Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_3/V10_372.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 32766
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/UZeWz6u00VcJM0tE5E>;
          Tue,  9 Jan 90 13:39:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </usr/spool/ViceMsgQueue/QF.IZd44e200VcJ03EE8T>;
          Fri,  5 Jan 90 01:39:38 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri,  5 Jan 90 01:37:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #372

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 372

Today's Topics:
       Re: Scientific value of Apollo (was Re: Motives)
              Re: Techno-welfare
           Re: Launching AUSSAT on Chinese rockets
               Re: Microrovers
              Visits to KSC and launches
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Dec 89 15:07:56 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Scientific value of Apollo (was Re: Motives)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>>It's interesting that some of the people who said that Apollo was a
>>>ridiculously expensive way to get minimal results are now the ones who
>>>are saying that Apollo completely explored the Moon, so we should forget
>>>the Moon and press on to Mars.

[like who?]

>Louis Friedman of the self-styled Planetary Society, writing in Aviation
>Week a couple of years ago.  ...
>Sagan, Murray, Friedman ...

Oh yes there are people today who say "On to Mars!", no doubt about it.
The question is, exactly who USED to say Apollo was ridiculously
inefficient but NOW says it was thorough and that THAT'S why we should
go on to Mars.  I have never seen such a person.  I *have* seen people
who wanted unmanned then, want unmanned now, and simply think Mars would
yield more dividends for the unmanned buck at this point, but that's
not what Henry seems to be alluding to.

By the way, I should like to observe that Henry's critical skills have
been in sharp decline since the beginning of the hockey season... :-)
--
War is like love; it always      \%\%\%   Tom Neff
finds a way. -- Bertold Brecht   %\%\%\   [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Dec 89 16:26:24 GMT
From: frooz![e-mail]  (Steve Willner, OIR)
Subject: Re: Techno-welfare

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
(Henry Spencer):
> ...  [In the U.S.]
> pension funds and the like are a major source of investment, with truly
> massive amounts of money involved, and their managers are *legally
> required* to maximize short-term return on investment and ignore all
> other considerations, on pain of criminal charges and jail.)

Your general point is well taken, but this statement is a bit too
strong.  "Fiduciaries" are obliged to avoid "imprudent risks" and to
try to assure funds are available for paying obligations.  They are not
necessarily required to maximize profits at all.  (In a "defined-
benefit" plan, certainty of return may be more important than amount of
return.)  Furthermore, the term over which investments must be expected
to pay off is that of the fund's obligations, which may be quite long.

In practice, though, many pension funds choose to minimize risk by
sticking to short-term investments.  This may prevent annoying
litigation, but it is not what the law requires.

Mutual funds sold to individuals operate under different constraints.
They can do (basically) anything they want, provided their intentions
are properly disclosed.  For example, some funds make only "socially
responsible" (by their own, stated criteria) investments, even if that
may reduce profit.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Willner            Phone [phone]         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 2 Jan 90 10:29:57 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!csc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Launching AUSSAT on Chinese rockets

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:
>>Henry has looked better than this!  When Afghanistan was invaded we
>>*did* embargo trade.  With the accession of Mr Gorbachev things have
>>been unfrozen; the USSR has publicly and formally apologized for
>>Afghanistan in the last months...
>
> Ah, I see.  The apology makes everything all right.  I wonder if the
> mujahidin would agree, though, since the (Soviet-backed) Afghan government
> is continuing the slaughter without apology.
>
> Has Uncle Gorby apologized for the Gulag yet?
>
>>... By contrast, the butchers of Tiananmen Square are SMUG about
>>their atrocious response to 1989's wave of democracy.  They flaunt their
>>dictatorly arrogance and cynically count on the West's selfish sense of
>>economic expediency to rescue them from hard consequences...
>
> For some reason, I find it difficult to be horrified at a few months'
> smugness about a few thousand deaths while dismissing most of a decade's
> smugness about the mass slaughter and systematic devastation in Afghanistan.
> Between the dead and the refugees, Afghanistan's population dropped 25-30%
> in the last decade.  Its economy is in ruins, to put it mildly.  Nasty little
> legacies like millions of unmarked land mines will be there for decades.
> And the war continues.  In most ways, China is paradise by comparison.
> The consequences of Afghanistan were not particularly hard; the West's
> economic expediency came through for the USSR despite the initial fuss.
> And now that Gorbachev has apologized, let's let bygones be bygones?
>
> I have tried to convince myself that the protest/sanctions/embargo/etc
> uproar over China is not just the latest trendy cause, endorsed by the
> same people who were outraged about US policies in Central America but
> changed the subject whenever the word "Afghanistan" was heard, and
> that there is some rational reason for drastic response to ugly and
> vicious but comparatively minor repression... but I can't.
>
> Being a little less cynical for the moment...  Trade policy should not be
> based on the whims of the moment; consistency and continuity are important.
> The space industry has been particularly plagued by policy-of-the-week
> decision-making in recent years.  Encouraging though the fresh air in
> Eastern Europe is, and disgusting though the graveyard stench in China is,
> both are very recent developments.  Next year things may well be reversed.
> It would be reasonable to discourage new Long March launch agreements
> until trends in China are clearer, but existing agreements which have
> already received formal approval should not be retroactively disapproved
> (especially without compensation) except in a dire emergency.

