Message-ID: <MZTpP9-00VcJMFaU43@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri,  8 Dec 89 01:38:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #322

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 322

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars
		Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars
		     Hearings on HR2674 (3 of 6)
		Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars
Re: Science vs Exploration (was Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars)
		Re: Galileo Astronauts Honored at JPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 89 02:49:11 GMT
From: norge!jmck@sun.com  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars

In article <1989Dec2.103838.22491@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <128704@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> jmck@sun.UUCP (John McKernan) writes:
>>Ideas like this and similar ideas about technological "spinoffs" are 
>>mistaken. If you want to develop a propulsion system you do propulsion R&D.
>
>Except that if you don't have a specific mission to use that R&D on, the
>funds for it tend to get cut off.  That's what happened to NERVA, and
>indeed to virtually all advanced-propulsion work in the US.

I agree. It helps if R&D has a mission, and in this case I think it should
be the large scale colonization of the solar system. That's a long term
mission, but that avoids being stuck without a mission after ten years of
work, and it's fundamentally what we all want to accomplish in manned space
anyway.  And that mission provides ample reason for funding things like
propulsion and life support R&D, without wasting hundreds of billions on a
one shot Mars mission.

Note to those still trying to find excuses not to go into space:
   Guys, there is just no substitute. Political and ecological factors make
   new places on the Earth untenable for large scale colonization (Nukes in
   the power supply? OH NO we can't have THAT!!, etc., etc.)

John L. McKernan.                                                  jmck@sun.com
Disclaimer: These are my opinions but, shockingly enough, not necessarily Sun's
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 6 Dec 89 18:28:25 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!kcarroll@uunet.uu.net  (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars

pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
> 
> All this talk of which to fund, manned missions or unmanned, reminds
> me of what Ben Bova called the "Either/Or Fallacy".  Somehow, we
> have allowed ourselves to be conned (presumably by the people
> holding the purse strings) that we can't have *both*....
> 
> "Ah," they say, "but the money for unmanned missions *is* distributed
> from the same source as manned missions."  That's the problem.  They're 
> forced to compete against each other for the wrong reasons.  Hey, the 
> same source of money also pays for HUD, and we compete with them for 
> funds, why don't I hear unmanned mission folk railing against HUD
> inefficiency and expenditure?

Bravo! The voice of reason! It almost makes me feel that somebody
has taken the old maxim, "Divide and conquer", and applied it to
the space-exploration community...
-- 

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 6 Dec 89 19:41:05 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!sharkey!itivax!vax3!aws@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Hearings on HR2674 (3 of 6)

Below is testimony fron the hearings on HR2674. The next step is
to pressure Congressperson Nelson of Florida to send the bill to
'mark up' so it can get to the floor.

This information comes from Tihamer Toth-Fjel of the Ann Arbor Space
Society and Catherine Rawlings of Congressperson Packard's office.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JIM KOlBE 
HEARING ON COMMERCIAL SPACE ACTIVITIES
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS
NOVEMBER 9, 1989


MR.  CHAIRMAN -
I thank the Chairman for having this hearing to discuss both the
implementation of the Commercial Space Launch Act and H.R.  2674, the
Space Transportation Services Purchase Act.  This is an excellent
opportunity for US to discuss some very important issues and raise some
very important questions -- questions about the future of the U.S.
presence in space and the future of the U.S.  economic strength in the
global marketplace.

Every Member of this Subcommittee is very aware of the increasing
competition the United States faces in the world space market.  The
Europeans have made giant strides with the marketing of Arianespace.
This consortium is run on strict business fundamentals and has already
grabbed 50% of the global launch market.  The Japanese are beginning
their own commercial space ventures.  They will be running regular
flights by the end of the next decade.  Why, you may ask, are so many
countries getting in on the act?  The answer, I think, is simple; it is
the incredible potential of not only the launch market, but the
resources space has to offer.

The U.S.  has three mature launch companies.  But our companies operate
at a significant disadvantage.  As my colleague, Mr.  Packard,
explained, these companies must constantly meet the whims of NASA and
DOD procurement officers.  Their rebulations frequently work at cross
purposes to economies of scale.

Thus, these companies become more concerned with complying with
government regulations than providing low-cost, safe flight, to space.
Unfortunately, these companies have not been weaned from the government
regulatory nipple.  Continuing on the same course does these and other
fledgling launch companies no favors.  The effect on U.S.
competititiveness in the global market is painfully obvious.

The impact on new companies is even greater.  These companies face the
double hurdle of raising capital and entering the market place.  The
last thing they need is to confront bureaucratic red.tape.  With all of
the government payloads available it seems the obvious place for them
to get their feet wet.

Granted, there are risks involved in launching a new piece of
technology.  However, these small companies are willing to
bend-over-backward to accommodate the government.  They take virtually
all of the risk by insuring payload, launch system and launch site.
They also guarantee free second flights in the event of an accident.
They just want the government to give them the chance.  Stephanie
lee-Miller of the Department of Transportation, who will be testifying
later, can provide more specific details of the kind of guarantees we
are talking about.

