Message-ID: <8cK7lIi00WBwI3Y05g@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 04:20:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #642

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 642

Today's Topics:
			    Re: Amputation
			  Re: Privatization
		 Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures
	Re: Revising a biased history of space science funding
		  Privatization of Space Exploration
	       Re: Rational next station design process
Re: USF, Inc. : brought to you by the same people who brought you the moon treaty?
			Colonizing the galaxy

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: 26 May 91 00:06:23 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Amputation

In article <m0jgf8o-00004ZC@jartel.info.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>1) JSC will be amputated to stop the gangrene and punish the insolence 
>of the southern centers,
>
Huh? To what "insolence of southern centers" are you refering? How will
NASA restructure its manned spaceflight program without JSC? How will
a NASA center in Texas get "amputated," given the political pull that
Texas has?

>1) is the closest thing to big science JPL has done and therefore should 
>be punished on general principles, 
>
You seem to assume that "big science" is agreed to be a bad thing by all
those in the government, and that any effort to do "big science" should 
be punished. This is not the case at all.

>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, 
> 
Again, this is not the case. The inability of Galileo's high gain antenna
is not connected to the change in its trajectory. As I understand the 
problem, it would have occured on a direct injection to Jupiter as well.

>3) was encouraged to be such a big science project because JSC was 
>making launch opportunities so scarce.

How has JPL made launch opportunities scarce? They have been asking for
money for MANY missions. I would think it is the congress who is making
unmanned probes a rare thing, since they pay for so few.

					    Frank Crary

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

Date: 26 May 91 00:16:23 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Privatization

In article <6492@uafhp.uark.edu> bmccormi@uafhp.uark.edu (Brian McCormick) writes:
>   1. Private industry does not always do something more efficiently.
>      This may come as a surprise to some of you, but it's true.  As
>      an example, consider this:  private insurance companies end up
>      paying out benefits on their policies at the rate of about 80
>      cents on the dollar (varies from company to company).  Medicare
>      and Medicaid are actually much more efficient.  They pay out
>      rougly 96-98 cents in benefits for every dollar they receive.

I think that is "for every dollar they receive from customers." I don't 
know about Medicare, but I am somewhat familiar with the Blue Cross program
(health insurance for federal employes and families.) While they bill at
a very reasonable rate, thier fees DO NOT COVER thier overhead. The costs
of running the program come out of the Federal budget. As a result, thier
fees are not a good measure of thier efficience. Also, their benifits are
usually late, and require an excessive ammount of book-keeping by there
customers (another inefficiency that is missed by looking at thier fees.)

					  Frank Crary

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

Date: 26 May 91 00:26:47 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures

In article <1991May24.191921.733@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes:
>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.

On this note, I would like to mention that the lifetime of a satellite in
Low Earth orbit is limited by its fuel supply. In general, these satellites
last for less than 5 years. Geostationary satellites (if they can be used
to measure lifetimes NOT limited by fuel consumption) last for up to 15
years. As such, being able to refuel a satellite in Low Earth orbit could
as much as triple its lifetime. Since a lot of money goes into replacing
these satellites, I think the ability to refuel a satellite in orbit
could easily pay for itself. Can anyone comment on the viability of a
for-profit Low Earth orbit infrastructure for the purpose of re-fueling
satellites? Could a unfueled and deactivated satellite be claimed as
salvage, re-fueled, re-activated and sold as salvage?

				     Frank Crary

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

Date: 25 May 91 20:28:51 GMT
From: usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!dullea.ipac.caltech.edu!krs@apple.com  (Karl Stapelfeldt)
Subject: Re: Revising a biased history of space science funding

In article <schumach.675053518@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>krs@dullea.ipac.caltech.edu (Karl Stapelfeldt) writes:
>>the Apollo missions were the most important exploration missions ever 
>>conducted....  You imply that the Apollo program
>>damaged planetary science, when in fact the opposite is true.  To
>>ignore Apollo's contribution to planetary science shows an extreme
>>bias against manned programs. 
>
>Are you arguing that, had Apollo not been mounted, no unmanned lunar
>sample return missions would have been done? Are you arguing that it
>was wise to have spent 30 billion dollars for the sampling and surveying
>actually done, with no follow-on missions for 20 years?
>

     No to both.  Regardless of how we evaluate the equivalent dollar
values of Apollo's scientific contributions (and of course this number
will be substantially less than the program cost), it is clear that
planetary science reaped a windfall by getting returned lunar samples.
My point is that you can't quantify the health of planetary science
in the Apollo era by just citing the budget figures for automated
exploration.  Equivalent unmanned lunar sample return missions
would have cost at least as much as the Viking Mars missions.

