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 ; Wed, 3 Jul 91 01:26:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 01:26:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #764 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 764 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED Re: Platinum-group metal concentrations in earth-crossing objects Re: Fred's Operatic Death Re: Beanstalk analysis reprise Re: IGY and the dawn of the Space Age Re: Access to Space Re: Fred's Operatic Death Re: CNN Report On Paris Airshow Re: IGY and the dawn of the Space Age 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: Sat, 15 Jun 91 09:49:18 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED Charles J. Divine writes: >[ bunch of stuff about Traxler/Green porkbarrel deleted ] Complain about Traxler/Green's porkbarrel if you want, but its sort of like a Dr. Mengele complaining about his patients' bad attitudes. Get rid of the really big problems first and the other problems, like SSC and EOS, will be much easier to deal with. That is, in fact, why true porkbarrel devotees are so obsessed with supporting Fred no matter what the cost. In the words of one House staffer (not on the space committee) "It's a fire sale. Everyone is cashing in their chips." The debate was even more intense than the civil rights act! This issue is such a wonderful spot-light, exposing the real evil in Congress for all to see. We're talkin' Judgement Day here. The list of Congressmen who fought for Fred is a distilled and purified essence of why people hate government more than ever. Names are named. The evidence is on video tape. The FBI never did such a well-designed sting operation. >shaping the activities of large corporations. A very considerable part of >the cost in developing and building Fred lies in the current need to play >some very nasty political games (e.g., NASA has learned DOD's trick of >putting a subcontractor in every Congressional district). So.... DON'T BUILD FRED! The only NEED to play some those nasty political games comes from the big project approach to space. Unlike DoD, there is no good reason JSC has to choose activities that require large projects. They could pursue lots of small ones and quickly synthesize enough of a market for space services that the private sector would build the REAL WORKING space industry we actually need. The history of Adam Smith vs Karl Marx and the market vs communism is on my side in this argument and very clearly against JSC and its minions. The fact that aerospace contractors prefer to be spoon-fed government capital rather than risking their own is not sufficient justification to ignore history and stew in this kind of political garbage. When you're 85 years old and still sitting in a high chair drooling Gerbers, maybe it's time to either pick up the spoon and feed yourself or (horrors) RETIRE ALREADY! Lots of small projects also have the political advantage of spreading out the money across districts so as to "buy constituency" but in a way that is difficult to manipulate politically. In other words, you depoliticize space with small diverse projects, but you still have constituency. Combine that with the synthesis of a commercial market, which makes Adam Smith instead of Karl Marx work for you, and you have a compelling argument for axing JSC/Fred et al and going small science, exclusively. >To eliminate the >very considerable waste one sees in political managed activities, I recommend >finding ways of changing the fundamental situation, not wasting time going >after a fairly minor player (NASA) in a very nasty game. Waste isn't the problem. If JSC were simply wasting the money we send it, I wouldn't give a hoot. JSC is, quite deliberately and for obvious reasons, making it virtually impossible to raise real private space capital (as opposed to politically connected space capital). If you want to talk about a "nasty game" talk about THAT game. Kill JSC DEAD DEAD DEAD and we might have a chance of creating markets for space goods and services thereby attracting private capital to the field. Then we could get on with dealing with the real problems that affect our technology competitiveness which related to needed fixes in our securities laws and tax policies -- not which big techno-project to blow our wad on for the next N decades. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Bowery 619/295-3164 The Coalition for PO Box 1981 Science and La Jolla, CA 92038 Commerce ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 91 13:28:09 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!yale.edu!ox.com!hela!aws@ucsd.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Platinum-group metal concentrations in earth-crossing objects In article <1991Jun17.021943.6721@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >>Why process in Earth orbit? Seems to me that you could do quite a >>lot, in terms of smelting, or whatever, by processing during the >>transfer orbit. Sure, it would take a few years, but so what? >Two problems: lifting the heavy processing equipment out to the >asteroid, That shouldn't be a problem. After all, most of the energy and cost is spent getting to LEO. After you get to LEO you are half way to anywhere. >and the round-trip light time for teleoperation. So we send people. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. | | aws@iti.org | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 91 22:22:05 GMT From: ucselx!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!caen!dali.cs.montana.edu!ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@ucsd.edu Subject: Re: Fred's Operatic Death In article <0094A42A.866932C0@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >I go out to Andrews Air Force base, talk with the fighter pilots, >and have respect for their accomplishments? Good for you. Fighter pilots have a vital role in defense, and it takes only a tiny fraction of the defense budget to support them. The same cannot be said for astronauts. >He pays taxes too. From his paycheck which is 100% funded by the IRS, he pays perhaps 30% back to the IRS. BFD. I said his pro-astronaut posts were "self-serving" and they are; they serve to provide revenue for the paychecks of himself, his boss, and his co-workers at JSC. The same cannot be said for my postings. My employer sells computers to voluntary purchasers. I do not derive revenue from any of the subjects discussed. Of course he has a right to his self-serving propaganda; I also have a right to point it out for what it is. >Personally Nick, I think if we were pouring money into Asteroid Hunting I don't propose to "pour" anything more than a tiny fraction of what the astronauts are wasting. Even that small fraction the astronaut groupies want to keep for their own programs, as the recent Freddy Krueger war so sadly confirms. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter... These views are my own, and do not represent any organization. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 91 03:34:12 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!Neon!jmc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (John McCarthy) Subject: Re: Beanstalk analysis reprise I didn't get in on the beginning of this argument, but I want to make one general point. While all inventions are subject to the laws of physics, arguments that the laws of physics forbid some achievement often have holes. Moreover, it is invention that finds these holes. Arguments that beanstalks can't work have holes too. Here's one. Suppose we build the beanstalk from the bottom up to the top of the atmosphere, and hang the upper part from synchronous orbit down to the top of the atmosphere. That way the part built up from Baker Island can be thick and strong where the winds are and can also be dynamically stabilized. -- John McCarthy "The people of the antipodes, gazing at the moon when for us it is only a small crescent, remark, 'What a splendid brightness! It's nearly full moon'" - Stendhal, Memoirs of an Egotist ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 91 19:04:14 GMT From: agate!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!Neon!jmc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (John McCarthy) Subject: Re: IGY and the dawn of the Space Age I indeed errored in writing Explorer instead of Vanguard. The error was especially bad, since Explore was the name of the von Braun project. -- John McCarthy "The people of the antipodes, gazing at the moon when for us it is only a small crescent, remark, 'What a splendid brightness! It's nearly full moon'" - Stendhal, Memoirs of an Egotist ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 91 23:32:22 GMT From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) Subject: Re: Access to Space In article <1991Jun18.215511.29612@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >In article <31548@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >>Communications satellites are a service. The service sector of the >>economy does not create signifigant real wealth, >If the ability to communicate instantly across the planet does not >constitute "wealth", what does? My particular business, Sequent, >would lose over half of its revenues if we couldn't talk and send >faxes to our European offices via satellite. If you couldn't talk to Europe instantaneously, would the demand for computers in Europe be less? No, there would just be two companies instead of one, or several companies. All advanced communications allows Sequent to do is expand the scope of its operations. It does not actually create wealth. (Considering our experiences with the Sequent I am on now, cutting your satellite links might be a good idea...but that's another article. :-) >Perhaps we could also say that steel mills and airplanes don't >create real wealth, because that's merely manufacturing and >transportation. Only farms that make food are real wealth. >Ad absurdum. Manufacturing indeed creates wealth, as it adds value to something. What does a comsat add value to? Airplanes don't create wealth, either, they just provide a service. >I find your arguments quite astounding. Perhaps what you are really >trying to say is that, because the industry does not employ astronauts, >you don't care about it? Perhaps you have a hole in your head, too. Where did I say I do not care about the communications satellites? I think they're a great idea. I am taking issue with your statement that comsats are a self-sustaining industry, because they're only industry in the loosest sense of the word. Asteroid