Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Sat, 15 Jun 91 03:09:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8cKPoee00WBw4MO040@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 03:09:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #649 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 649 Today's Topics: Help for science writer Re: Rational next station design process Repurcussions of Fred Cancellation Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures Re: Good for the Japanese Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures 3D views from 2d data Communist L-5 opposed the Moon Treaty? (was RE:USF, Inc...) Re: Privatization Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures Re: Privatization Re: Good for the Japanese 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: 29 May 91 05:42:20 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!usenet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Kenneth Holden Chang) Subject: Help for science writer This summer I'm taking leave of my regular persona of physics graduate student to be a science writer for the San Francisco Chronicle. I'd like some help from net people about possible article ideas as well as general comments about the state of science journalism. More specifically: 1) Do you know of neato-keen areas of research that haven't been reported widely? If so, please a) tell me what it is, b) tell me who to talk with and and c) tell me the relevant journal articles. 2) If they let me, I want to do a science column about simple things that 99% of the people on this planet never think about, such as how do you convince yourself that the Earth is indeed round and that it's not actually one big practical joke? Any ideas for such columns gratefully welcomed. 3) What do you think about the media's coverage of science? Most people I know regard as pretty mediocre (I've generally heard favorable things about only Science News and Scientific American.) Science people complain journalists don't really understand what's going on and report something only if it is a "possible cure for cancer" or promises "to revolutionize our lives." I'd appreciate it if people could cite examples of good and bad science journalism. (Citations are sufficient; you don't have to send me the article.) Please reply through e-mail. If you do post, be sure to edit the header down to the relevant groups. (Sorry about the mass crossposting, but I did want to cover all of the fields.) And thank you for your help. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kenneth Chang ~ khcg0492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Center for Complex Systems Research ~ or University of Illinois ~ kc@complex.ccsr.uiuc.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: 29 May 91 06:35:47 GMT From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) Subject: Re: Rational next station design process In article <6032@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes: >Hmmm, are you saying that it's possible to build a space station that will be >inexpensive and provide a reasonable value for the investment, yet won't affect >(compete with) unmanned services? If you're saying it may be unlikely, but is >worth a minor amount of study, I can agree. That is almost what I mean. I do not, in fact, think such a station is possible (and not unlikely.) However, I do not believe that such a station would be as versitile as Freedom (or what Freedom claimed to be...) To build a cheap station would, in my opinion, require a focused and/or specialized design. But I do not KNOW any of this. As far as I can tell, there were no alternate designs studied as part of the Freedom desing. This makes the US database on space stations very small. We need to look at MANY different concepts before we can comare costs or advantages. Frank Crary ------------------------------ Date: 29 May 91 17:27:31 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!ddc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Douglas Creel) Subject: Repurcussions of Fred Cancellation I read something very interesting in yesterdays New York Times (on its front page, as a matter of fact.) This article went on to describe the astonishment of the Japanese government to the cancellation of Fred. They have supposedly drafted a letter which although officially hasn't been sent, it has been seen, which states that cancellation of Fred and the abrogration of the United States' responsibilities detailed in the MoU's signed with Japan (and ESA and Canada) would result in serious repurcussions to the future ability of Japan to participate in big science projects with the U.S. Namely, they mentioned the Super Conducting Super Collider which Japan is considering possibly participating in. So, less than a couple of weeks after Fred's cancellation, amid all of the rejoicing among Fred's opponents, we are already seeing a potential one billion dollars plus in shortfall for U.S. science. There is also considerable consternation among European allies at the potential cancellation of Space Station Freedom. If this happens, then I think we can kiss any hope of future cooperation with international partners in large scientific projects goodbye. All supporters of Fred's cancellation should consider the implications of this cut with respect to our relations with our international partners. Canceling Fred may have a beneficial short term benefit with respect to space science projects, but it may very well have a long term negative impact on the ability of foreign countries to ever trust the U.S. again. One of the space science projects supposedly saved by cancelling Fred in fact is international, Cassini. One can only wonder if the Europeans will decide to continue pumping money into this project if they can only wonder if the U.S. just intends to cancel it a few years down the road without notifying its partners about it. If I were them, I sure wouldn't. Douglas D. Creel Mars Observer Navigation Team Jet Propulsion Laboratory ------------------------------ Date: 29 May 91 18:45:56 GMT From: sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures In article <1991May26.002647.22594@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: > >On this note, I would like to mention that the lifetime of a satellite in >Low Earth orbit is limited by its fuel supply... >.. As such, being able to refuel a satellite in Low Earth orbit could >as much as triple its lifetime. This doesn't make sense. If we want to increase the lifetime, assuming your comment about it being fuel-limited is correct, the best way is to launch more fuel in the first place, rather than adding heavy, complex, and error-prone refueling equipment. It costs more in complexity and energy to refuel than to launch sufficient fuel in the first place. -- 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 ------------------------------ Date: 29 May 91 19:43:42 GMT From: sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Good for the Japanese In article jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes: >Today's (May 26) contains a story headlined > > Tokyo, May 27 - The Japanese Government, angered that its > participation in the American space station is threatened by > Congressional budget cuts, as issued an unusually blunt and > direct warning that it may refuse to contribute bilions of > dollars to American-led "big science" projects in coming > years unless plans to build a vast outpost in space remain > intact. Last I heard, the Japanese were contributing less than $3 billion -- 2.5% of the GAO estimate $120 billion cost -- to the Space Station, and less than $1 billion to the SSC. By cancelling Fred, we are saving far more money than the Japanese are contributing to Fred, SSC, and dozens