     It's too bad that we haven't had followup lunar exploration, but 
I don't find this very disturbing.  Mars, Venus, and the outer planets
are currently higher on planetary scientists' priority lists.

>Even so, Apollo's greatest harm was not in the low return of science for
>dollars spent: it was in teaching a generation of taxpayers, congressmen
>and NASA administrators that space was only an arena for huge, one-shot 
>stunts, and not a place where ongoing, evolving useful work could be done.

     If taxpayers, congressmen, and NASA folk agree on a space project
then by all means we should be doing that project.  Only the greatest
of cynics (i.e. James Van Allen) regret the success of the Apollo program.
The political-prestige nature of the Apollo program made it inevitable
that once it succeeeded, the need for it would go away.  I don't see
how the "one-shot" nature of the program could have been avoided, given
this political reality and the expenses involved.

					  Karl Stapelfeldt
					  krs@ipac.caltech.edu

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

Date: 25 May 91 05:40:17 GMT
From: ogicse!intelhf!agora!robart@decwrl.dec.com  (Robert Barton)
Subject: Privatization of Space Exploration

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.

  How much would it cost to put Pournelle himself on the moon for say, 20 years
or so?  I might be willing to contribute to that.

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

Date: 23 May 91 20:27:48 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a684@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Rational next station design process

gwh@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) writes:

> But there are a number of people, including a whole lot of scientists, who
> feel that there is some science that can only be done by sending people.

I agree.  However, there is a limited amount of money available, and manned
space science has to compete for it.

> One such group (that I happen to be tangentally involved with) are the Mars
> Underground people... they think that there is a very large amount of science
> to be done that can only be done by putting people on Mars.

That's almost certainly true.  Here's an idea: let them bring forward a
detailed proposal showing the costs and the returned values (to science,
national pride, etc).  This will then compete with other proposals for the same
financial resources.  It would be something like, "manned Mars mission compared
with huge space telescope, several remote exploration vehicles to each planet,
automated lunar oxygen facility..."

I think a manned Mars mission would be quite interesting.  However, I'm pretty
sure that the other projects that could be completed by the same amount money
would also be very interesting; possibly more so.  It's a case of "let the best
project win!"  :)

> If there was life there once, it's likely that no unmanned probe we can
> design in the next 25 years can go looking for it.

Now _there's_ an interesting project with great potential for valuable
spin-offs!  Develop the technologies (robotics, AI, time-lagged teleoperation)
to accomplish that task.  As nice as the TV pictures of men on Mars would be,
seeing the application of that unmanned technology to the improvement of life
here seems much more exciting.  Just think of the possibilities!  It would
certainly change the way we do many things _and_ it would provide your Martian
science.

Think of it as an investment.  The manned Mars mission would likely be delayed,
but once the automation technology is in place--automated lunar
mines/factories, cheap space construction (robots, teleoperation), automated
_Martian_ fuel/air/accommodation facilities awaiting the humans--the whole
manned mission would be much cheaper and much better supported (longer missions
possible).  Widespread advanced automation technology might also put the
economy in a better state to support all forms of space--and other--science.

My romantic idealistic side likes manned missions; my practical engineering
side says, "Go for the advanced automation R&D!"  :-)

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

Date: 25 May 91 15:17:34 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!rex!rouge!dlbres10@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: USF, Inc. : brought to you by the same people who brought you the moon treaty?

For a while I was a member of a local L-5 affiliate.

If I lived in Alaska, I would probably belong to Issecco.

