Message-ID: <EY2uPsy00UkZ8hXE5=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed,  1 Mar 89 03:16:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #268

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 268

Today's Topics:
		 Re: First concert from space--update
Re: Cosmos mission results and future U.S./USSR missions announced (Forwarded)
			  Re: 1992 moon base
	     The Great Space Settlement Economics Debate
			    Re: arguments
			    Re: arguments
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 89 04:12:19 GMT
From: adobe!jackson@decwrl.dec.com  (Curtis Jackson)
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <1885@randvax.UUCP> talmy@randvax.UUCP (Shel Talmy) writes:
}Dear Chairman Gorbachev:
}We  have organized a company in the U.S.A.  whose
}main goal is to produce the first ever musical concert  broadcast
}from space.  To that end, we are in negotiations with some of the

You have friends who are in desperate financial state and incredibly
low on morale, and you go to their house and say, "Yo, Fred!  How's
about you let us use your car to go to Tahoe -- and you pay the gas
money.  We're gonna visit an old folk's home there, and we need
wheels and we can't pay you for the use of your car.  Oh, you stay
here and tell your old lady and the kids why they can't use the car
for the weekend."

Sound crass?  It's not much worse than this concert crap.  Mikhail
Gorbachev is trying to reform his country.  He is facing enormous
budget deficits, rampant alcoholism and food shortages, gang
and Mafia-style activity crippling his production and making his
streets unsafe, and is quite literally in danger of being deposed,
offed, or "disappeared" on a daily basis.  He has pissed a lot of
people off.

Now you want him to tell the people of his country that he is going
to spend the megabucks necessary to launch the shuttle just so some
Americans and Russians can broadcast a concert from space to radios
and TVs his own people don't have, can't get, and even if they could
get couldn't afford?

This is the height of liberal altruistic bad taste.  And since I are
a liberal myself I'm quite embarrassed by it.  Perhaps your next
little venture will be to ask the spiritual leader of your local
black ghetto if you can boot them out of their church for a Sunday
so you can go in there and sell beautiful imported chocolates they
can't afford -- with all proceeds going to Muscular Dystrophy, of
course.

I find the arrogance of Americans as a group very annoying these
days.  "Mr. Gorbachev, do this because *we'll* like you more for it,
and that is of course what you want."  Gorbachev wants technology
to help feed and cloth his countrypersons and bring them into the
mid-twentieth century, and glasnost is strictly a vehicle to make
that possible.  I applaud him for trying to do his job -- make
the USSR a better place to live.  I do not and cannot applaud
the lack of tact shown by Shel and Co. in this matter of the concert.

Follow-ups have been directed to talk.politics.misc, since this is
a political issue -- not a musical or shuttle one, and certainly
not a headline I've seen lately.
-- 

Curtis Jackson @ Adobe Systems in Mountain View, CA  (415-962-4905)
Internet: jackson@adobe.com	uucp: ...!{apple|decwrl|sun}!adobe!jackson

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

Date: 24 Feb 89 06:52:11 GMT
From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: Cosmos mission results and future U.S./USSR missions announced (Forwarded)

In article <951@blake.acs.washington.edu> mikem@blake.acs.washington.edu
(Michael M. Martinez) writes:
>In article <21918@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee)
>writes:
>>                              [. . .]  The mitochondria in the
>                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>heart muscle also showed degeneration and fiber changes.

	This has to be a mistake (I assume it resulted from the scrambling of
two sentences), but then:

>I note one thing about which I have a question, and that is the reference to
>a loss of mitochondrial fiber. Mitochondria are not tissue, they are
>organelles
>within all procaryotic cells that provide the electron transport necessary to
>provide energy. [. . .]

	If you are going to discuss space biology, get your biology right.
Mitochondria are organelles in EUKARYOTIC cells (almost all, but not quite
all), and NOT PRESENT IN ANY PROKARYOTIC cells.  In fact, mitochondria
developed from some kind of symbiote (presumably a prokaryote) living inside
ancestral eukaryotic cells.  (The same is true of chloroplasts, incidentally,
for which the general type of prokaryotic ancestor (cyanobacteria, also known
as blue-green algae) is known.)

-- 
|  Lucius Chiaraviglio   |  ARPA:  chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
BITNET:  chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR)
ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:      chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu
Alt ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:  chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu

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

Date: 24 Feb 89 22:26:00 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <918@nih-csl.UUCP> jim@nih-csl.UUCP (jim sullivan) writes:
>>... a lunar colony has to have enough power over its environment
>>to do something practical rather than just huddling.  (If all you can do
>>is huddle and wait for the return flight, what you have is a base, not a
>>colony.)
>
>	Agreed, but what is wrong with starting with a base which would
>	be revisited, each visit bringing along an addition or improvement
>	eventually leading to a permanent base or colony...

