Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_2/v16no294.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 39KB

Date: Tue,  9 Mar 93 15:32:31
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #294
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue,  9 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 294

Today's Topics:
                 ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission
                 Delta Clipper X Status as of 26-Feb
                        Huygens will float....
                          mystery satellite?
                   Query on sun synchronous orbits
                        SLAR image processing
                          Will Huygens Float
                            Without a Plan

    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: 8 Mar 93 18:43:05 -0600
From: [e-mail]
Subject: ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission
Newsgroups: sci.space

                      ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission

               The two proposed NASA comet rendezvous and sample return
          missions are expected to cost BILLIONS of dollars, take
          nearly 20 years from now to complete, and could FAIL in
          DOZENS of ways!

               Therefore, I believe that NASA, the United States, and
          the project scientists and engineers, should all SWALLOW
          THEIR PRIDE and ask the Russians for help.  The Russians have
          some equipment that could complete a MANNED comet rendezvous
          and sample return mission, ROUND TRIP, in a matter of only a
          couple of MONTHS!  In spite of their economic and political
          problems, they are FAR AHEAD in space, militarily and
          scientifically.

               Most of the following information came from the late Dr.
          Peter David Beter, a well respected Washington, DC attorney,
          Doctor of Jurisprudence, and expert and consultant in
          international law, finance, and intelligence, who received
          most of his information from many associates in the CIA and
          other intelligence groups of other countries who disapproved
          of many of the things happening or being planned behind the
          scenes.  [See especially the 2-7-80, 5-14-81, 5-21-81, 5-27-
          82, and 10-14-82 back-issues of WISCONSIN REPORT newspaper,
          P.O. Box 45, Brookfield, WI  53005.]

               The Russians have spacecraft called "COSMOSPHERES",
          which were originally built and used for "Star Wars" defense.
          They are spherical in shape, INvisible to radar beyond about
          50 miles away, atomic-powered [possibly Migma fUsion],
          electro-gravitic (can hover against gravity), and equipped
          with "Psycho-energetic Range Finding" (PRF) which tunes-in to
          the actual atomic signature of an object or target.

               The 3rd-generation JUMBO Cosmospheres occupy more volume
          than the Hindenburg blimp, and are ELECTRO-MAGNETICALLY
          PROPELLED (can accelerate continuously and rapidly, and make
          it to Saturn in three WEEKS!).  [Many of them are armed with
          charged-particle beam weapons, neutron beam weapons, and/or
          microwave brain-scrambling equipment!]

               I would not be surprised if the Russians have already
          COMPLETED a comet rendezvous and sample return mission and
          have data and samples to share.



          AIR BOOMS, 1977-78

               I wish to add that the 1st-generation COSMOSPHERES were
          deployed beginning in the Fall of 1977.  In late 1977 and
          early 1978, there was a strange rash of giant AIR BOOMS along
          the East Coast of the U.S and elsewhere.  The AIR BOOMS were
          never satifactorily explained, by either the government or
          news media.  They could NOT be positively identified with any
          particular SST or other aircraft, and indeed were much louder
          than aircraft sonic booms.

               The giant AIR BOOMS were actually caused by Russia
          COSMOSPHERES firing CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAMS down into the
          atmosphere in a DE-focused mode (spread out) for the purpose
          of announcing their presence to the WAR-MONGERS in the U.S.
          Pentagon.

               The 3rd-generation JUMBO COSMOSPHERES were first
          deployed in April 1981, in parallel with the first U.S. Space
          Shuttle Mission.  They significantly INTERFERED with that
          mission, in ways which were successfully COVERED-UP by NASA
          using techniques similar to those shown in the movie
          "Capricorn I".



          CREDIBILITY of Dr. Beter

               I wish to give some additional information supporting
          Dr. Beter's credibility, and that of his informers.

