Message-ID: <ocJQynm00WBw4Dt04w@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 03:39:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #632

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 632

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Privatization
 Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated (questions/answers)
			    Re: lifeboats
			  Re: Privatization
		    Re: Asteroid Hazard Avoidance
    Re: Babies in Space (was: Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?)
		     Re: Building Infrastructure
			  Re: Privatization
			      Amputation
		   Self-sustaining infrastructures

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

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

Date: 24 May 91 15:48:16 GMT
From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Privatization

In article <10602@plains.NoDak.edu>, stinnett@plains.NoDak.edu (M.G. Stinnett) writes:

>Jerry Pournelle says his group could put 40 people on the moon for one
>year for $2 billion. He said he had shown the figures to quite a few
>qualified people and no one had been able to shoot them down.
>
>He also figured a major aerospace contractor could do the job for about
>$10 billion, but it would take the government $1 trillion to do it.

If it were that cheap, and that worthwhile, the Japanese or the Europeans would
have already done it. Just to thumb their collective noses at us. Even the
Japanese might have bitten on a $10 billion cost figure. 

Even Shezer isn't claiming he can put 40 people on the moon for one year for
two billion dollars. 

>His main point was that we already know how to do it. We put men on the
>moon 20 years ago when the technological base was much poorer. Today a
>Mac IIfx has more computing power than was available to all of NASA in
>the late 1960's.

So put Pournelle and Shezer in a room, Henry Spencer moderating, and they can
fight it out the cost figures :-) Would you believe I respect Shezer's numbers
more than Pournelle's? Dr. P. wants to bend new metal and build all sorts of
new unflown gizmos, as I seem to recall. Alan is claiming significant savings
by "recycling" technology. 

Bending metal, and (re)-creating infrastructure costs money.  Some of the tools
are much cheaper, but the bottom line is cold metal, liquid hydrogen and
oxygen, and hot thrust to provide lifting power. THAT hasn't changed. 

     Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

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

Date: 24 May 91 23:38:08 GMT
From: spool.mu.edu!rex!rouge!dlbres10@decwrl.dec.com  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated (questions/answers)

In article <2447@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> ray@cluster.cs.su.oz.au (Raymond Lister) writes:

\There is a simple non-moderator solution to this problem.  Postings requesting
/information should end with something like ...

\"Do not post the answer.  Mail it directly to me.  I shall post a summary."

/This works reasonably well in other groups.  Unfortunately, I doubt that
\sci.space has the *collective* intelligence to make it work.

/Like most people, I'd love to see sci.space moderated.  But, like most people,
\I don't want to be the moderator.

That would be a solution if we were trying to dispense with the
informative posts and keep the group to flaming people.

I wasn't complaining about INFORMATION being repeated.

--
Phil Fraering || Usenet (?):dlbres10@pc.usl.edu || YellNet: 318/365-5418
''It hardly mattered now; it was, in fact, a fine and enviable
madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is
beyond the reach of a strong left arm.`` - Larry Niven and Jerry
Pournelle, _The Mote in God's Eye_

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

Date: 25 May 91 00:24:13 GMT
From: agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: lifeboats


In article <42637@fmsrl7.UUCP> wreck@fmsrl7.UUCP (Ron Carter) writes:

\However, these jets won't work for orbital maneuvering for
/several reasons.

\1.)	They are designed to maintain spacecraft attitude
/       during re-entry.  Thus, they can only roll, pitch
\	and yaw the spacecraft.
/2.)	Thrusters to translate the spacecraft in the X, Y
\	and (important for docking) Z axes are absent.
/3.)	The rotational thrusters aren't balanced.  (They
\	didn't need to be.)  A little translational push
/	from a rotation is of no consequence during re-entry,
\	but it is a serious problem when docking.

I think I have seen ref. to the CM having translation
capabilities. When the thrusters around the top side of
the base and the bottom side are taken into account,
it should have translation... I think Michael Collins 
referred to the CM as having 'maneuverability' in
_Carrying the Fire_.

Anyone know anything more definate? Do I have to look in
the CM blueprints?

Have those been lost too?

--
Phil Fraering || Usenet (?):dlbres10@pc.usl.edu || YellNet: 318/365-5418
''It hardly mattered now; it was, in fact, a fine and enviable
madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is
beyond the reach of a strong left arm.`` - Larry Niven and Jerry
Pournelle, _The Mote in God's Eye_

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

Date: 24 May 91 08:47:05 GMT
From: ogicse!plains!stinnett@decwrl.dec.com  (M.G. Stinnett)
Subject: Re: Privatization

In article <12624@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>If the government gets out of the way, I see no problem in getting a 
>non-profit organization set up which can manage the few billion a year
>needed for the unmanned activities.  I see also no major problem in 
>getting the more than 100 billion needed to really get going on man
>in space on a hopefully permanent basis.  But such agencies are going
>to need the right to do with their funds what many politicians oppose.

