Message-ID: <4afcCE-00VcJE14E4l@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 1990 01:45:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #127

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 127

Today's Topics:
			Re: World Space Agency
		      NSS Convention >> 1991 <<
			   Re: Polar Orbits
NASA Headline News for 07/25/90 [Update: Presidential Comments] (Forwarded)
	    Re: Negative Matter [was Anti-Gravity Devices]

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  space+@andrew.cmu.edu.  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to
			 tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu

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

Date: 26 Jul 90 00:56:34 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!unicorn!n8035388@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Worth Henry A)
Subject: Re: World Space Agency


In article <9389@goofy.Apple.COM> heksterb@apple.com (Ben Hekster) writes:
>I, for one, would have grave objections to any closer collaboration 
>between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R in either space exploration or research.
>
>NASA still undeniably has the world's most technologically advanced space 
>program.

( -- first a very small flame, please don't take it personal,
     I really do appreciate your response --)

   That is a pretty strong statement, measuring overall technological
superiority is not easy, is your statement based on anything but political 
rhetoric or an ethnocentric viewpoint? You might also think that Apple is 
the most technological superior computer company in the world, but other's 
are just as sure that IBM, SUN, ..., are the superier companies. No one is 
really correct, but no one is really wrong, either. Each company, and each
space program, has its own unique, and superior, contributions.

   While NASA does have much top-notch technology, it is currently acheiving 
little with that technology, and doing little to extend it. On the other hand,
the Soviets are using an available-and-adequate technology approach which has
provided them with regular, reliable, long-term, manned access to LEO. What
are they learning up there? Can we afford to wait for FREEDOM? Buying a 
MAC II/fx, when all you need, and can actually make use of, is a four-
function calculator, hardly guarantees success; quite the opposite.

   Capt. Cook's ships were hardly technical tour de' forces for his
day, yet he accomplished much. They were converted (Welsh?) colliers 
(which he himself requested), a type he had served on much of his early 
career and therefore knew quite well and could trust.

   In many ways, the Soviet approach to space parallels the Japanese
approach to the auto (and other) markets -- first establish volume, then
quality, and finally push the technology -- the Soviets are at the second
step, how long will it be before they move to the third and possibly
leap-frog NASA, just as the Japanese eventually leap-frogged a complacent,
and over-confident, Detroit (next year Honda is expected to surpase Chrysler
and become America's third largest auto manufacturer)? The only thing holding
the Soviets back is their current fiscal problems.

   In any case, NASA's days may be numbered. Even if it survivies, NASA's
future budgets may do little more than support its bloated bureaucracy.
I don't like speaking disparagingly of NASA's future -- I would really
like to see NASA succeed -- however, wishing won't make it so, and I know 
of no historical precedents for significant bureaucratic reform, short of 
dissolution (or literally chopping off a few bureaucrats heads -- firing 
them (if it were even possible), so that they can then take a higher paying
job in industry, is hardly a disincentive for failure). Unfortunately, at
this juncture in time, certain politicians (conservative and liberal) could 
further their own presidential prospects by axing NASA.

>...The fact that it requires the Russians eight years to make a 
>smaller, non-functioning copy of the Space Shuttle obviously confirms 
>this. 

   Not really, the Soviet shuttle -- which, by the way, has a slightly higher
payload then the shuttle -- was a political boondoggle, forced down the 
throat of a very reluctant Soviet space agency. It's remarkable that it was 
ever completed at all, and even more remarkable that they were able to,
unlike NASA, maintain their existing ELV capability. One of the main reasons
that it has not flown again, and may never, is that it no longer has political
support (Breznev (sp?) died). 

>...The mere consideration of simply handing over all that we have so 
>painstakingly built and learned, with all the sacrifices that so many have 
>made, is utterly excruciating to me.
>

   And, the thought of allowing it to whither and die, as is now happening,
is absolutely abhorent to me. Technological superiority is not a plateau 
-- that once reached is forever yours -- it is the result of continuous
striving. Currently, there is little striving in America, except to maintain
bloated bureaucracies or to make a quick buck. A basic premise behind the 
WSA proposal is that members would benefit according to their contributions,
no one is going to join unless they feel that they stand to somehow gain more
than they contribute. 

   Also, unlike Apple, the technology that NASA develops goes into the 
public domain (except that classified for "national security" reasons),
other programs already have access to much of that technology. In the case
of spin-off technology patented by contractors, it is for sale, or, in the
case of the Soviets, can easily be "borrowed". In the proposal for a WSA, I
have suggested that members would be required to be signatories of 
patent/copyright conventions, and that technology developed by the WSA be
patented to protect the member's "investments".

   There already are plenty of examples of international space cooperation
not involving the USA, if we are not very careful we may well be left behind
and forced to decide between either relinquishing our position as a major 
space power, or to joining an already exisiting WSA, possibly at a disadvantage.
Unfortunately, the USA has a historical tendency to retreat into isolationism
until difficult decisions are forced upon us from without.

