Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v13_7/v13_712.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-25 | 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/ocO2qe:00WBwI1004w>;
          Wed, 26 Jun 91 02:01:14 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 02:01:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #712

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 712

Today's Topics:
          Re: Jonathan's Space Report, Jun 5
               Re: NASA Budget
            Re: orbiter production
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #616
            SPACE Digest V13 #616
            Re: Death of the Space Station
               Re: NASA Budget

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: 7 Jun 91 16:49:52 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma![e-mail]  (Andy Clews)
Subject: Re: Jonathan's Space Report, Jun 5

From article <mcdowell.676136887@xanth>, by [e-mail] (Jonathan McDowell):
[....]
+ Delta 111, the second stage of the launch vehicle which orbited Nimbus 6
+ in 1975, exploded into hundreds of fragments about May 14. The Delta
+ stages of that era had a habit of exploding years after launch, due
+ to the detonation of left over propellants.

Presumably this increases manyfold the amounts of orbiting debris to
splatter the Shuttle's windscreen and other vehicles?

*sigh*


--
Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, England
JANET: [e-mail]        BITNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Jun 91 20:36:53 GMT
From: sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: NASA Budget

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>The time to have taken such action was when space station Freedom was first
>proposed

First of all, many of those speaking out _have_ opposed the Station all
along.  James Van Allen has spoken forcefully against the project since its
start.  The NASA leadership ignored the scientists and space explorers and
made the commitments anyway.

Second, when the project was first proposed the NASA leadership lied,
saying it would only cost $8 billion.  The pricetag is now $37 billion to
construct, $120 billion to operate (GAO estimate), and the estimates continue
to rise.  This cost overrun of $102 billion is equal to the cost of over
one hundred and twenty (120) Voyager projects.  The destruction and stillbirth
of hundreds to thousands of space science and exploration projects is
the opportunity cost of "keeping our commitments" in this case.

Third, the foreign agencies the NASA leadership committed to have never
offered to pay an equal share of the costs or help cover these overruns;
indeed Japan has committed to less than 3% of the $120 billion projected
cost.  U.S. space science and exploration, _including_ the COMET microgravity
research program among hundreds of others, is being called on to pay the
price.   So much for loyalty: microgravity scientists were among the
only ones to support the station.

It is the space station people, and the people who made commitments
regarding space stations, who should pay the price for their mistakes, not
the rest of the program which, up until now, has not spoken up forcefully
enough against this this pork barrel which supports neither science,
exploration, nor commerce.

We need to keep commitments we can keep, and not make commitments we
can't keep.  Trying to keep hopelessly stupid commitments is not a good
solution.  Rewarding those who who promoted the project and lied about
its costs and benefits is not a good solution.  Learning from our mistakes
-- and punishing the perpetrators -- is the only solution that can put NASA
back on the road to doing its part in a healthy space program.



--
Nick Szabo                [e-mail]
"If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably
knew it already.  The more bewildered you are, the more successful
the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer

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

Date: 7 Jun 91 23:19:03 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]  (Doug McDonald)
Subject: Re: orbiter production


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Byron Han) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John McKernan) writes:
>>[e-mail] (Doug McDonald) writes:
>>
>>I really don't think the shuttle provides enough unique capability to
>>justify it's cost. The largest payload shroud on the Titan IV can
>>launch payloads of almost the same weight and dimensions as the shuttle.
>>We will lose the ability to launch people into orbit, but at $10000 per
>>pound I really think manned space R&D funds would be much better spent
>>developing cheaper launch technology, regenerative life support, advanced
>>space propulsion, REAL (tm) space suits, etc.
>>


Somehow this got cut wrong. The statement above is most certainly not by me,
perhaps by Mr. McKernan???

Doug McDonald

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

Date: 8 Jun 91 03:14:15 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!rochester![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #616

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

[ quoting me ]

>>This -- the basic human drive for exploration, adventure, and new
>>frontiers -- answers question (1).  Whether it can also answer
>>question (2) depends on who are the "other people" who are going to
>>pay for it.

