Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_6/v16no619.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Mon, 24 May 93 05:09:56
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #619
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 24 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 619

Today's Topics:
               Commericalisation of NASA Launch Branch.
           Define Sentient (Murdering ETs, Murder in Space)
                  Detecting planets in other system
            ELEVEN G-forces during atmospheric reentry???
             Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO (2 msgs)
                       In the Aftermath of Fred
                              Moon Base
               Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space)+
                        Rockwell News March 3
                      salvage in space (2 msgs)
                    Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons
                 Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
                     What in the world is NSMCA?
                     Where is the world is NSMCA?
               Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"

    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: 24 May 93 02:58:47 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Commericalisation of NASA Launch Branch.
Newsgroups: sci.space

Here is a idea, that might work for NASA.

Saw I believe it was the French Space Agency, where the R&D portion of the
sgency is government owned, but the part that actually puts sattelites into
orbit and such, is "privately" owned (okay owned in part by the French
Government as a shareholder).

I wonder if NASA can't be redefined in such a similar manner.
Same with the Militarys needs. The R&D for the military would be governmentally
owned, but they would have the option to use the now Commerical Operation Area
of NASA or another carrier..

Benefits of this is that the R&D can be paid for for the specific benefit of
the US Government, and the Commerical Company can use the R&D for development
but make a profit on its own. Also can persue its own R&D without cost to the
US Government. OF course there would have to be some form of contractual
agreement between the new Space Launcher and the US Government.

I know so far I have heard alot that NASA has provided for the human populous,
but have seen very little that they actually have provided directly.. Basically
saying the PR is more hype than actual. But NASA has provided some stuff of
value and it just needs to provide more.

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

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

Date: 24 May 93 02:42:29 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Define Sentient (Murdering ETs, Murder in Space)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1tofoc$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
> Unlawful discharge of a firearm, within city limits:-)??????
>
>
> I guess we need to put a codicil to the Endangered species act to
> include all xeno tropic life forms until otherwise unlisted.
>
> That or define all US law to apply to sentient creatures,  of course,
> then we may have to start properly treating certain marine mammals.
>
> pat

Question is define sentient? Us humans have not even defined what is human yet,
now you want us to define sentient? Give us a break (grin).

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

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

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 03:31:35 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Detecting planets in other system
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>For Earthlike planets you'll need something along the lines of a 16m telescope
>of the moon.

Actually, an interferometer(sp?) array in the thermal IR has a reasonable
chance, if you can get a couple of orbital telescopes and a baseline
of ~500,000 km. In the thermal IR the signal to noise (i.e. star's
flux to that of the planet) is greatest, since you are in the peak of
the planet's Plank curve but well away from the star's peak.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

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

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 03:39:03 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: ELEVEN G-forces during atmospheric reentry???
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>(Although the Mercury, and later, orbital flights generally involved no
>more than 6-7G on reentry, some classes of mid-launch aborts could have
>involved rather higher decelerations.)

>With extreme measures (water immersion), over 30G is tolerable for maybe
>fifteen seconds.

The kosmonauts on a Soviet mission, I believe, hold the record: 27G
for a few seconds during a launch abort...

                                         Frank Crary
                                         CU Boulder

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

Date: 24 May 1993 00:08:13 -0700
From: Ken Hayashida <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>Ken
>And for all the money the SHuttle has eaten,  we have lost
>capcbility.  Where is the money for Basic High speed Research?
>Advanced Suit Technology?  Closed Cyucle Life SUpport?
>Methane fuel production?  Advanced Propulsion?  Engineering
>Qualification programs?   Relative to the money spent, the
>catalog of Space QUalified hardware is pathetic.

>Your'e a doctor.  How would you feel if NIH and the Entire
>Bio-medical establishment with all the research and commercial
>dollars poured in,  only delivered 1 new procedure a year,
>and one new drug,  and that procedure costs more then the
>old procedure and is more dangerous, and the drug is
>more expensive,  and you have to request an ampoule
>6 months in advance?

