Message-ID: <8aagFxS00VcJ8HJU4J@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 1990 02:17:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #46

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 12 : Issue 46

Today's Topics:
		    Re: NASA's lobbying on the net
			    Titan boosters
	 TV coverage (was Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration)
		    Re: NASA's lobbying on the net
		       Re: SPACE Digest V12 #38
 Re: Inaccurate quotes (was: Re: More on NASA 91 Appropriation Vote)
       Re: Ideas Needed for Manned Exploration of Moon and Mars
	      [l/m 7/5] Frequently asked SPACE questions

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  space+@andrew.cmu.edu.  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to
			 tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu

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

Date: 11 Jul 90 00:09:36 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!turnkey!orchard.la.locus.com!prodnet.la.locus.com!todd@ucsd.edu  (Todd Johnson)
Subject: Re: NASA's lobbying on the net

In article <9007100242.AA27486@ibmpa.paloalto.ibm.com> szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nicholas J. Szabo) writes:
;
;In article <15051@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@homer.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) wr
;ites:
;>    Nick, what makes NASA so special, that you don't complain about
;>all the other postings originating on government-funded equipment?
;
;I am only complaining about pro-agency lobbying efforts using the
;equipment of that agency.  NASA is the only government agency I have seen
;on the net that allows its employees to engage in political activity for
;that agency.  (I could have missed 'em because sci.space is the most
;political group I read; if there are examples for other agencies let
;us know).
;
;This biases the sci.space discussion in a pro-NASA direction.
;In the last 4 weeks, out of perhaps 100 postings from NASA, only one has
;held an opinion critical of NASA.

Has it occured to you that the only reason these NASA people are responding
to what has been (in the past six months or more that I've been reading
this news feed) an unremitting cascade of criticism is because of that
same 'esprit de corps' which that one critical opinion noted was missing?
That NASA employees are actually WILLING to take the flak for using 
"government-funded equipment" because they still HAVE a sense of pride
in the agency and because they're still willing to try to make it the
great organization it has been in the past?

Or is it that you wish to stifle any opinion that dissents from yours?

Personally, I'm rather glad to hear these people talk back. I was afraid
that all the spine had been beaten out of NASA by Congress and people
who freak about the use of "government-funded equipment" while using
the internet. There's hope yet.
-- 
todd@locus.com
lcc!todd@seas.ucla.edu
{uunet,ucla-se,elroy!turnkey}!lcc!todd

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

Date: 10 Jul 90 19:39:38 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!David.Anderman@ucsd.edu  (David Anderman)
Subject: Titan boosters

The Commercial Titan does *not* have 2 1/2 times the lift capability of 
a shuttle, in fact it has less capacity than a shuttle flight. The Titan 
IV is shuttle compatible, the Commercial Titan is less capable than the 
larger Titan IV. 
This is no way detracts from the idea of using the commercial Titan in 
conjunction with a manned capsule. However, I am not too keen on the 
idea for other reasons, specifically 2 -  the two SRBs that the large 
Titans use. They are nasty, and tend to explode, and create vibrations 
that humans don't seem  to like. 
As for using Soyuzes, you're right it does make sense, more sense than 
having the US sepnd 1.5 billion $ to develop manned capsules which the 
Freedom space station desperately needs to allow some sort of emergency 
return...how much would a new Soyuz capsule cost? Probably about $10 
million, which means you could buy 150 for the cost of developing our 
own capsules?
Why not use Apollo capsules for the emergency return craft for Freedom? 
The Apollo command module can not be reconfigured easily for differing 
cre sizes. Even though up to 5 people could be returned in Apollo, in 
order to expand beyond a crew of 3, lead ballast has to be fitted in the 
capsule....


--  
David Anderman
Internet: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
BBS:      714 544-0934   2400/1200/300

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

Date: 10 Jul 90 18:44:35 GMT
From: thorin!homer!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: TV coverage (was Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration)

In article <1990Jul10.181209.2729@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> jerry@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Jerry Anderson) writes:
>Nobody gets excited when a vacuum cleaner lands on Mars.  If you want money,
>get a live TV broadcast of Colonel Joe Middleamerica planting the U.S. flag
>on Mars - in living color and during prime time.

