Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_2/v15no227.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 28KB

Date: Mon, 21 Sep 92 05:04:38
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #227
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 21 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 227

Today's Topics:
           Clinton's platform on the space program (2 msgs)
                       Ethics of Terra-forming
                  help required for schools project
                 How does population relate to space?
              Ion for Pluto Direct was Re: Pluto Direct
                              Population
        Space Platforms (political, not physical : -) (2 msgs)
  Using Electric Rockets for Science (was Re: Ion for Pluto Direct)

    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: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 03:37:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Clinton's platform on the space program
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

Lines: 228
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]> writes...
>
>
>      CLINTON/GORE ON AMERICA'S SPACE PROGRAM
>
>
>
>The end of the Cold War offers new opportunities
>and new challenges for our civilian space program.
>In recent years the program has lacked vision and
>leadership.  Because the Reagan and Bush
>administrations have failed to establish priorities
>and to match program needs with available
>resources, the National Aeronautics and Space
>Administration (NASA) has been saddled with more
>missions than it can successfully accomplish.

Read: Space station and lunar Mars are not priorities and no we will not fund
them. (except maybe space station 133,000 jobs!)

>Bill Clinton and Al Gore support a strong U.S.
>civilian space program -- for its scientific value,
>its economic and environmental benefits, its role
>in building new partnerships with other countries,
>and its inspiration of our nations youth.  A
>Clinton/Gore Administration space program will seek
>to meet the needs of the United States and other
>nations while moving toward our long-term space
>objectives, including human exploration of the
>solar system.  A Clinton/Gore space program will
>also promote the development of new technologies,
>create new jobs for our highly-skilled former
>defense workers, and increase our understanding of
>the planet and its delicate environmental balance.

Funny that the Democratic Recission effort has killed almost all of the
technology development programs, especially the faster cheaper better ones
that SDIO has been doing. (SSTO, NASP etc....)
Notice also the emphasis on "civilian" By by DCX and Clementine and all of the
new thruster technology that the Air Force has developed for the LEAP program.


>Move beyond the Cold War
>
>*    Restore the historical funding equilibrium
>     between NASA and the Defense Departments space
>     program. The Reagan and Bush Administrations
>     spent more on defense space initiatives than
>     on civilian space projects.

Read cut military space as much as they can get away with.


>*    Achieve greater cooperation in space with our
>     traditional allies in Europe and Japan, as
>     well as with Russia.  Greater U.S.-Russian
>     cooperation in space will benefit both
>     countries, combining the vast knowledge and
>     resources both countries have gathered since
>     the launch of Sputnik in 1957.

Read: Try to get the Russians to pay for part of our program.  This was a code
phrase used very often at the World Space Congress for programs about to be cut.
What more could we do with the Russians in the near term that would not cost
jobs that ol slick willie is promising?


>Improve the American economy through space
>
>*    Direct NASA to give high priority to continued
>     improvement of the American civil aircraft
>     industry, which faces increasing international
>     competition.  NASA research can play an
>     important role in developing less polluting,
>     more fuel efficient, and quieter aircraft.

Call the democracts cutting NASP helping?


>*    Work to improve our space industries
>     competitiveness.  Well direct NASA to develop
>     cutting-edge rocket and satellite
>     technologies.  We will also develop a new,
>     cost effective, and reliable launch system to
>     maximize scientific and commercial payloads.

How can they do this when they are not promising more money?


>Link NASA and the environment
>
>*    Support NASA efforts -- like Mission to Planet
>     Earth -- to improve our understanding of the
>     global environment.

Push the Gore Club of Rome lie.


>*    Call on NASA to develop smaller, more focused
>     missions which address pressing environmental
>     concerns.

Launch seventy ozone sniffers and no planetary missions.

>
>Strengthen NASA and education
>
>*    Direct NASA to expand educational programs
>     that improve American performance in math and
>     science. Space education can help maintain our
>     technological edge and improve our
>     competitiveness.

It can't if you are laying off hundreds of thousands of engineers with your
military and space cuts.  Who wants to learn about a dead end job? Maybe we
could all become lawyers and leach off of the misery of the public.