Pat, I'm not sure if you realize this or not but
your example is probably not a good one.  It takes about
ten years eo develop a good drug which is marketable.  Add
to that another ten yinitiears otial drug trials to convince
the world to use it.  So, when you go to your doctor, if he's
really conservative (which I am), he'll only given you drugs
which have been out for 5-10 years.  In the end, the NIH and
the "bio-medical establishment (your words)" really only
produce a few new drugs per year which are widely applicable.
Recently, this process has been accelerating but like the
shuttle program, people who are unacquainted with the technical
challenges underestimate the difficulties involved.





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

Date: 24 May 1993 00:21:28 -0700
From: Ken Hayashida <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

Mr. Sherzer originally posted that he felt
>As a rough guess I would say that in 10 years Shuttle has delivered
>to LEO about as much as Saturn V did in 4 years.

I have been criticized for not making an appropriate comparison.
I would remind you that I retracted my statement about STS delivering
the most mass to orbit.  I have not heard Mr. Sherzer retract his
statement made above.

I am attempting to ascertain the validity of this statement in
an objective manner.  A basic tenet of the scientific method
is to approach issues as objectively as possible.  Several of
you appear unprepared to drop your subjectivity in this
analysis.

I have defined how I will be determining the amount
of material the Saturn V delivered to LEO and
the amount of material which the Space Transportation
System has delivered to LEO.  Inclusion of the S-IV-B stage
is reasonable and important.  The upper stage of the Saturn
V was clearly delivered to LEO by the Saturn V vehicle.
Josh Hopkins corrected my inclusion of the escape tower in
the Saturn calculation.  I would point out that in the
grand scheme of things, the tower's mass would probably
cause a minimal change in the total mass which the Saturn
program delivered to Low Earth orbit.

Inclusion of the orbiter in the STS calculation is clearly
indicated because the orbiter reaches LEO.  Both reach
orbit.  Both are relevant in order to ascertain the validity of
Mr. Sherzer's statement.

In the future, I hope more people will publish on sci.space
their own sources, references, and calculations in order that
all may understand the way they have reached conclusions.

I also find it strange that so many shuttle critics would snub
the issue of mass return while attempting to tout the
importance of space commercialization.  The true
commercialization of space will be when travel is to and
from LEO.  Shuttle is currently the best vehicle at achieving
this mission.

Shuttle critics choose to downplay and underestimate the
importance and difficulty in the historic missions which the
orbiter has flown to service and recover multi-million dollar
satillites.  While some may argue the economics of these
achievements, they usually choose to ignore the difficulty in
flying these missions.  They also choose to belittle the
demonstrated capabilities of the orbiter to successfully
accomplish these important missions.

Mr. Spencer, if you would like to start publishing your own
calculations supporting your views of the shuttle program,
I'd enjoy reading them.  The challenge of poking holes in
your or Mr. Sherzer's papers (and vice versa) should allow
non-posters the opportunity to better assess their positions
relative to ours.

Mr. Sherzer, since you are such a critic of the shuttle
program and tout the DC-Y's performance.  Please start
to publish the vehicleUs developmental cost, payload to
orbit, recovery time and cost, cost of manufacturing the
vehicle, if anyone really knows.  If any of these are
unknown, are you really that different than those who
erroneously believed the shuttles would fly once per week?

I suggest that we should follow standard science paper
procedures in making such posts, including an abstract
introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion.

Let's take this board to higher standards instead of letting
others lower us into a quagmire of flames.

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

Date: 23 May 93 22:55:03
From: Brian Yamauchi <[e-mail]>
Subject: In the Aftermath of Fred
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

Suppose space station gets cancelled, either this year or some time in
the near future.  Any speculation about what happens next at NASA?
What should space activists be hoping for?