    While we are talking about such things.  Perhaps we should also
remember that the USA is not totally blameless in such areas.  I seem to
remember one very long war where the US blatantly ran all over a small
country's economuy, killed millions.  Promised to pay repayations and then
reneged.  Punished them for defeating them (the mightiest power on earth at the
time) and have consistently done so ever since.  The nation?  Vietnam  In
addition when that nation does do something worthwhile by ending the genocidal
regime of Pol Pot (something the west was unwilling to do) we further punish
both them and the other country concerned.  US policy towards Vietnam and
Cambodia should not be forgotten.
    Perhaps we should also add US policy towards South Africa.  The US
supported South Africa for many years because it was an anti-communist bastion
in Africa.  However it conveniently overlooked Apartheid for many years.  It
supported South African terrorism into Angola directly and into Mozambique
indirectly where millions have died.
    To this list can be added Romania and the Phillipines.  In both cases
the US supported a dictator because he was anti-communist (or in the case of
Romania anti-soviet).  They ignored the resultant effects on the people of
these countries.  And let us not forget Panama where a dictator was created
with American  support and help from the CIA.  Just because he was then
destroyed with tremendous loss of Panamanian lives also shouldn't be forgotten.
    Henry if your going to condemn the Soviet Union for its actions in
Afghanistan and attempt to white wash the current regime in China simply
because it launches cheap rockets.  Why not also look a little closer to home?
I don't hear anywhere in this newsgroup a condemnation of the US goverment and
its policies.  Before pointing the finger, think about what your own country,
or its near neighbours has done.

B.R.

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

Date: 19 Dec 89 20:37:58 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!yunexus!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Microrovers

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Harrenstien) writes:
>... It would
>be nice if someone familiar with these areas of research could post
>additional details...

Check out the October issue -- I think it was October -- of the Journal
of the British Interplanetary Society (any good technical library should
have this).  It's a special issue on small spacecraft and the like, with
technical papers on a variety of schemes (including several from JPL and
one from the MIT microrover people).

The main problem with microrovers is that they are a research topic, not
a well-understood technology.  That will change, possibly soon enough to
be of immediate relevance.  (At the glacial pace of US mission planning,
change "possibly" to "probably"... :-( )
--
1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972:  human |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
exploration of space terminates| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Dec 89 05:22:38 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!chook.ua.oz![e-mail]  (Francis Vaughan)
Subject: Visits to KSC and launches



Since a few people have been asking, I thought it was about time to share
my experiences in trying to witness a shuttle launch.


I attempted to see the STS-34 launch scheduled for October the 12th. As it
was, the launch was delayed enough that I missed it, but my experiences
may be of some value.

On the recommendation of a few people I opted to join a NSS organised
group. They run two types of tour. The first is a four day (and night)
package tour, the second a day of launch bus tour. Since I was comming from
OZ, and didn't know my way around I took the four day tour. This includes
all accomodation, but no meals. They will pick you up from Orlando Airport
and deliver you back again. The cost was $500.

The tour was run by David Brandt, who is a full time employee of the NSS
and a basicly really nice guy. He also understands real beer as opposed
to the insipid muck normally served up in the US. The tour size was about
13 people, and limited by the size of the mini-bus used. It's a pretty
interesting mix of people. We had people from all backgrounds, ages, and
interests, with perhaps a slight overrepresentation of nurds and social
misfits. None the less there were also quite intersting people to talk to.
One person turned out to be a retired technician from JPL who had worked
as a mission configuration specialist right from the Explorer missions. He
had some fascinating anecdotes to tell.

