Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Sun, 26 Feb 89 05:16:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 26 Feb 89 05:16:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #262 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 262 Today's Topics: manned spaceflight Re: the un/manned debate Re: An integrated space program for the world Re: manned spaceflight Re: Energia questions Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle More good news! Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization The Fascism continues... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Feb 89 15:51:26 GMT From: rochester!cooper@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu Subject: manned spaceflight From: cooper The value of an endeavour is often hard to quantify. Consider the Apollo moon landings. A group of people set themselves the extremely difficult (many said impossible) goal of landing people on another planet, and in very short order achieved it. I'd say this changed the human race's view of itself in a positive way more than any other event in human history. It completely redefined the scope of what humanity was capable of achieving, for almost every single living person. For a few billion bucks, seems like a bargain to me. It seems pretty clear that purely technical achievements (unmanned probes, for example) cannot ever provide this kind of priceless value. ....space is all about expanding scope, and breaking limits..... cooper@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 89 17:29:45 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: the un/manned debate In article <136@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@minke.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >>Of course it's not, and never will be, since money taken away from manned >>programs does **NOT** get shifted to unmanned programs. > >Just what evidence do you have for this? I recall that after Apollo was >cancelled, money was shifted into Viking and Voyager, among other things... Please have someone run diagnostics on your memory. :-) The heyday of unmanned planetary exploration was in the Apollo days. Unmanned funding declined more or less in step with manned funding when Apollo began to end. Viking and Voyager were shrivelled remnants of much more ambitious earlier programs. Viking, in particular, was a joke compared to the original Apollo-era Voyager project, which was the most ambitious unmanned planetary program ever planned. (The name "Voyager" got reused later, once the original was dead.) I'm unaware of any Apollo funding being shifted into anything except Vietnam and the pork barrel. > On >the flip side, it is clear that the U.S. solar-polar and Halley missions >were cancelled, and Galileo, Magellan, Space Telescope and Mars Observer >were delayed, due to the funding priorities and delays of the Space Shuttle >program... To quote one more skeptical observer at the time, "don't you give a major recession any credit at all?". Yes, unmanned programs were starved almost to death during Shuttle development... but so was the Shuttle. The only case I'm aware of where unmanned funding was definitely and unquestionably diverted to manned spaceflight was one nasty year during Shuttle development, when the Shuttle was so starved that it ended up taking bites out of a lot of other NASA programs (not just unmanned spaceflight) to survive. One can argue about whether Shuttle priorities have hampered funding for other projects. Undoubtedly they have, to some extent. But this isn't confined to manned-vs-unmanned. At various times in the past there've been a good many unmanned-spaceflight partisans who would have cheered if Galileo had been cancelled, because it has done the same thing to a lot of smaller unmanned projects. The SSEC argued most pointedly that the small projects are more cost-effective and deserve protected funding. "When the elephants dance, the mice stay off the floor." This sort of thing will happen any time you get big projects with lots of staff and smaller ones sharing the same budget; it would happen if the US had no manned space program at all. -- The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 17:03:11 -0600 From: Mark William Hopkins To: shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil, space@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: Re: An integrated space program for the world Cc: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu The political climate is subtly changing in such a way that no individual nation's power no longer exceeds the combined power of world opinion. For example, the UN's intervention in the Iran-Iraq war, in Angola and Namibia, are pointing toward this trend. The point is that the Sahara project is not something to be accomplished with world cooperation as a prerequisite, but rather as a means to that end. But all in all, I think that the opportunity is finally dawning on us today to accomplish major engineering projects such as this. Judging by the response, though, I would still tend to think that a lot of people are somewhat skeptical towards this assessment of the current and future political situation. But the world is getting to be way too small for there to be autonomous nations -- especially with what is already going on with other climate problems such as the depleting Ozone layer or the Greenhouse Effect. There will be cooperation, or extinction. That time of reckoning is no longer in the future (as so many Sci. Fci. scenarios depict it), but today. The big stumbling block is getting the superpowers together on such a plan. That, alone, would turn the tide of opinion. