Date: Thu, 22 Oct 92 05:02:56 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #333 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 22 Oct 92 Volume 15 : Issue 333 Today's Topics: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase High School project Sen. Al Gore on the American Space & Aeronautics Programs Space for White People only? (2 msgs) Telescience Workshop TheSouth rose (was Re: Weather satellites & preventing property damage) Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Oct 92 02:35:06 GMT From: "Shadow.,,," Subject: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase Newsgroups: sci.space >>Furthermore, I think that >>asteroid mining missions (and the volatile extraction missions that >>will likely precede them) should use the same launchers as comsats, >>instead of demanding their own special-purpose hardware. I have a big problem with mining asteroids and mining on the moon theories. And that is, for a mine to be of economic value, there has to be a relative enrichment process which creates a local abundance of mineral wealth. Guys, this just isn't possible. Sure, there are predominantly Fe-Ni asteroids floating about there in space, but there aren't REALLY enough of them in close proximity, close enough to Earth or the Moon to warrant going out, mining them and carting them back OR sending them back to Earth in order to refine them here. Silicate structures are incredibly resistant to refinement. I mean, sure! you can mine for sillica as well, but metals? Not a chance. I had a good laugh last night when the beyond 2000 show announced proudly that they would use the moon as a source of metals. Grin. Hey, guys... mineral deposits form from two big groups of processes, and both of them involve flowing/moving water and lots of spare time. There is no way that the moon has had sufficient surficial water to develop erosional enrichment deposits, and no way that there has ever been enough water around for "crustal" hydrothermal processes when the moon was still relatively molten inside. So, all that remains is aolean differentiation.. and there is no wind on the moon! Asteroid impacts wouldn't really help much, unless you find old impact cores of metal-rich meteorites. In all, you'd never cover the cost of mining a deposit because there wouldn't be any deposits of ore grades anywhere near the richness of those on Earth. Even with technological advances, what we'd need is an unmanned machine which needs no energy input, capable of operating for many years and using a refinement process which hasn't yet been devised... and probably won't ever be. The moon will not be our mineralogical saving grace. If you want to mine metals, go look on Mars. Maybe- and that's a BIG maybe there once existed the propper conditions on Mars, or maybe the wind has differentiated heavy from light minerals. But then, you can increase your transport expense. There are no amphiboles on the moon. Brad. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 92 12:43:43 GMT From: "Charles A. Lind" Subject: High School project Newsgroups: sci.space In article , DMS1995%KSUVM.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu (David Sexton) writes: >information about mars. See most recent issue of Astra. Chalres ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 92 09:05:22 GMT From: Clinton for President <75300.3115@compuserve.com> Subject: Sen. Al Gore on the American Space & Aeronautics Programs Newsgroups: sci.space STATEMENT BY SENATOR AL GORE Goddard Space Flight Center Monday, October 19, 1992 This afternoon, I want to speak to you about aeronautics and space. Because I believe in the importance of this subject for the future of the country, I will also be delivering a second speech on other aspects of this same challenge later this week in Florida. But in order to appreciate the magnitude of what we confront, it is necessary to begin with a discussion of the larger context. America is the greatest nation on Earth. But for more than a decade, our leaders in Washington have failed to invest in this country. They have failed to invest in American jobs. And they have failed to invest in the means to develop those new technologies that are needed to drive our national economy. After twelve years of Republican control of the presidency, the people of our country can hardly avoid drawing some sobering conclusions about the results of the Reagan/Bush/Quayle economic policies. A variety of indicators illustrate the dismal performance of the American economy during this time. Ten years ago, American workers earned higher wages than workers in any other country. Now we're 13th and falling. Our competitors are growing more and earning more because they educate their people better, invest more in their future, and organize their economies to compete. The American people, on the other hand, are suffering from policies that have resulted in the worst economic record in fifty years: the slowest economic growth, the slowest job growth, and the slowest income growth since the Great Depression. The sad truth is that we have 1.4 million fewer manufacturing jobs now than four years ago. And, after twelve straight years of trickle-down economics, some important industries of the future have been devastated in the United States. For example, during this era of Republican stewardship of the economy, virtually the entire domestic electronics industry vanished. One after another, our leading firms