Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_4/V9_417.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/oYNJfuy00UkZ58Uk4V>;
          Mon,  8 May 89 05:16:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon,  8 May 89 05:16:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #417

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 417

Today's Topics:
      Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)
               Magellan update
              Re: Magellan launch window
         Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.
         Re: Myth: Only a Government can ...
             Institute for Advanced Study
        Re: Private spending for space science
        Re: Private spending for space science
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #408
             Re: News of The Week, May 4
              Re: Govt. vs. Small Launch
        Re: Private spending for space science
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 May 89 20:46:03 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: manned vs. unmanned (was: Priorities at NASA?)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (steve emmerson) writes:
>The referenced posting is, however, too golden an opportunity to pass up.
>I interpret the testimony as supporting the proposition that the manned
>and unmanned programs compete for funding.
>
>Of course I'm wrong ;-).  Henry?

They compete for funding priority.  Once priorities are set, money taken
out of high-priority projects doesn't get put back into lower-priority
projects.  One may argue about NASA's current set of priorities, but as
long as they remain, attacking manned spaceflight is a pointless waste
of time for the unmanned-spaceflight advocates:  it will not put more
money in their budgets.

I don't read the testimony in question as carrying any implication that
anyone *seriously* proposes gutting the lower-priority projects for the
sake of the shuttle or the station, either.  Fletcher is against it.
And his questioners are not saying that it's a realistic idea:  they're
presenting it as an absurdity to try to convince him to make station and
shuttle cuts.
--
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri,  5 May 89 10:10:58 PST
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan update
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"[e-mail]"

Here's most of the text of the latest recorded announcement at JPL:

This is the JPL broadcast news service 9:30 pm PDT May 4.

[...] Magellan was deployed at 6:02 pm PDT, the first IUS burn occurred at 7:01
pm PDT, the second IUS burn at 7:06 pm PDT, and separation was confirmed at
7:27 pm.  Once placed into an orbit around the Sun from which it will intercept
Venus, Magellan will cruise for 15 months.  There will be 3 trajectory
correction maneuvers, the first will occur 15 days after launch [and I'm told
that the trajectory is so good that this will be at most 3 m/s], the second 345
days later, and the last 17 days before Magellan reaches Venus orbit to ensure
correct arrival conditions.  The landing of the space shuttle Atlantis is
scheduled for 12:44 pm PDT Monday May 8, and there will be a post-landing press
conference at 2:15 pm PDT.

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

For those of you who can't get enough of disclaimers: I'm not responsible
in any way for the content of the message.  I just call up the number and
type in what's said, editing slightly for the benefit of this group.

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

Date: Fri,  5 May 89 10:30:55 PST
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Magellan launch window
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"[e-mail]"

[e-mail] writes:

>    Anybody out there know why the Magellan launch window is so narrow?
>I'm talking about the time-of-day dependent window rather than the one that
>depends on the day-of-year of the two planets.

During today's launch the KSC staff were saying that the later bound was
constrained by the lighting conditions at transatlantic abort sites.
(Watta launch.  Who says this business is boring?)  I don't know what
constrains the earlier bound (it was uncharacteristically late in the
day).  Magellan doesn't leave Earth orbit for another six hours, so
obviously they make several revs first.

I'm told that Galileo will pass Magellan and actually arrive at Venus
earlier.  So much for ideas of Galileo taking pictures of Magellan.
I wonder how close Magellan will come to Pioneer 10?

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

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

Date: 5 May 89 07:23:52 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.

Scott Hess ([e-mail]) concludes a thoughful "diatribe" with:
Nope. UFOs probably dont exist, and do not warrant discussion. If they are
aliens trying to avoid us, I doubt we could do much about them, so ignore
them. If they are toying with us, the best way to get them to stop is to
ignore them. If there is a valid reason we shouldn't have contact with them
yet, the best method would be to ignore them to save our hides (souls?).
If they dont exist, why dont we ignore them? UFOs are the realm of the
mystical, not the scientific. Lets leave them there.
---------------
I disagree.  UFOs *do* exist, I made a considerable number of them in the
early '60.  Mine were mostly candle lighted, lifted by natural gas balloons
and they caused an simply awful fuss in the Tucson newspapers.  Till we got
caught the were certainly "unidentified flying objects."  Years later I
found that a second cusin of mine had been doing the same in Albuquerque
about the same time.  Must say I agree with Scott about aliens, though :)
Keith Henson ([e-mail])

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

Date: 5 May 89 17:33:03 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Myth: Only a Government can ...

