Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v13_7/v13_744.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 19KB

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/McP4auq00WBwA1Xk4=>;
          Sat, 29 Jun 91 04:50:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 04:49:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #744

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 744

Today's Topics:
              Stafford Commission Report
               Re: future astro funding
               Re: Where's Ron Baalke?
              Radio frequencies
               Mission to Planet Earth
   MAJOR GEOMAGNETIC STORM UPDATE - ALERT AND WARNING CANCELLATIONS
          NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle
         Japanese Space Development Direction
          The economics of flooding a market

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: 13 Jun 91 16:39:27 GMT
From: mintaka!ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Stafford Commission Report

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (bill davidsen) writes:

>This came in this morning, reprinted without comment:
>
>Los Angeles Times

There were a few items the article missed or skipped over lightly:

* The panel was dominated by Apollo-era astronauts and engineers.

* The panel made the the first recommendation in any major
  space commission report that the earth-crossing asteroids could
  also be a good target for astronaut and automated exploration.
  The Plan does change, even if much more slowly than the real
  world.  I'll take good news wherever it comes from.

* The group recommended revival of Saturn/Apollo technology, as
  has been discussed in this newsgroup.

Aside from some details (nuclear power, asteroids) these guys are
still living in the 60's, I'm afraid.  Geezers rocking back and
forth on the patio, reminiscing about the good ol' days, when
rockets were big, budgets were bigger, and astronauts had the
Right Stuff.  Thanks for the memories, gramps.  :-)


>The 180-page report, calling for a return to the moon by the year
>2005, aroused considerable excitement among space buffs but deep
>concerns among critics who are worried about the huge cost, put at
>$500 billion or more by some analysts.

Any real space buff is also worried about the costs.


>"It's no accident there are no dollars attached to it," said John E.
>Pike, associate director for space policy at the Federation of
>American sientists. "People would have sticker shock at the price."
>....
>"The report is very long on how from the engineering standpoint. But
>it doesn't make a very persuasive case on why we should be doing it,"
>Pike added.

"Engineer's dreams".  More solutions in search of problems, which
the central planners will be trying to shove down our throats
during the next few decades.  Sigh....

I reccomend yesterday's Wall Street Journal and this week's Aviation
Week & Space Technology for more complete coverage of the report.



--
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: 14 Jun 91 05:36:36 GMT
From: ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: future astro funding

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert W. Nelson) writes:

>...The astro/space community is a tiny
>constituency compared with these big contractors and (as demonstrated
>in last thursday's vote in the House) no amount of letter writing by
>the ~ 4000 members of AAS will change this.

If the contractors were in touch with the scientists, and
actively promoting science, the AAS and the contractors could be
working on the same things.  As has been sadly demonstrated in
recent weeks, the contractor community is largely ignorant of
science, if not downright anti-science.   NASA has been increasingly
oriented towards defense-related prestige, and its leadership
dominated by defense managers and astronauts, despite the fact
that defense-related prestige is far less politically important now
than it was in the 60's.  Both parties lose.  Humankind loses.

The contractors aren't going to be getting bigger chunks as
they continue on with large, nebulous bureaucratic initiatives.
Most defense contractors will be finding jobs in private industry.
In the short term, this is very healthy for commerce, including
start-up space industries like Iridium, SkyPix, and OrbComm,
as they get to pick the cream of a large talent pool.   In the
long run, these developments of new technologies for self-
sustaining space industries will greatly enhance the capability of
space science, and the revitalization of U.S. industry in general
will help the national budget picture.  This is provides little
consolation for the possible drastic cutbacks facing AAS at the
moment.


>...
>(3) NASA funding will not increase significantly beyond inflation.

Most likely.  There is no "space race" when the Soviets come begging
to us for foreign aid.  There is a Trade Race, towards more
efficient industries in space and on Earth, but with few exceptions
the NASA crowd, and I am afraid even the science crowd, is oblivious
of this, much less having an idea what to do about it.  Some space
fans are so caught up in their "look at all the money spent on pizza"
arguments they have forgotten about waste in our own backyard.  A
NASA budget half today's size could support a much improved program,
if we did it right.  But hey, if they can waste money on pizza we
can waste money on Fred and EOS and Hubble and all sorts of other
Big Stuff right?  Yea, right.

Sooner or later, the space community is going to learn how to work
efficiently, like the satellite communications people have been doing
all along.  I'm afraid it may take a heck of a shaking up to do that,
though.


