Message-ID: <MbWfvS600VcJICU04Y@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed,  9 Jan 1991 01:57:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #029

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 13 : Issue 29

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Planetary Society [Part 2 of 2]
		       Re: Interstellar travel
		       * SpaceNews  07-Jan-91 *

Administrivia:

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

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

Return-path: <space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 91 00:39:22 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
To: space@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Planetary Society [Part 2 of 2]


[Continued from part 1]

>Date: 20 Dec 90 03:03:41 GMT
>From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5!szabo@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Nick Szabo)
>Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc
>Subject: Re: Planetary Society

>In article <9012190119.AA07198@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:

>>>>[PS supports "manned" Mission to Mars]
>>>Good grief.  Everybody in the planetary science field knows this is
>>>just a political ploy to get funding for the stuff that does the real
>>>work, the probes.   
>>
>>...if this claim is valid, then it lowers my opinion of their advocacy
>>techniques still farther. You claim to exonerate the Planetary Society of
>>charges of a minor deception, then turn around and admiringly attribute
>>to them a much more serious offense. Certainly it's in an organization's
>>interest to use diplomacy and tact to present its views in a favorable
>>light, but to hold one view while claiming to hold the opposite is
>>downright fraud, and it is reprehensible.

>Ah, put the PS *does* want to go to Mars!  To the PS "manned" is
>not "the opposite", it is a minor, expendable detail.  There is no 
>deception, this is how they think and feel.  It is only "reprehensible"
>if for some reason you feel astronauts are more important than
>science, and you can't imagine that others might feel differently.
>They don't share an empathy for this, since they consider Voyager
>and Apollo to be equally well "manned" -- by themselves.  Astronauts
>are an irrelevant detail.

Perhaps some kind person could post the "official position" of the Planetary
Society on this subject. As well as I can recall, when they started really
pushing the idea a few years ago, it was stated that the *primary* purpose
of the crash-priority program was the emotional charge and political goodwill
generated among the people on Earth from the knowledge that they had worked
together and had allowed humanity to reach Mars. While this is in itself a
laudable objective, it hardly sounds as though humans and robots would be
considered fully interchangeable for this purpose.  Secondary goals were using
up defense budgets, some research toward possible human habitation in the
very distant future, and planetary science. The point is that if intangibles
are the primary goal, it is possible to slip into the position that on a given
budget, this goal should be pursued greatly to the detriment of other goals.
In this instance, one can presume that the greatest gain is from the *first*
visit, with diminishing returns thereafter, so one can justify a high-priority,
high up-front expense one-shot mission, with no effort to build up an 
infrastructure to support future activity. Similarly, it is argued that since
the moon has already been visited, it is no longer "exciting", so it should
be ignored henceforth, despite the potential for scientific and possible 
economic returns. It is this, not the basic concept of eventually sending
humans to Mars, that I object to.

>This is far less reprehensible than the stuff posted every day by NASA 
>on this net about "wow, we got some *great science*" every time they 
>get one of their instruments to work, 
>...It's just human nature to make arguments favorable to 
>their own cause.  Why do you call this "reprehensible" and not the stuff 
>that NASA posts every day to this very newsgroup?

Well, maybe NASA does get a little self-congratulatory at times, but as you
say, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with blowing your own horn. What I
would consider reprehensible is deliberate falsehood, such as saying one
wants something while secretly striving for the opposite. Like I said, I
*don't* think PS is lying - I think they honestly want the crash-priority
manned Mars mission like they say. There's nothing reprehensible in that -
I just don't agree that that's the best goal to aim for right now.

[hypothetical question]
>>If they're that tricky, how do you know they're not actually in favor of more
>>manned exploration, but are stringing the unmanned probe enthusiasts along
>>by means of a well-circulated rumor to the contrary? 

>Because they are scientists.  Because the are the people that have
>explored most of our solar system.  They have succeeded where no
>other people of any nation have, and I respect them for that.  And they 
>are still human, and (fortuneately) know something about politics, and I 
>respect them for that too.

>All I can suggest, is get to know some planetary scientists and what
>motivates them.  

