Message-ID: <EZd4-Jm00VcJ03Mk5s@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri,  5 Jan 90 01:45:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #374

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 374

Today's Topics:
	     NASA Headline News for 12/19/89 (Forwarded)
			  Re: Techno-welfare
		      Re: SPACE Digest V10 #360
		      Cargo: costs and standards
		 Re: Big Bang:  Did it happen? (long)
			Re: New years eve 1999
	    Vacuum tubes in space, was Re: Techno-welfare
			Re: Big Bang - no more
			  voyager GIF files
			  Re: Techno-welfare
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Dec 89 19:01:01 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Headline News for 12/19/89 (Forwarded)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, December 19, 1989                    Audio: 202/755-1788
-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is NASA Headline News for Tuesday, December 19....


NASA space shuttle managers have postponed the STS-32 launch 
until next month...with the earliest possible lift-off date being 
January 8.  Several factors were considered in the decision...the 
most significant being a need to complete testing and validation 
of the launch pad system used to load cryogenic fuels into the 
orbiter and the need to power down the launch processing system 
to perform scheduled cooling system modifications.

Robert Crippen, Director of the Space Shuttle Program, says the 
delay will not impact NASA's ability to safely retrieve the Long 
Duration Exposure Facility nor will it affect the ability to 
meet the planned flight schedule during 1990.  The delay will 
also permit NASa employees and contractors to take time off for 
the Christmas holidays.  


The Washington Post reports a Congressionally-chartered 
panel...the Task Force on Women, Minorities and the Handicapped 
in Science and Technology...says U.S. colleges and universities 
must graduate twice as many white women in science and 
engineering, five times as many black students and seven times as 
many hispanics--beginning next year.  The findings were released 
yesterday by the panel comprised of 48 government, business and 
education leaders.  Using recent statistics released by the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Science 
Foundation...the report adds that by the year 2010 there will be  
a shortage of over a half-million engineers and scientists in the 
United States.  


Aerospace Daily reports that the president of the Aerospace 
Industries Association has named James C. Harrington, Vice 
President of Space Flight Programs at Kaman Aerospace 
Corporation, to head up a task force to develop recommendations 
on advanced technology and management techniques applicable to 
missions to the moon and Mars.  AIA President Donald Fuqua told 
the Daily some of the issues to be reviewed include 
Earth-to-orbit propulsion, space propulsion, and long term 
effects of microgravity on humans.


And.....NASA has selected Ford Aerospace Corporation, of Houston, 
for final negotiations leading to the award of a contract to 
provide safety, reliability, maintainability and quality 
assurance support services at NASA's Johnson Space Center.

                *                *               *


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA 
Select TV.  All times are Eastern. 


Thursday, December 21....

    11:30 A.M.           NASA Update will be transmitted.


All events and times are subject to change without notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon, 
Eastern time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC), NASA 
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <IZXfHDS00VA_Q1Zolg@andrew.cmu.edu>
ReSent-Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 17:23:11 -0500 (EST)
ReSent-From: "Todd L. Masco" <tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
ReSent-To: Space <space+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 10:57:12 CST
From: lfa@vielle.cray.com (Lou Adornato)
Subject: Re: Techno-welfare 

In SPACE Digest V10 #351 rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz) write:
>In article <5941@timbuk.cray.com> lfa@timbuk.UUCP (Lou Adornato) writes:
>>
>>A while back someone (Tom Neff?) called the space program "techno-welfare".  
>>This might be true, but econometric studies have shown that every dollar spent
>>on Apollo generated seven dollars worth of economic growth.  No, I don't have
>>the study, but Collins cited it in "Carrying the Fire" (I always meant to write
>>him and get the name of the study...).

>I called it technowelfare.  I believe the "study" that "showed" the space
>program paid off 7-1 just *assumed* that space R&D was as productive
>as civilian R&D.

>The supposed economic boon of the space program is an example of the
>Big Lie technique, IMHO.

I'm not about to argue the contents of that study when neither of us has a copy,
but IF the authors felt justified to make that key assumption, (and >I< will
assume that this assumption was justified (or at LEAST rationalized) within the
study), I don't see why that assumption should be discarded out of hand.  In
fact, I don't see why space R&D wouldn't be >more< productive than civilian.  
By law, NASA research is available to the public (with the _major_ exception of
that which is determined to be sensitive to National Security).

The point I was trying to make is that the value of a national research and 
development project goes beyond the contract deliverables.  The basic research,
(albiet in limited areas), the engineering, and the new technologies all con-
tribute to the economy.  The more subtle contributions include a pool of
experienced engineering talent, more interest in science and technology by the
next generation of students, and national prestige.  

My major beef with the "technowelfare" slander was that welfare doesn't return
ANYTHING to the economy except new generations of recipients.  I humbly submit 
that, unless your host system uses vacuum tubes, disparaging the value of space
research on this network is self defeating. 