Accomodation was at the Ramada Inn, in Titusville, a pretty ordinary
motel, with a Dennys attached. The food needless to say was appalling. We
ate out mostly. We visited KSC a couple of times and went on the bus
tours. We also spent a day at EPCOT and a day at Seaworld. The Seaworld
visit was to kill time because of the launch delay.

David supplied us with useful and nice bits and pieces. We each got copies
of the press kits for the launch and copies of lots of other
documentation. Plus we each got a mission patch (a nice touch).

The other advantage of the NSS tours apparently is the vantage point for
viewing the launch. They get a pass that enables them to take a busload
onto the causeway, some miles closer than the unrestricted areas. It is
still a long way away, you won't be taking any award winning photos.
However pad A is closer than pad B so launches from there may afford a
better view (assuming they don't change the restricted areas around).

Now for the bad bits.

Despite all of Davids and the NSSs efforts NASA seems not to give a shit
about mere mortals who may have tracked half way around the world to see
and learn. The Cape is as I indicated a short distance from Disney and all
the other tourist traps. KSC is nothing but a big tourist machine catering
for people who take a break from wasting money at Disney and thought they
might like to take the kids to see a few rockets.

There is three decades of history sitting out there and nobody cares.

You can't even buy NASA publications from the bookshop at KSC.


------- OK, I don't normally flame, but turn on the gas and light up.

The bus tours are appalling. Really appalling. It is hard to express my
anger and frustration at the way these are conducted.

There are two tours, the red and the blue. One takes you down the cape
and shows you such unforgettable things as the launch control bunker for
the Explorer shots. Outside this is a lawned area covered is old missiles
and small rockets and interesting junk. They let you have ten minutes to
see it. TEN MINUTES!! you can't even do justice to one exhibit in that
time. As the bus left I saw a V-1 and V-2 for the first time out of the
window. I had not enough time to walk completly around the lawn to even
glance at the exhibits.


The second tour takes you around the KSC facilities. Again amazing things
to see, no time to see them. We saw the building where the Apollo
astronauts trained on a simulated moonscape, complete with one of the
remaining landers. Plus in the same room one of the remaining
command/service modules. Probably less than five minutes viewing time.
Then a ride out to the VAB, a quick look at one of the crawlers (BIG) a
drive around the perimiter of the VAB (one door partially open and a stack
inside). This is the closest you will get to a shuttle. Around the other
side is the Saturn V we keep hearing mentioned rusting on the lawn. You
are not given enough time to walk the length of the rocket. Literally, I
ran with my camera taking pictures and did not make it further up than the
bottom of the third stage before the bus driver was yelling at everyone to
get back on the bus.

When I was back at the motel I can across a local community newspaper, the
lead artical was about a womans family that received a large (~$1.8M I
think) payout after she was killed by a tour bus T-boning her car inside
KSC. Evidence was given that the tour company (NASA subcontracts the tour
operation) was imposing unrealistic timetables upon the drivers, which caused
them to break all sorts of laws in order to complete the tours on time. It
was also noted that the driver in question had been disqualified from
driving, but that the tour company didn't care. Rather summed things up I
thought.

The problem is that that the stuff you see on the tours is high on the must
see list, and there is no other way of seeing it.

I came half way around the world, spent a lot of money and time and basicly
got to spend less than an hour total time seeing what I came to see.

----- OK, turn the flame off. Now for a few other comments and advice.

The tour bus also takes you past launch pad A. Normally they let you off for
a few minutes, but because of the RTGs fiasco nobody was let off the bus
within sight of the launch pads (even though pad A was some miles off)
in case they were a member of the Christics and wanted to picket the launch.
In general I got the feeling that a better view, and closer approach to the
shuttle would be had for any launch that was from pad A, but I don't know
how much they might divert the tour routes. You will probably never get
close to a good view of the shuttle because it remains covered until only
some hours before the launch, and by then the tours have been stopped.


In summary, I would go with the NSS for a tour, take a camera, lots of film
and burn film, because this is the only way you will get to see what is
there; on your photos, you will not have time to register what is happening
whilst you are there. If you want it all laid on and a bit of a holiday,
take the four day package, if you only want the actual launch and can
organise everything else (car, accomodation) get the one day launch special.

Anyway lots of thanks to David Brandt, and those that recommended the tours.
No thanks at all to NASA and the dorks that run the public relations.

Dept of Computer Science                        Francis Vaughan
University of Adelaide                          [e-mail]
South Australia.

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #372
*******************