have surrendered in the battle against foreign competitors. While Reagan and Bush stood by on the sidelines, our electronics firms were out-matched and out-gunned by foreign competitors who are subsidized by their governments. It's the outcome you might have expected under a president whose chief economic advisor reportedly claims that it makes no difference whether the United States exports silicon chips or potato chips. If you search long and hard in some stores you might discover what appears to be a familiar American brand name. But don't be fooled. Take a look at where the product was actually manufactured and you'll learn a different tale. I can tell you this much about the story's ending: it won't conclude with the line "Made in America." The same story has been repeated over and over again in industries where the U.S. was once a leading manufacturer. In fact, its easier to name the sectors of our economy that have NOT been wiped out by foreign competition than where we used to lead, since that list is so much shorter. Our last surviving crown jewel is the American aerospace industry. As a source for technological innovation, it has far-reaching implications for every sector of the American economy. Indeed, it holds one of the keys to future prosperity of the United States. It is the one area where our advantages in technology and quality have been so great that not even George Bush's Hooveresque do-nothing approach to the economy could destroy them. But this is no time for false confidence. Every one of us in this room knows that aerospace is next on the hit list. The footsteps of our rivals in Europe and Asia are getting louder and louder. Even the Russians are starting to sell their aerospace technology around the world. The time when we could assume a continued American supremacy in aerospace is gone. And President Bush's hands-off economic policies have dangerously weakened the ability of American aerospace to fight back. It is therefore crucial that the government begin to focus its efforts on preserving our aerospace industries. But the Bush Administration is continuing to indulge in the same wishful thinking that has helped destroy other sectors of the economy. Believe me, I'm talking from first-hand experience. As Chairman of the Senate subcommittee that writes NASA's authorization bill, I have battled every year with the Administration on priorities in aerospace. Because of the failed policies of the last four years, our national space program is as lost as a satellite thrown out of its orbit. George Bush and Dan Quayle have perilously weakened our space program. The late arrival of Dan Goldin to NASA raises possibilities, but the results of his efforts remain unknown. During the last four years, the Bush/Quayle Administration has failed to establish strategic priorities for the space program. Instead, this Administration has taken to throwing out half-baked ideas, regardless of their cost to taxpayers, hoping that the money to pay for them will materialize out of thin air. They have no idea of what is needed to strengthen NASA and preserve America's leadership in space. As a result, NASA has been forced to try to do too much with too little. At the same time that the Congress and the President agreed to the Budget Enforcement Act, which imposed a cap on future spending increases, George Bush and Dan Quayle, acting as Chairman of the National Space Council, began their push for several costly new space initiatives. By far the biggest of these came in 1989, when the President declared that he intended to send humans back to the Moon and on to Mars by the year 2019 -- the so-called Space Exploration Initiative. For once, George Bush may have had a vision, but its absurdity became apparent as cost estimates for a mission to the Moon and Mars were put at anywhere from $100 to $400 billion. Keep in mind that Bush unveiled this plan at a time when we were trying to refurbish the Space Shuttle program, fund development of the Space Station Freedom, and launch the Mission to Planet Earth, all from a space budget that was already constrained. I remember an article that appeared in the trade press at that time. It was an interview with a senior official at the Office of Management and Budget. Questioned as to where the funds were going to come for this project, he cited: increased tax revenues from a stronger economy. We know what's happened to that assumption. I almost fell out of my chair when I read this: OMB also assumed that higher user fees for services like navigating the intercostal waterway system could be used to pay for this multi-hundred-billion dollar program. Imagine! At the very moment that the budget deficits were reaching record levels, George Bush and Dan Quayle proposed a massive new program to be funded by pie-in-the- sky economic forecasts together with minor barge fees. During the last twelve years of the Reagan/Bush/Quayle Administrations, we have seen the national debt sky-rocket to more than $4 trillion. Interest payments on that debt have risen accordingly, eroding our ability to undertake new initiatives. As a result, NASA is forced to compete fiercely for funds with all other domestic discretionary programs. Like it or not, NASA's budget can only grow now at the expense of programs for the poor and hungry, or our veterans. By failing to set priorities within NASA, by failing to make investments that strengthen the space program and create new jobs, the