Lou Adornato    |  Statements herein do not represent the opinions or attitudes 
Cray Research   |  of Cray Research, Inc. or its subsidiaries.
lfa@cray.com    |       (...yet)

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

Date: 19 Dec 89 21:34:02 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!math.lsa.umich.edu!sharkey!cfctech!joel@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Joel Lessenberry)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V10 #360

cancel sub
sub cancel
it was worth a try


 Joel Lessenberry, Distributed Systems | +1 313 948 3342
 joel@cfctech.UUCP                     | Chrysler Financial Corp.
 joel%cfctech.uucp@mailgw.cc.umich.edu | MIS, Technical Services
 {sharkey|mailrus}!cfctech!joel        | 2777 Franklin, Sfld, MI

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

Date: 19 Dec 89 19:26:17 GMT
From: ibmpa!szabonj@uunet.uu.net  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Cargo: costs and standards

In article <1989Dec19.001442.18701@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <3332@ibmpa.UUCP> szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>Unmanned strikes again!  Delta launches cost probably one-fifth to 
>>one-tenth of a Shuttle launch, depending on whose accounting you want
>>to believe.
>
>I believe the NRC's accounting, which says that all current US launchers
>cost about the same per pound at the same launch volume.  The enormous
>cost advantage of unmanned launchers is a myth.
>
>Well, one caveat:  Delta probably *is* somewhat cheaper now because those
>are (I think) commercial launches rather than government-run ones; that
>development is more recent than the NRC findings.

Of course, I was talking about absolute cost, not cost per pound.  
Delta launch versus Shuttle launch, is what I said.  

"Cost per pound" is not necessarily a good measure; we should think in
terms of "cost per useful payload."  The second ton is usually not as 
valuable as the first ton, and the third is not as valuable as the second, 
etc.  You often can't cram twice as much into twice the mass, because "the 
second box never fits as nicely as the first."  In fact, bulk and shape of the 
payload are often more important than mass.  That is why Earth's major cargo
carriers now use the standard truck-trailer-sized "container" for rail, 
truck, ocean, and even sometimes air freight.  

Hopefully, we will soon have a set of standards for space cargo.  In fact, I 
can foresee somebody like AMROC making a "Delta clone": a launch vehicle with 
the same exact cargo hold as the Delta, with the same lift capability, but 
using the new AMROC engine technology.  That way, satellite makers can 
design their satellites for the standard without have to commit to any
specific launch vehicle.  Also, implementers of new technologies like
EML or laser-launch would be well-advised to scale the machines to 
existing payloads.


******** These opinions are not related to Big Blue's *********


-- 
---------------------------
Nick Szabo
szabonj@ibmpa.tcspa.ibm.com
uunet!ibmsupt!szabonj

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

Date: 20 Dec 89 18:51:33 GMT
From: uhccux!goldader@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Jeff Goldader)
Subject: Re: Big Bang:  Did it happen? (long)

In article <9364@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
>
>So many scientists seem to take the
>dark matter for granted, but I've yet to see any clear reason for
>postulating it other than a sort of religious dogma that the universe
>will eventually recollapse.  Is there really any stronger basis for
>believing that we only see ten percent of the universe, or are people
>letting their aesthetics guide their modeling?

Yes, there is in fact strong observational evidence for dark matter.

For a long time, it was generally assumed by the astronomical community
that the distribution of *mass* in galaxies was traced by the distribution
of *light*; that is, where things are brighter, there is more mass than
where things are relatively dim.  However, when astronomers began to measure
the rotation curves of galaxies, things became confused.

The rotation curves of spiral galaxies, that is, a plot with distance 
from the nucleus on the x-axis and velocity on the y-axis, allow us to
trace the REAL mass distribution, to some extent.  Because of Kepler and
Newton, if a galaxy were mostly a point mass in the nucleus, we'd expect
the rotational velocity to fall off rapidly with distance from the nucleus.
Instead, we find that the rotational velocities stay mostly constant out to
large radii.  This means there is some extra matter whose distribution is
not traced by the light distribution, since the light distribution falls 
off exponentially the farther out you get in the disk and the higher you 
get above the disk.  This matter is necessary to explain the extra 
gravitational force needed to keep the stuff at large radii moving
as quickly as the stuff at smaller radii.  The unseen matter is generally 
believed to be in the form of a "dark halo", roughly spherically symmetric,
surrounding the galaxy.  This evidence for dark matter is very persuasive,
and no one has yet come up with a better explanation for the observed
rotation curves.

No one has been able to directly observe dark matter, although there are many 
theories as to its nature.  Some say massive neutrinos, others say very heavy
exotic particles (axions, wimps, etc.), many like the idea of lots of large
planets (brown dwarfs), and one astronomer has jokingly suggested that the
dark matter is nothing more than a very, very large number of basketballs.
Physicists have calculated the properties of the odd particles (if they
exist) and are devising detectors to sense them, astronomers are frantically
searching for brown dwarfs, and lots of people play basketball, so we may
learn something of the true nature of dark matter in the next few years.