>*    Direct NASA to expand the outreach of its
>     educational efforts beyond its five field
>     centers, so that millions more people can
>     learn about space.

Where's the beef? No bucks no Buck Rogers.


>*    Maintain the Space Shuttles integral role in
>     our civilian space program.  The Shuttle is
>     extremely complex and will always be expensive
>     and difficult to operate.  But we must take
>     full advantage of its unique capabilities.

More double talk. Also means no development of NLS or follow ons to shuttle.


>*    Support completion of  Space Station Freedom,
>     basing its development on the twin principles
>     of greater cooperation and burden sharing with
>     our allies. By organizing effectively on this
>     project, we can pave the way for future joint
>     international ventures, both in space and on
>     Earth.
>

Try to make the Europeans and Japanese pay more for less which they will of
course not do.



>Encourage planetary exploration through the best
>space science
>
>*    Stress efforts to learn about other planets.
>     These improve our understanding of our own
>     world and stimulate advances in computers,
>     sensors, image processing and communications.

Where is the money slick ol boy?


>*    Fully utilize robotic missions to learn more
>     about the universe.

? Earlier in this wonderful statment you were pushing human exploration.
Fund what new missions?

>*    Although we cannot yet commit major resources
>     to human planetary exploration, this dream
>     should be among the considerations that guide
>     our science and engineering.  Because the
>     entire world will share the benefits of human
>     planetary explorations, the costs for any such
>     projects should be borne by other nations as
>     well as the United States.

Ah the Space Exploration Initiative has been downgraded from a goal to a dream.
Also try to get the other nations to pay for our programs which will not happen

>The Record
>
>*    Senator Al Gore chairs the Senate Subcommittee
>     on Science, Technology, and Space, which has
>     primary responsibility for NASA and plays a
>     key role in efforts to strengthen and
>     revitalize America's space program.

Uh huh yea right. Look at his record. Gore don't care diddly about the space
program except for EOS


>*    Strongly favors a balanced manned and unmanned
>     space program. Supports completion of Space
>     Station Freedom and enhancements to the fleet
>     of Space Shuttles to ensure safety and
>     reliability.
>
>*    Has championed Mission to Planet Earth, an
>     initiative designed to gather comprehensive
>     information on the Earth's changing
>     environment. He strongly supports  efforts to
>     channel information on the Earth's environment
>     to teachers and school children.
>
>*    Strongly supports efforts to strengthen our
>     leadership in aviation.
>
>*    Has tried to use space exploration as a bridge
>     to international cooperation, not competition.
>     Pushed the administration to investigate the
>     possibilities for integrating surviving
>     elements of the Soviet space program into the
>     U.S. program in ways beneficial to America and
>     its aerospace workers.

Where has he done this?

>*    Following the Challenger disaster, Senator
>     Gore uncovered quality assurance deficiencies
>     at NASA, gaining a greater commitment to
>     quality assurance and accountability at NASA.
>
Gimme a break. He is an engineer? No the loss of seven lives shook NASA so bad
that the accountability he speaks of has increased the paperwork by many fold
and help lead to errors such as on TSS and the extra bolts "just in case"

I wish Henry would go at this again. He does a much better job.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 21 Sep 1992 05:00:18 GMT
From: Steve Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton's platform on the space program
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]> writes...
>>      CLINTON/GORE ON AMERICA'S SPACE PROGRAM

Please, please, use the followup line and take this discussion out of
SCI.space and SCI.astro.        Thank you.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Steve Allen          | That was the equation!         |   [e-mail]
UCO/Lick Observatory | Existence!...Survival must     | If the UC were opining,
Santa Cruz, CA 95064 | cancel out programming! -- Ruk | it wouldn't tell me.

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

Date: 21 Sep 92 06:55:24 GMT
From: Bertil Jonell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics of Terra-forming
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Knapp) writes:
>I give up.

  ?

  Is it easier to understand for you if I give you the short form of what
I'm saying (quote from Thomas H. Kunich in another article here):

"One has to wonder about people who would believe that man is the
controlling interest of the planet."