>With two giant programs coming on line in NASA, and without significant
>increases in the total NASA budget, it seems to me that all other
>"nonessential" programs within NASA, including Space Science and
>Applications,  will have to take deep cuts. I don't see any other
>way around this. If you see a hole in my reasoning I'd like to know.

The only hole is the continuing myth about the political viability
of Fred.  It's already becoming a symbol of American mediocrity, not
leadership, and Congress will soon become aware of that, even if it
escaped them in this latest debate.  I think you're right that EOS
will start to dominate the funding due to the perceived importance
of environmental threats.  Not even both EOS and Fred can
survive with the Shuttle, and the astronauts unless they are entirely
stupid will want to scrap Fred before scrapping the Shuttle, so
Charles Radley's oh-so-important CAD drawings are going to hit
the bit bucket.  This may not happen until Richard "there aren't
very many ways to get into space" Truly is ousted as NASA
administrator, but we will never see the Fred budget climb above $2
billion a year, either, so it will never be launched.  It will be
refreshing to see an automated program make the astronauts eat humble
pie, but nothing to cheer about when another monster takes Fred's
place, and space science suffers.

Unless astronomy can cut a deal with the contractors, it's back to
privately funded astronomy.  As the Keck telescope demonstrates, this
wouldn't be a total disaster, but it isn't a pleasant thought, either.


--
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: 14 Jun 91 06:13:36 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Where's Ron Baalke?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>It is true that JPL had a right to get Ron Baalke to stop posting,
>but it may also be true that the Freedom of Information Act
>can be used to get the posting resumed - by someone.
>Anyone favor trying?

    This seems to be getting out of hand.  Ron and Peter Yee should be
back from vacation soon, so we can get the story directly.

    Assuming Ron has indeed been prevented from reposting NASA reports
in the future, we could try and avoid legal controversy in favor of
making our wishes known to people who can do something about them.
Last December, Greg Roberts posted to sci.space indicating that he was
in contact with Charles Redmond, Chief of Internal Communications at
NASA, about setting up a system to send unfiltered NASAMail material
to the net.  I don't know what's become of Greg or what he learned,
but contacting Redmond (or whomever is in that position now) is
probably a good place to start.  I'm willing to pursue this if the
problem doesn't just go away when Ron returns.
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])
    __@/

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 05:20 EDT
From: Mike Bishop <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio frequencies


                                                                        00010000
   This has been asked before I'm sure, but pardon if I ask             00011004
again. Can anyone tell me the short wave frequencies for                00012004
listing the shuttle flights? Many thanks in advance.                    00013004
                                                                        00014004
                                                                        00020003
                                                                        00030000
                                                                        00040000
----------------------------------------------------------------        00050001
| Mike Bishop                                                           00060003
| <[e-mail]>         "I didn't do it, nobody saw me           00070003
| SAS Institute Inc.            do it, you can't prove anything!"       00080004
| Cary, NC                         - Bart Simpson                       00090004
-----------------------------------------------------------------       00110001
                                                                        00120001

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 13:45:55 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!cam-cl![e-mail]  (John Bradshaw)
Subject: Mission to Planet Earth

I am looking for info on NASA's Mission to Planet Earth.

Major aims and objectives etc.  What are the important publications which
describe the work done and that planned?
Where is the mission being coordinated from?  By who?  For what?

Thanks in advance (I will post a summary of any replies to the net)

John Bradshaw

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 12:13:51 MDT
From: oler <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:[e-mail]> (CARY OLER)
Subject: MAJOR GEOMAGNETIC STORM UPDATE - ALERT AND WARNING CANCELLATIONS
X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"[e-mail]"

                       /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

                            GEOMAGNETIC STORM UPDATE

                               ALERT CANCELLATION

                       /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

                               18:00 UT, 14 June

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


STORM UPDATE INFORMATION:

     Geomagnetic activity subsided after 03:00 UT on 14 June to generally
unsettled conditions.  Unfortunately, for North American aurora observers,
this meant conditions would not be favorable for auroral observations.  The
last disturbance did not have the energy to persist until after dark.
Auroral activity was significantly less active and was generally only
observed over the high latitudes in a diffuse post-storm form.

     We are not expecting any further terrestrial impacts from recent major
flares.  Yesterdays major class M7.3/2N and M5.4/1F flares are not expected
to have a terrestrial impact.  The storm periods have ended.

     A summary of this weeks events will be presented in next weeks STFR
report, which has been postponed due to the high uncertainties which existed
for terrestrial activity this week.