Bush/Quayle Administration has weakened every component of that program. Each NASA program now competes directly with others for scarce funding. The budget for scientific flights battles the budget for manned space flight. The Space Station competes with the Mission to Planet Earth. The end result of this mismanagement are programs that are delayed, stretched out, or even canceled. Scientific opportunities have been put on hold, and high-wage jobs in the aerospace and scientific communities have been eliminated. Probably one of the most critical issues facing the space program today is the need to reduce the cost of launching payloads, whether they be military, scientific, or commercial satellites. Our only existing choices are the Space Shuttle, which currently costs more than $4 billion a year to operate, and decades-old technology in our fleet of expendable launch vehicles. The urgency of this problem is readily apparent to everyone associated with the U.S. space program. Yet, with such an obvious task before them, this Administration has failed to make any progress whatsoever. In fact, after several years of evaluating the question of which launch vehicle made the most sense, and after spending billions of dollars, we are still left with nothing. Right to the point, Dan Quayle and the National Space Council have failed to act decisively on the issue of developing a new rocket program. The blame must lie squarely at their feet. As proposed by the Space Council, the U.S has been actively attempting to develop not one, not two, but three -- yes, three new, costly, and technically complex orbital launch systems: the $12 billion New Launch System, and the $15 billion National Aerospace Plane, and the Single Stage Rocket Technology program, which still has no price tag. In their own right, each of these systems may have some merit, even given the fact that the Space Plane and the Single Stage Technology program may provide significant benefits only in the long-term future. But, trying to fund all three in the current budget environment is ridiculous. The Administration's New Launch System is a program that called for the development of a family of three launch vehicles built around a new, more reliable engine. However, Quayle's National Space Council let politics determine how the NLS program would be structured. Rather than tailoring the program to suit realistic launch needs of either NASA, the military, or the commercial launch industry, the Council made a politically expedient decision. They saw the NLS as their last opportunity to develop a system capable of deploying the President's Star Wars program, as well as his Moon/Mars initiative. The end result was a $12 billion proposal that did not adequately serve the needs of NASA, the Air Force, or the companies competing for commercial launch contracts. In particular, NASA has no mission requirement for the New Launch System. Space agency officials testified to that effect earlier this year, saying their only plans to use the NLS were as a truck to carry supplies to the Space Station, well after the turn of the century. After wrestling with this program for the past two years, the Congress has terminated the New Launch System. However, given the future funding stream for NLS, in which NASA and DOD each were asked to ante up $1 billion a year to this program, and the need to continue other high priority initiatives, there was no other choice. Nevertheless, we must improve our ability to access space. In the near-term, there are several small, affordable steps that will move us toward that objective. First, we must continue to improve the safety and reliability of the Space Shuttle. NASA's Assured Shuttle Availability program is a valuable initiative that will help maintain a viable manned transportation capability into the next century. Equally important is the continuation of the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor program. We also need to upgrade our existing fleet of expendable launch vehicles. The Titan, Atlas, and Delta are all derived from ballistic missiles that were originally developed in the 1950's. Since then, they have been considerably modified to improve their ability to launch satellites. But additional improvements are both possible and needed. Unfortunately, just as the Bush Administration has ignored the need for investment in our nation's future in so many other areas, so President Bush has done nothing to invest in the future of our commercial launch industry. On several occasions, my colleagues and I in the Congress have advocated the creation of a small, technology development program within NASA to upgrade our existing fleet of expendable launch vehicles. Yet, despite its modest price tag and strong support from NASA and industry, the Administration has refused to endorse our initiative. I support the concept of developing new engine technologies for our expendable launch systems, as that will be the core of any future launch program. However, any decision to develop the next generation of launch vehicles must be based on cost-effective criteria with a clear concept of mission requirements in mind. The record is equally grim when it comes to the Administration's support of the U.S. commercial launch industry. In 1986, in the aftermath of the Challenger accident, President Reagan announced that the Space Shuttle would no longer launch commercial communications satellites, leaving them to the domestic