Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_4/v16no478.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 93 05:39:14
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #478
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 23 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 478

Today's Topics:
          Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter? (2 msgs)
                     Crazy? or just Imaginitive?
                   Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining.
                           First Spacewalk
 Inflatable Mile-Long Space Billboards (was Re: Vandalizing the sky.)
              Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.
            Lindbergh and the moon (was:Why not give $1G)
                   Mars Observer Update - 04/14/93
                 Moonbase race, NASA resources, why?
                           Proton/Centaur?
                         SSRT Roll-Out Speech
                    Surviving Large Accelerations?
                     U.S. Space Foundation Speech
                         Vandalizing the sky
                         Vandalizing the sky.
      Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?

    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: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 01:59:18 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

[e-mail] (Mark Brader) writes:


>Thanks again.  One final question.  The name Gehrels wasn't known to
>me before this thread came up, but the May issue of Scientific American
>has an article about the "Inconstant Cosmos", with a photo of Neil
>Gehrels, project scientist for NASA's Compton Gamma Ray Observatory.
>Same person?

No. I estimate a 99 % probability the Gehrels referred to
is Thomas Gehrels of the Spacewatch project, Kitt Peak observatory.

Maybe in the 24th century they could do gamma ray spectroscopy on
distant asteroids with an orbiting observatory, but here in the
primitive 20th we have to send a probe there to get gamma ray
spectroscopy done.

>Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto    "Information! ... We want information!"
>utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]                -- The Prisoner

You have the info on Mayan Television yet?

>This article is in the public domain.
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
[e-mail]|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man

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

Date: 22 Apr 93 06:25:25 GMT
From: Jim Scotti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Brader) writes:
>
>> > > Also, peri[jove]s of Gehrels3 were:
>> > >
>> > > April  1973     83 jupiter radii
>> > > August 1970     ~3 jupiter radii
>
>> > Where 1 Jupiter radius = 71,000 km = 44,000 mi = 0.0005 AU. ...
>
>> Sorry, _perijoves_...I'm not used to talking this language.
>
>Thanks again.  One final question.  The name Gehrels wasn't known to
>me before this thread came up, but the May issue of Scientific American
>has an article about the "Inconstant Cosmos", with a photo of Neil
>Gehrels, project scientist for NASA's Compton Gamma Ray Observatory.
>Same person?

Neil Gehrels is Prof. Tom Gehrels son.  Tom Gehrels was the discoverer
of P/Gehrels 3 (as well as about 4 other comets - the latest of which
does not bear his name, but rather the name "Spacewatch" since he was
observing with that system when he found the latest comet).

>--
>Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto    "Information! ... We want information!"
>utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]                -- The Prisoner

---------------------------------------------
Jim Scotti
{[e-mail]}
Lunar & Planetary Laboratory
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721 USA
---------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 04:54:03 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Crazy? or just Imaginitive?
Newsgroups: sci.space

I have a nice quote that I like (or as close as I can remember it).

If I say something that you think is crazy, ask me what I mean before you think
its crazy..

So some of my ideas are a bit odd, off the wall and such, but so was Wilbur and
Orville Wright, and quite a few others.. Sorry if I do not have the big degrees
and such, but I think (I might be wrong, to error is human) I have something
that is in many ways just as important, I have imagination, dreams. And without
dreams all the knowledge is worthless..

Sorry my two cents worth. Or is it two rubles worth?

The basic quote idea is from H. Beam Pipers book "Space Vikings". Its a good
book on how civilization can fall, and how it can be raised to new heights.

Unfortunately H. Beam Piper killed him self just weeks short of having his
first book published, and have his ideas see light.. Such a waste.

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

Date: 22 Apr 93 05:22:02 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining.
Newsgroups: sci.space

Here is a way to get the commericial companies into space and mineral
exploration.

Basically get the eci-freaks to make it so hard to get the minerals on earth..
You think this is crazy. Well in a way it is, but in a way it is reality.

There is a billin the congress to do just that.. Basically to make it so
expensive to mine minerals in the US, unless you can by off the inspectors or
tax collectors.. ascially what I understand from talking to a few miner friends
of mine, that they (the congress) propose to have a tax on the gross income of
the mine, versus the adjusted income, also the state governments have there
normal taxes. So by the time you get done, paying for materials, workers, and
other expenses you can owe more than what you made.
BAsically if you make a 1000.00 and spend 500. ofor expenses, you can owe
600.00 in federal taxes.. Bascially it is driving the miners off the land.. And
the only peopel who benefit are the eco-freaks..