    Nobody except a bunch of geologists got excited about Harrison
Schmidt landing on the Moon.  This approach is good for one mission,
at which point the public interest and TV coverage evaporates.	What
do you do for the second mission?  Eventually you'll run out of new
planets.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    SUSHIDO: the Way of the Tuna

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

Date: 10 Jul 90 22:14:08 GMT
From: skipper!bowers@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: NASA's lobbying on the net

This is a minor nit but it should probably be pointed out.  If I spend
my time at work (I am a civil servant by the way) working on a
proposal, according to the definitions given here over the net, then
it is a conflict of interest.  I am using tax payers money to lobby
for more money, right?

I don't believe that is the case.  I am not asking for anyone to send
money anywhere, I am simply trying to point out the fact that not all
is lost on HST, far from it.  Engineering screwed up, but it is only
engineering that will fix it.  Not the politicians (NASA's or
Congresses').  Taking your frustrations out on those NASA folks
computer literate enough to be on the net (engineers) will not get
anything done.  Neither will recriminations on the part NASA.

Another opinion...

--
Albion H. Bowers  bowers@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov  ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!bowers

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

Date: 10 Jul 90 18:48:08 GMT
From: groucho!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (Steve Emmerson)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V12 #38

In <9007101446.AA17907@alw.nih.gov> AZM@CU.NIH.GOV writes:

>And now they're trying to sell the idea that the Hubble "might" get
>fixed in mid-1993, or if that "don't get it" then in 1996. Does anybody
>at the Hubble-bubble really expect the american "live-for-the-micro-
>second public to sit still and wait three or even six years for the fix
>to go up. It is to laugh.

The American public is irrelevant.  Only congress, and to a lesser
extent the president, matter.  Since the re-election rate in Congress is
96 percent, I submit that they needen't care what the public thinks --
especially on such a mundane topic.

Steve Emmerson        steve@unidata.ucar.edu        ...!ncar!unidata!steve

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

Date: 10 Jul 90 21:17:40 GMT
From: agate!agate!web@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: Inaccurate quotes (was: Re: More on NASA 91 Appropriation Vote)


In article <5437@itivax.iti.org> aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
Sherzer 
>
>>>

   web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes:
>>

Sherzer writes:
>>>						Why did he [Andy Cutler]
>>>tell me in a phone conversation (roughly): "At least they are doing it 
>>>[SEI] right this time and taking a few years to study it and not just
>>>jump in".?

>I stand by the quote. It was an offhand remark and I'm not suprised he
>doesn't remember. It stuck with me because it wasn't the sort of thing
>I expected to hear from him.

Allen thought that this was unrepresentative of Andy's views, and that's
why it stuck with him.  Knowing this, he quoted it it out of context in
order to support his position in favor of SEI.  He didn't bother to
check with Andy first, even though they have talked on the phone before.
This is an *intentional* misrepresentation of Andy's views on SEI in
support of Allen's position.

This immediately throws into question both the validity of and the
motives behind all the other things Allen has been saying.  How many
times has he misrepresented facts or other people's opinions?

I did speak with Andy, and he was appalled by this event.  He asked me
to post a short statements about where he does stand on SEI.

Andy thinks that SEI is trash.  It is bad enough that if we can't
terminate NASA, then at least we must terminate SEI.  This is his
position even though it may cost him some income, which comes to the
U of AZ in Tucson from NASA.

He sees only two possibilities for those who support SEI:

(1) They are not aware of NASA's track record and the technical
details of past 20 years of NASA activity, and they are not familiar
with the technical details of the SEI proposals.

(2) They are simply evil.

He would like to hear of a third possibility, since he cannot come up
with one.  

The outreach program which he is participating in may do some good,
although he doesn't think it will.  It would be wrong for him not to try
even though it may be a waste of time.  It's tempting to ignore it, but
the right thing to do is to try to have input anyway.

He thinks that the outreach program is an instance of a classic
bureaucratic trick -- invite everyone to submit their ideas by tomorrow,
and then compare the confused and inadequate responses to the in-house
plans which were developed over the last thirty years.  The in-house
ideas will look good in this context, since people don't come up with
their best ideas on the spot.

