Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 5247;andrew.cmu.edu;Todd L. Masco Received: from glenlyon.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, 2 Sep 89 23:36:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 2 Sep 89 23:36:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BatMail.robin.v2.10.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu.sun3.35 via MS.5.6.glenlyon.andrew.cmu.edu.sun3_35; Sat, 2 Sep 89 23:36:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4Z09kW600VA_Q8CmUT@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Sat, 2 Sep 89 23:36:02 -0400 (EDT) From: "Todd L. Masco" To: +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #618 X-Kibology: Allowed SPACE Digest V9 #619 -------------------- Subject: Re: Public Interest in Space Subject: Re: Public Interest in Space Subject: Re: Bush's Speech -- anyone still need a copy? Subject: Re: shuttle vs. heavy boosters Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial Subject: Re: Quick and Dirty Won the Race Subject: Re: Space: The Final Frontier Subject: Re: Space Quest ------------------------------ From: pezely@udel.EDU (Dan Pezely) Subject: Re: Public Interest in Space Date: 6 Aug 89 01:54:30 GMT In article <124@psitech.UUCP> david@psitech.UUCP (david Fridley) writes: >... Further, I am willing to put money where my mouth is, it >is just that my meger salary will not support a space program. WE WHO ARE >INTERESTED IN A PRIVATE SPACE PROGRAM MUST ORGANIZE. Are there enough >interested persons to do it? Like I said before, I should be getting a machine on the internet so that we could have some sort of centralized "base" to work from. My company will supply the machine. I'll be putting my money where my mouth is too; I'm self employed, so my company's money is my salary. >If we participated in a joint space program with the countries which we are >arming ourselves against ... Do you think that is a good idea to start working with now -- before we have anything tangible to speak of? I mean, that might scare off some people, and maybe it would be better for public relations if we stayed a bit conservative right now and didn't touch on that subject unless we had to. That should come later once we're organized and we've been reconized. - Daniel ------------------------------ From: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) Subject: Re: Public Interest in Space Date: 6 Aug 89 03:03:38 GMT In article <124@psitech.UUCP> david@psitech.UUCP (david Fridley) writes: >I am infavor of a private space program, because I believe that most people >(read the government) are not but I think that enough people are interested >to get it done. Further, I am willing to put money where my mouth is, it >is just that my meger salary will not support a space program. WE WHO ARE >INTERESTED IN A PRIVATE SPACE PROGRAM MUST ORGANIZE. Are there enough >interested persons to do it? I think there are enough interested scientists and engineers (as well as businessmen, lawyers, and public relations people) to provide the necessary expertise. The question is one of financing -- pooling salaries just won't do it (besides which, the companies that pay those salaries might be a bit perturbed at their employees spending the majority of their time on this venture). Any serious space effort will require serious venture capital. The question is whether any venture capitalists are willing to invest in space exploration and development. Does anyone know how Amroc and SSI (the launch firm, not the research institute) got their initial funding? _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ From: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) Subject: Re: Bush's Speech -- anyone still need a copy? Date: 6 Aug 89 02:55:07 GMT In article <9221@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: >I recently posted Bush's speech calling for new space goals on the net, along >with a press briefing by NASA Administrator Truly. > >What reaction do people have to Bush's speech? > >I felt it was a bit, well, "wimpy", but the best thing we've gotten out >of a President in recent years. I'd have to agree. It was a lot less than I wanted, but a lot more than I expected..... _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: shuttle vs. heavy boosters Date: 6 Aug 89 04:41:10 GMT In article <14519@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >>I would welcome an explanation of how a heavylift booster would have >>come about in the absence of the shuttle... > >Military. For what military mission? The USAF is currently using expendables for almost everything, with only minimal reliance on the shuttle. Practically the only payloads they're using the shuttle for now are a few that were designed early in the shuttle era and hence are a bit heavy for Titan 4 (whose development was also delayed several years while the USAF battled the shuttle-as-sole-launcher policy). They have openly and loudly said that that mistake will not be made again, and all future operational payloads will be Titan-compatible; they don't seem to feel that this represents a major handicap. Why would they have developed a heavylift booster? (SDI wants a heavylift booster, but they haven't been able to make their case well enough to get near-term funding for one. They don't count unless you can explain how the absence of the shuttle would have greatly accelerated their development schedule and improved their Congressional support.) -- 1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo. | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ From: jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu (Jeffrey W Percival) Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial Date: 6 Aug 89 21:37:51 GMT In article <1989Aug6.001054.7038@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >there were European fishermen working the Grand Banks off Newfoundland >routinely not very long after Columbus. (Don't have exact dates on hand.) The Basques were working the Grand Banks centuries before Columbus. -- Jeff Percival (jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu) ------------------------------ From: nickw@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Nick Watkins) Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial Date: 6 Aug 89 15:37:25 GMT In article <14520@bfmny0.UUCP>, tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: > "We walked on the moon -- (( Tom Neff > you be polite" )) tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET I am delighted that Henry Spencer cannot recognise a (presumably) tongue in cheek quotation from his fellow Canadian Joni Mitchell. The song if memory serves is "Don't interrupt the sorrow" from "Summer Lawns". Seems apposite music for the Apollo 11 wake. Nick -- Nick Watkins, School of Maths & Physical Sciences, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton E.Sussex, BN1 9QH, ENGLAND JANET: nickw@syma.sussex.ac.uk BITNET: nickw%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac Voice: +44 273 678072 ------------------------------ From: CHEEHH@uhvax1.uh.edu (Rikhit Arora) Subject: Re: Quick and Dirty Won the Race Date: 6 Aug 89 17:20:48 GMT In article <1989Aug4.204843.9330@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <2386@basser.oz> the Sydney Morning Herald writes: > > .. stuff deleted.. > >>The US achieved the dubious honour of being first to the moon by >>constructing the largest rocket that would ever fly... > > Nope, the third largest, after Energia and the abortive "G" booster. > Is this really true?? Henry, could you compare the payloads that could be delivered to LEO by the Saturn V and Energiya? (The third stage of the Saturn V does constitute a legitimate "payload" to LEO!) -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rikhit Arora | Dept. of Chemical Engineering Bitnet: cheehh@uhupvm1 | University of Houston Internet: cheehh@jane.uh.edu | Houston, TX 77204-4792 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: shook@boulder.Colorado.EDU (David R. Shook) Subject: Re: Space: The Final Frontier Date: 7 Aug 89 01:27:16 GMT In article <4077@sugar.hackercorp.com> jasona@sugar.hackercorp.com (Jason Asbahr) writes: (with some editing...) >"Giant leap for mankind..." > >Not exactly cyberpunk, but... No, but close enough. After all, they had space stations in Neuromancer, right? :^) >Space colonization is the next step for humanity. >... it seems that most Americans think of space as >little more than a waste of tax dollars. Very narrow minded of them. At the *very* least, they should think of it as a low priority use of tax dollars. >I think we ought to put more energy into space station Freedom and a moon >base than on the Mars exploration. Bush is looking for another "first" >for the American side of the space race, when we really need a permanent >off-world "biosphere". (Maybe a "biocube" - heh) As I understand it, Mars is a very far off, romantic kinda arbitrary goal to set our sights on and Bush plans on building the space station, etc. first. I expect that the republican rational for this is that "if you can't have a war to boost the economy and make the numbers look good, you might as well conquor space; that requires lots of industry and makes lots of jobs. Looks good on the resume, too." > ... stuff about radiation in space ... Just use lots of sunscreen... :^) >We should use the station as a permanent life settlement and as a >mid-point stop on the way to the moon. After a few years of >experimentation and learning, we should use the gathered knowledge to >build a scientific base on the moon. Set up networks, grow plants, work >on making the biosphere completely self-sustaining! More or less what Bush is planning, though he does seem to be in a bit of a hurry to get to Mars, doesn't he? >We need a satellite workshop... We need atmosphere-free telescopes... > We need to reap the benefits of zero-gravity technology! > > We need to break the shackles that limit human expansion! > >And as for the "Exploratation Earth" idea, let the collective users fund >it. What exactly do we "need" all this stuff for? Because it's neat? To advance Science (said with a loud, deep voice...)? Because it's going to make lots of money so's everyone will be rich? I dunno... Don't get me wrong, I think we need to explore space and build a space station and all that. But I think it's very important that we understand why we're doing it. Otherwise it won't sell and it won't have a proper "direction" or "theme" or something, which may sound vauge but I think is very important; If we're going to do this, we should do it right and efficiently, rather than bumbling around, doing things for political or other stupid reasons. I mean, Jason here says "let the collective users fund 'Exploration Earth'". Frankly I don't know too much about "Exp. Earth", but I get the idea that it involves solving problems on earth first. Whatever. But who does he think is going to fund the space station? The collective users of earth, that's who! And why should they spend money on a space station, when there are so many problems to solve down here? I mean, we're on the verge of destroying our planet, environmentaly if not atomicly, we're going to run out of oil sooner or later, there are lots of homeless, hungry people running around, and Ignorance abounds. (IMHO, Ignorance is our #1 problem and education should be our #1 priority.) Not to mention the national debt, etc. It (a space station) certainly isn't going to solve the problems directly and it sure ain't gonna solve the national debt. So what it comes down to is we have X amount of money/resources; how can we best spend them to solve our problems and make life in the future better for all? So why build a space station? Self sufficient and all that? So when we destroy Earth, we won't be wiped out as a species? Is it really that hopeless down here? And if we can't survive on earth, what makes you think we can survive in space? Whatever. Maybe we fucked up and we'll do better next time. Still not the best of reasons, IMHO. So how DO we justify it? Can we say that it will give the economy a boost (via new jobs/new technology)? But will that buy us more time to solve our problems down here or will it just hasten our end? (I mean we do have FINITE resources...) No one's come up with much convincing evidence that low grav tech is going to be all that valuable. Actually, I do think we stand to learn a lot by taking on a new chalenge of conquering the unknown and new technology almost allways proves valuable in the long run, but do we need this knowledge right now, and at what cost? Then again, who knows, maybe