mining (manned or unmanned) would create wealth. Space-based materials processing would create wealth. Solar power satellites would create wealth. Communications satellites don't create wealth. Do you see what I am getting at? You've gotten into a rut on your anti-astronaut crusade...it's starting to color your perceptions of other people's articles. -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their Office of Information Technology P.O. box." - Zebadiah Carter, Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu _The Number of the Beast_ ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 91 14:49:50 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!yale.edu!ox.com!hela!aws@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Fred's Operatic Death In article <91168.084950GIPP@GECRDVM1.BITNET> GIPP@gecrdvm1.crd.ge.com writes: >>This is very similar to the behavior of a rock band groupie. I don't see >>any reason to make my language less descriptive of reality. >Reality is in the eye of the beholder. I could probably say the >same things about those who drool and wet their pants thinking about >a robotic mission, but it probably wouldn't describe the majority of >AI advocates. As an 'AI advocate' I strongly agree. I have been involved in research involving real time AI for several years. Most of it for embedded aerospace applications. It is because of this experience that I very much doubt we will see anything with anywhere near human capability for a very long time (if ever). Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. | | aws@iti.org | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 91 09:20:34 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!udcf.glasgow.ac.uk!woody@uunet.uu.net (Ian Woodrow) Subject: Re: CNN Report On Paris Airshow >An Ariane (sp?) rocket is on display. It is set up in a vertical >position. Looks real cool. That is always sitting at Le Bourget - it's part of the museum methinks. -- W@@DY_______________________________________________________________________ /Ian Woodrow, Computing Service, Uni of Glasgow, GLASGOW G12 8QQ, Scotland \ * * \__________________________________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 91 17:13:37 GMT From: convex!usenet@uunet.uu.net (Dave Dodson) Subject: Re: IGY and the dawn of the Space Age In article jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes: There is a major error in this article. Explorer was von Braun's satellite, launched aboard a Jupiter C rocket, which had a Redstone first stage and two solid fueled upper stages. The solid fuel rocket in the Explorer's body was the 4th stage. Jupiter C was developed to test reentry vehicles for ICBMs. If you are old enough, you may recall a 1956 or 1957 speech to the nation by President Eisenhower stating that the reentry problem had been solved, and displaying a reentry vehicle that had been launched aboard a Jupiter C. What is called Explorer here really was the Vanguard project. >There is a gap in Nick Szabo's account of the early space age. >The President's Scientific Advisory Committee, which recommended >the Explorer project, successfully recommended that Explorer use ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ Vanguard Vanguard >hardware developed entirely separately from military hardware. >The explicit hope was that this would serve as an example of >separating civilian from military use of space and would influence >the Soviet Union to do likewise. This had several consequences. > >1. It didn't influence the Soviet Union in the slightest, since it was >based on a considerable misconception of what the Soviet Union was >like. > >2. It required forbidding the von Braun group at Redstone from >launching a satellite based on the Jupiter IRBM rocket. >The von Braun group was ready much earlier. As mentioned above, it was the Jupiter C rocket, not the Jupiter IRBM. The Jupiter IRBM was the first stage later for the Juno rocket, which was used in 1959 to launch several payloads past the moon. >3. It made the Explorer project one of minimal capability - ^^^^^^^^ Vanguard >18 pounds - as compared to 200 and 2000 pounds for Sputniks >I and II. I'm not sure the reason for this was entirely >budgetary; I suspect PSAC felt that any space activity would >be regarded as science fictionary and wanted to be modest to >preserve respectability. > >4. The shoestring Explorer project experience long delays ^^^^^^^^ Vanguard >and then failed spectacularly twice two months after Sputnik. > >5. The von Braun group was given the go-ahead after Sputnik >and successfully launched a satellite before the first >successful Explorer launch. ^^^^^^^^ Vanguard Von Braun launched Explorer 1 on January 31, 1958, if I remember correctly. This was about 90 days after he had been given approval to proceed with an attempt to launch an earth satellite, and included the time to design, build, and test the satellite, as well as assemble the Jupiter C and wait for good weather. The launch occurred less than 4 months after Sputnik 1. >6. Purity was abandoned completely after Sputnik. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Dodson dodson@convex.COM Convex Computer Corporation Richardson, Texas (214) 497-4234 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #764 *******************