commercial expendable launch industry. In 1986, however, there was no domestic commercial industry. At the time, the United States, through NASA, launched 50 percent of the world's communications satellites. Ariane, the French government-supported launch company, controlled the other 50 percent. In just a few short years, we have witnessed a dramatic change in this situation. Ariane continues to launch and soon will be introducing a new rocket with improved capabilities. Other competitors have surfaced, including the Chinese and the Russians, who are willing to enter the satellite launch market by buying their way in with very low subsidized rates. And, just around the corner are the Japanese, who also hope to get into this limited market. Today, as a result of Presidential policy, we have a situation where private American companies are forced to compete head to head with foreign governments who provide launch services. What has been the response of the Bush/Quayle Administration? At least recognizing there was a problem, the National Space Council in 1990 issued its Commercial Space Launch Policy, which outlined planned steps to secure an international agreement on the government subsidies and the pricing of commercial launch services. However, two years later, we have heard little, if anything, about when these "rules of the road" negotiations will result in an agreement that will help U.S. companies. Then there's the fact that we've been burned by the People's Republic of China. The 1989 bilateral agreement with China limits the number of American-built satellites that they are to launch and requires that they charge fair prices. In addition, the Chinese agreed to abide by international rules on the sale of ballistic missiles to other countries. But the absence of any enforcement provisions has allowed the Chinese to violate the launch agreement with impunity. Knowing that the Bush Administration will never challenge them, the Chinese have repeatedly offered to sell launch services at rates substantially below world prices. After all, if George Bush will do nothing to sanction the Chinese after the human rights atrocities that occurred following the student democracy uprisings in Tiananmen Square, why should the Chinese worry about the U.S. government challenging them on a simple commercial launch agreement? Adding to these insults, the Chinese have sold their military rockets to countries such as Syria. Most recently, ignoring protests by his own Transportation Department, the President has permitted five additional American-built satellites to be launched by the Chinese. President Bush really is an incurable patsy for those dictators he sets out to coddle. Earlier this year, as a part of the summit with President Yeltsin, the Bush Administration gave approval to launch an American-built communications satellite on the Russian Proton rocket. I have called for increased cooperation with the post-Soviet space industry in Russia. But by making this decision without a framework for considering how American industry and American jobs would be affected, the Bush Administration has put the cart before the horse. Neither the market for launch services nor our competitive position is secure enough to allow our government to make casual decisions about the future of our space launch industry. The emergence of competitors from non-market economies increases the opportunity for predatory pricing -- the very same economic weapon that foreign countries employed in the 1980's to target and destroy the American manufacturing base. Our first priority must be to secure agreement from all parties on how commercial launch services will be priced and ensure that effective means of enforcement are in place to make such an agreement work. Having said that, I remain committed to the belief that the United States should be prepared to work together with our traditional allies in Europe and Japan, as well as Russia. Greater U.S.-Russian cooperation in space will benefit both countries, combining the things that we do well with the things that others perform well and we do not. I believe in the importance of cooperating with the Russians in space. In 1988, I proposed a future mission to Mars, but only provided the Soviets were involved from the beginning in planning and financing such an enterprise. Most recently, in March of this year, when it became readily apparent that the U.S. was missing a golden opportunity to acquire Russian aerospace assets and technologies at fire-sale prices, I wrote President Bush, urging him to act expeditiously on offers coming from the former Soviet Union. We must remain open to such "win-win" situations that benefit the people of both nations. To every degree possible, we should use space as a means for building bridges between our nations. Given the importance of our aerospace programs, well-conceived action is clearly needed. What can and should be done? First, we need to make the space program more cost-effective and flexible. Spending more wisely in line with our established priorities will enable us to preserve jobs and ensure that the United States remains a leader in space. We must start to focus our efforts on initiatives which will strengthen our space and aviation programs, and create new job opportunities in the aerospace and scientific communities. Priority should be given to the development of cost effective and reliable launch systems, environmental monitoring