The Commercial Space Launch Act and its amendments have been
instrumental in spurring interest in space commerce.  When Congress
considered this Act, it was understood that two major issues had to be
resolved before the legislation could succeed: liability reform and
promotion of private sector launch services.  These issues were
addressed and the private sector eagerly anticipated the birth of a
great new industry dedicated to the launching of government and private
payloads.  Unfortunately, it did not happen this way.  NASA and the Air
Force -- the launchers for the government -- did not support this
concept.

It would be wrong, however, to suggest that since enactment of the
Commercial Launch Services Act, there have been no efforts to promote
commercial activities.  NASA has implemented a university-business
partnership to promote space commerce.  Unfortunately, only $14 million
has been spent at 4 of the 16 authorized centers.  While the work being
accomplished is important, it can not substitute for a comprehesnsive,
government-wide commercialization policy.

NASA has also contracted with a select few small launch companies.
While they are to be commended for their efforts, the experiences of
the entrepreneurs involved has not been encouraging.  A review of the
reasons suggests this is a function of federal procurement policy.
That policy is filled with complexity and frustration points.

The Space Policy of 1988 is very clear in pointing the government
toward support of private launch service initiatives.  The Policy also
encourages private investors to get involved with fledgling launch
companies.  The policy points to the government backlog of payloads as
a natural initial market for these companies.  There are literally
hundreds of small and mid- sized payloads of varying degrees of
sophistication awaiting launch.

Investors have cautiously begun to explore the various launch services
being developed.  They are nervous, however, because the government has
not followed through in demonstrating its commitment by placing its
payloads with private sector launch services.  With a few exceptions,
it is business as usual at the federal government.

The exceptions seem to be the Navy, the Strategic Defense Initiative
Organi2ation (SDIO), and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).  These agencies have all pushed for increased
commercial launches of their payloads.  Yet, NASA continues to have the
final say on all launches, and it has been reluctant to move boldly in
this area.  For an organization whose very mission is forward thinking,
this failure is disappointing and short sighted.  The testimony of the
representatives of the Navy and SDIO should shed some light on these
issues.

Another factor of great concern to private investors is the government
monopoly on launch services and facilities.  The Air Force continues to
stockpile vehicle hardware from commercial vendors.  This puts the Air
Force in direct competition with private launch services and in
contradiction of federal space policy.

NASA, to its credit, does not maintain large quantities of hardware but
several of its long range programs give investors concern.  The
Shuttle-C and the Advanced Launch Systems programs are designed to
place large payloads in space at lower costs.  The obvious application
is the Construction of the Space Station Freedom.  Unless there are
specific needs requiring NASA capabilities this is a job for the
private sector to develop and operate.  Such a policy could save
billions of dollars for the Space Station and other important
projects.

The Commercial Launch Service Act has resolved two major problems
facing the commercial industry.  We are now seeing a renewed sense of
excitement about our space program -- only this time it is directed to
the private sector.  The enthusiasm the Act has sparked is great.
There are a lot of geniuses working out there in virtual obscurity,
waiting for an opportunity to shine.  Many pioneers of the future are
on the brink of diving into the commercial space market.  We just need
to give them the a small incentive to get involved.

The Space Transportation Services Purchase Act is that incentive.  Mr.
Packard and I strongly believe that we need to mandate the bulk of
government launch requirements in the private sector.  By requiring the
government to launch its communication, weather, and scientific
payloads by commercial means, we can insure a vigorous and diverse
space industry in our country.  By streamlining the regulatory and
procurement process, we remove non-essential hurdles to a new industry
with unlimited potential.

If the U.S.  is to remain the leader in space, we need the diversity of
private sector entrepreneurship coupled with the benefits of strons
NASA research initiatives.  If we continue on our current course we
risk becoming an occasional hitchhiker on the missions of our global
neighbors.  Anyone who doubts this possibility need only ask our young
scientists and entrepreneurs about the Japanese and European investors
knocking on their doors.  If we delay any longer, our future leaders
will lose patience and become the leaders of our competitors efforts.

Thank you Mr.  Chairman. 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Allen W. Sherzer                    |  Is the local cluster the result   |
|  aws@iti.org                        |  of gerrymandering?                |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 89 17:54:21 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars

In article <1989Dec5.231812.7146@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <14973@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes:
>>An unmanned sample return / rover mission seems like a very workable baseline
>>that gives scientists dizzying amounts of data without waiting out another
>>fifteen years of NASA plodding and contractor shell games...
>
>Except that it will take almost as much plodding and contracting to mount
>a sample-return/rover mission, probably.  Sigh... there was a time when
>such things got done in years, not decades.

