve emmerson)
Subject: Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Henry Spencer) writes (regarding the scenario of Congress deciding
to rank the unmanned program above the manned):

>It would surprise me.  They've been hearing such claims for 30 years, and
>nothing has happened.  Congress has generally been quite happy to go along
>with giving big projects priority over small ones (e.g. letting Galileo
>eat most of the planetary-probe budget year after year).

Ha!  I would have used the shuttle (and now Freedom) for my example ;-).

Seriously though, perhaps Congress is now getting proof?

Then again, perhaps not.  Still, one must keep trying.
--
Steve Emmerson                     Inet: [e-mail] [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               [e-mail]
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

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

Date: 7 May 89 04:25:39 GMT
From: thorin!alanine![e-mail]  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Baxter) writes:
>I challenge you to find the head of a space service company start-up who
>thinks that NASA is not inhibiting his operation.

    Remove "space service" and replace "NASA" with the appropriate
agency, and this is just as true of any startup in any field.

>Nonsense.  Informing people about a problem which requires concerted
>effort to correct, what you call "NASA-bashing," has nothing to do with
>separating the world into two neat components.

    Perhaps it will clarify things a bit if I say that, while I
believe NASA to be an obstacle to private space operations in certain
respects, I find this a perfectly natural reaction of a government
bureaucracy defending its territory, not a conspiracy on the part of a
monolithic, incompetent NASA. The latter is the impression your
postings usually leave, and I don't find that an effective way of
informing people about the problem. It's more the tone than the
content of the NASA-bashing which I object to.

    Backing away from this particular flamefast a bit: many space
activists have strong convictions on the Way to get things moving
again, which involve far-reaching and highly unlikely changes in NASA
such as "get them out of the space transportation business." I feel
it would be more effective to try and gradually move the agency
towards a research agenda than to attempt a complete upset, because
there is a larger chance of gradual changes happening.
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])    __@/
    "Totally bounded: A set that can be patrolled by a finite number
     of arbitrarily near-sighted policemen."    A. Wilonsky, 1978

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

Date: 7 May 89 15:07:11 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (steve emmerson) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>(Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>>Of course it's
>>not safe; so what?  Don't you think Christa McAuliffe understood that?
>
>Probably not completely, and I would be very surprised if her family did.

One, her family has nothing to do with it.

Two, I think she understood the risks fully.  During her training, she was
taught about the various aborts that were possible; abort on pad (get the
hell out of the shuttle...), RTLS, AOA, ATO...you get the picture.  Somehow,
I think she got the picture that things *could* go wrong.  I feel sure she
knew the risks and was willing to accept them.

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #420
*******************