I'm one of those who is supporting the Delta Clipper.  In the best
case, DC-X flies (and flips :), a follow-up vehicle (DC-Y, DC-X",
DC-X2, SX-2, or whatever it's called today) is built and works, and
either BMDO (formerly SDIO) or the Air Force funds development of an
operational vehicle (DC-1).  This vehicle is then purchased by a
number of commercial firms, opening the era of commercial manned
spaceflight...

I'll be the first to admit that there are a lot of uncertainties in
this scenario -- a lot of things that could go wrong at every step --
but I still think it's our best bet for the future.

But I'm interested in hearing about other options.

For those who are pro-NASA -- what do you suggest NASA do next if SSF
is cancelled?  SEI seems to be dead (if it wasn't stillborn), and
Congress doesn't seem to be in the mood to substantially increase
funding for manned Moon/Mars missions (even for less costly
alternatives such as Zubrin's Mars Direct).


For those who are anti-NASA and also skeptical about the Delta
Clipper, what do you suggest as an alternative?

(I'm familiar with the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act, and I think
it's a good idea -- but what else?)
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi            Case Western Reserve University
[e-mail]    Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 20:26:35 GMT
From: "Mark S. Nelson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Les Kirk) writes:
> Does NASA or any other private firm have plans to construct a moon base?
>
> I for one would love to see a base constructed and inhabited by a wide
> variety of people.  The technology exists today to make such an adventure
> plausible I'm sure.
>
> Could the shuttle be outfitted with the necessary oxygen to make a trip
> back to the moon possible?  I certainly do not see why it couldnt be.
>
> If missions are now lasting as much as 4 to 7 days, why could they not
> last an extra 4 to 7 days and then return?
>
> Anyone have any ideas on this subject?
>

I'd love to see a moon base, because after a space station, it would be
the next logical step in our exploration of space.  The health problems
associated with free-fall wouldn't be as extreme, it would take much less
propulsion to launch a deep space probe, and it's close.  Plus, it would
be an ideal place to test propulsion and fuel systems that could possibly
damage a real environment.  This would be especially true of nuclear-based
systems.

As far as using the shuttle goes, forget it!  It can barely reach a low
Earth orbit.  There is absolutely no way, in its present configuration,
that it could travel to the moon.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything you know is wrong.

Mark S. Nelson       [e-mail]      [e-mail]

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

Date: 24 May 93 02:36:28 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space)+
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
> In article <1tjn9h$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>
>>I think the Endangered Species act may apply.  Also interfering with
>>Diplomatic relations, and violsating the nuetrality act.
>>
>>pat
>
> The Endangered Species Act wouldn't come into play for two reasons.
> First ET is not listed, and second his species is not endangered by
> murdering him. In fact it may be *required* under agricultural
> import laws to dispose of him. It's considered environmental bad
> form to import an alien species into new habitat, see rabbit (Aus),
> walking catfish (Fla), certain lizards (Hawaii), tropical birds (Ga),
> etc.
>
> A diplomat has no status until his credentials are accepted by the
> authorities of the country to which he is posted.
>
> The Neutrality Act wouldn't apply unless killing ET was of material
> help to a third group with which ET's species was at war.
>
> Since ET isn't listed as a game species, even charges of hunting out
> of season can't be raised. He's not listed as a songbird or a migratory
> waterfowl. At best a charge of exterminating vermin without an exterminator's
> license might be raised, but even that fails if the killer isn't paid for the
> job.
>
> Gary
> --
> Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
> Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
> 534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
> Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

Good answers. Only problem is if the alien could come across the IIntersteller
distances (some one mentioend this, kind of already) they might get a bit peaved
at someone killing a member of thier expedition/ambassedor to us. So the only
law we might be breaking is our own survival as a species/or of possible
hospitality. But ignorance is a great excuse.