               Dr. Beter predicted the bombing of the Marines in Beirut
          A FULL YEAR BEFORE IT HAPPENED.  He warned that the U.S.
          Pentagon and the Israeli Mossad were CONSPIRING to
          DELIBERATELY ARRANGE IT in order to try to get Americans
          angry at the Arabs.  (It was NO SURPRISE to me when it
          happened!)

               Dr. Beter predicted the assassination of Anwar Saddat
          SIX DAYS BEFORE IT HAPPENED.

               Dr. Beter predicted what he called the "RETIREMENT" of
          Leonid Brezhnev ONE WEEK BEFORE Brezhnev "died".  [Note that
          the word "retirement" was used for the TERMINATION OF
          REPLICANTS in the 1982 movie "Blade Runner".]  He also
          predicted that Brezhnev would be quickly replaced with
          Andropov, which occurred ONLY THREE DAYS after the "death" of
          Brezhnev, to the SURPRISE of all government and media
          analysts.

               [I KNOW that we are all supposed to LAUGH at the word
          "conspiracy".  That is what the various government, military,
          political, media, banking, and corporate CONSPIRATORS have
          successfully PROGRAMMED most of us to do. ]



          ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION

               I indicated that the Russian 3rd-generation "JUMBO
          COSMOSPHERES" are ELECTRO-MAGNETICALLY PROPELLED.

               I heard of that concept long before 1981, in connection
          with UFO's and unorthodox inventors, but I never was able to
          find out how or why they work, or how they are constructed.

               I found a possible clue about why they might work on
          pages 112-113 of the book "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER", by
          the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson, which describes part of
          Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical
          universe.  I quote one paragraph:

               "As indicated in the preceding chapter, the development
          of the theory of the universe of motion arrives at a totally
          different concept of the nature of electrical resistance.
          The electrons, we find, are derived from the environment.  It
          was brought out in Volume I [Larson's book "NOTHING BUT
          MOTION"] that there are physical processes in operation which
          produce electrons in substantial quantities, and that,
          although the motions that constitute these electrons are, in
          many cases, absorbed by atomic structures, the opportunities
          for utilizing this type of motion in such structures are
          limited.  It follows that there is always a large excess of
          free electrons in the material sector [material half] of the
          universe, most of which are uncharged.  In this uncharged
          state the electrons cannot move with respect to extension
          space, because they are inherently rotating units of space,
          and the relation of space to space is not motion.  In open
          space, therefore, each uncharged electron remains permanently
          in the same location with respect to the natural reference
          system, in the manner of a photon.  In the context of the
          stationary spatial reference system the uncharged electron,
          like the photon, is carried outward at the speed of light by
          the progression of the natural reference system.  All
          material aggregates are thus exposed to a flux of electrons
          similar to the continual bombardment by photons of radiation.
          Meanwhile there are other processes, to be discussed later,
          whereby electrons are returned to the environment.  The
          electron population of a material aggregate such as the earth
          therefore stabilizes at an equilibrium level."

               Note that in Larson's Theory, UNcharged electrons are
          also massLESS, and are basically photons of light of a
          particular frequency (above the "unit" frequency) spinning
          around one axis at a particular rate (below the "unit" rate).
          ("Unit velocity" is the speed of light, and there are
          vibrational and rotational equivalents to the speed of light,
          according to Larson's Theory.)  [I might have the "above" and
          "below" labels mixed up.]

               Larson is saying that outer space is filled with mass-
          LESS UN-charged electrons flying around at the speed of
          light!

               If this is true, then the ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION
          fields of the Russian JUMBO COSMOSPHERES might be interacting
          with these electrons, or other particles in space, perhaps
          GIVING them a charge (and mass) and shooting them toward the
          rear to achieve propulsion.  (In Larson's Theory, an
          electrical charge is a rotational vibration of a particular
          frequency (above the "unit" frequency) superimposed on the
          rotation of the particle.)

