Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v13_6/v13_606.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-05 | 17KB

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/gcHR6om00WBwIfqE4Z>;
          Thu,  6 Jun 91 02:09:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu,  6 Jun 91 02:09:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #606

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 606

Today's Topics:
              Re: Privatization
           Re: Rational next station design process
          Re: What comes after Fred's death?
     Fred and Demagoguery (Was: Grinding Axes and Picking Bones)
           Re: Who gets free plane tickets?
         Re: Fred cut, AXAF and SIRTF funded
             Re: Gravity vs. Mass
     First Announcement of MEPCO`92 (Revised & Finalized Version)
                  Re: SR-71

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: 21 May 91 19:38:27 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: Privatization

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Harri Pasanen) writes:

>I'm kind of generally suspicious about privatization when long term research
>is in question.  Private profit driven companies seldom make plans for
>more than 5-10 years into the future.  Let's take large particle colliders
>as an example.  I doubt there would be any private organization that would
>foot the bill for CERN for instance.  Same logic can be applied to large
>space projects.

>Correct me if I'm wrong.

I will correct you. There are others here willing to do more than correct you,
which is one of the problems we all face on this group. :-)

I have been in error before...

But anyway, back to the discussion:

The Keck Telescope, which a short while ago passed the 200-inch
Hale Telescope in observing area, is mainly privately funded by the
W.M. Keck Foundation. For a while it will be the world's largest
telescope. A second Keck scope is to be built, next to the first,
for interferometry use.

The whole technology behind the Keck Telescope is radically new.


--
Phil Fraering || Usenet (?):[e-mail] || YellNet: 318/365-5418
''It hardly mattered now; it was, in fact, a fine and enviable
madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is
beyond the reach of a strong left arm.`` - Larry Niven and Jerry
Pournelle, _The Mote in God's Eye_

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

Date: 20 May 91 17:40:02 GMT
From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink![e-mail]  (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Rational next station design process

[e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:

I agree with Nick Szabo: you have decided the project will go ahead, and are
looking for ways to justify it.

IMO, the proper approach is to first find out who is wiling to pay for a space
station; then how much are they wiling to pay, for how much/what kind of
service.  It may be that the taxpayers are willing to pay $x billion for
research, exploration and national pride.  The "Industrial Competitiveness"
branch of the government may be willing to allocate $x billion for
space/power/time in microgravity for materials and biological research.  Some
private corporations might also be willing to spend $x billion for <specific
services>.  The military may allocate a certain amount of funds for aerospace
R&D, certain services, etc.

Once you find out who is willing to pay for what sort of services, you can
start defining what sort of structure is required to meet those demands and
whether or not they can be provided at the price offered.

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

Date: 21 May 91 18:15:18 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!think.com!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: What comes after Fred's death?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Willner) writes:
>Hasn't it occurred to anyone that life sciences research (keeping a
>couple of astronauts in orbit for a year or so) can be done without a
>space station?  All that should be needed are another couple of
>shuttle orbiters, extended duration modifications (up to 30 days is
>already planned), and rendezvous capability.

Much of the life-sciences work people would like to do involves experimental
animals other than astronauts, and non-trivial amounts of hardware.  Taking
it from one orbiter to another would be quite a job.
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 23 May 91 09:35:59 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!uafhp![e-mail]  (Brian McCormick)
Subject: Fred and Demagoguery (Was: Grinding Axes and Picking Bones)

In his article, [e-mail] (Jim Bowery) writes:

> Republicans who support the space station program fit the definition
> of "conservative" as it is used in the Soviet Union.  They want to
> "conserve" the bureaucratic structures that benefit their friends by
> suppressing freedom with doublespeak like "Freedom".

As an avowed liberal I tend to agree with your statement regarding
conservatives.  IMHO, conservatives here in the US are really
little different than conservatives in the USSR, South Africa,
China, or any number of other places I might name.  Given the speech
you made earlier (ommitted here), I'd probably be inclined to lump
you in the same category though...  There are lots of traditional
American values (racism for example) which are not worth preserving.
My opinions are my own of course.

> This kind of bureaucratic suppression of free enterprise is all too
> familiar to people who are trying to create free markets in eastern
> Europe and USSR.  The problem is even worse with NASA because of all
> the doublespeak/doublethink that started with the program under
> Mr. Free Enterprise himself, Ronald Wilson Reagan, in that banner
> year for space:  1984.