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



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

Date: 23 May 1993 23:54:56 -0700
From: Ken Hayashida <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rockwell News March 3
Newsgroups: sci.space

Atlantis modifications on track, drag chute on four weeks early
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The modifications on Atlantis are going well.  X-ray inspections
of the vehicle are now complete and most major modifications
are in work and several have been completed.

Structural inspections on Atlantis are nearly completed
and the drag chute assembly has been mated four weeks ahead
of schedule.

The Rockwell team at Palmdale is also gearing toward power-up
of the vehicle ahead of schedule.

Rockwell's Palmdale Operations has developed an innovative
plastic clean-room over the entire cargo bay of Atlantis.
They call it the *greenhouse,* because the plastic covering is
green.

Technicians work inside the large enclosure to maintain system
cleanliness.  The greenhouse eliminates having to build and certify
individual small enclosures, called *glove boxes,* each time they
work on the pneumatic or cryogenic systems or associated plumbing.
Both approaches keep contamination out.

Explains Chuck Caughren, the Palmdale site director, "This way you
certify it once and then particulate monitors and alarms help you
maintain that level of cleanliness.  This system keeps the outside
environment from getting inside the vehicle.  Because we are always
pumping filtered air into the mid body, constantly changing the
atmosphere."

The *greenhouse* is a full 100 Level A clean room, and allows
the entire mid body modification to take place inside a cleanroom
environment.  A side benefit is that it helps ensure that housekeeping
is maintained.


Minor talks future at recent Huntsville NMA meeting
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by LaVerne Roxby

Bob Minor, SSD President, was the featured guest speaker
at the annual Huntsville National Management Association
Top Management Night on Feb. 9.  He was introduced by
Harry Wiener, Huntsville site director, and briefed the capacity
crowd of employees and family members on the state of the division
and the company as a whole.

Minor stated the company had 1992 overall sales of $10.9 billion
and said that Rockwell remains NASA's largest contractor with
contract awards of $1.8 billion in 1992.  He also noted that Rockwell
stock dividends per share have increased in the past year, with
aggressive increases over the last several months.

Minor said the composition of our company is changing and believes
our efforts to diversify are good as we move more into the commercial
market.

He said the key to our long-term success is changing the way we do
business - we must develop creative approaches, form strategic alliances,
and create new market niches.  Our corporate management principles
of market leadership, global presence, teamwork/partnering, advanced
technologies, and entrepreneurial spirit are important factors in
realizing our goals.

On the division side, Minor said that the last four years have been
interesting ones - Endeavour, OV-105, was delivered and has flown
three missions; the division underwent a name change; downsizing and
reduced sales were realized; and the division has changed its business
strategies.

In discussing SSD market segments, he stated Huntsville Operations is
Rockwell's "gateway to NASA-MSFC and Army business opportunities."
The key to these opportunities is present contract performance -
20 consecutive superior ratings on the Shuttle Integration Contract.

In summarizing, Minor said our dynamic environment necessitates
continuously reassessing division priorities/strategies, being well-
positioned for competing opportunities, and focusing on continuous
improvement and cost reduction.  He believes these strategies can
overcome current market uncertainties as the division works to
achieve its growth goals.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Daniel Goldin, NASA Administrator, said:
"Some people ask why NASA spends money in space.
We don't.  We spend it all on Earth - and in the United States.
The one percent of the federal budget - and one-quarter of
one percent of the GNP - we invest in NASA is a vital investment in
our nationUs competitiveness"

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

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 03:26:32 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: salvage in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>|> >Wouldn't Discovery (with nobody on board besides HAL, a computer) be an
>>|> >abandoned vessel which anybody could pick up for its scrap value?

>>|> As I recall, space law differs from sea law in this area...
>>|> ...it will probably end up being changed...

>>I wouldn't want anyone salvaging my comsat or trying to classify my
>>mothballed construction shack as a derelict. How do we distinguish?