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>Hercules Aerospace is not a small company. They are spending hundreds
>of millions of dollars of their own money on getting into the private
>space launch business.

Uh, on what project?  If you're thinking of Pegasus, it has a total budget
of only about $70M, and a good bit of that is coming from OSC (which *is*
a small company).  Well-designed small launchers don't *need* hundreds of
millions of dollars... :-)

(Well, yes, I admit this argument is a little weak because (a) Pegasus
is using Hercules production facilities whose capital costs are not
being charged against it, and (b) Pegasus is probably not Hercules's
only project.)
--
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 5 May 89 09:10:14 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Mark Ross)
Subject: Institute for Advanced Study


To whom it may concern,

Please put me on your "SPACE Digest" mailing list.  My email
address is [e-mail] and my U.S. mail address
(should you require it) is

            Institute for Advanced Study
            South Olden Lane
            Princeton, NJ  08540

            c/o Mark E. Ross (Fuld 323)

                    Thank you,

                    Mark Ross

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

Date: 5 May 89 17:35:27 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marc Bonin) writes:
>> ..........Or a university consortium?
>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>   You are forgetting something here.  Where would universities get the money
>to fund a research project like this?? ...

Have you looked at how much a prominent university can raise in a big,
well-run drive to recruit private funding?  Hint:  it's a lot.

Agreed that the first impulse of most universities would be to go begging
to the government, but it's not the only way.
--
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 May 89 22:20:39 GMT
From: agate![e-mail]  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <[e-mail]>, leech@alanine (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>    Gerry O'Neill by and large ignores NASA, and SSI and Geostar and
>are doing lots of interesting things.  The effort spent NASA-bashing
>has accomplished nothing comparable.

It would be a terrible mistake to believe that the problem of NASA
interference with space exploration and development will go away if we
ignore it.  And we are spending 11.5 billion on NASA this year.

You seem to have the false impression that "NASA-bashing" is confined to
idle conversation.  Many "NASA-bashers" are doing things: writing
legislation (to kill the space station, for example) working with
congressmen, attempting to start companies which will provide space
services, demonstrating to other people that under NASA we have no space
program.

It is not "NASA-bashing" which prevents people from working on other
pro-space activities.  It is ignorance of the facts and the problems,
something necesssary for NASA-boosting and NASA-apology.  If nothing
else, the "NASA-bashing" awakens people to the facts.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

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

Date: Fri, 5 May 1989 10:17-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #408

> expense. It is simply a fact that there is important research which will not
> be done by private companies or individuals, and so must be done with
> government money or something similar.

The "something similar" is a more ethical approach that does not
require the use of stolen goods (taxes to those of different ideology).

I am aware of at least three different models. One is the industry
consortium like MCC. Another is the private research institute, like
SSI. The third is the private foundation that specializes in assisting
research of a particular type. I'm certain that creative minds can come
up with lots of others.

You might say, "but what if they can't raise enough money?" My answer
is: it is an unethical act to force those who do not desire something
to pay for it, no matter HOW much YOU (and I) want it. Doing so is a
criminal act, no different from walking into their apartment and
forcing them to write out a check to your favorite charity ... while
you hold a gun to their head.

It makes no  sense to me how people can believe they are morally
relieved of the wrongness of their acts by having a third party (the
government, or a mafia strongarm man) do their evil deeds for them.