   As a proud -- albeit, very concerned -- American, I am frankly insulted
by those who seem to think we would not be capable of leading by deed and 
example in such an endeavor. Are we not capable of competing on the 
international scene, without first being given some special advantage? 

   Institutions like the UN and World Bank have made Americans, justifiably,
leary of international efforts, however, by taking the initative in forming
a WSA we might be able to avoid the problems of such institutions, including
the bureaucratic problems of NASA (I'm not naive, it won't be easy, but does
anyone have a another pratical alternative?).

 "by failing to learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat its mistakes"
    -- from memory and surely misquoted --

>In my opinion, NASA would most likely have voiced much stronger opposition 

   The idea has not yet made it to the national scene, but rest assured that
if it ever does, NASA's bureaucracy will fight it tooth and nail. I, however,
have no interest in helping a bloated bureaucracy survive. NASA's best and
brightest might even support a well conceived WSA.
			       --------------

>to the idea, were it not for the awkward fact that so many of the liberal 
>figures in the West are so completely overwhelmed by the dictator of the only 

   He may still be a dictator, but he is a dictator who has started the
reforms that may bring an end to dictatorship in the USSR. Caution is 
necessary -- it is not yet a fiat accompli, coup d`e tat's and civil wars
are still very much a possibility -- but, can we afford to play it safe 
and wait for his success? By the way, President Bush seems to be going out
of his way to help that dictator, of course the President is only a moderate
(some might even say liberal) republican masquerading as an conservative.

>While I am personally convinced that President Bush would not favor the 
>idea, I can only hope that he can hold out against the political pressure.

   I'm not so sure that he would be opposed. To spearhead the creation 
of such an institution would demonstrate the sort of vision, leadership,
and statesmanship that the greatest American presidents are remembered for.
It's just the sort of thing that appeals to a politician's ego.


HW - If I keep this up, I'm never going to finish my thesis!
7/25/90

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 15:30:30 CDT
From: ROsman%ASS%SwRI05@D15VS178A.SPACE.SwRI.EDU
Subject: NSS Convention >> 1991 <<
Cc: 

   ___        ___     ______    ______   _
  / _ \      / _ \    |  _  \  /  ____) / \
 / / \ \    / / \ \   | |_)  ) | (__    | |
/ /   \ \  / /   \ \  |  ___/   \__  \  | |
\ \   / /  \ \   / /  | |       ___)  | | |
 \ \_/ /    \ \_/ /   |_|      (_____/  \_/
  \___/      \___/    _________________  O
                               
I incorrectly titled this message as the 1990 convention instead 
of the 1991 convention, which it is.  Sorry about that.

=================================================================

CALL FOR PAPERS!!!   CALL FOR PAPERS!!!   CALL FOR PAPERS!!!  
Abstracts are being solicited for the National Space Society's
10th Annual International Space Development Conference 
to be held at the Hyatt Regency on the Riverwalk in San Antonio, 
Texas, May 22-27, 1991.  The theme is SPACE: A CALL FOR ACTION.
Topics include:

   SPACE ADVOCACY      FOR THE PUBLIC      SPACE TECHNOLOGY
   Community Action    Law & Politics      Infrastructure
   Chapter Action      Space Medicine      Space Stations
   Political Action    Space Education     Space Manufacturing
   Fund Raising        Business & Econ.    Planetary Communities
   Recruiting          Debate for Space    Off-Planet Colonies
   Media & Publicity   International Prog. Future Manned Missions

Abstracts are due by November 1, 1990.  Submissions must include 
a cover letter with name, address, phone, and brief description
of your experience or expertise, and a one page abstract.
Send to :   Bob Blackledge, 6015 Eagles Nest Ct., 
            Colorado Springs, CO 80918-1510   (719) 548-2329
For registration information contact:
            Beatrice Moreno, Southwest Research Institute,
            6220 Culebra, San Antonio, TX 78228-0510  (512) 522-2260
For further information contact:
            Dr. Carol Luckhardt Redfield, Southwest Research Institute
            6220 Culebra, San Antonio, TX 78228-0510  (512) 522-3823

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

Date: 25 Jul 90 02:25:14 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Charles.Radley@ucsd.edu  (Charles Radley)
Subject: Re: Polar Orbits

OK, this is my second attempt to enter this message.    Location of 
polar orbit spaceports:  it depends on the political geography of 
the area.
Basically, the launch azimuth will be to the southwest in the northern 
hemisphere, or to the northwest in the southern hemisphere.
Ergo, Kennedy is no goo because northwest trajectory from there goes 
over populated areas.
Kourou (Ariane) is good for both polar and equatorial.
Vandenburg is good for polar, but not equatorial.
Cape York is good for both polar and equatorial, the polar launch 
from Cape York is to the southwest (which contradicts my staement 
that it needs to be northwest I suppose, but that's ok).