>The problem is not new.  Real-life salvage operators don't want to be
>charged with theft, so they want to see either (a) a clear contract
>with the legitimate owners, or (b) strong evidence that the object in
>question has been abandoned.

The second wouldn't be enough: Under international law (I think the
treaty the US didn't ratify, so international law outside of the
US) abandoned orbital objects remain the property of the nation
which originally launched it forever. As an absurd flaw in the
treaty's wording, this also applies to orbital debris...

>Your comsat becomes salvage when you file an insurance claim for its
>loss.

I think it actually becomes the property of the insurance company
at that point...

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

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

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 04:25:11 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: salvage in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>>The problem is not new.  Real-life salvage operators don't want to be
>>charged with theft, so they want to see either (a) a clear contract
>>with the legitimate owners, or (b) strong evidence that the object in
>>question has been abandoned.
>
>The second wouldn't be enough: Under international law (I think the
>treaty the US didn't ratify, so international law outside of the
>US) abandoned orbital objects remain the property of the nation
>which originally launched it forever...

No, the US did ratify that one.  However, there are no "real-life
salvage operators" in space -- yet -- so I was referring to the sea-law
situation, not the space-law one.  Space law is probably going to end
up being changed, eventually.  (In fact, my observing that was what
touched off this thread...)

>>Your comsat becomes salvage when you file an insurance claim for its
>>loss.
>
>I think it actually becomes the property of the insurance company
>at that point...

The two are not incompatible.  When you file your claim, you're admitting
that you've given up on that comsat.  Then the question becomes whether
the insurance company wants to claim ownership, and if so, whether they
are willing to pay for a salvage operation (to keep the thing from hitting
somebody else's comsat, if nothing else).
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 02:45:39 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>Actually, the Soyuz TM is launched by a rocket called the Soyuz rocket. The
>Proton is about three times more powerful than the Soyuz rocket, and was
>originally used to launch a satellite called the Proton.

I just refer to it as the SL-4 to avoid confusion.  :-)

Note that the Soyuz-derived Zond *was* launched by a Proton (SL-12).  This
may be the source of the confusion.

--
Dave Michelson  --  [e-mail]  --  University of British Columbia

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

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 03:20:39 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines

Followups directed to vaguely relevant groups...

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Olaf Vancura) writes:
>>While I'm sure Sagan considers it sacrilegious, that wouldn't be
>>because of his doubtfull credibility as an astronomer. Modern,
>>ground-based, visible light astronomy (what these proposed
>>orbiting billboards would upset) is already a dying field: The
>>opacity and distortions caused by the atmosphere itself have
>>driven most of the field to use radio, far infrared or space-based
>>telescopes. In any case, a bright point of light passing through
>>the field doesn't ruin observations. If that were the case, the
>>thousands of existing satellites would have already done so (satelliets
>>might not seem so bright to the eyes, but as far as astronomy is concerned,
>>they are extremely bright.)

>This has got to be among the most stupid posts I've ever seen.  Frank is
>obviously not an astrophysicist.

Feel free to drop by and look at the actual document, if you like...

By the way, does your site have trouble receving news? Your most
recent post is in reply to my earliest remark on the subject. I'll
assume you saw this thread in reverse order for some reason, and
weren't just hunting back through old posts trying to find an
excuse to make more insults.

>...Carl Sagan is a well respected astronomer
>who teaches at Cornell.

Have you ever read any of his professional papers? The one I look up
last month, for example, was truely pathetic (Wallace and Sagen's
1979 paper on the stability of water on Mars, under an insulating
layer of ice.) While it was an interesting idea, their model was
completely and obviously bogus (unless you think it's safe to assume
five meters of ice is totally transparent, among other things...)
A later paper, that reworked the model in a vaguely realistic
manner got a very different result.

>...Ground based optical ("visible") astronomy is NOT
>a "dying" field at all.  Optical astronomy is as important as ever.