>David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."
"This is the famous Hasan B Mutlu-trigger, insert it in your .sig file today!"

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

Date: 21 Sep 92 18:23:11 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: help required for schools project
Newsgroups: sci.space

        As part of a major project in Curriculum Issues and Technology
(Graduate Diploma in Computer Education) at Deakin University- Rusden Campus,
we are hoping to establish an E-mail directory of people willing to provide
answers and information to specific questions from students via E-mail. The age
group of the students will be ranging from senior primary through secondary.
        Respondents are asked to be from Australia only and from
basically 4 major areas:-
        1. lndustry - stock exchange, manufacturing, accounting, law,
        architecture, medical, textiles, photography, oil companies etc
        2. Government Departments - energy and conservation,
manufacturing, education, law and order, primary, treasury, etc.
        3. Academia - academic experts within tertiary institutions
        4. Interested individuals - people who have a particular
interest or a degree of expertise in areas as diverse as astrology, alternative
medicines, sports identities and statistics, music and fashion trends
generally, etc.

        We are hoping to set up this system to provide students with an
alternative source of information, via the use of computers, which they will
find more stimulating and interesting to use compared to traditional sources of
informations, such as libraries.

        In your replies, could you please indicate wiht a short
synopsis (approximately 5 lines) what exactly it is you would be able or
prepared to contribute to this project.  Anticipating that interest will be
forthcoming, any queries regarding this project will be promptly answered to
clarify the aims and intentions of the project.

        Replies to the following address:  [e-mail]

        This invitation to set up this system has been drafted on
behalf of our group by Ken Verbyla and Roger Morgan.
--
+=======================================================================+
|  Paul D. Chandler   <[e-mail]>  {college account} |
|                     <[e-mail]>           {FidoNet gateway} |
|                      sysop of 3:633/155@fidonet     {SECAP BBS}       |
|                                                                       |
|  Department of Curriculum and Teaching                                |
|  Deakin University  (Rusden Campus)                                   |
|  662 Blackburn Rd                                                     |
|  Clayton  3168                         Phone: [phone]           |
|  Melbourne  Victoria,                    FAX: [phone]           |
|  AUSTRALIA                                                            |
+=======================================================================+

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

Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 06:47:31 GMT
From: David Knapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: How does population relate to space?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1992Sep18.194039.27789@kbsw1> [e-mail] (Chris Kostanick 806 1044) writes:
>If you truly oppose population increase in the United States
>you should have a vasectomy. Have you had one?
>
>Chris Kostanick


Now here is a *stellar* example of a logical extreme.

You're right. Perhaps if I'm against overpoplation, I should shoot everyone
too. Makes sense.



--
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 07:46:45 GMT
From: Dave Tholen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ion for Pluto Direct was Re: Pluto Direct
Newsgroups: sci.space

Greg Macrae writes:

> The study I am refering to assumed about 10 metric tons for the
> interplanetary stage.

   [rest of interesting posting deleted]

Lots of interesting information, but one very important, extremely crucial
item was missing:  cost, including launch.  From the content of your
posting, it sounds like a mission well over the billion dollar level.
Just a launch vehicle to get 10 metric tons into the interplanetary stage
is going to run more than the total mission costs, including launch,
currently envisioned.  This doesn't enable a Pluto mission; it kills it.

And I was confused by your mention of "round trip".  What was this mission
concept, a sample return of some sort?

And from the way I read it, with chemical propulsion unable to do the same
job within 20 years, it sounds like the deck was stacked against chemical
by choosing conditions favorable to ion, like the maximum practical mass of
10 metric tons.  My car wouldn't do a very good job of hauling freight;
maybe I should go out and buy a Mack truck to enable my daily commute to
work!

But seriously, please keep in mind that I'm not against the development of
ion drive technology.  Our primary goal is to get a spacecraft to Pluto
while conditions for the study of the planet are most favorable.  Fiscal
realities MUST be considered, or else we're just asking for another CRAF.
If ion can be shown to do the job "faster, cheaper, smarter", I'll be the
first to endorse the concept.  Our goal is the science, not the technology.
With the budget crunch, we must be satisfied with good enough, even though
we know that some technology can make things better.