Basically to get back to my beginning statement, is space is the way to go
cause it might just get to expensive to mine on earth because of either the
eco-freaks or the protectionist..
Such fun we have in these interesting times..

==
Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: 21 Apr 93 17:50:49 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: First Spacewalk
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]+ [e-mail] ("F.Baube[tm]") writes:
+At one time there was speculation that the first spacewalk
+(Alexei Leonov ?) was a staged fake.
+
+Has any evidence to support or contradict this claim emerged ?
+
+Was this claim perhaps another fevered Cold War hallucination ?

I, for one, would be an avid reader of a sci.space.ussr.what.really.
happened.

--
Bruce Watson ([e-mail]) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 93 02:43:53 GMT
From: "H. D. Stevens" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Inflatable Mile-Long Space Billboards (was Re: Vandalizing the sky.)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
|> >NASA would provide contractual launch services. However,
|> >since NASA bases its charge on seriously flawed cost estimates
|> >(WN 26 Mar 93) the taxpayers would bear most of the expense. This
|> >may look like environmental vandalism, but Mike Lawson, CEO of
|> >Space Marketing, told us yesterday that the real purpose of the
|> >project is to help the environment! The platform will carry ozone
|> >monitors he explained--advertising is just to help defray costs.
|>
|> This may be the purpose for the University of Colorado people.  My
|> guess is that the purpose for the Livermore people is to learn how to
|> build large, inflatable space structures.
|>

The CU people have been, and continue to be big ozone scientists. So
this is consistent. It is also consistent with the new "Comercial
applications" that NASA and Clinton are pushing so hard.
|>
|> >Is NASA really supporting this junk?

Did anyone catch the rocket that was launched with a movie advert
all over it? I think the rocket people got alot of $$ for painting
up the sides with the movie stuff. What about the Coke/Pepsi thing
a few years back? NASA has been trying to find ways to get other
people into the space funding business for some time. Frankly, I've
thought about trying it too. When the funding gets tight, only the
innovative get funded. One of the things NASA is big on is co-funding.
If a PI can show co-funding for any proposal, that proposal has a SIGNIFICANTLY
higher probability of being funded than a proposal with more merit but no
co-funding. Once again, money talks!


--
H.D. Stevens
Stanford University            Email:[e-mail]
Aerospace Robotics Laboratory        Phone:    [phone]  (Lab)
Durand Building                    [phone]  (Bullpen)
Stanford, CA 94305            Fax:    [phone]

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

Date: 22 Apr 93 00:37:19 GMT
From: James Thomas Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary,sci.space,sci.astro

[e-mail] (Pat) Pontificated:
>
>
>Some birds require constant management for survival.  Pointing a sensor at
>the sun, even when powered down, may burn it out.  Pointing a
>parabolic antenna  at Sol,  from venus orbit  may trash the
>foci  elements.
>
What I was getting at in my post is whether or not it might be

possible to put enough brains on board future deep-space probes
for them to automatically avoid such things as looking at the
sun or going into an uncontrolled tumble.

I heard once that the voyagers had a failsafe routine built in
that essentially says "If you never hear from Earth again,
here's what to do."  This was a back up in the event a receiver
burnt out but the probe could still send data (limited, but
still some data).

>Even if you let teh bird drift,  it may  get hosed by some
>cosmic phenomena.
>
Since this would be a shutdown that may never be refunded for
startup, if some type of cosmic BEM took out the probe, it might
not be such a big loss.  Obviously you can't plan for
everything, but the most obvious things can be considered.


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: [e-mail] :-)~~~\
| "I know you believe you understand what it is that you        |
| think I said.  But I am not sure that you realize that        |
| what I said is not what I meant."                             |

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 03:56:14 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lindbergh and the moon (was:Why not give $1G)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Keith Mancus) writes:

>[e-mail] (Layne Cook) writes:
>> All of this talk about a COMMERCIAL space race (i.e. $1G to the first 1-year
>> moon base) is intriguing. Similar prizes have influenced aerospace
>>development before. The $25k Orteig prize helped Lindbergh sell his Spirit of
>> Saint Louis venture to his financial backers.
>> But I strongly suspect that his Saint Louis backers had the foresight to
>> realize that much more was at stake than $25,000.
>> Could it work with the moon? Who are the far-sighted financial backers of
>> today?