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 89 21:32:52 GMT From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Nick Szabo) Subject: Re: manned spaceflight In article <1989Feb22.105126.6527@cs.rochester.edu> cooper writes: >Consider the Apollo moon landings. A group of people >set themselves the extremely difficult (many said impossible) >goal of landing people on another planet, and >in very short order achieved it. Sending probes to other planets was considered equally, if not more, difficult. It has turned out to be much easier. This discovery, which has still not sunk in to many space enthusiasts, is more significant than Apollo. >I'd say this changed the human race's view of itself in a positive way >more than any other event in human history. It completely redefined the >scope of what humanity was capable of achieving, for almost every single >living person. Space communications and remote sensing (unmanned activities) have changed our lives and worldviews more fundamentally than Apollo. Unmanned planetary probes have explored a much vaster and more diverse part of the solar system than manned missions. >It seems pretty clear that purely technical achievements (unmanned probes, for >example) cannot ever provide this kind of priceless value. This is not clear, it is wrong. First, "manned" missions are no more or less "purely" technical achievements than "unmanned": both involve people and technology. Second, many people, James Michener comes immediately to mind, found Viking and Voyager to be more astounding and important than Apollo. >....space is all about expanding scope, and breaking limits..... Indeed it is, and unmanned space projects have expanded our scope much farther, and have broken many more limits, than manned projects. Nick Szabo szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 10:26:33 PDT From: Peter Scott Subject: Re: Energia questions X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu" For some reason I had thought that Energia had made more than two flights... uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!ahiggins@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Andrew Higgins): >The four first stage boosters fall away in pairs and parachute back to Earth >ready for refuelling and further use, while the core stage splashes down in ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >the Pacific. Though it might be noted that the Soviets have yet to demonstrate >this capability. What are you saying here? That the core has the capability of making a soft landing, presumably for re-use? That would require atmospheric heat protection and a parachute system, the heat shield would add a lot of weight, is it worth it? What's the atmospheric drag like at Mir's altitude? Presumably not much since it is fairly big already. What if the Russians started boosting the cores to dock with Mir? Can you imagine how fast that thing could grow? Since I haven't seen what I would call a sufficient reason why we shouldn't put shuttle E.T.s in orbit, I can only assume that the Russians are going to do the obvious and put Energia cores in orbit. They've already demonstrated the ability to improve on our designs (liquid- instead of solid-fuel boosters for their shuttle carrier, jets on the shuttle, tele- operated piloting mode). I just saw a re-run of "The Absent-Minded Professor". There's a scene where the professor flies his Flubber-equipped Model T to Washington and the Air Force tracks it as a UFO. They broadcast a radio warning that they will shoot it down unless it identifies itself and a colonel gives it ten seconds to do this. As he counts, an assistant interrupts to say that the object has gone behind the Capitol dome and if they fire at it, they'll kill every Senator and Congressman. The colonel stares into the camera, and without missing a beat, continues counting: "Nine..." I know the feeling. Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 89 12:42:57 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net (Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle In article <1220@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes: >There is not much point in resurecting the Saturn IB when the Titan >IV, Proton, and Ariane V all have, or will have, equivalent >performance. It is also worth noting that the Ariane V will be man-rated. I believe the proton is too. Is there any plans to do this with the Titan IV? bob. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 89 18:41:32 GMT From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle In article <1441@etive.ed.ac.uk>, bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes: > > It is also worth noting that the Ariane V will be man-rated. > I believe the proton is too. > > Is there any plans to do this with the Titan IV? Here we go again--Wehrner Von Braun is probably spinning in his grave at this thought. I seem to recall that he strenuously objected to every flying men on rockets with solids. If they man-rate Titan IV, it will be the second manned launch vehicle with solid boosters. Perish the thought! Norman Kluksdahl Arizona State University ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah standard disclaimer implied Useful criticism always appreciated. Senseless flames always discarded. ------------------------------ Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 07:26:51 PST From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: More