Return-path: 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/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Mon, 15 May 89 03:17:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 15 May 89 03:17:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #435 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 435 Today's Topics: Soviet Foton processing craft lands Amroc on NASA Re: New Orbiter Name Announced Re: Why no Saturn V? (Was Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST) Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST Enterprise: will it ever fly,like Columbia ? Re: funding large scale space hardware Re: New Orbiter Name Announced International Space Station Re: Private funding of space science Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 May 89 00:39:29 EDT From: Glenn Chapman To: XB.N31@forsythe.stanford.edu, space-editors-new@andrew.cmu.edu, yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu Subject: Soviet Foton processing craft lands On May 12th the USSR landed another Foton processing craft. The Fotons are designed to do materials research experiments, mostly for foreign countries, and then return the samples to earth after about 2 weeks. This particular craft brought back samples of optical glasses, semiconductors, and crystal growth experiment. Interestingly the May 14th short wave announcement also stated that this particular Foton craft had been reused three times. On May 15th they announced that the large Antonov 225 cargo aircraft will be doing flight displays at the Pairs airshow. The An-225 is the 200 Tonne capability plane with external mounts designed to carry the Soviet shuttle, and shuttle equipment. It appears that the Buran, their shuttle, will not be displayed at this airshow, in spite of the rumors mentioned by Aviation Week. Materials processing for other countries is now an operational activity for the USSR's space program. More importantly they are now getting multiple uses out of the processing laboratory. We will see if can really expand their sales in that area. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 89 09:32:27 GMT From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (William Baxter) Subject: Amroc on NASA Letter to the Editor, Ad Astra, April, 1989 From James C. Bennet and George A. Koopman of American Rocket Company Laying Blame We are the co-founders of American Rocket Company. We have been full-time, working commercial space entrepreneurs for 10 years and have been space development advocates for even longer, having joined the L5 Society in 1977. We are dismayed by Charles Miller's wishy-washy comments in the February Space Politics Forum, including his comment that "nobody is to blame" at NASA for its hostile actions toward commercial space ventures. This failure to tell it like it is causes great harm to commercial space efforts. Further, coming from an official of NSS in its official publication, it reinforces the broad perception that NSS is a thinly-guised apologist and cheerleader for NASA. As you must be aware, NASA has been actively hostile to commercial space ventures since their first appearance. In addition to numerous malicious actions directed against American Rocket Company, NASA has done substantial damage to Transpace Carriers, Conatec, Space Industries, Astrotech and many other small, entrepreneurial ventures. They have also threatened several large aerospace companies with economic sanctions when those companies expressed interest in entering and participating in commercial space ventures. In short, NASA, the agency charged with leading this nation's space exploration and exploitation, has consistently acted to advance its short-term interest at the expense of the repeatedly stated national goal of fostering commercial space development. Past NASA administrators have shamefully set agency interest above national needs. NASA's role to date in space commercialization has only resulted in harm to the commercial sector. It is a classic case of setting the fox to guard the hen house. It does no good to speak of "no blame" when, indeed, individuals and offices at field centers and NASA Headquarters can be assigned specific responsability for harm caused to space ventures. The first step in repairing damage is to understand exactly what damage has been done and why it happened. The next step is to design fixes to assure that it does not happen again. The third step is to create a new system in which the corrected parts have useful, positive functions to carry out. We have always believed that NASA has an important role to play in space commercialization. We have been waiting for NASA to begin working in a positive fashion with commercail space firms to help define that role. But this will not happen unless and until past errors have been identified and the reasons for those errors have been corrected. James C. Bennet, Vice President, External Affairs George A. Koopman, President American Rocket Company, Camarillo, California ---- William Baxter ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web "We will not be intimidated by that evil Central American dictator whose armed forces number almost as many as the undergraduates at UC Berkeley." El Presidente. ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 89 14:01:07 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced In article <966@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu> ahiggins@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Andrew J. Higgins) writes: >According to CNN, NASA has announced that the Challenger replacement orbiter >will be named Endeavour.... >The space ship in _Rendezvous_with_Rama_ was also named Endeavour. Maybe >their are some A. C. Clarke fans at NASA. Lest others on the net be tempted to draw the same erroneous conclusion, let me point out that "Endeavour" drew a hefty plurality of votes in the name submission contest held at US schools last year. NASA set strict rules and supplied "curriculum materials" so I suspect they pretty much got the name they wanted. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff "Truisms aren't everything." Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 89 14:46:29 GMT From: spl@mcnc.org (Steve Lamont) Subject: Re: Why no Saturn V? (Was Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST) In article <24343@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes: >only more extreme. The Shuttle was to use normal runways and air >traffic control, be fully reusable, cost $50 per pound to orbit I can see it... "Shuttle Atlantis... you are number two for landing... right behind the Cessna..." ;-) spl ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 89 14:17:57 GMT From: tektronix!tekgen!tekred!larryb@uunet.uu.net (Larry Brader) Subject: Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST In article <1989May11.050951.11130@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > >US scientists examining protein crystals recovered from a Chinese >satellite observe that many were broken by reentry and landing forces. >Complete crystals are important for protein-structure determination. > From what I understand they do most of the crystal analysis on earth. Has anyone engineer a piece of test equipment to actual perform analysis in space? It would seem to make a alot of sense check out a micro-g crystal structure in space in addition to analysis on earth. Gravity and re-entry will cause deformation to various crystaline structures. How about a satellite that grows crystals, performs analysis and beam the information to earth? I'm sure someone has already thought of it. Is it possible, worthwhile, or simply another idea to be noted and log? >-- >Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology >2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu Space 90's : Japan buys NASA -- Larry Brader :: larryb%speed.cna.tek.com@relay.cs.net timesurfing the new temporal sport ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 89 03:11:15 GMT From: tank!shamash!nic.MR.NET!thor.acc.stolaf.edu!thor.stolaf.edu!mcconnel@handies.ucar.edu (Mark) Subject: Enterprise: will it ever fly,like Columbia ? I'm sorry, stupid, but curious. Could somebody tell me the purpose that Enterprise is used for and include a history of it ? Please include why it doesn't fly like the other shuttles. The new shuttles' name is due to a 'name the shuttle contest', not because of A.C Clarke, try elementary students, I think. If I am wrong, I stand corrected. .............Sen. Jake Garn didn't deserve to go on the shuttle............. ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 89 14:00:04 GMT From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware In article <1989May11.204302.1629@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > > Boeing will > *not* start full development of a new airliner purely on speculation; it > wants to see contractually-committed customers first. I wasn't aware of this. Does this mean that the 7J7, which is currently under development (or has it gotten to flight tests?) already has some committed customers? This seems unlikely, given the recent rush by the airlines to order current models. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca : Georgia Institute of Technology : [This space for rent] ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 89 16:31:45 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!bonin@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Marc Bonin) Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced It's interesting to note that every shuttle orbiter except Columbia has a fictional counterpart Enterprise : Obvious ! Discovery: the ship from 20001 Challenger: remember the Adventures of Tom Swift??? He had a ship called the Challenger Endeavour: from 'Rendezvous with Rama' Marc Bonin University of Texas at Austin ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 89 18:29:38 GMT From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (William Baxter) Subject: International Space Station Since the Soviet Space Station MIR carries experiments from many nations, and since cosmonauts from several countries have visited it, should call it the International Space Station? William Baxter ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web ------------------------------ Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov Date: Thu, 11 May 89 22:23:49 PDT From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Private funding of space science The government is the best source of support for research NOT development (with exceptions for military civil service activities mentioned below). Research results are KNOWLEGE ABOUT THE NATURE OF THINGS and belong in the public domain. Development results are the REDUCTION TO PRACTICE OF INVENTIONS which belong to those who contributed the capital and creativity necessary to bring the ideas to fruition. While I contribute my personal finances to Space Studies Institute as a Senior Associate (and have done so since 1981) I do so not because I believe that organizations like SSI are, as a matter of policy, the correct organizations to carry out space research. I contribute to SSI because the government, due to its present policy, has failed to support space research. Quibble if you must on the precise boundry between research and development. It is clear that: * The government is engaging in a lot of development (and even operations) at the expense of the availability of public funds for research (this includes NSF in its supercomputer network and superconducting supercollider, NASA in just about everything and DARPA in almost as much of what it does). * This political bias is a direct result of political activities of those who make money from these development activities. * The knowlege base from which real development can be accomplished is stagnating due to neglect. * The stagnation of basic knowlege is contributing to a stagnation of truly innovative development -- formerly the unique strength of our country. * The vicious cycle of government contract-dependence is leading to ever greater levels of political activities on the part of those who have become dependent on government contracts. * The selective pressure on these firms being political rather than economic is resulting in the degradation of some of our best technical resources. * The degradation of our technical resources in service of politics is leading to ever decreasing levels of economic and ethical integrity. * Those who continue, in the face of recent history and Eisenhower's warning against the "military industrial complex" almost 30 years ago, to lobby for the government to give them ever larger contracts "in the national interests" are, in fact, so selfish and destructive to our country that they are properly called traitors. * Attempts to justify the creation of ever larger bureaucracies (such as the developing relationship between DoD and IBM) by pointing to "Japan Inc.", are playing directly into this failure mode and must be treated as part of the problem. To the extent that the government, for national security reasons, must engage in development and operations, as in the case of the branches of the military, this should be accomplished within the purview and restrictions of civil service. To stop the vicious cycle of political action by those benifiting from development spending, the Hatch Act must be extended to include all those who receive non-entitlement income from the government, including welfare recipients and those charging to government contracts, as well as civil servants. Anything short of these measures will be insufficient to break this runaway positive feedback cycle. The result will be catastrophic to our country and ourselves if we do not act decisively. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Bowery Phone: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 Join the Mark Hopkins Society! La Jolla, CA 92038 (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.) UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 89 13:56:06 GMT From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) Subject: Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST In article <1989May11.202243.1111@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >No damage that I know of. It's overweight and well below normal orbiter >specs, but that's another story. If you did a thorough refit on it, you >could theoretically fly it into space, although payload would be low due >to the overweight structure. The very fact that it *is* overweight would be a problem in new landing tests, since landing weight is very important when it comes to landing gear and braking. My guess is that, yes, we could refit it and use it for landing tests, but the data would not be fully indicative of the performance of the flight shuttle. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca : Georgia Institute of Technology : [This space for rent] ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #435 *******************