>  The commercial uses of a transportation system between already-settled-
>and-civilized areas are obvious.  Spaceflight is NOT in this position.
>The correct analogy is not with aviation of the '30's, but the long
>transocean voyages of the Age of Discovery.

Lindbergh's flight took place in '27, not the thirties.

>It didn't require gov't to
>fund these as long as something was known about the potential for profit
>at the destination.  In practice, some were gov't funded, some were private.

Could you give examples of privately funded ones?

>But there was no way that any wise investor would spend a large amount
>of money on a very risky investment with no idea of the possible payoff.

Your logic certainly applies to standard investment strategies.  However, the
concept of a prize for a difficult goal is done for different reasons, I
suspect.  I'm not aware that Mr Orteig received any significant economic
benefit from Lindbergh's flight.  Modern analogies, such as the prize for a
human powered helicopter face similar arguments.  There is little economic
benefit in such a thing.  The advantage comes in the new approaches developed
and the fact that a prize will frequently generate far more work than the
equivalent amount of direct investment would.  A person who puts up $ X billion
for a moon base is much more likely to do it because they want to see it done
than because they expect to make money off the deal.
--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
            "Find a way or make one."
                 -attributed to Hannibal

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

Date: 21 Apr 1993 08:54:50 GMT
From: Stan Woithe <crackle!swoithe>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 04/14/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Hiya

I'm a VERY amuture astronomer in Adelaide Australia, and today, I heard some
very interesting and exciting news from a local program on TV. As I couldn't
find anything on it on the news server, I have posted this. However, if it is
old information, tell me, and ill sue the TV station for saying they are
'Up to date' ;-)

(Also, my news server could be slow. . so . . .!!!

I only caught the end of the article, so all the information on the topic
is not known to me at the moment.

The news is of a small 'psudo' planet outside the orbit of pluto found in a
Hawiian obsevatory, supposably 'recently' - acording to the report.
It was meant to be about 150miles in diamater, and a faily large distance
from the plutos orbit.  (it had a computer drawing, and the orbit distance
from pluto was about the same as neptune to pluto when they are furthest
apart.  This is all I found out about it. OH it is called Karna. (un-officially
).
CAn anyone give any more information to me on it???

Thanx.

Brendan Woithe
[e-mail]

BTW - if this is old news, does anyone know a good lawyer. . . .8)

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

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 05:07:12 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Moonbase race, NASA resources, why?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>>Apollo was done the hard way, in a big hurry, from a very limited
>>technology base... and on government contracts.  Just doing it privately,
>>rather than as a government project, cuts costs by a factor of several.
>
> So how much would it cost as a private venture, assuming you could talk the
> U.S. government into leasing you a couple of pads in Florida?
>
>
>
>     Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
>   -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --


Why must it be a US Government Space Launch Pad? Directly I mean..
I know of a few that could launch a small package into space.
Not including Ariadne, and the Russian Sites.. I know "Poker Flats" here in
Alaska, thou used to be only sounding rockets for Auroral Borealous(sp and
other northern atmospheric items, is at last I heard being upgraded to be able
to put sattelites into orbit.

Why must people in the US be fixed on using NASAs direct resources (Poker Flats
is runin part by NASA, but also by the Univesity of Alaska, and the Geophysical
Institute). Sounds like typical US cultural centralism and protectionism..
And people wonder why we have the multi-trillion dollar deficite(sp).
Yes, I am working on a spell checker..

==
Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: 21 Apr 1993 23:54:32 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Proton/Centaur?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

Well thank you dennis for your as usual highly detailed and informative
posting.

The question i have about the proton, is  could it be  handled at
one of KSC's spare pads, without major  malfunction,  or could it be
handled at kourou  or Vandenberg?

Now if it uses storables,  then  how long would it take for the russians
to equip something at cape york?

If  Proton were launched from a western site,  how would it compare to the
T4/centaur?   As i see it, it should lift  very close to the T4.

pat

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

Date: 21 Apr 1993 22:09:32 -0400
From: Jordan Katz <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSRT Roll-Out Speech
Newsgroups: sci.space

                               SSRT ROLLOUT

                Speech Delivered by Col. Simon P. Worden,
                     The Deputy for Technology, SDIO

                  Mcdonnell Douglas - Huntington Beach
                              April 3,1993

     Most of you, as am I, are "children of the 1960's."  We grew
up in an age of miracles -- Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles,
nuclear energy, computers, flights to the moon.  But these were
miracles of our parent's doing.  For a decade and more the pundits
have told us - "you've lost it!"  The "me" generation is only
living on the accomplishments of the past.