Jerry Pournelle says his group could put 40 people on the moon for one
year for $2 billion. He said he had shown the figures to quite a few
qualified people and no one had been able to shoot them down.

He also figured a major aerospace contractor could do the job for about
$10 billion, but it would take the government $1 trillion to do it.

His main point was that we already know how to do it. We put men on the
moon 20 years ago when the technological base was much poorer. Today a
Mac IIfx has more computing power than was available to all of NASA in
the late 1960's.

--M. G.

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

Date: 24 May 91 15:26:32 GMT
From: infonode!hychejw@uunet.uu.net  (Jeff W. Hyche)
Subject: Re: Asteroid Hazard Avoidance

explorer@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (James C Krok) writes:

>be on a collision course with the Earth, it would be easier to move the Earth
>out of the way with nuclear charges (at the poles?) than to intercept the
>asteroid with said charges and deflect it.  I believe the article was in

	Ahem, if I may be so bold ... BullShit!

	The energy requred to move the Earth out of the way of an
asteroid is mind boggling.  I won't even begin to calculate it here.  It
will be much easer, and cheaper to move a smaller mass like and asteroid
then a larger one such as a planet.  I'm pretty sure if you set off all
the nuclear weapon on Earth you wouldn't even begin to effect its orbit.
Besides if you did set off that much, what would it do the environment?
I think I would rather have the asteroid land, at least you don't have
to deal with fallout.
-- 
                                  // Jeff Hyche           
    There can be only one!    \\ //  Usenet: hychejw@infonode.ingr.com
                               \X/   Freenet: ap255@po.CWRU.Edu

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

Date: 24 May 91 16:23:16 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!rex!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Babies in Space (was: Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?)

In article <1991May24.140310.1324@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>... Have either the USA or
>the Soviets done research on animals breeding in orbit? 

Not yet.  The farthest anybody has gone, that I recall, is hatching eggs
in orbit.  Something that has been on the life-sciences wish list for a
*long* time is to take the life cycle for something like mice from
conception through to birth, and preferably through at least one more
generation, in free fall.  It's still on the wish list.
-- 
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 24 May 91 23:58:08 GMT
From: wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@decwrl.dec.com  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: Building Infrastructure

In article <1991May21.181312.13381@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

\References, please.  My understanding has always been that there was
/no particular market for *air* mail before the Kelly Act.  Customers just
\didn't think the faster delivery was worth anything to them.  (They
/revised their opinions once it was actually available and dependable.)
 
But even today, with the government postal service, the average time
of sending a letter is longer from L.A. to S.F. than back in the
previous century when it was private. And the leading driver in the
current air-mail market hasn't been the government, but specialized
delivery by private companies, because it is one of the only areas in
which competition with the U.S. government's monopoly is allowed.

Although they provide the service of next-day air delivery, it was
started by others who had 1. The chance that the government would start
subsidized competition against them, and 2. The chance that the government
would legislate them out of business, as has happened to private mail
carriers in the past.

--
Phil Fraering || Usenet (?):dlbres10@pc.usl.edu || YellNet: 318/365-5418
''It hardly mattered now; it was, in fact, a fine and enviable
madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is
beyond the reach of a strong left arm.`` - Larry Niven and Jerry
Pournelle, _The Mote in God's Eye_

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

Date: 24 May 91 14:14:48 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu!hrubin@ucsd.edu  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Privatization

In article <10602@plains.NoDak.edu>, stinnett@plains.NoDak.edu (M.G. Stinnett) writes:
> In article <12624@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> >If the government gets out of the way, I see no problem in getting a 
> >non-profit organization set up which can manage the few billion a year
> >needed for the unmanned activities.  I see also no major problem in 
> >getting the more than 100 billion needed to really get going on man
> >in space on a hopefully permanent basis.  But such agencies are going
> >to need the right to do with their funds what many politicians oppose.
 
> Jerry Pournelle says his group could put 40 people on the moon for one
> year for $2 billion. He said he had shown the figures to quite a few
> qualified people and no one had been able to shoot them down.
 
> He also figured a major aerospace contractor could do the job for about
> $10 billion, but it would take the government $1 trillion to do it.
 
> His main point was that we already know how to do it. We put men on the
> moon 20 years ago when the technological base was much poorer. Today a
> Mac IIfx has more computing power than was available to all of NASA in
> the late 1960's.

While I appreciate others supporting my position, I doubt that it could
be done THAT cheaply, but it is feasible to get a "permanent" manned
presence in space NOW if the governments can be kept out of interference.

