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, 6 Jul 91 04:05:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 6 Jul 91 04:05:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #793 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 793 Today's Topics: Re: Net Participation by Gov't Employees Re: URGENT: (Not Again!) Traxler Gambit: The Next Generation Re: Shuttling to the Cape Re: USF Reply from Rick R. Dobson ( Founder) Motorolla Satelites Re: Magellan GIF Images (FAQ) Subdividing the list Re: Democracy: Easy Come, Easy Go NASA selects Fairchild Space to negotiate contract (Forwarded) Re: Solid-fuel Rockets and Ozone Re: Mining El Dorado Re: Hermes (was Re: (none)) 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 Jun 91 03:05:53 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!granroth@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Larry Granroth) Subject: Re: Net Participation by Gov't Employees In article <1991Jun24.193727.9136@agora.rain.com>, batie@agora.rain.com (Alan Batie) writes: > Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org (Wales Larrison) writes: >>I normally refrain from making statements regarding the net conduct >>of other persons on the net. However, the recent imbroglio from >>Nick Szabo regarding the postings of Mary Shafer and other >>government employees has given me cause to comment. > > I must've missed the posting this references, but I'll state publicly > here and now that I think Mary's posting are among the most intelligent > and informative on the net, and would be extremely disappointed if she > were driven away. > . . . I generally just skim subject lines on sci.space, but my impression has been that Nick also presents intelligent and inoffensive discussions. Frankly, many of his views, in my opinion, appear to be in line with the majority of space physics researchers. (I haven't noticed Mr Szabo participating in any personal attacks, but Nick-bashing seems to occur frequently.) -Larry Granroth@IowaSP.physics.UIowa.edu IOWASP::GRANROTH ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 91 13:47:56 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!hela!aws@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: URGENT: (Not Again!) Traxler Gambit: The Next Generation In article <33503@rouge.usl.edu> dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Phil Fraering) writes: >I heard about Sen. John Rockefeller's plan to help families: ... >... Projected cost: some $ 50 billion a year. Means of payment: >cutting Space Station Freedom. [Phil goes on to point out that although the program costs $50 billion a year we only spend $2 billion on Freedom. Where does the other $48 billion come from?] Clearly Senator Rockefeller is trying to put one over on us. The best thing to do would be to call or write to the Senator and ask just what he ment. I just got off the phone asking the same question to the Senator's office. Nobody there could answer the question. If you want to help drive the point home, call the Senator's office at (202) 224-6472 and ask him if he ment to say that killing Freedom was enough to pay for his program. They will ask you to call the children's commission. Do so and ask them the same questions. If you don't like what you hear call the Senator back and tell them your question wasn't answered. They will do whatever they can to put you off; don't let them. Insist on an answer. You can also write to: Senator John Rockefeller IV SH724 HS Washington DC 20510-4802 Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. | | aws@iti.org | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 91 23:25:42 GMT From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Shuttling to the Cape In article <7846@mace.cc.purdue.edu> larsenp@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Paul Larsen) writes: >I recently heard on the radio that NASA finally has determined that it would >be cost effective to land the Space Shuttle at Cape Canaveral. This would >replace the need to land it at Edwards Air Force Base and then fly it to >Florida. Supposedly this will save one million per flight. That's a lot of >taxpayers' money that they have been wasting for the past 10 years. I know >when the program first started NASA said that landing at EAFB would only be >temporary. Does anyone know why this practice lasted for as long as it did? Because it's safer. Edwards is a much more rational place to put a spaceport, as opposed to a missile test range. In particular, the weather is much more predictable. NASA keeps pushing for landings at KSC to save time and money, but EAFB is unquestionably a better landing site. -- "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: 25 Jun 91 18:08:09 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!acm.rpi.edu!strider@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Greg Moore) Subject: Re: USF Reply from Rick R. Dobson ( Founder) In article <13837@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: >In article <1991Jun20.164412.5626@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>, usf@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: > > ...................... > >> B) A governing or regulatory body which would review >> proposed projects submitted by the planning body to >> be debated and either approved or disaproved. > > ...................... > >Not