               The paragraph quoted above might also give a clue to
          confused meteorologists about how lightning is generated in
          clouds.


               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.


                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC


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

Date: 9 Mar 1993 12:45:51 GMT
From: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Delta Clipper X Status as of 26-Feb
Newsgroups: sci.space

I recently received the following short report on the status
of the DC-X vehicle/project from a friend who has been fortunate
enough to see some of this first hand. Just in case this info
hasn't already found its way to net, here's what I've got:

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

    This is a report of Delta Clipper 1/3 scale vehicle (DC-X)
    status as of Friday, 26 Feb 93.

    DC-X was almost completely built. MDA (McDonnell Douglas
    Aerospace) was putting the insulation on the graphite/epoxy
    aeroshell, built by Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites Company.
    The engines were being modified for installation. The avionics
    were complete and installed.

    DC-X flight and ground operations are controlled by 3 Silicon
    Graphics workstations. These computers are housed in a trailer,
    which enables easy movement from California to New Mexico.

    MDA expects to ship the DC-X to White Sands in late March 93,
    with an expected first launch date in May/June 93. After
    moving to White Sands, MDA will do a series of static tests
    first to ensure that all vehicle and ground systems are
    functioning properly before launch.

    The most serious concern is lack of funding for DC-Y (the
    orbital prototype) due to Space Defense Initiative Office's
    (SDIO) inablity to pursue the orbital vehicle at this time and
    space technology's overall uncertain status in the Clinton
    administration.

    I'll let you know if I learn anything else. DC-X is beautiful.
    Delta Clipper is our best hope for low cost, large (compared
    to the Orbital Sciences vehicle) payload access to space.

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

If this info is sufficiently unique, and there's enough interest
on the net, I'll try to get similar reports in the future. So let
me know if you're interested.

----Chris

Chris Johnson

Internet:   [e-mail]
UUCP:       {husc6|uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!chrisj
CompuServe: >INTERNET:[e-mail]
AppleLink:  [e-mail]@internet#

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

Date: 9 Mar 1993 06:35 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Huygens will float....
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jonathan Stone) writes...
>> [...] the probe
>>would float deep enough such that the refractive index sensor would
>>be fully immersed, but high enough so that the Descent Imager/Specral
>>radiometer is above the waterline.
>                         ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Is there is a generally-accepted planetary-science generic term
>analogous  to ``waterline'', but for liquids that aren't H20.
>Is ``waterline'' that term, and if not, what is it?    And do we
>already know enough about Titan's atmospheric composition and surface
>temperature to engineer a probe that will float in  all plausible
>Titanian surface liquids?   If not, what *will* Hugyens float in?
>Liquid ammonia??

It is anticipated that any liquid on Titan would be some mixture of
methane, ethane and nitrogen.  There will always be some slips in the
wording when dealing with foreign environments.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | It's kind of fun to do
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | the impossible.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | Walt Disney

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

Date: Mon, 08 Mar 93 17:06:55 CST
From: jim jaworski <[e-mail]>
Subject: mystery satellite?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Matt Bartley) writes:

>
> Last night (7 Mar. UTC) I was visually observing the Hubble Space
> Telescope.  I tracked it starting around 3:10 UTC and kept it in sight
> until it eclipsed around 3:15 UTC.
>
> While I was tracking it though, around 3:14 UTC I saw another bright
> satellite enter the field of view of my binoculars.  This was at about
> 35 degrees elevation and 150 degrees azimuth.  It headed toward the
> southeast sky and eclipsed about a minute later.
>
> My location is 33d 49' 1'' N
>               117d 48' 11'' W
>     (Orange, CA - not the location of this news site)
>
> Whatever it was, it isn't on any of the databases distributed on
> archive.afit.af.mil.  This is the 3rd time I've unexpectedly seen
> satellites when I've been looking for other ones.  Is there any way to
> determine what they are?  What kind of observation is needed to
> establish their orbit?