The real truth about Fred is contained in the number "1984" above.
That was an election year.  IMHO, the real origin of Fred is in
election year demagoguery.  With an origin like that, is it any
real surprise that Fred is failing?  I hate to break this to those
of you who are anxiously awaiting a manned mission to Mars in the
thirty years, but that program has a similar origin.  It wasn't a
product of election year politics though, so I guess you can always
dream.

Demagoguery can work in favor of a space program too, if it is used
properly as it was in the case of the manned lunar program.  The
people at NASA need to figure out that space programs, like all
government programs, receive funding in proportion to their ability
to pull votes for congresscritters.  NASA doesn't need to take a
lesson from the Soviets, they need to take their lesson from the
likes of the NRA, the AARP, and similar organizations.  Swaying
congresscritters isn't the way to win funding...  Sway the voters
ant they'll take care of the rest!

Oh, one other thing...  All politics aside, is there anyone out
here in Usenet-land who agrees with me that a permanently manned
lunar station makes a more practical first step than a LEO station?
It seems like a lunar station would have a similar (if not better)
potential for space science (microgravity would suffer, but planetary
science and astronomy would be enhanced) while at the same time
the station would pose fewer problems with regard to structural
vibration, collision hazards, EVA hazards, etc.  Having gigatons
raw materials within easy reach might also be advantageous in
establishing a space infrastructure.

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

Date: 21 May 91 20:10:37 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Who gets free plane tickets?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Bowery) writes:

>Those of us who aren't being paid by the government should have at
>least as much say in our government as those who are, such as NASA
>civil servants and their contractors at places like McDonnell Douglas.

>That being the case, whenever a civil servant or contractor flies into
>Washington D.C. to lobby for something like Space Station Fred, it is
>only fair that the government also pay for at least one taxpaying
>citizen to fly into Washington D.C. to lobby against something like
>Space Station Fred.

When a NASA person flies from, say, Houston to Washington to testify before
a panel on behalf of Freedom, that person is speaking on behalf of an
arm of the government.  When you fly to Washington to speak against
Freedom, you are going as an individual.  For that reason, I fail to see
why the government should pay your ticket.  If you fly to Washington on
behalf of some organization you belong to, then that organization should
pay your way, and you are on an equal basis with the NASA person.  Where
exactly is the problem?

--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Office of Information Technology      P.O. box."  - Zebadiah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]    _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: 23 May 91 18:58:14 GMT
From: aio!vf.jsc.nasa.gov![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Fred cut, AXAF and SIRTF funded


> cancelled, all because of the insatiable greed of astronaut groupies
> to see their singular monolithic project succeed at the cost of all
> others.  It is foolish to expect that this time would be any different.

Well I suppose you are the unbiased voice of reason.  You don't hear me calling
you a SMEX, SeaStar, COMET groupy.  The space station was not at the expense of
"all others."


>
> As soon as we can get a larger number of smaller, quicker programs
> into the NASA budget, we will get to the point where politicians
> can fund projects that see fruition within their term of office.
> When this threshold is crossed, the NASA budget will soar.  SIRTF,

I disagree with you.  Those programs will be too small to get the visabilty to
survive a committee's urge to cut them.  When the budgets of the small programs
get where the private sector can do them, then congress will not be able to
cancel the funding.

>
> If astronaut fans want to see a reunited program, it is time
> for them to admit their mistakes and let exploration have its turn
> to show its stuff with the bulk of NASA funding.  By showing their
> support for exploration now, they can win those with the space
> knowledge they need to their side.  If astronaut fans continue to
> support greedy programs like Fred they will sadly remain hated
> enemies of the space explorers for a long time to come.
>

Why do you "hate" people for manned exploration?  I don't hate you.
I am for manned space.  As a remember Skylab produced more data on the sun that
had been gathered ever before.  Wasn't that a "manned astronaut exproration
enemy program" ?????

What about the Moon missions.........  Gee All the astronauts did was plant
some flags....