Jeff Goldader                        University of Hawaii
goldader@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu      Institute for Astronomy

"Bill, strange things are afoot at the Circle-K..."
-Ted, "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure"

Disclaimer: The University of Hawaii and the Institute for Astronomy neither 
support nor are in *any way* responsible for these opinions.

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

Date: 20 Dec 89 15:03:26 GMT
From: att!drutx!druwy!deg@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Donald E. Gillespie)
Subject: Re: New years eve 1999

In article <3959@convex.UUCP>, dodson@mozart.uucp (Dave Dodson) writes:
> One obvious problem is that this millenium ends at the end of December in
> the year 2000 and the next millenium begins at the beginning of January
> in the year 2001.  If you carried out your plan as above, you would be
> celebrating one year early.


Damn scientists.  Looks like you'll be one year too late for the party!


-- 

			Don Gillespie
			att!druwy!deg

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

Date: 21 Dec 89 05:24:31 GMT
From: philmtl!philabs!briar.philips.com!rfc@uunet.uu.net  (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201)
Subject: Vacuum tubes in space, was Re: Techno-welfare

In article <8912181657.AA01075@aldrin.cray.com> lfa@VIELLE.CRAY.COM (Lou Adornato) writes:
 I humbly submit 
>that, unless your host system uses vacuum tubes, disparaging the value of space
>research on this network is self defeating. 
>
I once heard that in some R&D into Venus surface probes, they were considering
using new vacuum tube technology to make the probes last much longer.  Because
tubes don't mind the high heat found on Venus as much as semiconductors do.
These tubes would be something like vacuum "intergrated circuits".  
  Don't know who was doing this, even if this was really being worked on.
  Anyone know?

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

Date: 21 Dec 89 12:20:31 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!stc!praxis!hilbert!macey@uunet.uu.net  (Ian Macey)
Subject: Re: Big Bang - no more

In article <2502@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) writes:
>#His work involves (if I remember correctly) superstring theory and
>#steady state universes.
>
>I read "A Brief History of Time" and do remember anything at all about
>steady state universes. I will reread it during break.`

As usual I managed to post with only half my brain in gear. I read the book
over a year ago but saw a TV program about his work on the BBC more recently
in which he talked about superstrings, his attempt to produce a unified theory
and how this would show we didn't have a big bang. I didn't video the program
so I have to rely on memory:

The program tried to expain what he was saying by two graphics; the first
[representing the big bang theory] was a 3D cone where the universe starts as
a point (the sharp end of the cone) and expands space (ie increases the radius
of the cross section of the cone) as we travel through time (ie travel along
the axis of the cone away from the sharp end). The second [new theory] was a
'round-nosed' cone whereby we still travel through time in an expanding
universe, but where there was no 'start', that is to say, no point [of the
cone] at which a big bang occured. This wasn't explained in much depth and I'm
unsure whether they ment that time slowed exponentially the further back you
went or what. Anyway they were definately saying that he didn't have much
faith in the big bang theory.

And of course he is at Cambridge, not Oxford... :-(

|\\\X\\|\  |           Ian Macey  Bath, England.  (macey@praxis.co.uk)
|\\X\\\|\\ |   ----------------------------------------------------------------
|\X\\\\|\\\|               *Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year*

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

Date: 21 Dec 89 18:15:26 GMT
From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!shadooby!sharkey!cfctech!joel@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Joel Lessenberry)
Subject: voyager GIF files


	Does anyone know of a FTP site or Mail server where 
	GIF or otherwise voyager images are kept.  I am looking
	for some.

			thanks
			joel

 Joel Lessenberry, Distributed Systems | +1 313 948 3342
 joel@cfctech.UUCP                     | Chrysler Financial Corp.
 joel%cfctech.uucp@mailgw.cc.umich.edu | MIS, Technical Services
 {sharkey|mailrus}!cfctech!joel        | 2777 Franklin, Sfld, MI

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

Date: 21 Dec 89 21:26:44 GMT
From: groucho!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (Steve Emmerson)
Subject: Re: Techno-welfare

dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>Transistors were invented in 1948.  ICs were invented in the late
>1950's.  Early IC development was nurtured by military and NASA
>spending, but it isn't clear to me that without NASA ICs wouldn't have
>come along anyway at about the same rate -- especially if the
>engineering talent that went into NASA had gone into other fields.

[Paul asked me to post this reply to the net.  I changed the word
"most" to "many" ;-).  Enjoy.]

You might be interested in this anecdote.  Two friends of mine worked
as consultants on the Apollo project in the '60's (something to do with
batteries, I think).  I remember them recounting how they were mildly
surprised to discover that many of the switching systems on Apollo were
electro-mechanical -- not solid-state.

--Steve Emmerson	steve@unidata.ucar.edu

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #374
*******************