Are you using a satellite tracking program to confirm when HST (Hubble)
will pass over your location?  There is an excellent program that uses
Keplarian Data that is updated weekly on rec.radio.amateur.misc if you
have access to it.  The program is called PC-Track 2.14 and is available
on the Simtel 2.0 CD-ROM.

Recently while walking to the grocery store, I saw a bright star like
object in the night sky.  When I was on the way TO the store this
star-sized light was in the western sky, about 14 deg. elev.  A few hours
later, about 6 hours, I saw the same thing, only this time it was in the
eastern side of the sky.  Do you know what this could be?  Is it Hubble?
It's easy to describe because its the brightest star/satellite out there.

Jim

[e-mail]
The Inquiring Mind BBS, Winnipeg, Manitoba  204 488-1607

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 07:43:48 GMT
From: "Gregory N. Bond" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Query on sun synchronous orbits
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

   The Earth is not a perfect sphere, and this means that orbits around it
   are not simple Keplerian orbits.

Is this an artifact of the 'oblate-ness' (i.e. equatorial bulge) or
the non-uniform density (i.e. mascons)?

I suspect we would need to know a lot about the gravity field around a
body before we could compute a Sun-synch orbit.  This might mean
sending something like Mars Observer into such an orbit at Mars is
beyond our current data.  (Hmm, unless the Pioneer/Viking orbiters
told us what we need to know...  Which they probably would because
such information is useful science in its own right, yes?)

Can sun-sychnronous orbits have arbitary periods?  As a corollary, is
there such a thing as a geo-synch sun-synch orbit? (Sun-synch implies
1deg/day drift w.r.t. the fixed stars, but my 3d visualisation is not
up to this one!)

Greg.


--
Gregory Bond <[e-mail]> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
   Knox's 386 is slick.            Fox in Sox, on Knox's Box
   Knox's box is very quick.       Plays lots of LSL. He's sick!
(Apologies to John "Iron Bar" Mackin.)

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 17:07:49 GMT
From: Ramesh Warrier <[e-mail]>
Subject: SLAR image processing
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,news.newusers.questions,sci.space

I had earlier posed a query on SAR images in
news.newusers.questions.Now I wish to know about SLAR image processing
as I am working on both.SLAR refers to side looking airborne
radar.These images are of very poor quality and I am thinking of doing
some kind of restoration on them.Please give me details of
 publications referring to processing of SLAR images.


--
Ramesh.K.Warrier
e-mail:[e-mail]
Lab:Communication Lab ,IIT Bombay.

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

Date: 9 Mar 93 11:38:16 GMT
From: "R.D.Lorenz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Will Huygens Float
Newsgroups: sci.space

(just worked out how to submit articles)

Huygens will float, as Ron said.

The best information we have on the atmosphere near the surface is from
the Voyager 1 radio-occultation measurements and the IR spectrometer.

These suggest a pressure of 1.5 bar and 95K or so near the surface. The
atmosphere is mostly N2 (75-95%), Argon (up to 20% - nobody knows,
but probably rather less) and few % methane. These data are consistent
with a mixed methane-ethane-nitrogen. Pure methane is ruled out
(see Lunine et al, Science vol.222 16 December 1983 p.1229) - since
the near-surface humidity at the equator is less than 70%, as
determined brom the V1 RO data. Since ethane is a major product of
methane photolysis, ethane (which has a much lower vapour pressure)
could be present in large amounts in the ocean, and would be consistent
with our current data.

As for density, methane is about 450 kg/m3, Ethane 650, Nitrogen 800.
The physics of solutions works in our favour, floatation-wise. If the
ocean is ethane-rich, the density is about 600 kg - quite good for
teh flotation level ('waterline') If it is methane-rich, Nitrogen
dissolves quite well in the ocean, so the density again comes up to
about 600 kg/m3.  Note that almost all pure solids (including
ammonia, which is solid at Titan surface temperatures) will sink
in such an ocean - sorry : no icebergs.