systems, technologies for commercial aviation, and satellite communications technologies. The findings of the Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program, the so-called "Augustine Committee", offer a good road map. I agree with the Committee's conclusions that within a balanced civil space program, space science must continue to be our highest priority. In particular, the Mission to Planet Earth, which will provide critical data on global environmental change, must be developed as quickly as possible. The Mission to Planet Earth is by all odds NASA's most important mission. I have advocated that we proceed with this mission as quickly as possible, arguing in several instances that mission objectives should be accomplished more quickly than NASA had proposed. In that regard, we must better utilize data already collected on the Earth's atmosphere, land masses, and oceans, hastening our understanding of changing environmental systems. Secondly, Bill Clinton and I agree that we must move forward to complete development of the Space Station Freedom. This program will present the United States with unique opportunities for world leadership in science and technology. It will enable research in a weightless environment and is expected to yield many new developments in materials, electronics, and medicine. The Space Station also will serve as a test-bed for technologies that may one day be adapted for use on Earth, including water and air purification systems and robotics for conducting high-risk tasks. The Space Station will serve as an anchor for the aerospace industry, particularly during a time when highly-skilled defense workers are being displaced by cut backs. During this period of declining defense spending, programs like the Space Station Freedom will help stabilize our Nation's industrial base. Any effort to cancel this program will be opposed, because taking such a course would only exacerbate an already difficult situation. We also must continue to learn about other planets in our solar system. This knowledge will improve our understanding of our own world and stimulate advances in computers, sensors, image processing, and communications. And, although we cannot yet commit major resources to human planetary exploration, this dream should be among the considerations that guide our science and engineering. Because the entire world will share the benefits of human planetary exploration, the costs for any such projects should be borne by other nations as well as the United States. The United States must more aggressively support the development of new aviation technologies and under a Clinton/Gore Administration, NASA will give higher priority to developing cleaner, quieter, more fuel efficient aircraft. The United States has consistently been a world leader in commercial aircraft development. Other countries, including Japan, Taiwan, and Korea, seeing the success of the Europeans with Airbus, are increasingly willing to subsidize their aerospace industries. It is therefore incumbent upon our leadership in Washington to target our R&D efforts to ensure that U.S. aircraft manufacturers can effectively compete on the international market. Foreign government-subsidized competition has already taken a significant toll on American aerospace businesses and their workers. Because of subsidies to Airbus for the development of new aircraft technologies and in selling the resulting aircraft, it has cut into the market share of Boeing and surpassed McDonnell Douglas as the world's second largest commercial aircraft producer. McDonnell Douglas has been forced to look for a massive foreign investment just to stay in business. The weakness of our commercial airline industry is also a worrisome factor that must be resolved. Because of the continuing weak economy, and Reagan/Bush policies that encouraged leveraged buyouts, our domestic airlines are suffering through a sustained period of record financial losses. In fact, in the last two years alone, our domestic air carriers have lost close to $6 billion. As a result, orders for new aircraft have been canceled by virtually every airline, large or small. I welcome the recent report released earlier this month by the National Research Council, which brought together a panel of aerospace experts to review where U.S. policies have failed and to recommend what must be done to sustain our commercial aircraft manufacturing industry. I support their recommendations calling for an increased emphasis by the Federal government on new subsonic technologies, so that we may preserve our preeminence in this important industry. I am pleased that they agreed with Bill Clinton and me that we must also work to develop new high-tech, short-haul aircraft, including the tilt- rotor. Finally, it is imperative that before we make the decision to launch the next generation supersonic transport aircraft, they are proven to be environmentally acceptable. The future use of all aircraft will be increasingly constrained by national and international restrictions on both emissions and noise. It is my sincere belief that we must work cooperatively to avoid increasing the adverse environmental effects of aircraft on the ground and in flight. The reckless indifference to the fate of the aerospace industry by the Bush/Quayle Administration during the past four years has imperiled our competitiveness and our nation's economic future. It is time for a change. We need leaders who will get our economy moving again and who will work to create and retain high-wage jobs in this country. We need to replace the failed policies of the past with new ideas and new energy. And we need leaders who understand the importance of space and aviation to our national well-being. Bill Clinton and I recognize the role our aerospace industry plays in preserving our national security and sustaining our economic well-being. We are committed to investing in America and in American workers. Bill Clinton and I are ready to move in a new direction toward a future where America competes to win. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 92 13:21:12 GMT From: Alan Carter Subject: Space for White People only? Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space In article <1992Oct21.085120.149860@zeus.calpoly.edu>, jgreen@zeus.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes: |> ...I would argue that what we get |> in return for the space program is well worth the investment. I agree. |> New technologies for medical uses, computer technology, |> new materials, environmental sensing (it was a NASA sat. that |> discovered the ozone hole) are but a few of the many spin-offs |> of our investment in space technology. Another, less tangible, |> but no less real, spinoff is the ability to look upon our Planet |> as it actually is: A small fragle ball which is unique in our |> Solar System in supporting large quanties of water and life. Well, actually it was a British weather balloon that discovered the hole. A NASA sat *did* see it, but the data were chucked out in validation during ground processing. From what I've read, the spinoff argument is a little weak. Many things that are supposed to be spinoffs, such as ICs and Teflon, either simply aren't, or had a healthy line of development before their technological maturity made them worth considering for solving problems in the space programme. Perhaps thinking spinoff comes from not finding lots of gosh-wow benefits, and needing something to cite. In real life however, the most valuable activities tend to be day to day things. Global communications that make this posting possible, and make shipping so much safer. Understanding more about weather systems and what they are likely to do next - still a question of vital importance to most human beings. Prospecting for mineral wealth, and providing the geologists with comparisons. Most geologists now study processes on the moon or Mars during their course. Perhaps this news group could try to compile an exhaustive list of the *boring* benefits of space that many, many people partake of. |> The future in space is just as promising. Vast resourse |> await us. The metal in a single small asteroid would |> supply us for decades or more, without strip-mining our |> wilderness areas. Far more promising. If we are capable of moving our activities and interests off this one planet, it will be an evolutionary step unlike any other in our history. Alan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Maidenhead itself is too snobby to be pleasant. It is the haunt of the river swell and his overdressed female companion. It is the town of showy hotels, patronized chiefly by dudes and ballet girls. Three Men In A Boat, Jerome K. Jerome, 1889 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 1992 10:48 EST From: "Philip A. Stehno" Subject: Space for White People only? Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space In article <1992Oct21.085120.149860@zeus.calpoly.edu>, jgreen@zeus.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes... >I had a rather disturbing conversation Saturday evening. > >I was talking to a Hispanic Woman (a business major) who >said that we shouldn't spend a single dollar on space >because "it only benefits white people." She was rather >angry about the mere thought that any money at all was spent >on space. > >This is rather disturbing. Not because a single person >has this opinion, but that because this seems to be a rather >widespread opinion, both with Whites and Minorities. > It's my oppinion that NASA has never PR'ed itself well. If there is a failier, it's front page news. If it's a success it's a footnote to a newscast or on page 100 section FF. >I don't have the exact numbers, but I understand that this year's >NASA budget is approximately $10 billion. This sounds like a >lot until you learn that the TOTAL Federal budget is about >$1 TRILLION ($1000 billion). Thus, NASA only gets about >1/100th of the federal budget. I would argue that what we get >in return for the space program is well worth the investment. > Actually its more like $14 Billion, but that is still small compared to the total Gov't Budget. The NASA budget includes both Space and Aeronautics research! >New technologies for medical uses, computer technology, >new materials, environmental sensing (it was a NASA sat. that >discovered the ozone hole) are but a few of the many spin-offs >of our investment in space technology. Another, less tangible, >but no less real, spinoff is the ability to look upon our Planet >as it actually is: A small fragle ball which is unique in our >Solar System in supporting large quanties of water and life. > The collage of pictures from the departing Voyager probes showed it best, I think, when earth was shown to be a barely distinguishable blue ball from far out in space. >The future in space is just as promising. Vast resourse >await us. The metal in a single small asteroid would >supply us for decades or more, without strip-mining our >wilderness areas. > >So, what are your thoughts? > > >/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@eros.