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

Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 06:45:36 GMT
From: David Knapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Population
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In <[e-mail]> SCOTT I CHASE writes:
>>You are perhaps the only person on the planet who would identify concern
>>with the environment with either self-hate or racism.
>  Not the only person. A common theme that runs through all environmental
>debate is that every other species is more important than Man.

Perhaps you've been reading literature the rest of us haven't. I've never
seen such a thing.

>ie. It is OK to completely ruin some peoples lives, provided you are
>saving another species. (I might also point out here, that I have
>_never_ heard an environmentalist offer to contribute out of their
>own pocket to assist communities whose livelihoods they intend to
>destroy)

Do you think it is always appropriate to always give other species the
short end of the stick if it inconveniences man? How about the other way
around? I've never heard anybody favor either way.

What kind of stuff are you reading?

>Environmentalists tend to regard Man as
>seperate from nature, as if we were some alien interlopers, rather
>than an integral part. Even their choice of language shows this.

Hmm, I'm an environmentalist and that's not how I regard man. I'd say
you were wrong.

>   Yes I regard caring for the environment as simple self interest
>as well.

If you find it necessary to frame things as 'how does it affect *me*?', then
there you go.

> It can be overdone however.

Well that's true of *every* subject, isn't it.

> The environment is going to
>change no matter what.

Hmm, You and I might have a different idea of how the environment would change
with or without man. I'd say he's having a rather profound effect.

> Trying to take a snapshot of a planet's history
>at one point in time and saying 'This is Nature, let's keep it like
>this forever' is, at best, pointless. Species come and go, perhaps
>history will say that we took ourselves too seriously :-)

You're right. Species do come and go. Which species,so far, has been responsible
for the most species 'going'?

As an evnironmentalist, I don't personally favor working to keep everything the
same as it is. Again, you are reading or seeing things that I haven't. I
do not favor, however, doing everything in the interest of man alone.




--
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Sep 92 06:59:52 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Platforms (political, not physical : -)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>why would the Cubans recognise would a US Libertarian society own any part
>of the radio spectrum if they abbrogated the existing governmental
>treaties?

I may have created a misunderstanding while stating LP platform positions
in my own words from memory.  The platform calls for the abolition of
treaties that prevent private enterprise and homesteading (privately
negotiated initial allocation) of various frontier resources.  This
could best be done through an orderly process of diplomacy and renegotiation
of these treaties, not through preemptory action, and the LP
platform does not say that such treaties would be abbrogated by a
Libertarian-led U.S.

Here is the actual quote from the platform:

Unowned Resources

"We oppose recognition of fiat claims by national governments or
international bodies to unclaimed territory.  Individuals have
the right to homestead unowned resources, both within the jurisdiction
of national governments and within such unclaimed territory as the
ocean, Antartica, and the volumes of outer space.  We urge the
development of objective international standards for recognizing
homestead claims to private ownership of such forms of property
as transportation lanes, broadcast bands, mineral rights, fishing
rights, and ocean farming rights.  All laws, treaties, and international
agreements that would prevent or restrict homesteading of unowned
resources should be abolished.  We specifically hail the U.S. refusal
to accept the proposed Law of the Sea Treaty because the treaty
excluded private property principles, and we oppose any future
ratification."



--
[e-mail]        Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian

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

Date: 21 Sep 92 07:56:57 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Platforms (political, not physical : -)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou

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

[Very good explanation of Libertarian property rights program, to which
I'll just add a few comments.]

>If there is no original
>owner from which to buy rights, then laws must be written which
>define such property rights. There are suggestions of doing this for
>pollution certificates, as an example.

It's more than a suggestion; there is a trial program underway in the U.S.
where pollution certificates are being issued and traded daily on the
Chicago Board of Exchange, allowing freedom of choice and efficient
allocation in the pollution control industry.  This system might be
usefully extended to ozone-damaging and greenhouse gases, making polluters
pay for damage caused instead of politically motivated, overly disruptive,
unilateral bans on damaging substances.  Another idea, from the
libertarian Foresight Institute, called "idea futures" would allow
investors to hedge their investments in energy production, pollution
control, etc. equipment against expected future levels of
such pollutants, or other expected future measurements, just as current
futures markets allow hedging against expected future price levels.
Currently such systems are outlawed due to anti-libertarian prejudice
against "gambling".