For ocean composition see : F Raulin 'Organic Chemistry in the
Oceans of Titan' Advances in Space Research 7(5) p.71 (1987) and
Dubouloz et al 'Titan's Hypothesized Ocean Properties: the
influence of surface temperature and atmospheric composition uncertainties'
Icarus 82 p.81 (1989(
For Huygens on the surface see R Lorenz 'Huygens Probe: The Surface
Mission' Proceedings of the Conference on Titan, Toulouse, Sept 1991
published as ESA SP-338

Note that IR and radar data taken in the last couple of years suggests
that the surface of Titan is at least partly solid (ice?)  My own
little experiment measures impact forces to deduce the nature of the
surface when Huygens hits the deck.

Huygens is part of the joint NASA/ESA Cassini mission. It is built by
European industry, for the European Space Agency. It is NOT a JPL
project, although ESTEC engineers work closely with JPL for the
orbiter/probe interface and mission design.

Note also that we know so little about the surface of Titan that it is
impossible to design Huygens to be sure of surface survival (at least
for a finite cost anyway).

Ralph Lorenz
Unit for Space Sciences
University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

(The opinions expressed above are my own. Not necessarily those of ESA)

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

Date: 9 Mar 1993 00:16:15 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Without a Plan
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes...
|>
|>Dennis, does  anice job of hitting the problems with space research
|>on the nose.
|>
|>As i see it,  Research in space will only be fundable and viable
|>for the masses as an economic venture  or a political goal.
|>
|
|What about freedom? The moon is an awfully long way from D.C. I have been
|to lectures and had discussions with those who postulate a declaration of
|independence of the users of an advanced SSF from their earthbound bretheren.
|This paradigm was touched upon in Fallen Angels and to me is the most
|thought provoking portion of the book.
|

Of course,  taht would be like the residents of South Boston
declaring Independence, but also their welfare checks.

Independence also implies needing an economic reason for existence.

The american colonies were able toe ffectively protect their independence
because they had resources that were exportable to the
european nations.

No space station would be able to be tacitly independent until
it could survive an economic embargo from earth.  I would posit
that as a vital test of indepndence.


|>Columbus discovered the new world, while looking for a cheaper route
|>to asia for spice and gold.
|
|Columbus did what he did for Spain because Italian merchants already had
|a cheap way to get to the orient. The westward route never became profitable
|per se that the Spanish wanted, just one not dominated by the Italians.
|

Don't know about the italians,  but the turks and my ancestors held the
monopoly on the land route,  and the tax wasn't cheap.

Sure,  the western route wasn't profitable,  but  the other resources
found in the new world were even more profitable.
The INCA gold was enough to feed spain for over a century.
Heck the british took to routinely stealing spanish gold because that
was even more profitable.


|>
|>The american colonies were mostly funded as cheap places to store prisoners
|>or places for political refugees to hide out.
|>
|
|The "quote" storing of prisoners did not begin until decades after the initial
|settlements were begun in the Northeastern US.  Again, the primary reason
|for the colonies was to act as a counterweight to the Spanish colonies of
|South and Central America who were raking in billions to the treasuries of
|the Castile. Also it was not until after the stunning victory in 1588 of
|the British over the Spanish armada that began this policy. From a power
|perspective the Brits wanted to exploit the land since the Spanish had
|already exploited the nations of the rest of the Americas.
|

I was thinking about the north american colonies.  how ethno-centric of me.

The south american colonies were mostly run by the spanish as places
to grow tobacco and steal gold.  That was an even bigger incentive to
colonize then  as political asylums or prison colonies.

