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 ; Sat, 4 Mar 89 03:16:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 4 Mar 89 03:16:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #275 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 275 Today's Topics: NSS Hotline Update 2/24/89 RE: the un/manned debate Manned/unmanned projects and government funding Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization Re: the un/manned debate Photo identification? Re: the un/manned debate ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Feb 89 04:26:00 GMT From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov Subject: NSS Hotline Update 2/24/89 This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline for the Week ending 2/24/89 In Washington..... Last Wed. Office of Management & Budget Director Richard Darman testified on NASA's FY 90 Budget to the House Budget Committee Hearing. Stating that, "the only way to save any significant money from the NASA budget would be to cut the space station program, and stretch it out over a longer time line. That would be equivalent to killing it, and Office of Management & Budget doesn't want to do that. The space program is critical in the investment of our future. Investment in space is an investment in our children's future, its a good policy and a good budget". In closing remarks he stated the we should not allow the US to take a back seat in new technologies, and exploring a new frontier. Its been rumored that Henry Cooper will be named by President Bush to Head the National Space Council. Henry Cooper was a State Department official with a background in military space activities. He served as a arms control negotiator for defense and space issues. No decision has been made, but he is a leading candidate for the position of executive secretary of the National Space Council. In response to the Bush Administration's line by line acceptance of the NASA budget Sen. Lloyd Bensten stated it will be taught to sell the NASA increases to a Congress that is mainly concerned with deficits. He called on NASA's administrator to try to win support for the agency's need for additional funding. At Kennedy Space Center: On the Orbiter Discovery technicians are finishing up the last connections to the third oxidizer turbo pump, while workers installed heat shields around the other two main engines. On Sunday pre-launch operations will commence, including pressurization of the orbital maneuvering system and reaction control system. Flight readiness tests will be conducted on the orbiter and the TDRS's IUS. The tests will determine weather the orbiter and payload are ready for flight. The orbiter Atlantis had her flight controls tested and activities regarding the checkout of main propulsion system, tile inspections and waterproofing are continuing. A faulty electrical power supply was found in the Magellan Venus radar mapper booster, last Wed. This was another small but frustrating problem that technicians say have been slowing down preparation of the probe for its April 28 launch. The IUS will probably have to be disconnected from the spacecraft in order to replace the burnt out component. NASA must launch the probe during the April 28 to May 28 launch window, or wait two years before the planets return to closer positions. The launch is still scheduled for April 28th. NASA has accepted 24 out of 455 proposed experiments to go on its Earth Observing polar platform. 550 scientist from 168 different institutions, from over 13 countries will be participating in the program. The platform is scheduled to be launched in 1996, and will be coordinated with the Space Station. The Air Force released a report last Fri. that stated there is a growing problem with all the debris in orbit about the Earth. The 71,000 pieces of debris larger that 4 inches in diameter and the 17,500 smaller pieces pose a dangerous threat to operating spacecraft, especially manned. The Bush administration proposes $190.5 million for increased research of global temperature changes caused by the greenhouse effect. The money will be split between nine federal agencies including the NSF, DoE, EPA and NASA. Currently NASA managers are asking Congress for $6.8 million this year to increase work on the 10 year, $85 million Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence program. The program will search 800 stars that fall within 480 trillion miles of Earth, and that resemble the sun. In addition the program will perform a lower intensity survey of the full sky. On an interview with Moscow Radio Buran Space Shuttle designer, Yuri Semonyou, stated that the next flight of Buran will probably be unmanned like it previous voyage. In addition he believed that there could be interaction between the Buran and the Mir Space Platform. The USSR's probe Phobos has relayed to Earth the first images of Mars's moon Phobos. Nine high-quality television images of Phobos at various angles. The information will be used to orbit the probe about Phobos, so that it will deploy its two landers. Lastly a documentary called "SPACE WORKERS" will be aired on public television Mon. Feb. 27. The program features NASA employees and space activists that have helped in shaping the US Civil Space program. Please consult you local listings for show time. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 18:31 EST From: ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU Subject: RE: the un/manned debate I just read the march 1989 Scientific American article "U.S. Access to Space". This is a companion to last month's article on the Soviet space program. The march article describes the "Shuttle-C" which has not been extensively discussed on the net. Currently Henry Spencer and Paul Dietz and others are engaged in a protracted debate on the merits of manned vs. unmanned space exploration. I would suggest that without agreeing on the long term issue, both groups should agree that the Shuttle-C deserves to be built as quickly as possible. At $1.5B it is a relatively cheap project. (Sci.Am p.38) This is perhaps the cost of three shuttle launches (P.37) At 100-150K lift this is definately a heavy lift vehicle. I see the following advantages: Manned Space Exploration: The capacity to lift large payloads is essential to manned space exploration. Complete moonbase or space station modules could be lifted with shuttle-c, while shuttle requires in space assembly, which greatly increases risks and expense. Furthermore, dangerous supplies (such as fuel) would be needed for a moonbase/mars mission and these cannot be lifted with shuttle due to safety considerations. Unmanned Space Exploration: The capacity to lift large payloads greatly increases the prospects for unmanned space exploration. Small probes can accomplish a lot, but larger probes have a number of advantages. Guidance, power and communication componants are required for all probes, but these fixed expenses can be amortized over a larger number of scientific packages on a large probe. IN a large probe redundancy of critical subsystems requires a smaller percentage of weight and cost. Furthermore, dangerous but useful componants (such as lithium batteries) cannot be lifted on the shuttle. It seems to me that everyone who wants any kind of ambitious space exploration should strongly support the shuttle-C. It is the only near term proposal for a new heavy lift launcher. Capacity is similar to or greater than the Saturn V. Using at least partially reusable componants (shuttle boosters) should result in some cost savings. Using already exising componants (boosters/engines) also saves bucks and further amortizes the original shuttle development costs. Fully fueled pre-challenger boosters could be used without upgrading them. The "proponants maintain that the vehicle could be operational as early as 1994 and estimate that it could lift between 100,000 and 150,000 pounds to the space station's orbit" (S.A. P.38). This should be something that everyone in this discussion group should clearly and vocally support. Chris Eliot University of Massachusetts at Amherst ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 22:16:52 EST From: John Roberts Formerly: National Bureau of Standards Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Manned/unmanned projects and government funding >Government should provide funds for both exploration (as it did for Lewis >and Clark et. al.) and basic research. Furthermore, it should provide >incentives for the creation of new industries, as with the railroad (c. >1840-1870) and air transportation in the 1930's. It should not own or >operate these industries. >Translating these policies into the current space program, the government >should fund scientific missions (eg planetary probes, Mission to Planet >Earth) based on their science return, and basic R&D to develop better >technology for future scientific and commercial applications. It should >subsidize new industries of large potential by providing garunteed purchases, >tax breaks, patents, import quotas, etc. to the extent that these measures >do not harm other new industries. (2 more paragraphs) >Nick Szabo szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu This appears to be a very reasonable presentation of the proper role of government in research and development, and largely corresponds with my own ideas on the subject. However, for actual application of these principles, another factor must be included: politics. There is limited funding available, and competition for it is intense. Strong political pressure is generally required for approval of any funded project. This pressure has additional leverage if it is from a powerful organization within the government. It is also important to consider the effects of politics within a government research organization. There may, for instance, be more concern for continued funding (survival) than for spending the money in the most efficient manner. There may be excessive caution, to prevent politically harmful mistakes. When a budget is tight, the organization may try to kill or restrict some projects to save others, and the leaders of the organization may have an unjustified bias toward or against certain areas of research. The organization may also try to discourage private competition. It is clear that many areas of space research must be funded by the government if they are to be pursued at all in the near future, because they offer no direct short-term financial benefits. Included in these are exploration of the solar system by unmanned probes, and research on human occupation of space. NASA, as a moderately powerful organization within the government, has caused many billions of dollars to be spent on space exploration that would have otherwise been spent on things unrelated to space. Whether the collective influence of NASA has been helpful or harmful in the long run to any specific area of space exploration is open to debate. However, NASA has justified, and Congress has approved its current budget largely in terms of the manned space program, with some additional funding for the unmanned effort. Given this history, and the known characteristics of Congress, it is simplistic to assume that taking away the funding for manned exploration would result in all the money being added to the unmanned program. There might be some increase, but the overall space budget would probably be greatly reduced, to the sorrow of the large portion of the population that favors both manned and unmanned exploration. NASA has previously discouraged private competition for launch services. Hopefully, this is coming to an end, and we are at the beginning of an era in which numerous private companies compete, at first for government launches, then later for service to industry. In times of severe budget difficulties, NASA has tended to favor the manned program over the unmanned program, and many claim that it always does so to an unreasonable degree. Perhaps this situation could be alleviated if a single agency were