>If a resource is currently in use, you simply define the current
>users as having property rights over the resources they are using.

Libertarians might build upon a long common-law tradition where
repeated use of a resource gives a user rights to that resource.
In some cases this even applies to private property: if a land owner
allows people to cut across his lawn daily for several years,
he can't necessarily close off the trail later; even though
it's on his property, his consent to repeated use has
given short-cutters the right to use the path.  Where unowned
resources are concerned the issue is simpler, though the scope
of usage has to be defined.  In Libertaria this would typically
be done by private negotiation or mediation, as happened in the
early days of radio before the FCC.  The role of government is
to set a minimal set of standards and negogiate them internatially,
not to undertake the allocation of resources.

>If the resources has been government owned, you can follow one of the
>Eastern European models.

The issue of stock ownership to the general public is attractive,
especially if it can be done via computer with low transaction
cost.  There's plenty in the new Eastern Bloc that we don't want
to emulate, as well, such as the decontrol of prices that preceeded
privatization of collectives in Russia.  Either way, it's a
great laboratory to learn from.

>If it is virgin, you need a legal framework. This probably will be,
>but need not be, governmental.

Government is needed as a transitional creator of property rights
and to negogiate international treaties, especially with
anti-libertarian nasties like Cuba that Stein likes to bring up.  :-)

>As I said, these issues are identical to those of lunar homesteading.
>Can a mining interest go out and claim 100x100km at random? Or should
>the Bennet/Drexler approach of randomly assigning hexagons to a set
>of land consortiums with stock ownership vested in every human then
>living be used?

The "random" certainly is not valid; if the company is using it for
mining they should be able to claim it, otherwise not.  The latter
scheme sounds pretty good, since it allows all such allocations
henceforth to be negotiated in the market.   I suggest the latter
where "usage" is too difficult to define.  In the case of Clarke orbit,
there is a clear definition of "usage", but the actual size of the
orbital slots needed for a particular use can be a gray area, and
is subject to technological improvement.  This suggests,
and free-market economists concur, that initial allocations aren't
very important as long as the properties can thenceforth be freely
traded with minimal transaction costs.  (In fact there was a Nobel
Prize for this conclusion, derived using the example of railroad's
spark-spitting trains vs. farmer's flammable wheat, who should pay
for spark-suppresion.  Alas, I can't recall the name of the esteemed
guru).


--
[e-mail]        Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian

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

Date: 21 Sep 92 08:27:09 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Using Electric Rockets for Science (was Re: Ion for Pluto Direct)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Tholen) writes:
[explaining to Phil Fraering why NASA is considering a Yugo mission,
not a Cadillac mission, to Pluto]
>
> And the real reason ought to be
> obvious:  money, money, money.  If you think enough folks out there are
> willing to contribute money out of their pockets to finance a better Pluto
> mission,

Hey, Dave, *I'd* be willing... but you won't squeeze much out of me.
Previous experience (Viking fund, Lunar Prospector) suggests you can't
get many megabucks this way.  I guess it's better to rely on what NASA
can afford for a Pluto probe.

> maybe we should set up something like the Planetary Society or
> the National Space Society and try to raise enough money to add those
> extra instruments, or fund the development of an appropriate ion drive
> (note that the station-keeping ion drives are not appropriate for this
> mission).

The right thing is for NASA, or ESA, to get serious on proving
electric propulsion (I mean for interplanetary purposes) by flying a
serious mission that employs it... perhaps an asteroid rendezvous or
multiple flyby.  But such missions can *also* be flown with chemical
propulsion, which usually wins when the design is finished.  Maybe we
need a new NASA flight program where technology development is first
priority,  with science along for the ride?  This seems to be what
SDIO is doing with Clementine.  In the long run, science would benefit
greatly, because such missions would add more items to the "shelf"
people always like to get their hardware from.

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 227
------------------------------