You are equating the goals of the general body of planetary scientists with
the goals of the "management" of the Planetary Society. I don't. While the
Planetary Society is generally supportive of planetary science, I believe it
has a number of political goals that are not consistent with what most
planetary scientists want.

Also, while I have tremendous respect for planetary scientists and the
dazzling accomplishments they have made, I'm not convinced that they alone
should be the ultimate authority on the direction of the entire space program.

>>>I, most explorers, and all successful space commerce companies don't 
>>>consider throwing around humans in tin cans a good utilization of 
>>>human resources on Earth.

>>Earth has plenty of human resource to spare - most of it hangs around in malls
>>or watches TV or squats in the dirt in third-world countries. 

>Ah, the old "look, all these people are wasting resources so we can waste 
>them too!" argument.  Which goes nowhere unless you are in a government
>funded welfare program.  If we wish to join the ranks of those
>squatting in the dirt, it is a good argument.  If we really want to
>go into space, it is ridiculous.

Do you have any idea of the *magnitude* of the squandering of human resources?
I would guess that in terms of producing wealth (economic gain), humanity
probably operates at one or two percent efficiency. Americans alone use up
trillions of dollars' worth of productive time every year watching sitcoms
and evening news broadcasts. Compared to the enormous waste of human
productivity, or even compared to the current gross national product, $10
billion or so for a manned space program is a *very* tiny amount.

>>From a human
>>resource perspective, it wouldn't hurt Earth a bit to have a few 
>>humans out in space. 

>More of the same argument.  It hurts quite a lot in fact.  If you want
>to waste money yourself fine, but leave my tax money out of it please.

I was referring to the theoretical loss to the earth of the productive
capacity of 5 or 10 people out in space, not the dollar cost of keeping
them there.

>>Financial resources (in other words, harnessed or applied human
>>resource) are another matter.

>No they are not.  Financial resources correspond pretty closely to
>human and natural resources.  The "manned program" is more environmentally
>destructive, and consumes more educated labor, for the same reason 
>that it is more expensive -- it is a very suboptimal use of our resources.
>We don't have environmental or human resources to squander, *especially*
>in the difficult task of getting human civilization into space.  

While I agree that applied human potential is a thing to be valued, you 
seem to assume that it is available only in fixed quantities. If there's
worthwhile work for them to do, why *shouldn't* (or couldn't) there be
ten times as many engineers as there are now? Would it result in a chronic
lawyer shortage? Would ceramic figurine shops have to close for lack of
cashiers? :-)

>>Given the disproportionately high expense of
>>manned vs unmanned exploration, a constant effort should be made to keep
>>(or stop) the manned program from hurting the unmanned program. I don't see
>>how that would imply that the manned program must be killed off, as you
>>advocate. Shooting your neighbor's kids so they won't beat up your kids is
>>often not considered socially acceptable.

>We are shooting budgets here, not children, but thank you for some 
>excellent "reprehensible" rhetoric.  :-)  

I didn't mean it as rhetoric. Good managers who believe they are working
toward a worthwhile goal often develop an attachment to their projects
as they might to their children (though perhaps not of the same magnitude).
Taking away the project can lead to a corresponding feeling of loss. 
Similarly, a great many people derive considerable enjoyment from the
accomplishments of the manned space program. They're bound to feel some
disappointment if this is taken away from them because *somebody else*
feels that some other use of the money is "more worthwhile".

>The "manned" program has
>already hurt the "unmanned" badly.  

Perhaps arguable in the general case, but I agree that there have been
specific incidents in which this has been true. It's not fair to take
money from a planetary science project for a manned project after the funds
have already been allocated.

>We can safely assume the effort
>to support both has been an utter failure, and it is now time to gut 
>the "manned" program (at least the most uneconomical parts of it, 
>like Fred).

I disagree with the premise. Less than optimal, perhaps, but not an utter
failure.

>>For the broader question of whether humans should be in space at all, I feel
>>that human extraterrestrial presence has a value aside from direct
>>contribution to space science and exploitation of resources.

>We need the James Van Allens to go 
>before us, discovering the radiation belts and other hazards to be
>avoided.  

True, but as Allen pointed out, there are some things that can not be done
by remote control. Robots will never find out how to adapt humans to
low gravity.