only do you propose to have a body to plan space activities, but >also one which could disapprove such activities. This is no way for >anyone who believes in any form of individual freedom to act. > >I see the proposed USF as a means to allow an international body to >stifle space activities, and nothing else. Without the Cold War, I >doubt if much of what has been accomplished in space would have been >done. International control means subjugation. >-- >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) Ah, Herman, ever hear of Checks and Balances? A concept used in our government. You see, we have a body that proposes laws, (Congress) and one who can disapprove them, the President. Of course you want a body to disapprove projects, not every project proposed will be worthwhile to do. <-------------------------------------------------------------------------> Carpe Diem Greg_d._Moore@mts.rpi.edu Greg_d._Moore@acm.rpi.edu "All that is gold does not glitter." Strider_of_the_Dunedain@mts.rpi.edu ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 91 20:53:04 GMT From: bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!bison!sys6626!inqmind!jesus@uunet.uu.net (Norman Paterson) Subject: Motorolla Satelites Would anyone have the knowledge as to whether or not Motorolla has settled upon a firm to launch their satelites into orbit? I know that they have decided and contracted out the construction of the satelites for their Iridium program of 77 satelites in polar orbit. But have they awarded a contract for the launching of these? Are they in the process of tendering lauch services? Would be interested in knowing. Sincerely, Norman Paterson, Winnipeg City, Manitoba CANADA. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jun 91 01:48:03 GMT From: marf@athena.mit.edu (Matthew R Feulner) Subject: Re: Magellan GIF Images (FAQ) > > I've placed 16 more Magellan images in GIF format at the Ames SPACE >archives, bringing the Magellan GIF total to 62 images. All of the images >are obtainable via anonymous ftp from ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3), and >are in the pub/SPACE/GIF directory. > > ... > > I've converted the images from the VICAR images I placed at the Ames >site last week. All of the GIFs are in a 640x480, 256 color resolution. Sorry about this, but why doesn't my mac like these? I download them to a local UNIX machine in binary (or text) then to my mac, but none of my GIF software likes them. Thanks Matthew Feulner marf@athena.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 08:57:01 CDT From: David Lowe Subject: Subdividing the list To: "SPACE Digest/sci.space" There have been several suggestions to change the format of this discussion list. Some have proposed to edit it and others have suggested subdividing it in some way. One idea was to divide the forum into two lists, one of which would be peered and the other absolutely unguided. I have another suggestion. The list could be divided into two forums on the basis of subject approach. The first forum could deal with all the political, social, and institutional questions surrounding space exploration. On this forum we could read organizational charts of international space agencies, learn how libertarianism will save the world, and debate the economics of Fred. The other forum would cover more technical issues. The recent discussions of extraterrestrial life, tethers, comet mining, antenna deployment, and propulsion methods for interstellar travel would belong here. I realize that the world of ideas does not always subdivide neatly and that participants would sometimes have comments to make that defy simple categorization. I also realize that not all individuals would cooperate with the system I propose. However, I believe that it work enough of the time to make this forum less unwieldy. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 08:15:27 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Democracy: Easy Come, Easy Go Matthew DeLuca writes: >In article jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes: > >>When someone who is receiving tax dollars lobbies Congress to give them >>more tax dollars, a positive feedback system is created that ultimately >>undermines democracy itself. When they actually FLY INTO WASHINGTON, >>hang out in hotels, take Congressmen/staffers out to dinner or whatever, >>they should be thrown in jail. > >This doesn't make sense. Are you saying it should be illegal to talk >to Congressmen outside of a formal panel hearing? Or that it should be >illegal for a government organization to ask for a larger budget? The first sentence points out a fundamental control problem with our present system of government. The Hatch Act of 1939 tried to deal with this problem, but it didn't anticipate the huge government funded industry of the Cold War (of which NASA is a component). Lobbyists needn't be at hearings nor even be civil servants to be part of this problem. This vicious cycle is at the root of programs like Frankenfred that drive up the federal debt and alienate the people from their government. We should strengthen the Hatch Act, via constitutional amendment if necessary, to break this vicious cycle before it breaks our country. The second sentence talks about the violation of existing statute by civil servants and government contractors, who charge to government