He sees two opportunities in the outreach program:

One can get into the system and look around for good ideas that are
already there, and work to carry them to fruition.  One hopes that these
good ideas exist.

Second, one can get into the system and point out to everyone there how
obvious it is that a crash program to evaluate ideas is simply an
exercise in chaos.  Then one can encourage them to extend the outreach
program in a careful and thoughtful manner so that outsiders have time
to arrive at good ideas that can be part of a meaningful program, a
logical equence of steps leading toward a reasonable goal.

He is doing what he thinks is right, working on the inside where it
matters and on the outside where it's important.  He participates in the
AIAA assessment program.  He is engaged in space resource utilization
research.  He is supporting alternative views for space policy.  He is
presenting an alternative to the corrupt view put forth by the NSS as a
de facto NASA lobbying organization.


----

If you want to know more about what Andy thinks can call him at
602/329-9205.  His opinions have been discussed in fora like this at
various times in the past, but nobody has ever bothered to call and talk
to him about his views.

Some people try to do the right thing even when it conflicts with their
immediate interests.  They don't tell the small lies and engage in the
small distortions of fact that accumulate to give us something like our
current "space program."  Andy is one of these people.

--
William Baxter

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

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

Date: 10 Jul 90 22:17:48 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!mvk@ucsd.edu  (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: Ideas Needed for Manned Exploration of Moon and Mars

Steve Sigmond writes:
"You might be able to design a mission that would visit several asteroids and
then head someplace in the solar system."

Someplace like a comet?  :)
                                               Mike

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

Date: 10 Jul 90 11:00:50 GMT
From: amelia!eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: [l/m 7/5] Frequently asked SPACE questions

This list does change.

This is a list of frequently asked questions on SPACE (which goes back
before 1980).  It is in development.  Good summaries will be accepted
in place of the answers given here.  The point of this is to circulate
existing information, and avoid rehashing old answers.  Better to
build on top than start again.  Nothing more depressing than rehashing
old topics for the 100th time.  References are provided because they
give more complete information than any short generalization.

Questions fall into three basic types:
1) Where do I find some information about space?
Try you local public library first.  You do know how to use a library, don't
you?  Can't tell these days.  The net is not a good place to ask for
general information.  Ask individuals if you must.  There are other sources,
use them, too.  The net is a place for open ended discussion.

2) I have an idea which would improve space flight?
Hope you aren't surprised but 9,999 out of 10,000 have usually been
thought of before.  Again, contact a direct individual source for
evaluation.  NASA fields thousands of these each day.

3) Miscellanous queries.  Sorry, have to take them case by case.

Initially, this message will be automatically posted once per month
and hopefully, we can cut it back to quarterly.  In time questions and
good answers will be added (and maybe removed, nah).

1) What happen to Saturn V plans? What about reviving the Saturn V
as a heavy-lift launcher?

Possible but very expensive -- tools, subcontractors, plans, facilities
are gone or converted for the shuttle, and would need rebuilding,
re-testing, or even total redesign.

2) Where can I learn about space computers: shuttle, programming,
core memories?

%J Communications of the ACM
%V 27
%N 9
%D September 1984
%K Special issue on space [shuttle] computers

Other various AIAA and IEEE publications.

Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience
James E.  Tomayko
1988?

3) SETI computation articles?

%A D. K. Cullers
%A Ivan R. Linscott
%A Bernard M. Oliver
%T Signal Processing in SETI
%J Communications of the ACM
%V 28
%N 11
%D November 1984
%P 1151-1163
%K CR Categories and Subject Descriptors: D.4.1 [Operating Systems]:
Process Management - concurrency; I.5.4 [Pattern Recognition]:
Applications - signal processing; J.2 [Phsyical Sciences and Engineering]:
astronomy
General Terms: Design
Additional Key Words and Phrases: digital Fourier transforms,
finite impulse-response filters, interstellar communications,
Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence, signal detection,
spectrum analysis

You can make it change.  Just discuss the changes, then mail the
resolution to me.

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #46
*******************