>We need the Bruce Murrays leading the exploration of our 
>solar system.  We need probes to discover and machines to extract 
>resources.   We need industries, like Arthur C. Clarke's comsats, to 
>spring up to pay for the venture.  

No argument there.

>Something so expensive as Fred --- 100,000 times
>the price of a house ten times its size -- is an incredible step in 
>the wrong direction for moving humans into space.  

I think most people agree that any near-term space station should be made
as cheaply as possible within the constraints of a modest set of objectives.
I thought the previous design for Freedom was too ambitious and expensive.
Let's see what the redesign process comes up with.

>>millions of people share this opinion. 
[that some ongoing manned activity is desirable]

>If the minority knows what it's doing (and the 
>good news is that PS, JPL, OSC, Hercules, DARPA, Motorola et. al. know 
>what they are doing, politically, economically, and technologically) the 
>majority opinion, and megabytes of "great science" postings on the net. 
>don't really matter.

Remember, we're talking about *government-funded* projects. Privately-funded
projects can choose manned/unmanned tradeoffs as they like. Where
government spending is concerned, the desires of millions of voters and
taxpayers should not be totally ignored.

To date, most private companies do not appear to have shown much interest in
financing manned space activity *or* planetary science, so both are pretty
much dependent on government sponsorship for the time being.
         John Roberts
         roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

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

Return-path: <space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 5 Jan 91 04:34:22 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: Interstellar travel
References: <1990Dec29.170010.25422@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, <1990Dec30.002828.7156@zoo.toronto.edu>, <13565@milton.u.washin
Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space@andrew.cmu.edu

In article <1991Jan3.170018.253@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>> The best way to build an Orion is to take it to its logical extreme and
>> use fusion microexplosions ignited by particle beams (lasers are probably
>> too heavy for spaceflight applications) and channeled by a magnetic nozzle.
>
>Exactly the approach used by BIS in their Daedalus design, which holds
>up very well after - what? - 15 years?

Actually, I'm told that the detailed design of the Daedalus engine has
flaws that make it unworkable, but the overall concept still seems
viable.

>I don't have my copy of the Daedalus report handy.  Didn't they use
>lasers? ...

Nope, electron beams.  That gets a bit tricky in the presence of a
magnetic nozzle, and this may be where their design falls down -- I
don't have details on that -- but it's not totally impossible.
-- 
"The average pointer, statistically,    |Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
points somewhere in X." -Hugh Redelmeier| henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry

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

Return-path: <space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 5 Jan 91 03:41:17 GMT
From: ka2qhd!kd2bd@rutgers.edu  (John Magliacane)
Organization: KA2QHD - OCEAN NJ
Subject: * SpaceNews  07-Jan-91 *
Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu
To: space@andrew.cmu.edu


SB SPACE @ ALLBBS < KD2BD $SPC0107
* SpaceNews  07-Jan-91 *

Bulletin ID: $SPC0107


                              =========
                              SpaceNews
                              =========

                       MONDAY JANUARY 7, 1991

SpaceNews originates at KD2BD in Wall Township, New Jersey, United States.
It is published every week and is made available for unlimited distribution.


* U2MIR NEWS *
==============
Musa, U2MIR, (aka UV3AM when at home in Moscow) despite his rigorous work
schedule has been QRV on 145.55 or thereabouts usually in the 1200 - 1300 UTC
time frame.  He reports that Mission Commander Victor, U9MIR, will be sharing
the station with Musa as time permits.

It appears that Amateur Radio is rapidly becoming a part of normal operations
on MIR.  It is reported that the next crew (expected to be launched in May
1991) may have another ham or two on-board.  Boris Stepanov, UW3AX, the RSF
"Ham in Space" project coordinator indicates that training courses for
prospective MIR cosmonauts are presently being coordinated.

UA6HZ is handling QSLs for both U2MIR and U9MIR.  The address is:
Valery Agabekov, UA6HZ, Box 1, 375600 Yessentuki, USSR.  Use of this
address should obtain a faster turnaround than through Box 88 Moscow.