of other "international" projects (primarily funded by the U.S.) combined. It is not as if Japan lacks money. If they want to do Big Science, they should pay for it, not lend us money so that we can pay for it (and pay them interest into perpetuity). IMHO. BTW, where were all the astronaut supporters screaming about "international agreements" when Solar-Polar got cut to feed the overgrown Shuttle budget? What a bunch of hypocrites. -- 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 ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 91 00:15:25 GMT From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures In article <1991May29.184556.10643@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >This doesn't make sense. If we want to increase the lifetime, assuming >your comment about it being fuel-limited is correct, the best way is >to launch more fuel in the first place, rather than adding heavy, complex, >and error-prone refueling equipment. It costs more in complexity and energy >to refuel than to launch sufficient fuel in the first place. > You seem to assume that adding mass to most satellites is possible. In fact, most of the time this would require launching on a larger launch vehicle. Since there are so few LV's, the "next size up" is often TWICE as big (as well as twice as expensive.) You would either have to launch at well under the new launcher's capacity (which does not help your launch costs...) or double the size of your craft. Neither is a practicle alternative. If the satellite in question were Shuttle or Titan launched. Your suggestion would be impossible, since there is no larger launcher available. Frank Crary ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 91 01:31:24 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Blake Freeburg) Subject: 3D views from 2d data Does anyone know the people that make the movies of flyovers from the data from voyager, magellan, etc? I am interested in builing a 3D model of the starship enterprise out of Star Trek: The Next Generation. I have good sequences of the ship passing overhead, several side views, and it moving away, looking at the back of the ship. I figure there is enough information in these to calculate 1/2 the model, and since it is symmetric, I could then build the other half. I just need some pointers to people, papaers, and possible PD software. Thanks to anyone who can help Blake Freeburg ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 91 01:26:14 GMT From: leech@apple.com (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Communist L-5 opposed the Moon Treaty? (was RE:USF, Inc...) In article <1991May29.173031.5103@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> usf@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: > > It sounds like to me Mr. Fraering Philip is either a Dictator type >a Communist, or a Nazi. He takes pride in the fact that the effort >to make the Moon and Mars the domain of all mankind (All the peoples >of the world) which no single nation could hold claim too was >undermined by this L-5 group. Pretty amazing free association there, since the Soviets were one of the major backers of the Moon Treaty. Does anyone else remember back when LaRouche put L-5 on his hit list? Ah, the good old days. ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 91 15:15:41 GMT From: sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Privatization In article <11682@hub.ucsb.edu> 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley) writes: > > I like the idea of a public government agency habndling sums of >money this big. They are completely open to public scrutiny and >we know exactly where every penny gets spent. Ha ha! That's a good one. Just ask NASA how much a Space Shuttle flight costs. Just ask NASA how much Fred is going to cost. The answers will amaze your typical accountant. They sure amazed the GAO, who raised NASA's Fred estimate by nearly a factor of 4. -- 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 ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 91 15:11:47 GMT From: sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures In article <1991May30.001525.13288@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >In article <1991May29.184556.10643@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >>If we want to increase the lifetime, assuming >>your comment about it being fuel-limited is correct, the best way is >>to launch more fuel in the first place, rather than adding heavy, complex, >>and error-prone refueling equipment. It costs more in complexity and energy >>to refuel than to launch sufficient fuel in the first place. >> >You seem to assume that adding mass to most satellites is possible... Not at all. I am assuming that we can decrease payload mass if a larger launch vehicle is not available and longer lifetime is desired (it often isn't, BTW). This is a common engineering tradeoff. BTW, what are the cost proposals for developing refueling infrastructure? I think it would blow the cost of doing the payload mass/lifetime tradeoff out of the water. I suspect we are talking $billions for a problem that costs, at most, a few $million per satellite. -- 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 ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 91 15:32:24 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Privatization In article <11682@hub.ucsb.edu> 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley) writes: >How will you ensure that the billions simply do not get embezzled if >a private concenr gets it ? The simple way is: pay for results, not for promises. -- "We're thinking about upgrading from | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 91 16:31:06 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!isi.edu!wlf.isi.edu!rogers@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Craig Milo Rogers) Subject: Re: Good for the Japanese In article <1991May30.120254.300@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov writes: >In article <1991May29.194342.11108@sequent.com>, szabo@sequent.com writes... > >>BTW, where were all the astronaut supporters screaming about >>"international agreements" when Solar-Polar got cut to feed the overgrown >>Shuttle budget? What a bunch of hypocrites. > >Solar-Polar. What was once known as the International Solar-Polar Mission >(ISPM), and is now known as Ulysses, was not cut. I figured you woulda >known that, though. Ulysses had to find a new ride to space after the >demise of the Shuttle/Centaur program. Which was based here at Lewis. And >which was killed because of the concerns *of the astronauts* in the wake of >the Challenger tragedy. So the astronaut supporters were right there. And >Ulysses never died, just got delayed. The ISPM originally had *two* probes, so the Sun's two poles could be studied simultaneously. The US was responsible for one probe, and the Europeans the other. The US was to launch both probes. The US probe suffered a miserable death one day in Congress. Our European "partners" gritted their teeth, tightened their belts, loosened their pocketbooks, and proceeded with their half of the mission. This was long before Challenger made it difficult for NASA to launch even one probe. >One hypocrite who knows the skinny. It is sometimes difficult to keep >40 yrs of false starts and unfulfilled promises in mind. When someone says, "so-and-so reneged on their commitment to do x", it is sometimes necessary before replying to determine which instance is under discussion, of the several instances that so-and-so reneged on their commitment to do x. I am sure that there will be other followup messages on this topic, which are more precise than this one. Craig Milo Rogers ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #649 *******************