--  
Charles Radley
Internet: Charles.Radley@ofa123.fidonet.org
BBS:      714 544-0934   2400/1200/300

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

Date: 25 Jul 90 22:20:55 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Headline News for 07/25/90 [Update: Presidential Comments] (Forwarded)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, July 25, 1990             Audio Service:  202/755-1788
-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is a NASA Headline News Update for Wednesday, July 25.......


                 PRESIDENT BUSH COMMENTS ON NASA


On July 17, President Bush held a press briefing for the Magazine 
Publishers of America.  He was asked about the space program.  I 
believe his extemporaneous remarks are especially noteworthy.


         Q.   Mr. President, Terry McGraw, McGraw-Hill.  Since 
the completion of the Apollo Space Program the U.S. space program 
has seemingly struggled for a definitive notion of its mission.  
Could you comment on your priority the space program has in your 
agenda, and more specifically, what your expectations are in this 
new investigation of NASA?

         THE PRESIDENT:  One, I have great confidence in Dick 
Truly, the Administrator of NASA.  And so to lay that part of the 
question to rest, what we are doing is asking him to form an 
outside committee of the best minds he can find to look to the 
future.  Not to try to assign blame because a mission is delayed 
getting off the ground.  I mean, these shots are highly 
complex.  We have been the leaders in space and I want to see us 
continue to be the leaders in space.

         So the group that was advertised a couple of days ago or 
heralded as an investigation of NASA is nothing of the kind.  I 
saw the stories and, once again, went semiballistic, thinking, my 
heavens, how could somebody write this when that is not what the 
President intends?  But I think the Vice President, who is doing 
a good job as head of the Space Council, clarified that.

         In terms of goals, we've got some broad objectives that 
go far beyond lunar landings now.  But the first one obviously 
would be this space station, but with continued shots back and 
forth to do the -- what's almost becoming journeymen's work in 
space.

         I'm confident we can do it.  Obviously, we're in tight 
budget times, so we've set the goals for Mars and beyond out 
there many, many years.  But I have confidence in NASA.  And it's 
a perilous business I guess anytime you put people up there into 
space.  But the record has been very good.

         And yet, I think the management is such a complex -- 
it's such a complex organization that it is appropriate that the 
Administrator now call on the best minds he can find to see how 
we're going to meet these next goals and meet them, hopefully, 
within budget.  And I'm talking about the space station;  I'm 
talking about what Sally Ride talked about -- Mission to Planet 
Earth, where we actually utilize to the fullest extent possible 
space shots and improving matters on Earth.  Obviously, the 
environment comes to mind and agriculture comes to mind.  And 
then taking that third step, how do we organize NASA to meet this 
big, tremendous management challenge that will come about for 
this next quantum leap forward -- and discuss the cooperation 
with other nations in all of this.

         I mean, as the whole world is changing -- and it has 
dramatically changed -- there may be some real opportunities now 
to do more with the Soviet Union, for example, or with other 
countries.  So all of this requires a new look.  And that's what 
this story was about.


Sue Richard
Deputy Associate Administrator
for Public Affairs

--------------------------------------------------------------
All events and times may change without notice.  This report is
filed daily, Monday through Friday at 12:00 P.M., EDT.  This is  
a service of the Internal Communications Branch, NASA HQ.  
Contact:  JSTANHOPE or CREDMOND on NASAmail or at 202/453-8425.
--------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Select TV:  Satcom F2R, Transponder 13, C-Band, 72 Degrees 
West Longitude, Audio 6.8, Frequency 3960 MHz.  JSNEWS7-25
---------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 25 Jul 90 10:39:34 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!edcastle!egpv15@uunet.uu.net  (Ian Turton)
Subject: Re: Negative Matter [was Anti-Gravity Devices]

In article <6642@crabcake> arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee) writes:
#In article <1990Jul24.161034.7598@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> neufeld@physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
#>   Note that there is no experimental evidence to suggest the existence of
#>"negative matter," but that doesn't keep us from speculating about its
#>possible properties, if it does exist.
#
#The newest Analog has an article by (I think) Robert Forward which is about
#negative matter.  (Which is not known to exist, of course; the article is
#speculation.)

there was a feature in New Scientist a few weeks back about negative matter, which was 
quite informative, even if it did sort of blow your brain thinking about it - if anyones 
interested I can look up which issue it was in.
#
#Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
#     INTERNET: arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu)


-- 
Ian Turton                                Dept of Geophysics and geology
I Turton @uk.ac.edinburgh                      JCMB, Kings Buildings
Ian@uk.ac.edinburgh.cs.tardis                   Mayfield Rd, Edinburgh
     ***If you don't like my views sue my boss, he'll love it.***

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #127
*******************