AREM Status:

The equipment for the Austrian Amateur Radio Experiment on MIR (AREMIR) is
nearing completion.  In a telephone interview for the South African Radio
League program "Amateur Radio Mirror" the President of AMSAT-OE, Wolf Hoeller
(OE7FJT), said that integration of the equipment is nearing completion. The
packet radio station consists of a TNC2 and a two meter hand-held transceiver
built into a "black" box with connectors for the antenna and laptop computer.

He told Hans van de Groenendaal (ZS6AKV) that the TNC and radio will be
delivered to Moscow by mid January for a month of testing. The equipment will
be sent to MIR during early March.  Originally, it was announced that the
equipment was to be launched in mid January, however it appears that delays in
final check-out has slipped the launch date a few months.

For the first few months AREMIR will operate as a Packet radio beacon.  During
a later supply mission, a laptop computer will be sent to MIR which will allow
the cosmonauts to enter messages.  Wolf, OE7FTJ, said that there is some doubt
whether the laptop computer will survive the shake test.  It may well have to
be taken up by an Austrian Cosmonaut due to be sent to MIR towards the end of
September or in early October, 1991.

[Information via AMSAT, Wolf (OE7FTJ), Boris Stepanov (UW3AX), Ray Soifer
 (W2RS), and Hans van de Groenendaal (ZS6AKV)]


* SHUTTLE NEWS *
================
The Space Shuttle "Discovery" was powered up last week in preparation for
mission STS-39 (DoD) currently scheduled for launch in March.  Installation
of the Forward Reaction Control System was carried out and a high pressure
main propulsion test was also performed.

Atlantis is being prepared for launch in April.  The remote manipulator
"arm" that will be used in the deployment of the Gamma Ray Observatory
during its mission was prepared for installation last week.


* METEOR SHOWERS *
==================

           1991 METEOR SHOWERS
              by Tom, KE2M

  SHOWER         DATE    UTC    RATE

Quadrantids     04-Jan   0300   60/hour
Lyrids          22-Apr   1400   10/hour
Eta Aquarids    05-May   1400   35/hour
Delta Aquarids  29-Jul   0400   20/hour
Perseids        13-Aug   0400   75/hour
Orionids        22-Oct   0700   25/hour
Taurids         04-Nov   ----   10/hour
Leonids         18-Nov   0300   75/hour
Geminids        14-Dec   1000   75/hour


* TNX QSL! *
============
A special thanks to all those who sent QSLs and letters to SpaceNews:

JR1RBR : Imai Keiji, Tokyo, Japan
WB2RXR : Ira Linderman, Commack, New York, U.S.A.
WB3GCP : Bob Shattuck, Gillett, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
N4NAS  : Joe Taylor, Glasgow, Kentucky, U.S.A.
WB4UIE : Jeff Callahan, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.
N7KXI  : Jim Raehl, Orem, Utah, U.S.A.
N7MVX  : Bruce Walters, Helena, Montana, U.S.A.
N8JTR  : Jason Sattler, Port Huron, Michigan, U.S.A.
N9BVU  : Shirley Lunsford, Merrillville, Indiana, U.S.A.
WN9L   : Malcolm Lunsford, Merrillville, Indiana, U.S.A.

...and e-mail messages:

4X1MK, K6DGW, N4HY, N6HNY, N7MLR


* FEEDBACK WELCOMED *
=====================
Feedback regarding SpaceNews can be directed to the editor (John) via any
of the following paths:

INTERNET : kd2bd@ka2qhd.de.com
PACKET   : KD2BD @ NN2Z.NJ.USA.NA
UUCP     : ...uunet!rutgers!ka2qhd!kd2bd

MAIL     : John A. Magliacane, KD2BD
           Department of Electronics Technology
           Advanced Technology Center
           Brookdale Community College
           765 Newman Springs Road
           Lincroft, New Jersey 07738
           U.S.A.


        << All The Best Wishes For A Healthy And Happy 1991! >>

/EX
-- 
John A. Magliacane                 FAX  : (908) 747-7107
Electronics Technology Department  AMPR : KD2BD @ NN2Z.NJ.USA.NA
Brookdale Community College        UUCP : ...!rutgers!ka2qhd!kd2bd
Lincroft, NJ  07738  USA           VOICE: (908) 842-1900 ext 607

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #029
*******************