Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_0/v16no032.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 10KB

Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 05:10:00
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #032
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 10 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 032

Today's Topics:
            Cheap Mars Rocks (was Re: Moon Dust For Sale)
                         future space travel
           question on privately funded space colonization
                                 SEI
        Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity

    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: 10 Jan 93 04:50:51 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cheap Mars Rocks (was Re: Moon Dust For Sale)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 11
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Glen K Moore) writes:
>>... I think I'll wait until a *large* lunar meteorite drops down
>>somwhere...
>
>Why not go out and buy a tektite? Even cheaper!

Because tektites probably aren't of lunar origin.  That was a pre-Apollo
theory.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 10 Jan 93 07:30:07 GMT
From: Nick Janow <[e-mail]>
Subject: future space travel
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (rabjab) writes:

> If they don't find water on the moon, I have a hard time believing that
> there will ever be large colonies there.

Why not?  there's plenty of water only a small delta-v away (asteroids, Mars'
moons, etc).

> Mars will be the only real place for a large colony, but then again, if
> there isn't anything there that's very interesting (like life or fossils) I
> can't see large colonies being placed up there.

Who needs a gravity well (otherwise known as planet)?  The entire solar
system could be colonized.  All you really need is raw materials and energy,
and those exist in convenient packages out in the solar system.

Do you have to have a planet under you just because your parents did?  Let
your imagination roam...  :)


--

[e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Jan 93 05:34:23 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: question on privately funded space colonization
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>...Your complaint is that US citizens can't circumvent US safety
>regulations by going overseas. I don't see why they can't launch and also
>conform to the safety regulations.

John, are you under the impression that safety is the only reason why the
US government can refuse permission for a launch?  Would that it were so.
If you want to fly a plane, that's more or less true.  But if you want to
launch a rocket, they can refuse permission because it is "not in the
national interest", they don't have to explain, and there is no appeal.
For example, for some years it was government policy that any private
remote-sensing satellite with ground resolution better than 30m would
be denied launch permission.

One of the more interesting provisions of the late, lamented Commercial
Space Incentive Act was a clause exempting launches carried out under it
from DOT regulation *except* for safety.

>... And consider human rights issues - suppose
>US citizens set up a colony on the moon, and decide to revive the
>institution of slavery - would you say the US would have no legitimate
>interest in the matter?

Suppose we stack the deck the other way.  US citizens set up a lunar
colony.  The US then gets involved in a nasty little war in a country
named, say, Nam Viet, and reinstates the draft.  Some of the residents
of the lunar colony are draft-age, and they are ordered to report to
an induction center.  They refuse, noting that slavery was abolished
in the US over a century ago, and that the constitutional amendment
which did it made no exception for the US Army.  The colony's government
backs them, noting that the Neocommunist revolutionary movement in
Nam Viet presents no threat to the colony.  Does the US have a legitimate
interest in *this* matter?

The war gets worse.  Some of the colony residents were formerly members
of the Neocommunist party.  The US government decides that having such
people on the Moon is a security risk, and orders them returned to Earth.
The colony government refuses.  Does the US have a legitimate interest
in *this* matter?

The war becomes increasingly brutal.  A visiting US astronaut, who happens
to be a USAF officer, declares his opposition to the tactics being used
(on the grounds that they are illegal) and requests political asylum in
the colony.  The colony grants it.  The US demands his return for trial.
Does the US have a legitimate interest in *this* matter?  (Note, regarding
John's comments about "governments that ignore international laws and
agreements", that the colony is doing just that!  The Outer Space Treaty
requires return of astronauts, and makes no provision for political
asylum.)
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 00:48:17 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: SEI

-From: [e-mail] (Nick Szabo)
-Subject: Re: SEI
-Date: 7 Jan 93 09:41:19 GMT

[e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:

->...SEI didn't sell, largely because of the projected
->horrendous cost (~$400 billion, if I recall correctly). [liability
->to any mission related to SEI, "camel's nose under tent" effect]

-SEI was the ultimate manifestation of the old NASA/Von Braun style
-of space development, sold honestly.  We're going to tell you today
-just how we're going to develop space, out into the middle of the next
-century.  We've got all the Next Logical Steps planned out, just so.
-Of course there won't be any technological advance before 2030 that
-would make our plans obsolete.  Of course we won't discover anything on
-the asteroids that would make them better targets than the Moon
-or Mars, or on the comets, or on Jupiter, or anywhere else in
-space; obviously the Moon and Mars are the Next Logical Steps
-and that's that.  Obviously the commercial and military satellites
-are just trivial child's play against our inspiring and ambitious
-Plan.  Obviously Man In Space is central, and robot probes will play
-only a peripheral role, and no technoligical advance can change that.
-This is a Long Term Plan, so don't expect any sort of applications
-or payback, except of course there will be Spinoffs.

That was very well argued - clearly, there are problems with promoting
such a technology-dependent program in such an inflexible manner, and in
failing to more clearly define intermediate benefits and the value of
corollary activities (such as unmanned space exploration and resource
exploitation). Any idea where SEI as a political entity originated?
I get the impression that it came from outside the top NASA administration
of the time.

There's another interesting point - many people who post to sci.space on the
topic of space policy say that the main need is for a single coherent plan
that covers all space activity. But SEI shows the pitfalls of such an
approach. I'm inclined to believe there should be several approaches,
which are fairly non-overlapping in their scope, but which cooperate
with one another. Such an approach might provide greater flexibility
to deal with new developments. Care must still be taken to balance
long-term goals and near-term plans - part of current activity should
be directed toward immediate interests, and part should be preparation
for future activities. The latter should not be so solid that they
can't be readily changed as new information and technology is acquired.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Jan 93 05:57:56 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:

>    A) Alan will fight for Freedom and favor it over renting space
>       on Mir, yet Freedom has yet to be launched. Mir Exists.

Hmmm... I don't think anybody has ever accused me of fighting for
Freedom. Now I do think we should build ISF and other smaller, cheaper
facilities. Some crewed and others not. In the meantime I do indeed
support flying experiments on Mir.

I do this so that we can execute more experiments in a cost effective
manner. That way we can develop the materials and processes wich will
make space pay off and free space development from the whims of
Government.

>    B) Alan will fight to shut down the 4 Shuttles, a multibillion
>       dollar program ) and replace them with a
>       Soyuz sitting on a U.S. booster. Which hasn't been launched, but
>         with a few hand-waving tricks, manages to respark the whole
>       U.S. aerospace industry.

Lower cost attracts more demand. Compare the number of four function
calculators sold in 72 for $150 with the number sold today for $1.95.

Yes I think that lowering costs will respark the industry.

     Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------105 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 032
------------------------------