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

Date: 5 May 89 20:10:13 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx![e-mail]  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Re: News of The Week, May 4


         #    #  ####### ####### ######          #     # ######
         #   #   #       #       #     #         #     # #     #
         #  #    #       #       #     #         #     # #     #
         ###     #####   #####   ######          #     # ######
         #  #    #       #       #               #     # #
         #   #   #       #       #               #     # #
         #    #  ####### ####### #                #####  #

   ####### #     # #######          #####  ####### ####### ######
      #    #     # #               #     # #     # #     # #     #
      #    #     # #               #       #     # #     # #     #
      #    ####### #####           #  #### #     # #     # #     #
      #    #     # #               #     # #     # #     # #     #
      #    #     # #               #     # #     # #     # #     #
      #    #     # #######          #####  ####### ####### ######

    #     # ####### ######  #    #                # ####### #     #   ###
    #  #  # #     # #     # #   #                 # #     # ##    #   ###
    #  #  # #     # #     # #  #                  # #     # # #   #   ###
    #  #  # #     # ######  ###                   # #     # #  #  #    #
    #  #  # #     # #   #   #  #            #     # #     # #   # #
    #  #  # #     # #    #  #   #           #     # #     # #    ##   ###
     ## ##  ####### #     # #    #           #####  ####### #     #   ###


    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Greg Goebel                                                         |
    | Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330 |
    | [phone]                                                      |
    | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd                                         |
    | HP DESK:  CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20                                  |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 6 May 89 00:10:47 GMT
From: tank!shamash!com50!questar![e-mail]  (David Becker)
Subject: Re: Govt. vs. Small Launch


What is the difference between civilian spec and mil spec launch
hardware that was mentioned by Koopman (see below)?

My impression is that Nasa and DoD launchers are
modifications of old ICBM's which naturally were mil-spec.  That would
mean lots of redundacy and hardening for a WWIII environment.

What are the military specifications and which would apply only for WWIII
and which would AMROC and Co need anyway?
Is there a "milspec" factor in ground facilities and procedures where this
same distinction can be made?

William Baxter writes:
:
: From hearings of the House of Representatives Committee on Science and
: Technology, J61 S42 100th No. 68, September 15, 1987, "Commercial Launch
: Industry"
:
: Testimony of Mr. KOOPMAN of American Rocket Co., Mr. KADAR of Conatec,
: Inc., and Mr. CHAFER of Space Services, Inc.
:
:   Mr. KOOPMAN.  Sir, I mentioned before that we have a situation with
: the financial community where there is still a large perception that
: the government does not really mean what it says about buying launch
: services.  I have been told point blank that not only do they not
: believe that the government will buy launch services from us, but that
: in addition, they will never let us fly a nonmilspec rocket.
--
David Becker
and another bug bites, and another bug bites   another bug bites the dust
[e-mail]

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

Date: 6 May 89 01:52:13 GMT
From: thorin!alanine![e-mail]  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Baxter) writes:
>You seem to have the false impression that "NASA-bashing" is confined to
>idle conversation.  Many "NASA-bashers" are doing things: writing
>legislation (to kill the space station, for example) working with

    To get guaranteed govt. support for the CDSF, for example.
After all, it's pushed by a small company which NASA is supposedly out
to get, so CDSF must be a better place to put federal subsidies than
the space station.

>attempting to start companies which will provide space services

    There are certainly people like Koopman who are trying to start
companies and doing lots of NASA-bashing (or "NASA-bashing", if you
prefer), on the side. There are also people starting companies
without the bashing.

>It is not "NASA-bashing" which prevents people from working on other
>pro-space activities.    It is ignorance of the facts and the problems,
>something necesssary for NASA-boosting and NASA-apology.  If nothing
>else, the "NASA-bashing" awakens people to the facts.

    More of the "if you're not with us, you're against us" ideology.
Save it. I don't think NASA is any more to be trusted than the Social
Security Administration, but I don't react to that by making continual
anti-NASA postings containing, for example, carefully selected quotes
from Congressional testimony by NASA officials.
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])    __@/
    ``The experiment must be wrong'' - Richard Feynman (as quoted by
    Eugen Merzbacher), upon hearing that experimental data did not
    agree with theoretical predictions. Feynman was correct :-)

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #417
*******************