Nothing much, except that it's a great deal more costly than shipping all
the hardware up at once and starting permanent occupation immediately.
It *does* spread the bill out over a longer period, which may be an
advantage, depending on who's paying it.

>>... (NASA has done
>>spaceflight a huge disservice by propagating the myth that everything can
>>be planned in advance and there is no reason for anything to ever go wrong.
>
>	Where is this myth?  Does NASA deny the Apollo I fire, the Soviets
>	killed on re-entry a few years ago, Challenger?

No, but these were, you understand, lamentable anomalies which will never,
never, never be allowed to happen again, and hence need not be planned for.

The NRC said in so many words that losing more orbiters is inevitable and
ongoing orbiter production is vital to any long-range plans for use of
the shuttle fleet.  NASA has lots of long-term plans for the shuttle
fleet, but no plan for ongoing orbiter production.

It is an inarguable fact that solid boosters are more prone to disastrous
trouble than liquid ones, but NASA has no plans to change.  The problems
have been fixed, after all!

NASA isn't even building backup hardware for the space station.

>What NASA propagates
>	is an assurance that all safty procedures possible are undertaken
>	and backups to them.  I remember the Apollo flights very well and
>	everyone was worried about an accident.  NASA stated that they
>	were implementing all safty procedures but no one assumed an accident
>	could not occur nor that an accident would stop the program.  
>	Remember Apollo 13?

Yes, I remember Apollo 13.  I remember that the astronauts were inordinately
lucky that one man in the computer-development group had put his foot down
and insisted that the CSM and LM computers *must* be identical; this was
the reason that the LM could handle navigation for Apollo 13.  I remember
that the LM didn't have enough lithium-hydroxide canisters for the return
trip, and the CM canisters were an incompatible design that couldn't be
connected to the LM system; fortunately, a connection could be improvised.
I remember that there was no procedure for separating CM from LM without
help from the SM; again, an improvision was possible and sufficed.  This
was all luck, not planning.  NASA had never considered the possibility
that the SM might be completely dead, unable to handle navigation, life
support, or maneuvering propulsion.

NASA does *not* undertake all possible safety procedures.  It undertakes
safety procedures for all the specific failures it can think of.  Little
attempt is made to make the system more versatile, more flexible, more
forgiving, so that *un*expected problems can be handled.  Why not make
the Apollo CM and LM lithium-hydroxide canisters interchangeable, or at 
least provide an adapter?  Why not put oxygen, not air, in the escape
packs on the shuttle?  Why not put a manual trigger on the TPAD grappling
unit, whose automatic systems failed so miserably on the Solar Max repair?
Because none of the failures in The Book require those things, and it
says in The Book that all possible failures have been considered.

>>In the long run, the exploration of space will be like the exploration of
>>Earth some time ago:  a slightly risky business that occasionally kills
>>people and is *expected* to do so, and thus does not stop for agonizing
>>reappraisals each time that happens.)
>
>	Yes, people will die just as they do in every exploration project
>	since by definition there are many unknowns BUT that does not mean
>	that we should just ignore a death or accident and continue on blindly.
>	I, for one, am happy to see the shuttle redesigned.  The reappraisals
>	are those of how to continue *with more safty* than they are of
>	whether to continue at all.

Um, are we talking about the same shuttle accident?  The question of whether
to continue at all was being very seriously raised in Congress.

I agree that the shuttle is better for the redesign.  It's a pity that it
took two or three times as long as it should have.  Likewise that safety
has been used as an excuse to kill off a number of desirable ideas.  And
that those responsible for the accident were mostly rewarded rather than
punished, setting a truly awful example for the next bunch of people who
have to justify doing the right thing rather than what management wants.
And that all the old bull about how reliable the shuttle is has come back.
And that if there is ever *another* accident -- and it will happen, no doubt
about it -- we'll go through all the same nonsense all over again, since
NASA has made no serious attempt to prepare people for the idea that it 
could happen again.
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

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

Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 09:28:10 PDT
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: The Great Space Settlement Economics Debate
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu"

There's an interesting, informative, and pertinent article in the
February (? - if not, it's the one with the story title "Pony Express"
on the cover) _Analog_.  There's a good discussion of the precedence
for government paying for long-term-payoff projects.