republican economics will work out after all (see above). And what the hell good is peering into the depths of the cosmos going to do us? I know we're all curious, but how much are we going to spend to satisfy our curiosity? And are we going to get more value for our money, in the long run, by sending humans or robots into space? And are we going to be able to support ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, if we don't solve our problems here on earth? But going out and exploring space does "feel right" to me. At least, if we're going to build truely self-sufficient colonies in space, we're going to have to learn a lot of environmental science to make it work, and we're going to have to develop a near-utopic micro-community, or things could get out of hand REAL fast. And I'd be the first to say that Knowledge is good stuff. Exploring space is also certainly a better way of "investing" our earnings than building bombers and fighting wars. I just think we need to figure out our priorities, figure out why we're doing things, and balance our spending accordingly. And, oddly enough, I'd much rather have the government spending money on space stations than bombers; it's the only thing that Bush has actually DONE (sorta) so far that's made me happy. All right, enough blather. What do y'all think? Follow-ups to alt.cyberpunk, or e-mail me directly. I don't follow sci.space, just wanted some more feed back. > -Jason Asbahr > >Today, the world. Tomorrow, the stars! Funny, I think that's what I was trying to say... Dave. (shook@boulder.colorado.edu) ------------------------------ From: pezely@udel.EDU (Dan Pezely) Subject: Re: Space Quest Date: 7 Aug 89 03:23:07 GMT Here's my reply to an e-mail letter from Amanda Baker. Also, this sums up everything about the goals for Space Quest so far. >I've been reading your stuff in the Space digest, and what you are proposing >sounds interesting. I think I have missed some of your postings, though. >I'm interested to know what firm plans/ offers of commitment etc you have >got so far? Here are my immediate goals. Once I get back from my vacation in three weeks, I will start to write a business proposal (with the help of professional managers) for the Space Quest Foundation. This is necessary so that everyone, including myself, will know exactly where Space Quest will be going and how we'll be getting there. All of the details of how we will be getting financial support, etc, will be included. After about one month further, we will probably file to become a non-profit corporation and engage in finding stock holders. Once Space Quest is official, we should have a computer on the internet through the University of Delaware. I haven't talked to them about it yet, but I work for EE/CIS and know everyone who I would need to know. Putting the computer on their net will be no problem. The first official task to start on will be to write a second business proposal for a (for-profit) corporation. This corporation will be planned and organized by Space Quest. This second corporation will be primarily owned by ALL the space contractors and will be run just like any other corporation. Once the second corporation is set up, Space Quest will be dissolved or function soley as an information center -- we will not attempt to control the corporation in any way, what-so-ever. If they want us, then the new company can hire the individuals involved. This second corporation will be an administrative one which will effectively be competition for NASA and other countries' space programs. The administration will handle every level of the space industry from designing and constructing launch vehicles, designing and constructing space stations, finding customers for occupying the space stations, launching vehicles to the station, and controlling the ground crews, astronauts, and space station crews. Since the space contractors will be OWNING the administrative corporation, they will have their own designers and engineers using components from their respective parent companies. Since they are not working for NASA, the costs should be much lower. Hence, lower prices for building things. There will be plenty of customers for the space station to provide a nifty income for the space contractors. Since the customers will have to use the contractors' own vehicles and ground support to get modules to the space station, there is money to be made. Also, if the customers need to attach a module to the station, then the contractors could charge 'rent'. Also, since this will be a heftier space station than NASA's, it will be designed in such a way to allow tolerable living environments (rotational units to simulate gravity, etc) for dormitories for the crews. But more on the designs later, once we've become organized. I am a computer science major at UDel and am working on a distributed database system for wide area networks (WANs). Once that is completed, I will develop a CAD and simulation package on top of it for us to do design proposals. I have my own software company which is giving me an income and will allow me to work on this project. I expect to have the basic system completed in about two years which is when I should be graduating. This CAD system for WANs will allow members of The Space Quest Foundation to work on designs from where ever they want (on the internet) and still have the benefit of seeing what everyone else is working on. I can't go into any further details, but hopefully you get the general idea. So far, I have gotten a few people who said that they would like to help in any way that they can. Also, I have lots of friends who will spread the word to their university campuses once we're officially organized. Although this organization is not restricted to students, I think they will be the majority of the active members since they have the most time. In the beginning, Space Quest will be for volunteers, so people with dependents wont be able to spend lots of time. Once Space Quest becomes a non-profit corporation and gets some investors then we will be hiring people. That is one of the areas that the business proposal for Space Quest will cover. I don't know what kind of time scale we'll be dealing with on that subject. Again, wait about two months or for the proposal. - Daniel *** End of Space Digest V9 #618 ***