>>If they are business people, they are unlikely to find this
>>compelling.  The way to convince them is to show that you can make
>>money from space -- that may not be your ultimate goal, but it is
>>theirs.  Convince the private sector that space development can be
>>truly profitable, and not even the Luddites will be able to keep their
>>ventures on the planet.

>If you define 'make money' as 'find and refine resources', which it
>essentially means, than my goals ARE the same as the 'luddites'.  Am
>I to assume that you think space-expansion should procedd for the
>'dream/wow/terrestrial, dude!' benefits?   What's the point in going
>if you can't afford to stay?

You doubly misunderstand me... First, I didn't mean that
businesspeople were Luddites, I meant that not even the Luddites
(Greens, Christics, etc.)  would be able to stop the private sector
once it became convinced that there were big profits in space
development.  (I realize my pronoun reference was a bit unclear.)

Second, by "make money" I mean "make money" -- "get rich", "increase
profits", "rake in the big bucks", etc.  I agree that only by finding,
developing, and utilizing space-based resources can a truly
self-supporting spacefaring society be created.  My point was that
there is a difference between means and ends.  To the space
enthusiast, generating profits is a means for sustaining space
development.  To the investor, space development is a means of
generating profits.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Department of Computer Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Fri, 07 Jun 91 19:33:20 EDT
Resent-From: Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Fri, 7 Jun 91 05:06:42 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #616
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

Subject: Extra Terrestrial Intelligence

>(1) Why SHOULD they have tried to contact us? Space is BIG. Why
>should they expend much efford searching every planet in the galaxy
>for life? The first indication they'd get that something interesting
>was happening on earth would be when they started picking up our
>radio broadcasts about 100 years ago so anybody more that 100 light-
>years from us hasn't had time to hear us and respond (Carl Hamlet)

>(2) Why wasn't the entire galaxy colonized thousands of millions of
>years ago? The time for a colonization wave to travel across the galaxy,
>even with spacecraft traveling well below the speed of light, is only
>a fraction of the age of the universe. Our solar system has apparently
>not been colonized; we see no evidence of large scale engeneering in
>the asteroid belt or on the moon, for example. (Paul F. Dietz)

>(3) If any highly intelligent and advanced species is agressive enough
>to wipe out all other species they would have done so. The beauty of
>this idea is that you need only one species out of possibly billions

>(4) Maybe highly intelligent species don't communicate much

>(5) Maybe we're the only inhabited planet in the universe...

I think you make too many assumptions that you can't really expect to be
necessarily true.

In #1, you assume that the aliens would look for radio transmissions,
but it is safer to assume that a space-travelling species, or at least
a 'sufficiently advanced' species could have located us via the discovery
of liquid water (necessary for life).  This, of course assumes they have
space-based astronomy.

In #2 you assume that colonization will proceed in a certain fasion, yet
it's probably safe to assume that it will be very piece-meal, choppy, etc.
since it will slow down near abundant resources (planets), since a fat
animal with an easy life has no need or desire to colonize.

Also, in #2, you compare the age of the Universe to the speed of the
spread of life, but you neglect the speed of the rise of life.
If one assumes that life-making chemicals abound (which they seem to), and
if you assume that there are liquid-water planets in lots of places,
(which Hubble may have told us.  What a drag!) then it is safe to
assume that there is life throughout the galaxy (perhaps the universe).
The only issue, then is the speed of the rise of intelligent life.
I will assume you don't mean sendentary life, so that leaves us with
multi-cellular (or it's non-cell-made equivalent) since only multi-cellular
life can get around and do much, or get very large.
The only thing that would make much difference is the speed of evolution,
and hence, mutation, which would be directly affected by the amount of
high-energy photons landing on the planet (assuming you don't mean
interstellar life, which would still be fluid-based, but proabably not
able to affect us much.)
It seems that Earth has about as much as a planet can take.  Much more
UV, and we'd all die from radiation poisoning.  X and Gamma are out
of the question, as they break up even very stable molocules (which we
are all made of).  Less, and intelligent life wouldn't have arisen as
fast as it did.

There is also the issue of the size of the star a life-laden plent orbits.
If it's too massive, the star blows (or withers) before the life can get
intelligent enough to find another star.  If it's too small, the star
has less planets, or less energy for growing life, making mutations, less
water-laden planets, etc.
We seem to be in the necessary middle-ground, and it's safe to guess that
any life in the galaxy is in the same situation, and hence, about as
powerful/intelligent as we are.