I think that the performance of computers now relative to the old ones is
somewhat exaggerated, but it does not matter anyway.  It would not be as
safe, but the calculations for Apollo could have been done without any
computational devices not available a century ago.  The major need for
computers now is control of the devices on the spacecraft; the calculation
of orbital corrections, etc., are relatively straightforward, and these are,
of necessity, robust--after all, how accurate is the amount of delta-V
produced by a firing of certain rockets for 89 seconds?
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)   {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 91 08:51:03 PDT
From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
To: crash!space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Amputation

Allen Sherzer writes:
> But look at the big picture. The House subcommittee zeroed Freedom
> so more money could go to HUD. Next year they will want to put more
> money into HUD and of course, it will come from NASA. What part of
> NASA will they cut then? What will they cut the year after that?
 
Having heard Rep. Green speak on this issue, he will fight like hell 
to protect space science.  I haven't heard as much from Traxler on this
issue specifically, but my impression is he will be even more sympathetic
to space science than Green.  Neither of these guys were ever strong
advocates for Fred.  Now... who is it you are afraid of?  Mikulski?  :-)
 
My portable Machiavelli says the political outcome of this is:
 
1) JSC will be amputated to stop the gangrene and punish the insolence 
of the southern centers,
 
2) appropriations will then start being "nice" in small increments over 
a long period of time in order to maximize political benefit per dollar.  
 
The only damage that will be done to JPL et al will be as a result 
of Galileo, which:  
 
1) is the closest thing to big science JPL has done and therefore should 
be punished on general principles, 
 
2) was damaged because by insisting on everything flying on Shuttle,
JSC ensured Galileo would have to take a trajectory it was never
designed for -- one which damaged it, 
 
3) was encouraged to be such a big science project because JSC was 
making launch opportunities so scarce.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      619/295-3164               The Coalition for
PO Box 1981                                   Science and
La Jolla, CA 92038                             Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 24 May 91 19:19:21 GMT
From: sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Self-sustaining infrastructures

In article <1991May24.055121.4873@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) writes:

>	Value is also highly dependent on goal...

I'm speaking of "value" primarily in the economic sense: value that
provides a feedback of money.  In other words, an infrastructure that
is capable of providing its _own_ funding instead of hitting up the
IRS via Congress for $$$$ every year.

Unless space infrastructure is developed towards this goal, it will
always remain at the whim of politics, and will tend toward centralized
narrow goals like Shuttle and Fred, and one-shot spectaculars like 
Apollo.  These projects consume huge amounts of scarce resources, 
taking talent, funding, and attention away from the developers of 
self-sustaining space infrastructure and the pursuit of other kinds
of non-monetary value.

Industry puts over $100 billion per year into capital spending in the 
U.S. alone: auto factories, oil wells and refineries, semiconductor fabs, 
machine tooling, the list of self-sustaining infrastructure development 
on Earth is very large.  An infrastructure that pays for itself will 
attract some of this capital; an infrastructure aimed primarily at 
vague, economically unrealistic long-term goals and mis-scaled 
technology will not.  Non-monetary forms of value will always be 
funded secondarily, since they have to be paid for by $$$$$ taken 
away from self-sustaining infrastructures.

Self-sustaining space infrastructure is based on "exports" from space to
customers on Earth.  I call these "primary" space industries.  By far and
away, the two largest primary industries are defense (c. $25 billion/yr
in the U.S.) and communications (c. $6 billion/yr worldwide).  
Exploration for pure science can also benefit Earth, but it ranks a poor 
third to these two in terms of sustained funding.  Of these, only 
one (communications satellites) is a commercial primary industry.  
Primary commercial industries are the most important for getting the 
space age beyond the era of politically motivated, one-shot spectaculars.
As long as defense infrastructure supports real, ongoing defense needs
this will also be self-sustaining.

Secondary industries: launch vehicles, spacecraft buses, etc. exist
only to the extent that they enhance and support the primary industries.
Space exploration is very important for the long-term development of space 
infrastructure, but during this era it much of it must still compete for 
NASA's budget alongside a bevy of diverse political motivations.

Space stations don't develop infrastructure, since the totally 
disregarded the existence and needs of the large amount of 
currently existing self-sustaining infrastructure.  Instead, 
unrelated pursuits like "life sciences" are blown out of proportion 
to an astounding degree.  A large problem is that the paradigm of 
self-sustaining infrastructure as it is actually developing --
small automated spacecraft in diverse orbits -- is far different than
the low-earth-orbit Collier's plan that NASA and other central-planning
types have been trying to pursue.  Until infrastructure designers wake
up to the real infrastructure that has already developed, and change
their design concepts to enhance rather than detract from it, we will 
continue to see dead-end nonsense like Fred touted as "infrastructure", 
and it will take us that much longer to wean ourselves from political 
whim. 


-- 
Nick Szabo				szabo@sequent.com
"If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably
knew it already.  The more bewildered you are, the more successful
the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #632
*******************