Of course, australia was started as a prison colony,  and that proved
to be self sustaining over the long term.


|
|>Certainly explorers like the french and lewis and clark went for
|>mapping or to seek exploitable resources.
|>
|
|animal resources of a virgin land. For all of their effort to blaze a trail,
|the Nortwest is still the least developed portion of North America.
|
Yeah,  but people live there.  and have an economic reason for
existence.

|>But polar explorers went mostly as symbols of national pride.

|>
|
|Yep
|

And despite all the exploration, there really are few people living
in the arctic regions.  most of the people live there because of
the extraction industries.

|>Certainly we as a nation are willing to put money into R&D  and science
|>missions.  The planetary science program  does get a fair bit of money
|>in real terms,  and the payoff from  astronomy work is unlikely
|>in the next century.
|
|What is the payoff from the planetary program for the poor black in South
|Central Los Angeles or anywhere else for that matter. Believe me I support
|planetary science but this engenders part of my whole point. What is the
|purpose of this effort? How does it postively effect life here. Knowledge
|simply for the sake of knowledge; is that enough to justify the program?
|Will mapping Charon and Pluto add to our knowledge of the global variance
|in temperature on earth? Should we even use utilitarian arguments to
|bolster the unmanned space program?  These are the types of questions that
|should be raised and answered by a philosopy that supports a purpose to
|what we are doing. Until we can do this we merely fight a tactical battle
|with other special interest groups that say that they can achieve the goals
|that the space program has relative to improving the lot of man for much less.
|

Well, on a lot of science,  sometimes you find something you weren't
intending to find.  My hope is that on pluto they find the
construction plans for the solar system :-)

But if we work on economical space access, we don't have to spend
as much on the science missions.

|>
|>However manned space to-date is a cadillac program.  it's been done for
|>reasons of Glory,  and not much economics.  Until manned space can
|>find an economic route, it will remain a lab bench process.
|
|But Pat the manned program in the 60's was the single beacon of hope in
|a world that seemed headed toward destruction both from the bomb without and
|the social upheaveals from within.  Within that context it is easy to see
|why the most popular program ever to be on television, with its next generation
|follow on is still on television 27 years after its debut. The manned
|space program has always had one overreaching idealistic metaphor; hope for
|a better future, hope for peace, and hope that together we can solve the
|

Yes,  but the economics then were Different.  In the 60's the US
was the richest country on earth.  We had technoligical and political
and economic confluences that could support a manned space program.

Certainly we always need hope,  but  WHen Lindbergh crossed the
ocean,  he put hope into people,  but Aviation  became useful
when the DC-3 made it cheap and reliable.

Is the hope any different for all the crowds in paris as it is
to the bosnians getting cargo drops in the snow?
hope comes in all forms.

We can't afford expensive hope,  we need economical hope.

|>
|>Genetic technologies were  lab bench ideas until the 70's  when it turned
|>out there was big money prospects in them.  Now Genetic technologies
|>are multi-billion dollar investments.
|>
|
|Agreed, so were communications satellites until the 1970's. The only reason
|that GEO comsats ever made it was because the government subsidized the
|launchers, the development costs of the satellites, (along with Hughes) and
|legitimized the whole system by setting up INTELSAT, thus assuring the
|common carriers AT&T ITT and others that this would not compete with
|existing CHEAPER transatlantic but would allow them to profit by giving them
|the keys to the store.

But money was spent on making  ComSats cheaper and more effective.

Compare the early Echo birds to Intelsat K  or Galaxy 6.  the
cost of satellitte time is now  down to50$/hour.

Intelsat has been a big monopoly,  but the domestic satellite
market has been wild west.

I've never opposed government spending on R&D for manned space, but it
should be pushed at dropping the base costs.

|
|>NASA has lost sight of it's mission.  it has been pursuing GLory at
|>the expense of Economy.   We don't need in the critical sense,
|>a manned lab,  what we need are low cost technologies to provide
|>that lab.  Then the market will provide the lab.
|>
|
|Fromt day one NASA's mission has been prestige building and showing forth
|the flag of America to the rest of the world. Since Apollo NASA has been
|adrift, even though when STS 1 was launched it was hearlded by the world
|as showing that America still had what it took to do great things. I agree

If we want to feel good we can hire the good year blimp to flash
feel-good messages for significantly less.  Watch "Lost in America"
sometime.  It will change your attitude.