good news! Vice President, Dan Quayle, head of the newly revitalized Naional Space Council, has been reached through our far reaching network of political contacts. He agrees the CDSF is the way to go. He will throw the full weight of the NSC behind this plan as a test of its capability to influence space policy in the face of NASA intransigence. Would you please all write to him expressing your support for his position? He can be reached care of the White House: Vice President 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20500 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Bowery Phone: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 Join the Mark Hopkins Society! La Jolla, CA 92038 (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.) UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 89 17:37:56 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization In article <718@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: >> Every experiment >> I have personally flown has needed in flight repairs and/or >> modifications in protocol. Simple things kill experiments in >> low gravity. Give me a cranky old STS mission with a overworked >> astronaut any day over an automated satellite experiment. > >What prevents you from using a tele-operated rig? Touchy force-feedback >requirements? Rapid time scales making propagation delays unacceptable? >Inadequate video/audio transmission? Lack of suitable binocular/pseudo-3D >display (e.g., VIVED)? The importance of smell? The complete lack of an adequate, workable "tele-operated rig" available as reliable off-the-shelf hardware, perhaps? -- The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1989 17:42-EST From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: The Fascism continues... Space Calendar, Feb 20-26-1989 p3: Mediasat International, Arlington VA: President Mark Brender reports that in the 18 January issue of The Federal Register a notice on remote sensing satellite rules was published by the Commerce Department and NOAA. Says the notice, "NOAA plans to undertake furthur rule making to reassure potential satellite license applicants that the US government would not unreasonably restrict licensing for commercial remote sensing satellites. At the same time, NOAA firmly declines to consider adopting a first amend- ment-based standard to test the risk to national security that would justify operating restrictions." According to Brender, the Radio and Television News Directors Association (RTNDA) will continue to urge NOAA to adopt rules that will clearly articulate the correct legal standards. Info Mark Brender, Mediasat International, 4419 Seventh St North, Arlington VA 22203; 202-887-7724 EDITORIAL: I'm glad to see that NOAA is publicly admitting it does not believe itself bound by the Constitution of the United States. But then, we've known for a long time that the government of the US is no longer bound by constitutional law. Anyone who has watched the behavior of presidents, congressmen or the military over the past four decades knows this to be true. (I start with Roosevelt, the Supreme Court Packer) The First Amendment was clearly intended to cover all communications. The fact that certain modern forms of information were beyond the imagination of it's framers is irrelevant. Franklin and Paine are quite clear in their beliefs that government has no rights to control information flow. It was only the Hamiltonian ilk that wished such foul state control (as in the Alien and Sedition Acts). The Bill of Rights is becoming more and more of a problem for those who rule the United States. They do not believe in it except when it serves their own purposes, and those purposes are more often than not, power and privilege. Those who wield the power in this country are not the "capitalists". Anyone who thinks the US is a capitalist country is much mistaken. (Not there there aren't more surviving pockets of it than you will find most places) The US is ruled by a group of career politicians, generals and bureaucrats. The closest definition of what they have wrought is "State Capitalism", or more simply, Fascism. I would love to see these kinds of "people" (I use the word lightly) behind bars. But courts do not bring down decisions that significantly affect the desires of the ruling class. Any court in history that has done so recieved a rude awakening about who had the guns. Government and power ultimately came from the barrel of a gun and not from law. Given the improving financial condition of SpotImage and the sudden interest by the US government in a "joint venture", I really have to wonder if this is an attempt by the DOD to get partial control over the only other (outside of the soviet union) remote sensing system in the world. The US and the USSR tend to have "gentleman's agreements about not embarassing each other with spy satellite images. Honor amongst theives, as they say. But the French are too damned independant and too likely to develop something like real time imaging of world trouble spots. I suggest that the reason for the sudden interest by the US government in Spot Image is the desire of the DOD to have a veto power over all remote imaging systems on Earth. I hope the French are smart enough to give the US government a resounding, "NON!!!!" to this attempt to control them. I hope that the American people would give a resounding "NO" to NOAA. But I seriously doubt they will. Free Minds and Free Markets, Dale Amon ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #262 *******************