I see nothing wrong with grassroots organizations made up of
space nuts, especially since I'm one myself. But I sense something
very fishy about this group: instead of really doing research, they've
(he's ? ) drawn up plans for an international space agency, with a
security force, special relationship with the united nations,
regulating committees, and the like.

If the world needs an international space agency, a good basis would be
a reformed NASA, the Planetary Society, and SSI. The Planetary Society 
has (I think) built instruments that have flown or will fly on Soviet
space probes (specifically the Mars Snake), and SSI's lunar probe's launch
services will be provided by Energia N.P.O. What isn't needed is some
guy in upstate New York offering to do all the management for all the
other groups, with help from an advisory commision where countries without
space programs would vastly outvote countries that did.

Well, what does everyone else think: is this a solitary space nut like
the rest of us who simply has some oddball ideas, or is this some sort
of project brought to us by the same people who brought the infamous
Moon Treaty, _this time_ masquerading as a grassroots organization?

L-5 is generally acknowledged as having stalled the Moon Treaty, even
if it has done nothing else, but is NSS capable of doing the same thing
if it has to? Is it more or less grassroots than L-5?

And to whoever wrote the article, I would like to say: I am but a lowly
Senior undergraduate Physics student, and many of the kind people here,
knowing this, still listen to my ideas (except, of course, the several
thousand or so who have me in their kill files :-( :-). I seem to be
able to discuss ideas, space science (although _that_ not often enough,
and I'm more or less a neophyte at space science, I got a headache last
night while studying Astronomy for a course I'm substituting for a friend
of mine...), space politics :-( (and yes, I know I'm one of the guilty,
too), and a myriad of other things ranging from U.S. productivity to
the Chinese roots of the industrial revolution.
 
It seems that many people here on sci.space have considered my ideas,
even though I am but Philip Fraering, and I don't have a flashy organization
to hide behind, like "the United Space Federation," although perhaps I
should put a disclaimer in my .sig to make that more clear.

These people will listen to a person. If you are speaking for yourself,
you will probably be taken seriously.


--
Phil Fraering || Usenet (?):dlbres10@pc.usl.edu || YellNet: 318/365-5418

Standard disclaimer, whatever a disclaimer is, applies.

``But in her present straits he could not trouble her with
disclaimers.'' Stephen R. Donaldson, _The Wounded Land_

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

Date: 25 May 91 20:59:10 GMT
From: usc!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!markh@apple.com  (Mark William Hopkins)
Subject: Colonizing the galaxy


   Any fuel technology sufficient to get you a star a mere few light years
away in decent time is almost certainly sufficient to get you all the way
across the galaxy and even to neighboring galaxies.

   First off, if you're going to be going at high speeds you have to consider
that it takes a whole year to accelerate to the speed of light at 1G!  That is,
even ignoring for the moment, the effects of relativistic inertia.  That says
quite a lot about your fuel technology.

   If your fuel can be expelled from the ship at 300 million meters/sec (the
max), then a constant acceleration at 1 G would spend a mass equal to about 60%
of your ship in that year's time.  Two years 60% + 60% of the remaining 40%
(84%), three years 93.6% and so on, EXPONENTIALLY.  A 5 year mission thus
would require fuel about hundred times the ship's empty mass.  For a
"practical" nuclear fuel (expelled at 100 km/sec), that would read: 10 to the
3000 times the ship's empty mass!!!

   Thus one year (the speed of light divided by 1G acceleration) is the limit
on how long you can maintain 1G thrust using ANY fuel stored on the ship.
Thus, the implication is that you're extracting fuel from space as you go.
All that just to get to the nearest star in a lifetime!!

   (Note: the Lord made is so that c/g = 1 year, to simplify our calculations).

   A trip at constant 1G acceleration/deceleration to a star 5 light years
away only takes 3 or 4 years ship time.  A trip across the galaxy with 1G
acceleration/deceleration only takes 20 years ship time.

   If you can do one you can do both, since either entails having crossed the
1 year threshold.

   So ANY practical means to get to another star in decent time for
colonization will also enable any other part of the galaxy (or neighboring
galaxies) to be colonized as well.  The diffusion theory, on that count, is
dead wrong.  A better theory would liken the spread of aliens to a
metasthesizing cancer...

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #642
*******************