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ >| "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving | >| the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the | >| Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." | >| | > > ======================================================================== == Philip A. Stehno (Cleveland Phil) < When in doubt ... == (pas4427@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov) > /\ go fly a kite. ^^^^^^or lims01 or lims02 or scivax < /____\ == > (_____(~~~~~ == ======================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 92 10:42:39 GMT From: Kazuo Yoshida NASDA/TKSC Subject: Telescience Workshop Newsgroups: sci.space First Announcement NASDA International Telescience Workshop NASDA Tsukuba Space Center Tsukuba,Japan November 16 and 17, 1992 NASDA is organizing and sponsoring the International Telescience Workshop on telescience activities for space. Objectives; The Workshop will enable exchanges of program and research information of telescience activities for space, will give participants the opportunity to discuss requirements and perspectives of Space Station Freedom's telescience, and will demonstrate Telescience Simulation Experiments. Organization; The workshop will be organized as follows; 1) Exchange status information of each partner's telescience activities. 2) Discuss technical aspects of telescience. 3) Identify requirements and perspectives of the Space Station Freedom's telescience. The panel discussion will be scheduled for this purpose. 4) Conduct Telescience Simulation Experiments. Language; The working languages will be English and Japanese. Simultaneous translation from Japanese to English will be provided during the presentation and discussion sessions. Technical Visit; A facility tour of the tsukuba Space Center will be schedured on November 17 from 13:00 to 15:00. Those wishing to attend are requested to fill in the registation form and forward it to NASDA prior to November 1, 1992. This information is necessary for the access to be authorized to the various NASDA Space Center facilities. Registation Fee; Free. Social Events; There will be a cocktail party on Monday, Nov. 16 at 6:00 p.m. Accommodations; Around the Tsukuba Area, hotels of moderate rate are available. Two types of room, single of double, can be reserved by the Workshop secretariat. (See hotel reservation form.) Agenda; Monday November 16th; (Tentative Program abstracts) 9:00 Registration 9:30 Opening 9:45 Status information exchange of telescience activities in Space Station partners. 12:00 (Lunch Break) 13:30 Technical discussion of telescience. 16:10 Panel discussion for requirements and perspective of Space Station Freedom's telescience. 17:30 Break Tuesday November 17th (Prelimanary Agenda; Each participant's contribution will be appreciated) 9:30 Opening and outline of Telescience Simulation Experiment. 10:00 Start the Crystal Growth experiment using a BBM of the image furnace. 10:30 Start cell cultivation the image Processing Experiment. 11:00 Start the CELSS trouble shooting experiment. 12:00 (Launch Break) 13:00 Facility Tour of Tsukuba Space Center (about 2 hours) 15:00 End of the Crystal Growth experiment. 15:30 Filling out Evaluation Sheets. 16:00 Adjourn. Transportation; A. From Tokyo to Tsukuba; 1) Highway express bus from JR (Japan Railway) Tokyo station to Tsukuba Center. The bus departs from the South side of Tokyo station Yaesu Exit every 15 minutes, and takes about 75 minutes. At Tsukuba Center, catch the taxi to Tsukuba Space Center. 2) JR Joban line from Ueno station; Get off at Arakawa-Oki station, and change to the local bus to Tsukuba Center or to Tsukuba University Center. The local bus takes 20 minutes from Arakawa-Oki station to Tsukuba Space Center. B. From Hotel to Tsukuba Space Center; A shuttle bus will be available from the hotels to Tsukuba Space Center every morning and evening. Tsukuba City; Tsukuba City has been developed for science and technology research. Beginning about 15 years ago. almost all national research institues in the Tokyo area have been moved to Tsukuba to form a science and technology center of excellence. For Additional Information; Contact; Mr.K.Matsumoto, SS Program Dep., NASDA, Tel. 81-3-769-8288, Fax. 81-3-3452-1730, E-mail; nlmatsumoto@rd.tksc.nasda.go.jp ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 13:40:54 GMT From: "David B. Snyder" Subject: TheSouth rose (was Re: Weather satellites & preventing property damage) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Oct20.234248.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >It worked, too. Southerners put us on the Moon. I don't think >Yankees could have done it in eight years. At Lewis there is a persistant rumor that they could not have done it without some help from North of the Mason-Dixon line. Unfortunately I don't remember the details. Was it something about fuel type? or something about restarting engines in free-fall? |-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- david b. snyder | The Persistant Planetology Speculation: email: snyder@ronin.lerc.nasa.gov | Where there's a rill there's a ray. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 333 ------------------------------