     You and I have even begun to believe the pessimists.  We
listen in awe as the past generation tells of its triumphs.  Living
history they are.  We are privileged to hear those who did it tell
of it.  A few weeks ago some of this very team listened in awe as
General Bernie Schriever told of his team's work - and yes struggle
- to build this nation's Intercontinental Ballistic Missile.

     What stories can we tell?  Blurry-eyed telescopes?  Thousand
dollar toilet seats?  Even our space launch vehicles hearken only
of that past great time.  They are and seem destined to remain Gen.
Schriever's ICBMs.  I find it hard to swell with pride that the
best new space-lifter idea is to refurbish old Minuteman and
Poseidon ballistic missiles.

     Well - The pessimists are wrong.  The legacy is continuing.
This event is proof.  To our technological parents: We've listened
to your stories.  We've caught your enthusiasm and can-do spirit.
And we've learned from your achievements - and your mistakes.  Let
me honor one of you who was part of that history and the impetus
behind this history - Max Hunter.  You are one of the greatest
engineers of the firts great age of space exploration.  Your
insight and discipline built the Thor ICBM - later incorporated
into today's most successful launch vehicle - The Delta.

     You told us in the 60's that a new form of launch vehicle - a
single stage reusable rocket - can and should be built.  You
advocated this idea tirelessly.  It was elegantly simple, as are
all great breakthroughs.  You showed us how to build it.  You
convinced us it could be done.  You are working by our side to weld
its components into place.  Most important - you reminded us of a
prime engineering principle - undoubtably one you learned from the
generation before you - the generation that built transcontinental
aviation in the 1920's and 30's - build a little and test a little
and Max, you passed all of this on  to people like Pat Ladner who
started this program for the SDI.

     Douglas Aircraft didn't start with a DC-10.  They didn't even
start with a DC-3.  Our grandfathers built a little, tested a
little - even sold a little and made a little money - before they
moved on to the next step.  They didn't take a decade or more
before putting the first "rubber on the road."  Max Hunter - you
didn't take ten years to build Thor, and by God we're not going to
take ten years to show that low cost, single stage, reusable
aerospace transportation is real.

     We ended the cold war in a few short years.  It took the  same
team here today but a few years to show through the Strategic
Defense Initiative that the cold war must end.  We - you and us -
launched a series of satellites - The Delta experiments - in about
a year apiece.  This, more than anything else signaled our
commitment to end the impasse between ourselves and the Soviet
Union.  Those who made the decisions on both sides have underscored
the importance of our work in bringing about a new international
relationship.

     But it is the same team which is now  putting in place the
framework for an aerospace expansion that is our legacy for the
next generation.  We will make space access routine and affordable.

     We built this magnificent flying machine in two years.  This
summer a true rocket ship will take off and land on earth for the
first time.  Then we can and surely will build in the next three
years a reusable sub-orbital rocket.  It will allow us to use space
rapidly, affordably, and efficiently as no other nation can.  And
yes - we'll make a little money off it too!

     Then - and only then - we'll spend another three years to
build a fully reusable single stage to orbit system.  The DC-3 of
space will be a reality!  We may even be able to use some of the
rocket propulsion breakthroughs of our former cold war adversaries.
What a wonderful irony if this SDI product and Russian efforts to
counter SDI merge to power mankind's next step to the stars!

     To be sure, we must guard against the temptations to leap to
the final answer.  Robert Goddard's first rockets weren't Saturn
V's!  If we succumb  to the temptation to ask  for just a few extra
dollars and a few more years to jump immediately to a full orbital
system - we will fail.  Max Hunter and his colleagues showed the
way.  Three years and a cloud of dust - in our case rocket
exhausts.  There is no short-cut.  If we expect to reshape the
world again - we must do it one brick at a time.  Minds on tasks at
hand!

     This project is real.  The torch of American technological
greatness is being passed.  We are Americans.  This machine is
American.  Let's go fly it!