What  you are doing, even though you don't realize it is saying
" We should spend 7 Billion Dollars/ year  showing our Penises
are bigger then every one elses".

SHowing the flag, is not putting money in anyones pocket.  Prestige
building doens't win anyone hte nobel prize.

THe japanese don't od any of this, and they are kicking our ass
economically.  Dennis, your dreams, and my visions for htis
country are doomed  if we do not focus our efforts onto
productive areas of investment.




|that we need low cost technology but those are merely words unless there is
|a purpose for having low cost technologies. What technologies are you talking
|about? The market has been singularly reluctant to bring new technologies

Markets are funny, sometimes irrational things,  but if it's cheap
enough, someone will buy it.



|to the market in the last decade. Even with the silicon revolution still in
|progress we have not made a single fundamental discovery outside of
|high temp superconductivity (which by the was was developed here at UAH by

Have you ever thought that maybe that is because of the dearth of
R&D spending by corporate america and the governemnt?

If we are pouting billions into glory,  that means we aren't writing
patents  or pushing silicon.

Have you noticed that all the american physics  nobel prize winners
this decade, came from IBM.  The company spending twice the R&D
money as their competitors.

IBM didn't want glory enroute to the physics lab, they just happened
to find it.

AT&T  used to win all the nobel prizes  because they used to pour
money down the drain at bell labs.  Bell labs was used to
hold their profits  back.




|a single graduate student under direction of faculty with no big budget) in
|the last 15 years. State direction in technolgy is a two edged sword. Only
|those technologies that pass the cost/benefit analysis are accepted and by

Governemnt labs don't have to have cost benefit rations, they can be
funded on an ongoing basis.


|definition a fundamental discovery cannot be calculated in its value until
|it has been discovered.  This is the primary reason that I support SSF. Because
|we do not know what we will discover up there but we do know that in a
|unique environment such as space, things work differently. The question is
|is this unique environment worth the trouble and the cost. Based upon
|what we do know about the POTENTIAL up there I say yes. If we get up

I think we are putting the cart before the horse.  the neccesary technology
developement hasn't been done.

Currently we can sieve very large numbers using massive computer arrays,
but every year we delay the problem the cheaper it gets.

Hunting for large primes gets cheaper as computer power grows.
Sequencing the human genome gets  cheaper as DNA sequencers get cheaper.


|there and in thirty years find out that there is nothing that we can do
|up there better than here, or if we make no new fundamental discoveries that
|will significantly aid the general welfare of our nation, then we will be
|actually saving future generations money by finding out now.  If there
|are fundamental discoveries that aid the general welfare of our nation
|and the world then the question is answered and we go onward and upward.
|

But if we hold off for 5 years,  and develope technologies that make
the project 50% cheaper, and then we discover  nothing  then
we save future generations money,  or say we find something else,
but it's only marginally useful, then we save people money.

|>Diving has been around for centuries,  but the developement of key technologies
|>allowed it to flourish.
|>
|
|But none of these technolgies would have been developed when they were without
|the military imperative of WWII to drive them. They would have happened
|eventually but diving technology would be no where near where it is
|today without its effective implementation by the military for use in war.
|

Sure,  but the military poured money into making the area useful.
The existing gear was not militarily useful, so they puit money
into making it better.  NASA is busy doing things the old way,
not hte better way, the cheaper way.



No doubt the CIA funding of some deep water technologies helped,
but then those technologies were turned around and used for
oil exploration.