--

Mike Kent -      Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company at NASA JSC
        2400 NASA Rd One, Houston, TX 77058 [phone]
        [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 May 91 22:30:35 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!uafhp![e-mail]  (Brian McCormick)
Subject: Re: Gravity vs. Mass

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Isildur) writes:
> I was having a debate with one of my friends over this one... You somehow
> dug a hole clean through the earth in a diameter through the core and it was
> completely insulated from the heat changes running through the planet.  When
> you climbed into the tunnel (fall into the the tunnel...) and reach the
> center of the planet, would your weight be incredibly multiplied because of
> your new relative location to the center of the earth (using the
> mass/gravitational constant formula) or would you have zero-weight because
> you were surrounded by virtually identical mass (and also assuming that the
> tunnel closes up outside your immediate location)?

My guess would be neither.  Although in principle you would be weightless
at the center of the Earth, the gravitational effects of the Sun and
(particularly) the Moon would probably be observable (meaning you would
fall towards the barycenter of the Earth/Luna system, hopefully slowly).

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

Date: 22 May 91 13:39:12 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!msi.umn.edu!math.fu-berlin.de!fauern!unido!mpirbn![e-mail]  (Daniel Fischer)
Subject: First Announcement of MEPCO`92 (Revised & Finalized Version)


                            First Announcement

  MEETING OF EUROPEAN (AND INTERNATIONAL) PLANETARY AND COMETARY OBSERVERS

                              M E P C O '9 2

               in Violau, Bavaria, Germany (near Augsburg)
  on the weekend of 18 til 21 September 1992, in the International Space Year

Since 10 years we, the Arbeitskreis Planetenbeobachter (Working Group of Plane=
tary Observers of Germany), arrange the Planeten- und Kometentagung (Meeting of
Planetary and Cometary Observers), which brings together more than 100 amateur
observers from German-speaking regions every year.

For the first time, in 1992 we want to invite planet and comet observers from
*all*over*Europe* and also the rest of the world, to open up new European and
international perpectives in amateur astronomy as well.

                     Main language will be English

                               We offer:

# a unique meeting atmosphere in a beautiful landscape setting,

# conference, accomodation and catering in *one* building, the Bruder-Klaus-
  Heim with the famous Violau Observatory,

# papers and workshops for specific problems (i.e. planets etc.) and for
  bringing onwards contacts and collaboration across Europe and the planet,

# reports and exhibitions regarding the activities in the different countries,

# proceedings included in the fee,

# and an astro-geological excursion with scientific guidance.

The full fee for everything, including conference papers, accomodation, full
catering and the excursion will be only approx. DM 240,- (approx. FF 800,-).

      For pre-registration*) and further information, please contact
        Wolfgang Meyer, Martinstrasse 1, W-1000 Berlin 41, Germany


   *) Recommended by November 1991 to allow us estimating the attendance

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

Due to an explosive growth of interest in these meetings in Germany alone (140+
participants this year!) we have decided to split off MEPCO, keep the June 1992
conference a primarily German one and give MEPCO its first try three months
later. Everything will be the same, except for that we will now use English as
primary language which should allow for greater effectivity.

This invitation addresses active observers, people who analyze others' data,
theoreticians who think about these studies, inventors who have designed the
latest in CCD technology or something completely different. Experience has
shown that surprises are not uncommon - and that should be even more the case
with a meeting bringing together people from all over Europe and beyond.

Please distribute this message further if you can, print it out and put in on
bulletin boards, load it onto other BBS' or reprint it in your club's newspa=
per - we don't have any sponsors and cannot afford professional advertising.

Thank you for interest and support - and welcome to Violau in September 1992 !

  For the New Executive Council: Daniel Fischer = [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 May 91 21:40:54 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Duane P Mantick)
Subject: Re: SR-71

[e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
>Yes, I know where they'll operate from.  I know where two of them already
>are.  I'm trying to come up with an experiment that uses them, since I
>work in high speed flying qualities and there are some issues that need
>to be addressed for the project I'm currently involved in.

Hi Mary!

Well, it isn't an experiment, but if you want to send one out here to the
midwest, I *still* haven't seen one actually flying.  A nice pass down the
flightline at the Dayton airshow would be dandy....

:-)  :-)

Duane
(....or, as one of the pilots said after the XB-70's last flight, 'I'D
do *almost* anything to keep it in the air....except pay for it myself....')

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #606
*******************