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 01:49:22 -0400
From: Amruth Laxman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Surviving Large Accelerations?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hi,
    I was reading through "The Spaceflight Handbook" and somewhere in
there the author discusses solar sails and the forces acting on them
when and if they try to gain an initial acceleration by passing close to
the sun in a hyperbolic orbit. The magnitude of such accelerations he
estimated to be on the order of 700g. He also says that this is may not
be a big problem for manned craft because humans (and this was published
in 1986) have already withstood accelerations of 45g. All this is very
long-winded but here's my question finally - Are 45g accelerations in
fact humanly tolerable? - with the aid of any mechanical devices of
course. If these are possible, what is used to absorb the acceleration?
Can this be extended to larger accelerations?

Thanks is advance...
-Amruth Laxman

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

Date: 21 Apr 1993 22:12:59 -0400
From: Jordan Katz <[e-mail]>
Subject: U.S. Space Foundation Speech
Newsgroups: sci.space

                          Speech by Pete Worden

          Delivered Before the U.S. Space Foundation Conference

                       Colorado Springs, Colorado

                             April 15, 1993


     What a delightful opportunity to cause some trouble.  For
providing me this forum I would sincerely like to thank the U.S.
Space Foundation.  My topic today is the Single Stage Rocket
Technology rocket or SSRT.  By I intend to speak of more.  How to
lower the cost and make rapid progress.  SSRT is to my mind --
and I hope to convince you -- the erupting a new rallying cry for
our generation in space -- Faster, Cheaper, and Better.

     Faster, Cheaper, Better and SSRT represent the passing of a
torch from one technical generation to another.  It is a new
thing to be sure -- but it is also a relearning of old things
from past masters.

     When we rolled out the SSRT baby two weeks ago, so called
experts told us it violates the laws of physics -- it made no
sense.  For example, Dr. Eberhart Rachtin - former president of
the Aerospace Corp., said of SSRT in the L.A. Times that it,
"defies the best principles of launching payloads into space."
Well Dr. Rachtin -- you've made us mad!  What are these
principles that SSRT defies?

     Well I'll tell you.  It violates the principle that you need
a giant program office to build space hardware.  It violates the
"fact" that it takes 20 years to build something new.  And it
violates the truism that you cant do anything significant for
less than many billions of dollars.

     It took some of the last generation's experts to teach us
some new/old lessons.  Werhner Von Braun's first rocket was not a
Saturn V.  General Schriever's ICBM's didn't take ten years to
demonstrate.  And the X-1 airplane didn't cost $1 billion.

     It took one of the great engineers of the 1950's to remind
us of these truths -- Max Hunter.  Max, to remind you, was a
senior engineer in the Thor IRBM program, and old faster, better,
cheaper success story.  Max has been persistent in a vision of a
single stage reusable space launch system since the 1960's.
Because he knew it had to be done in affordable steps - Build a
little, Test a little.

     Next he persuaded us to do a technology demonstration.  We
didn't solicit a bunch of requirements -- they'd just change
every few years anyway.  [ not included in the speech -- The
ALS/NLS has such ephemeral requirements that it would better
known as "Shape Shifter" than "Space Lifter."  We didn't spend a
lot money -- this X-Rocket only cost $60 million.  When's the
last time we even built a new airplane for that?  And it didn't
take a lot of time to build -- McDonnell Douglas completed it in
18 months.  Finally, the government program office consisted of
one very over-worked Air Force Major -- motivated in part by the
threat that he'd get to ride on it in a strapped-on lawn chair if
it ran over cost or schedule.

     As I described what SSRT is -- and isn't keep in mind its
only a first step.  There are several more steps -- and steps
that can easily fail -- before the U.S. can field an SSTO.  But
each step should follow the same principles -- a small management
team -- a few years technology demonstration -- and a modest
budget.

     Let me show a few details on SSRT and how it might evolve:
(See charts)

     I'm embarrassed when my generation is compared with the last
generation -- the giants of the last great space era, the 1950's
and 1960's.  They went to the moon - we built a telescope that
can't see straight.  They soft-landed on Mars - the least we
could do is soft-land on Earth!

     But we do have an answer.  We can follow their build a
little, test a little philosophy to produce a truly affordable
and routine access to space.  I know there are nay sayers among
you -- those who say SSRT is a stunt.  It needs more thermal
protection, the engines are wrong, it would be better to land
horizontally, etc, etc.