     The ionosphere has been weakened due to the recent storm activity and
will require several days to recover.  Conditions should be back to
near-normal by 17 June.

     The satellite proton event and the polar cap absorption event have
ended.  Proton levels are continuing to decay and are presently at
approximately 5 pfu at greater than 10 MeV.

     Solar Region 6659 continues to exhibit a fairly potent configuration and
could still yield some isolated major flares, although the risk for major
flaring and possible proton flaring is diminishing as it nears the western
limb.  This region is no longer in a sensitive location for producing high
terrestrial impacts.  The other regions visible on the solar surface are not
capable of producing major flare activity.


The following alerts and/or warnings have been CANCELLED:

   - LOW LATITUDE AURORAL ACTIVITY WARNING
   - POTENTIAL GEOMAGNETIC STORM WARNING
   - MAJOR GEOMAGNETIC STORM ALERT
   - SATELLITE PROTON EVENT ALERT
   - POLAR CAP ABSORPTION EVENT ALERT


The following warnings remain IN PROGRESS:

   - POTENTIAL MAJOR SOLAR FLARE WARNING (PROTON ~ 25%)
   - POTENTIAL SATELLITE PROTON EVENT WARNING
   - POTENTIAL POLAR CAP ABSORPTION EVENT WARNING


                       /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

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

Date: 14 Jun 91 18:33:09 GMT
From: udecc.engr.udayton.edu!blackbird.afit.af.mil![e-mail]  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial BBS, [phone], and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data
bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

STS 40
1 21399U 91 40  A 91163.12508770  .01258176  00000-0  24450-2 0   233
2 21399  39.0061 289.6558 0008945  60.8652 299.6354 15.96805156  1040
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
[e-mail]          Air Force Institute of Technology

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

Date: 11 Jun 91 00:24:29 GMT
From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink![e-mail]  (Nick Janow)
Subject: Japanese Space Development Direction

No, I don't mean "up".  :-)

In IEEE Spectrum, Dec 90, there's an article about robotics.  Here's one quote
that seems pertinent to the present discussion:

"Looking far into the future, the Japanese feel that automation in space will
be a huge enterprise.  Thus they show a willingness to invest in long-term
space robotics to develop a vast technological base from terrestrial work."

I think the Japanese direction is determined by economic and political
foresight, while the US direction appears (at least to me) to be myopic and
determined by conflicting political self-interests.
--

[e-mail]

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

Date: 14 Jun 91 22:36:48 GMT
From: ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: The economics of flooding a market

In article <[e-mail]> G E Derylo writes:


[mining platinum at greatly increased volume and reduced per-unit costs: what
revenues can be expected?]

>    I'm no economist, but wouldn't the introduction of that much gold and
>platinum into the market *drastically* decrease its value, making this a
>questionable financial venture?

It would decrease the price per unit, but not necessarily the overall revenues.
Several things to consider:

* While there remains only one platinum-group venture at the reduced per unit
  costs, the company can sell as much or little metal as it likes, keeping
  the price at or near previous supply market prices.  This is why, in previous
  centuries, companies were given temporary monopolies, called "patents", when
  undertaking new ventures of colonization.  A patent reduces the risk of competitors
  with the same cost-reducing capability, increasing the incentive for investment
  in such a venture.  Note that the modern notion of patents being temporary
  monopolies for inventions was derived from the older, broader patent system used
  for colonization.

* Over the long term, volume of a commodity usually (but not always)
  increases faster than its price decreases.  For example, there are greater
  revenues from corn, wheat, iron, oil etc. in our economy today even though
  the per unit prices of these are lower than in previous centuries.  For platinum,
  this will probably also be true, since it is widely used in oil refining,
  environmental cleanup technology, and other important industrial applications.
  A drop in price could increase demand by a much larger factor.

* But nobody knows for sure until they try it.  :-)

When planning this venture (platinum-group mining at very high volume and very low per
unit cost), a reasonable, but by no means certain, assumption is that the company
can eventually generate annual revenue equal to the current annual revenues for
platinum production, $3.4 billion.   A more detailed market analysis would include
data on the cost of production at all current major mines.  Studies determine new
uses for platinum-group metals at $200/oz., $100/oz., $50/oz., etc. would also be
valuable.  There are probably more accurate models of market penetration out there,
which I'm eager to hear about.


--
Nick Szabo            [e-mail]
Embrace Change...  Keep the Values...  Hold Dear the Laughter...
These views are my own, and do not represent any organization.

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #744
*******************