to be split off from NASA, dedicated to Space Science or a similar category. This agency could initially be given the part of the NASA budget dedicated to unmanned exploration (and maybe several other areas). To launch its payloads, it could use private launch services or university contracts. Having many areas of common interest, it would continue to interact with NASA, as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission interacts with the other descendent of its parent organization, the Atomic Energy Commission. After the initial period, this agency would compete directly for the general funding along with NASA and the other major government organizations. The public, through its representatives in Congress, could show its relative support for the manned and unmanned programs by the relative funding approved for NASA and the new agency. Optimistically (from a space enthusiast's viewpoint) the combined research budgets would be larger than the current NASA research budget. John Roberts roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 89 17:28:00 GMT From: cwjcc!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 <730@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: >> >What prevents you from using a tele-operated rig? > >> The complete lack of an adequate, workable "tele-operated rig" available >> as reliable off-the-shelf hardware, perhaps? > >The time has never been better to develop an orbiting, tele-operated >materials-processing and biological experimentation laboratory. With >skillful miniaturization, an unmanned laboratory could be lofted >by a fairly small, and thus inexpensive, expendable launcher... In, say, 1999, when development of the laboratory is complete. If then. This is *well beyond* current teleoperator technology (defined as the technology that is well understood and reliable enough for production use, as opposed to laboratory experimental devices), assuming that you are talking about a teleoperator system that can deal with unexpected problems (i.e. the need to repair equipment) rather than just moving samples around. I agree that the teleoperator development in question is worth pursuing. But it should not be confused with alternatives that are available now. -- 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: Mon, 27 Feb 89 10:39:24 PDT From: Peter Scott Subject: Re: the un/manned debate X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu" uhccux!lee@humu.nosc.mil (Greg Lee) writes: >Right. If you want people to be willing to invest in space, you >have to give them back something they value for their investment, >or at least promise to do so shortly. I've been following this >discussion since forever waiting for someone to point out the >obvious source for such value. It's entertainment. Movies filmed >on Mars. Curios carved from Deimos rocks. Contest -- Win a 2-day >vacation on the Moon! Of course... if people want a nine-mile high statue of Elvis on Mars, then By Golly, let's give 'em one! :-) Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 89 05:26:47 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!PLS@uunet.uu.net (Paul L Schauble) Subject: Photo identification? Someone handed me copies of two satellite photos. These have identification lines reading 1615 26FE79 35A-2 00952 23132 SB39N121W-2 1645 26FE79 35A-2 00954 23132 SB39N121W-2 Can anyone tell me how do decode this? Can you tell me where these came from? I'd like to see if other images, perhaps in other spectral bands, are available of the same area. ++PLS ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 89 00:22:14 GMT From: orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!venera.isi.edu!aero!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@ucsd.edu (John McKernan) Subject: Re: the un/manned debate In article <144@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@blue.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >My argument was that "manned space R&D" does not exist right now, because it >is not funded through peer review. I am in favor of setting up a true >manned space R&D project. This is the central point I've been trying to make in my postings. Manned space R&D in general is worthwhile now. I agree however that the program as it is *currently* constituted is not returning and will not return results worth what the program costs. That said I'd like to say the following in defense of NASA's program. First that the shuttle has yielded and the station will yield valuble data, although to reiterate, the amount of money NASA is spending could accomplish much more. Second, given that the only currently practical source of billions of dollars for space is the government, a large amount of waste is to be expected. >In article <8287@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes: >>manned space needs >>inexpensive access to space for large amounts of mass much more than unmanned. >>You can't miniaturize people. > >My point exactly. True manned spaceflight must await drops of at least two >orders of magnitude in launch cost, plus space infrastructure to support us >when we get out there. Unmanned projects can start today exploring the solar >system and building that infrastructure. The longer the unmanned projects >wait, the longer people will wait. Let's start now. An orders of magnitude reduction in launch costs, followed by the construction of an off earth infrastructure (in space, on Mars, on the moon, wherever) sounds like an excellent *manned* program to me. As you say, we should start now. And certainly the unmanned program should continue exploring the solar system, with maximum financial support. John L. McKernan. Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .signature currently under government sponsored basic research. Results guaranteed to advance science, satisfy every special interest group, generate 2000 times the wealth expended, and show up the Russians expected REAL SOON NOW. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #275 *******************