On analogy (of limited usefulness) might be a field left alone for a few
years.  Often, it grows uniformly for quite a while, before individual
plants outgrow their neighbors.  Even so, any one area is generally as
high as the other.   Another exapmle might be Australia.  Although it
has weird animals (platypus, marsupials), they were about the same
size and shape, with similar niches, as many mammals.
This may well be a principal of life applicable over parsecs, as well as
meters and kilometers.

Why stop at intelligent life?  Life could easily evolve into space.
All the fish think we live in a hard vacuum.  So vacuum isn't the
issue.  Sheild's can be grown for radiation, as it was grown for
air, teeth, cold, etc.
The Gravity-well?  Not all water-laden planets are as massive as Earth.
there could easily be a mountain range that extends above the atmosphere
on some planet that animals could evolve up to.

Maybe intelligent life doesn't show up becasue it keeps getting eaten
by the unintleligent life, and the unintlligent life doesn't care
about searching for anything that can't get up to where they can eat
it, and they figure with FED, we won't be edible for decades!

In #3 you are hitting upon a very useful assumption, but you don't
make it patent.
Life, in general will have certain characteristics, which we can use
to make judgements about possible 'other-planet-life'. One is that it
will be fluid-based, probably water-based.   Another is that it will
live near some energy source, probably a star.  Another, is that
(some of) it will be agressive.  This assumption follows because more
agressive life flourishes, while non-agressive dies.  All of Earth's
history proves this, and not accepting Earth as a valid example of
space-based life is a violation of the 'special-place-in-the-cosmos
principal'.  Examples of agressive, succesful life might be; sharks,
stinging nettles, cats, people, lawyers, wasps, spiders, etc.  Anyone
can think of numerous examples.
In interactions, the more agressive will tend to dominate, which we
can assume will lead to statistically more agressive species.
This is unavoidable if one must have energy to survive, as is true for life.
Competition will necessitate fights, basically.  Without competition, life
gets lazy (see my response to #2, above), and hence, vulnerable.
The only alternative (besides good defense) to a species that is agressive
is one that reproduces fast, like dandelions, bugs, rabbits, etc.  It's
quite possible that we are a product of this, via panspermia, but who knows?

Anyway, I'm rambling far too much (as usual) about really speculatory stuff

Tom
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 7 Jun 91 19:00:53 GMT
From: stout.atd.ucar.edu![e-mail]  (Vicki Holzhauer)
Subject: Re: Death of the Space Station

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

>ObST: It's really time for some kind of International space agency
>dedicated to exploration.

Boy, THAT's the truth!  Three moments in the history of space
exploration have brought tears of emotion to my eyes ... man stepping
on the moon, the Challenger explosion, and the handshake between an
American and a Soviet on the Apollo/Soyuz mission.

I've wished for YEARS that we could get together with the Soviets.  We
do some things well, and they do some things well.  Why the hell don't
we forget our differences and do it all together?  We'd accomplish SO
MUCH more.

*Sigh*


--
Vicki Holzhauer, NCAR/Research Aviation Facility
Internet:  [e-mail]
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.  I said
I didn't know."               --Mark Twain

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

Date: 7 Jun 91 21:09:44 GMT
From: sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: NASA Budget

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig E. Ward) writes:

>>The American Geophysical Union recognizes that passage of this
>>amendment would do serious damage to future space science programs
>
>With all due respect, the AGU is wrong and is playing the role of a patsy for
>non-space special interests.

With all due respect, you don't know what the hell you are talking
about.  The AGU was one of the main forces behind the 1957 IGY, which
led to Sputnik and Explorer and started the whole civilian space
program off in the first place.  Much of the subject matter and
experimentation in the field of geophysics takes place in space.
Calling the AGU "non-space" is like calling Boeing "non-airplane"
or Toyota "non-automobile".  Pretty silly.


--
Nick Szabo                [e-mail]
"If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably
knew it already.  The more bewildered you are, the more successful
the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #712
*******************