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

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

Date: 23 Feb 89 20:25:46 GMT
From: asuvax!mcdphx!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!sparks@noao.edu  (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: arguments

In article <142@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, szabonj@minke (Nick Szabo) writes:
> 
> Prestige is a matter of attitudes, which are changing.  People are realizing
> that solid economic and scientific progress is in itself prestigious, while 
> the glamour of manned spaceflight has faded into expensive, meaningless
> repitition.  Polls show that the public prefers unmanned planetary probes
> over manned missions.
> 

Show me the polls that show this. It seems to me that most people favor
a manned space program. Take this newsgroup for instance. From what I 
see, most people on here support a manned presence in space. I can only
think of two who oppose vehemently: You and Mr. Dietz. Most every one else
is for manned spaceflight in the present. 

I personally am not against unmanned spaceflight. I think there is room 
enough for both. Unmanned should pave the way for manned. But I don't
think that we should sit on our behinds while probes explore and do everything.

I mean, what is the purpose of sending probes all over the universe if we
aren't going to go out there ourselves and use the knowledge? We might
as well just cancel the entire space program. 

If we keep putting off manned space flight until it gets cheaper, it will
never get cheaper. It gets cheaper because the more we do something, the
better we learn how to make it more efficient and cheaper. 

How do we learn how to support life in space unless we go there and try
to support life in space? How do we learn how to make cheap self sufficient
bases/colonies unless we try to build some? Probes can't give us the 
answers to this, they aren't alive. They can measure radiation, take pictures
of rocks, etc. They don't need life support. 

How can sending more probes into space make it cheaper to send men later?

This is an arguement that will never be resolved. There are those like me
who support a Manned Program, and nothing you say will change our minds.
And those like yourself and Mr. Dietz, who oppose a Manned Program in the
present, and nothing I or anyone else will say will change your minds.

Not that I am saying that any of us (your group or mine) is closed minded.
I just feel that this is a subject that neither of us will budge on.

As a closing note: I have noticed that most supporters of Manned Spaceflight
also support an Unmanned Program. We see them complimenting each other.
While most supporters of the Unmanned Program are against the Manned Program
altogether, or put it off indefinately.


-- 
John Sparks      // Amiga  |  {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks 
               \X/  UUCP   |  >> call D.I.S.K. @ 502/968-5401 thru 5406 << 
 
A virtuous life is its own punishment.

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

Date: 24 Feb 89 22:00:04 GMT
From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: arguments

In article <381@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:
>In article <142@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, szabonj@minke (Nick Szabo) writes:
>> 
>I personally am not against unmanned spaceflight. I think there is room 
>enough for both. 

If there is room enough for both, why does present manned spaceflight continue
to get the bulk of the resources, while badly needed unmanned and R&D projects
go wanting?   Why are the funds for optical communications, electrical 
propulsion, NERVA, EML, gas guns, laser launch, DSN upgrades, etc. so low?
Why aren't we sending probes to look for resources in the near-Earth asteroids,
Mercury, etc?  Why are we still waiting for a lunar polar orbiter?

>If we keep putting off manned space flight until it gets cheaper, it will
>never get cheaper. It gets cheaper because the more we do something

That "something" is basic R&D and unmanned exploration, not building
manned vehicles and stations that are even more expensive than the last
generation (eg Shuttle, Station), at the expense of exploration and
technical progress.

>How do we learn how to support life in space unless we go there and try
>to support life in space? 

Biological reactions to space are not the most important questions, and 
they can be answered with an unmanned biological platform like the sliding
module tether I have proposed.  The important questions of finding resources,
and figuring out how to mine and manufacture them, are best answered by unmanned
projects.

>How can sending more probes into space make it cheaper to send men later?

I have exhaustively answered this question, over and over again, in my
messages.  

>This is an arguement that will never be resolved. There are those like me
>who support a Manned Program, and nothing you say will change our minds.

This is really too bad.  I hope for the sake of space enthusiasts everywhere
that people like you are a small, small minority.

>Not that I am saying that any of us (your group or mine) is closed minded.

!!!!!!!!!!!

>As a closing note: I have noticed that most supporters of Manned Spaceflight
>also support an Unmanned Program. We see them complimenting each other.

Promoting manned spaceflight at the expense of unmanned does not constitute
"support" for the unmanned program.  

>While most supporters of the Unmanned Program are against the Manned Program
>altogether, or put it off indefinately.

Nobody has argued anything of the kind.  The argument is that we 
must "put it off" until it provides cost-effective return of scientific 
knowledge or money, or there are volunteers willing to undertake it at their 
own expense.  


Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #268
*******************