     I say to you -- we'll see you at White Sands in June.  You
bring your view-graphs, and I'll bring my rocketship.  If we do
what we say we can do, then you let us do the next step.  [ not
included in the speech:  If we fail -- you still have your
program offices, staff summary sheets, requirement analyses, and
decade long programs.]

     I bet on my generation and Max Hunter's idea -- Any Takers?

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 03:41:38 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vandalizing the sky
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,talk.politics.space

[e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:

>[e-mail] (Enzo Liguori) writes:
>>WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 16 April 1993  Washington, DC

>>1. SPACE BILLBOARDS! IS THIS ONE THE "SPINOFFS" WE WERE PROMISED?
>>In 1950, science fiction writer Robert Heinlein published "The
>>Man Who Sold the Moon," which involved a dispute over the sale of
>>rights to the Moon for use as billboard. NASA has taken the firsteps toward this
>>hideous vision of the future.  Observers were
>>startled this spring when a NASA launch vehicle arrived at the
>>pad with "SCHWARZENEGGER" painted in huge block letters on the
>>side of the booster rockets.  Space Marketing Inc. had arranged
>>for the ad to promote Arnold's latest movie.

>Well, if you're going to get upset with this, you might as well direct
>some of this moral outrage towards Glavcosmos as well.  They pioneered
>this capitalist application of booster adverts long before NASA.

In fact, you can all direct your ire at the proper target by ingoring NASA
altogether.  The rocket is a commercial launch vechicle - a Conestoga flying
a COMET payload.  NASA is simply the primary customer.  I believe SDIO has a
small payload as well.  The advertising space was sold by the owners of the
rocket, who can do whatever they darn well please with it.  In addition, these
anonymous "observers" had no reason to be startled.  The deal made Space News
at least twice.

>>Now, Space Marketing
>>is working with University of Colorado and Livermore engineers on
>>a plan to place a mile-long inflatable billboard in low-earth
>>orbit.
>>NASA would provide contractual launch services. However,
>>since NASA bases its charge on seriously flawed cost estimates
>>(WN 26 Mar 93) the taxpayers would bear most of the expense.

>>Is NASA really supporting this junk?

>And does anyone have any more details other than what was in the WN
>news blip?  How serious is this project?  Is this just in the "wild
>idea" stage or does it have real funding?

I think its only fair to find that out before everyone starts having a hissy
fit.  The fact that they bothered to use the conditional tense suggests that
it has not yet been approved.


--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
            "Find a way or make one."
                 -attributed to Hannibal

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

Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 16:38:38 GMT
From: Marvin Batty <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vandalizing the sky.
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Enzo Liguori) writes:
>From the article "What's New" Apr-16-93 in sci.physics.research:
>
>........
>WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 16 April 1993  Washington, DC
>
>1. SPACE BILLBOARDS! IS THIS ONE THE "SPINOFFS" WE WERE PROMISED?
>In 1950, science fiction writer Robert Heinlein published "The
>Man Who Sold the Moon," which involved a dispute over the sale of
>rights to the Moon for use as billboard. NASA has taken the firsteps toward this
> hideous vision of the future.  Observers were
>startled this spring when a NASA launch vehicle arrived at the
>pad with "SCHWARZENEGGER" painted in huge block letters on the
>side of the booster rockets.

Things could be worse. A lot worse! In the mid-eighties the
teen/adult sci-fi comic 2000AD (Fleetway) produced a short story
featuring the award winning character "Judge Dredd". The story
focussed on an advertising agency of the future who use high powered
multi-coloured lasers/search lights pointed at the moon to paint
images on the moon. Needless to say, this use hacked off a load of lovers,
romantics and werewolfs/crazies. The ad guys got chopped, the service
discontinued. A cautionary tale indeed!

Marvin Batty.
--
****************************************************************************
                  Marvin Batty - [e-mail]
"And they shall not find those things, with a sort of rafia like base,
that their fathers put there just the night before. At about 8 O'clock!"

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

Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 22:04:14 GMT
From: Gene Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?
Newsgroups: sci.space

You forget that Apollo was a Government program and had to start
relatively from scratch. Some people at NASA think that this could work.
One of them replied to me personally after I posted this original message
several days ago. I have heard Jerry Pournelle suggest this idea before.

--
  [e-mail] (Gene Wright)
theporch.raider.net  615/297-7951 The MacInteresteds of Nashville

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 478
------------------------------