accounting numbers to travel to Washington to engage in political action. The Federal Budget doesn't set up a line item that says or even implies "$X for NASA civil servants and contractors to lobby for Space Station Frankenfred." Mischarging is a jailable offense. Since these people aren't being thrown in jail, the NASA inspector-general isn't doing his job. Therefore a special prosecutor should be established within the Justice Department to investigate, prosecute and incarcerate the criminals. >>Since we appear unwilling to throw the rascals in jail as they should >>be, the least we can do is provide free travel expenses to taxpaying >>citizens with a countervailing point of view. > >If you want to lobby, fine, but you have to do it >on your own money. NASA has to use its own money... I think this pretty much sums up the problem: A government of, by and for the government. You seem to think NASA owns ANYTHING independent of the taxpayers. Sorry. NASA is to do what it is told to do with money and assets it is authorized to use. It has no ownership of anything. When NASA uses money appropriated to build Space Station Frankenfred to, instead, LOBBY for Space Station Frankenfred, it is acting as though it OWNS that money, which it does not. Such lobbying is, therefore, theft from the public purse and should dealt with accordingly. >Btw, I think this was posted last month...can we be a little more prompt? I respond promptly. The network doesn't. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Bowery 619/295-3164 The Coalition for PO Box 1981 Science and La Jolla, CA 92038 Commerce ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 91 21:00:45 GMT From: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA selects Fairchild Space to negotiate contract (Forwarded) Michael Braukus Headquarters, Washington, D.C. June 25, 1991 (Phone: 202/453-1549 ) John J. Loughlin, II Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. (Phone: 301/286-5565) RELEASE: C91-w NASA SELECTS FAIRCHILD SPACE TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACT NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., has selected Fairchild Space, Germantown, Md., for negotiations leading to award of a 5-year cost-plus-award fee/level-of-effort contract to provide engineering support services for the Space Technology Division under the Engineering Directorate. The types of support to be provided include design, development, analysis, fabrication and qualification testing of spacecraft hardware and software in support of Goddard's many space science projects. The estimated value of the contract is approximately $52 million. The contract is expected to be awarded to Fairchild Space by September of this year. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jun 91 00:17:12 GMT From: usc!samsung!think.com!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Solid-fuel Rockets and Ozone In article <1991Jun25.192324.22019@uvm.edu> work@emily.uvm.edu (Steven S. Work 1st) writes: >Has this been talk about in sci.space? IMO this is an important bit of news, >if true. Any comments? It's been talked about repeatedly, nay, endlessly. It's pure bullshit, self-serving technophobic lies. Have I put that bluntly enough? :-) The shuttle's effect on the ozone layer would be worth concern if it were launching weekly like NASA once hoped. NASA anticipated the issue, with plans for liquid-fueled boosters. As it is, while solid rockets in general are pretty dirty, their contribution to the ozone layer's problems is negligible. -- "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: 21 Jun 91 20:42:47 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Paul Blase) Subject: Re: Mining El Dorado to: 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley) CF> Ahem, It has been pointed out to me that nukes would make the CF> asteroid ore radioactive, and thus essentialloy useless for CF> most applications, certainly those involving manned presence, CF> and won't help electronic applications. CF> I think I have decided I prefer conventiopnal explosives. Maybe the two or three meters directly below the thrust point (crater), but not the whole asteroid. --- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR] -- Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104 UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase INTERNET: Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 91 15:58:34 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: Hermes (was Re: (none)) In article dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) writes: >How did Hermes become overweight? ... The same way humans do: one kilo at a time. :-) Early weight estimates for a space project are almost always optimistic, and the numbers grow as engineering reality sets in. In well-run projects they don't grow too much, and a reserve is set aside early to cover a modest amount of growth. In leading-edge projects or ones that have to be all things to all users, e.g. Galileo or Fred, weight growth can be massive enough to endanger the whole project. Many people think ESA is making a mistake in trying to build a fairly large and sophisticated spaceplane without some less ambitious preliminary exercises first. -- "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 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #793 *******************