Once, all astronomy was optical and it was impossible to do any
work in the field without such observations. Today, it's fairly
easy to get a PhD without ever using visible, ground based data.
It should be obvious that optical astronomy isn't "as
improtant as ever." (That's a worse exageration that my original
use of the word, "dying".)

>...As for
>atmospheric distortions, recently declassified DoD technology using
>adaptive interactive optics virtually alleviates the problem to the
>diffraction limit.

If you are working above, say, 5-10 microns. Since I refered to
visible astronomy, not infrared astronomy, the new adaptive
optics aren't all that relevant.

>...It is unclear to what extent the space billboard
>would emit light, but clearly if it is an advertisement people would
>have to see it, and this WOULD interfere greatly with earth based
>observations.  Scattered light would presumably be large, even if looking
>away from the advertisement.

Venus is easily bright enough for people to see and notice (and
in fact, occasionally make people think they saw a UFO...) How much
of a problem is light pollution from Venus? How close does Venus
have to get to the observed body for "scattered light [to] be large"?

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder

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

Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 03:42:51 GMT
From: "George F. Krumins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What in the world is NSMCA?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Well...what is it? (Just curious :)
--
"While we sleep they go to work        If one can grasp it...
 We're legally crippled            Up the hill backwards
 It's the death of love            It'll be alright..."
 It's got nothing do with you        -- David Bowie, from _Scary Monsters_

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

Date: 24 May 93 02:39:05 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Where is the world is NSMCA?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Sorry all, I have been busy working, dealing with family and posting on other
newsgroups(sorry I do have other interests than space).

But I am back for now..


This is in answer a question asked of where I had gone and that they missed
me. Namely my wierd questions/ideas.. Kill the Adsat? Oh the Bulletin Board in
Space?? or did I miss something?

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

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

Date: 23 May 93 23:23:19
From: Brian Yamauchi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <1tghgs$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:

>Jim, do you want tens of thousands of people on welfare?  You and
>other liberal democrats want to cut defense spending, kill our nation's
>greatest assets in science and technology, put hundreds of thousands
>of skilled engineers + blue collar guys on the assembly lines out of
>work, and then tax us more.

>It is rather infuriating that people on this network could be so insensitive
>as to kill major sources of income to huge communities across this nation.

>I am not interested in seeing my dad out of work, my friends on welfare,
>and my community destroyed by people who would wield a budgetary ax
>without understanding where they are chopping!

>Think about the tens of thousands who are dependent on a vigorous space program
>for their very existance.

In general, I support spending more on space exploration, and I think
that NASA's entire ($14G) budget is a drop in the bucket compared to
$400G deficits and a $4200G debt.  Congresspeople who say we "can't
afford" SSF -- or SEI or NASP or any of the other NASA programs -- are
doing nothing but blowing political smoke -- even the most expensive
SEI proposals work out to only around $17G/year.  (We can't afford the
growth of huge entitlement programs with budgets in the _hundreds_ of
billions _per_ _year_, but that's another issue...)

On the other hand, this idea of NASA as a high-tech jobs program is
the worst possible justification for space expenditures.

Why?  Because it puts no pressure at all on getting anything done.
Instead, all of the pressure is to divide the pork equitably between
the "huge communities across the nation" that are relying on NASA to
provide "major sources of income" and employ the "tens of thousands
who are dependent on a vigorous space program".  The problem is that
all the vigor is devoted to spreading money around and preserving jobs
-- and not to exploring space or developing the technology necessary
to do so.

For example: if it were possible to reduce the cost of shuttle
operations by streamlining and automating maintenance operations and
firing many of those who maintain the shuttle, there would be
substantial opposition to such a move from those who are operating
from a "preserve jobs" agenda rather than an "explore space" agenda.

Unfortunately, this appears to be the justification that Clinton
believes...

Followups are directed to talk.politics.space.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi            Case Western Reserve University
[e-mail]    Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 619
------------------------------