Yes it might -- if the US does it... :-)

Unfortunately everything takes longer and costs more these days, even
the things we do "right."  I noticed a lead story in the current AvWeek
about Airbus Industrie going ahead with the stretched single-aisle A321
plane.  Essentially all they're doing is taking the existing successful
A320 and inserting two stretchers in the fuselage; a more cut-and-dried
exercise is hard to imagine.  Yet the estimated development cost: $480
million!  And of course it'll take years.

I do think, though, that concentrating on the unmanned probes keeps you
refreshingly clear of the massive NASA inertia complex regarding manned
flight.  Whatever residual acceptance of risk was left after two decades
of empire building went up in smoke on '28 Enero'.  A traumatized Agency
has learned that retreat into 12 "garbage runs" a year and a blizzard
of unfundable artists' conceptions is a SAFE career move.

>>No doubt the rover
>>needs to be smart given the long signal turnaround, but it's about time we
>>pushed AI a little harder instead of trying to figure out how to build
>>zero G dishwashers...
>
>Personally, I think I'd rather have the job to build the dishwasher; *that*
>strikes me as a straightforward (if not entirely simple) engineering job.

Absolutely -- this is the thinking.  You get awards for clever design,
continued grants for more tinkering, eventual spinoff into something
lucrative on earth, and so what if nothing flies.  SAFE career move.

>The AI people have been promising autonomous robots for thirty years now.

That's right, and like "thinking machines," they will never be
delivered, *by definition*.  When AI advances threaten to achieve
autonomy, we dangle the concept a bit farther out as needed.  (I fully
expect someday to hear a discussion panel _of computers_ convincingly
disprove the possibility of machine thought. :-) )

Specific, mission-justifiable AI needs could be solved with an infusion
of BOTTOM-UP, AI-SPECIFIC cash.  (Right now "computer research" means
"supercomputing" to the USG, which grants top-down money so big
institutions can buy more Crays -- useless to most AI research.)  The
availaibility of "autonomous robots," in some nebulous, grandiose sense
of the term, is a red herring.  We do not need a rover that can compose
a Senate argument for further funding, or evaluate landing sites
independently.  We just need something that can get from A to B or fill
an experiment hopper without constant micromanagement -- and stop if it
gets confused.
-- 
When I was [in Canada] I found their jokes like their   | Tom Neff
roads -- not very long and not very good, leading to a  | tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
little tin point of a spire which has been remorselessly
obvious for miles without seeming to get any nearer. -- Samuel Butler.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 89 22:16:36 GMT
From: groucho!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (Steve Emmerson)
Subject: Re: Science vs Exploration (was Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars)

yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:

>Seriously, though, I think the public will be more willing to spend
>billions to see humans explore Mars than they will to find out the
>chemical composition or geological history of Mars.

I'm afraid the reality of the way decisions are actually made
on this subject is a far cry from the assumptions built into the
previous statement.

Note *:
	1) The majority of voters do not vote.

	2) The re-election rate to congress is approximately 96%.

	3) The majority of the "public" in the United States wants
	   stricter environmental controls.

Thus, in my opinion, the desires of the "public" about space are
irrelevant to the space program.  All that's necessary is to insure
that the general public has a "warm and fuzzy feeling" about the space
program -- and that can be artificially created.

--Steve Emmerson	steve@unidata.ucar.edu

* For a possible explanation of these phenomena, see Moyer's "The Public
Mind" on PBS.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 89 00:59:00 GMT
From: microsoft!davidle@uunet.uu.net  (David Levine)
Subject: Re: Galileo Astronauts Honored at JPL

In article <89336.171216CMH117@PSUVM.BITNET> CMH117@PSUVM.BITNET (Charles Hannum) writes:
>In article <24627@cup.portal.com>, fleming@cup.portal.com (Stephen R Fleming)
>says:
>>
>>>Time was then set aside for the
>>>JPL employees to chat with the astronauts and to get their autographs.
>>
>>...Just think about this sentence for a second...
>>
>>I'm not a basher of the individual astronauts; I'd love to be one.
>>But the thought of people at JPL, the *real* space-science heroes
>>of the last couple of decades, clustering around a bunch of
>>Right-Stuffers like teenage groupies...
>>
>>I dunno.  Maybe I'm getting cranky in my old age.  Let it pass.
>
>If you'd been waiting (how many?) years to get your baby out into space,
>you'd think the astronauts were God, too.

In addition, perhaps those of us who worked on Galileo for nearly ten years
would like to thank the astronauts who risked their lives to deploy it.

Even if Mr. Domehead Nearsighted Paleskinned Space Science Hero (I don't
remember seeing anyone at JPL meeting this stereotype) dosn't hold much
with autographs, perhaps his/her kids might.  Many JPL'rs follow the
shuttle program quite closely, collect mission patches and would'nt mind
a short word with one of the astronauts even if it was not the thrill of
a lifetime.

Sorry for adding to the comments on this, I just think the original
posting was rather silly.

David Levine

=====================================================
=== The opinions expressed above are entirely mine ==
=== The facts expressed above are probably wrong   ==
=====================================================

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V10 #322
*******************