Like i said, we need technology developement.

|
|>What the space program has never done, is deliver one of two things.
|>Either Cheap technologies  or A worthwhile goal.
|>
|
|I beg to differ here. The phone you speak on for long distance and the
|computer that you use to read this message were developed both by and
|for the space program, at least in their genesis.  It has been the

I think  Alexander Bell never heard of a rocket,  and Tom Edison
never thought of the moon.  IBM was selling gear, long before
anyone heard of Gemini.

The world was already changing.   manned space just provided another stimulus
for certain technologies.  the computer business would have grown
without NASA.  commercial spending was big enough to always support
decent R&D.  slower, i am sure,  but we would have had good stuff anyway.

|genious of the marketplace to take these technological developments and
|capitalize on them. Remote sensing has done much to lower the cost
|of monitoring our environment and the potential of the future LEO
|constellation comsats is mind boggling.
|

AH.  but there is nothing glorous about LEO sats.  but there is a
lot of money.

|The manned program has effected medicine probably more than any other
|field of space effort.  Our efforts to understand the human body in extremes
|of operation and the technology required to to the monitoring has been
|directly and successfully tranferred to the private sector. My best friend
|was able to live a year and a half longer because of advances in monitoring
|the human body enabled the early detection of his cancer. What is the
|value that you place on that year and a half?
|
Damn if I know.  How much did NASA get on the Patents?

|What about the recent hurricane in Florida. Because of satellites we lost
|only 11 lives.  A similar hurricane earlier in this century in the same
|area cost hundreds of lives. How do you do a cost/benefit analysis on that?
|

Certainly.  here is an example of the marketplace providing a rationale
to support space.
|>The people who opened the american colonies didn't come here because it
|>was fun, they came because they could marginally afford it, and they had
|>a goal.  FREEDOM.  Canadian oil men work in hellish areas, for the money.
|>
|
|Most could not even afford it. They came as indentured servants, or willing
|white slaves in order to escape a too structured life and gain riches for
|themselves and their posterity. Military issues were important as well.
|

Like i Said, they could afford it.

THey were able to come here, and work and earn enough to pay their
passage and make money enough to justify the time investment.
Had they sold themselves into permanent servitude, no-one
would have come.

Military may have been an issue,  but look at all the abandoned
forts.  if there hadn't been an economic reason to stay
the military would have evacuated everyone.

Look at the arctic forts.  built for the war, abandoned afterwards.
no economic reason to exist.

|>The space program has not been able to either provide  cheaper technologies
|>or worthwhile places to go.
|>
|>If NASA were to work on :  Hard Suit/ Skin suit technologies, that would
|>be a plus.
|>
|>Cheap ELVs  or SSTO's, that would be good.
|>
|>Closed cycle  life support
|>
|>Native materials exploitation programs.
|>
|>All these areas have been given frankly lip service.  in favor of
|>Glory programs.  Until they make a goal,  Cheap access to space,
|>it will remain a minor program.
|>
|>pat
|
|No if you truly look you will see that it is the politicians that have
|given lip service to the ideas that you state above, not NASA. I have

NASA has chosen to make the SHuttle it's big area, and now freedom.
SOmehow I think they could have delivered had they chosen to put resources
in the above list.


|re-read a book that was published right after the Apollo 11 landing that
|showed neat pictures of multiple LEM launches and resource exploitation and
|closed cycle life support, but as I spoke of in my previous post, it is not

Well, by 1969,  they had shut down SATURN production, and Apollo production.

Apollo shots were costing about $1 billion/per.  it wasn't affordable
on a glory basis,  and there was no sign of reduced costs over the
coming few years, so it was abandoned as un-affordable.

STS was sold as cheap access to space.  turned out it wasn't.
|worth that is supported but expediency. We have no plan, George Bush tried
|but retreated in the face of opposition. It has to come from us now and
|now is the time to develop a plan and take the lead from the politicians
|and do it ourselves.
|

Sure.  I think DC-X,Y are great ideas.  Next we should work on Better
suit technology.

pat

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 294
------------------------------