Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.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 ; Sun, 24 Feb 91 01:25:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8blpkxO00WBw4h-05M@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 01:25:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #195 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 195 Today's Topics: Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92? Magellan Update - 02/21/91 Re: SPACE Digest V13 #180 SPACE Digest V13 #186 Re: Commercially-funded Space Probes (was Re: Space Profits) Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D Government vs. Commercial R&D Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 1991 12:50:22 EST From: VILLENEUVEP@VTPOOH.ME.VT.EDU (Pierre V. Villeneuve) X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"space+request@andrew.cmu.edu" help ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 91 01:55:47 GMT From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92? In article <657@newave.UUCP> john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes: >No smiley here--I think it really is feasible to return a moon orbitor >back to Earth. The big trick would be getting the probe back to into >Earth orbit so the shuttle can pict it up... That is indeed the big trick. Unfortunately, the propulsion requirements for this are non-trivial, and nobody is going to bother doing it unless there is a major special reason. Bear in mind that you don't have forever to do it, either: the Moon's gravitational field is so lumpy that objects left in orbit generally crash on the surface within a few years. The Lunar Prospector RFP specified monthly orbit corrections, and LP's lifetime is ultimately defined by the supply of correction fuel. -- "But this *is* the simplified version | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology for the general public." -S. Harris | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Feb 1991 12:50:45 EST From: VILLENEUVEP@VTPOOH.ME.VT.EDU (Pierre V. Villeneuve) X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"space+request@andrew.cmu.edu" list ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 91 03:46:27 GMT From: europa.asd.contel.com!issm!wlbr!mahendo!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@uunet.uu.net (Ron Baalke) Subject: Magellan Update - 02/21/91 MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT February 21, 1991 The Magellan spacecraft and its radar system are performing nominally. The offpoint of the solar panels for about 5 minutes at the beginning and end of each mapping pass has reduced the thermal effects of sunlight reflecting off the solar panels on to the spacecraft bus. The gyro temperatures have leveled off at 68.8 degree C and Battery #1 is peaking at about 23.4 degrees C. The resulting depth of battery discharge is about 12 percent. A decision was made yesterday afternoon to continue the solar panel offpoint and shortened mapping strategy through the remainder of mapping sequence M1051. That is, the earliest change to this strategy would be in the M1058 command sequence next Tuesday. On February 28 (next Thursday), Magellan begins a period of periapsis occultations, when a portion of the low end of each orbit passes through the shadow of Venus. This will help to cool the spacecraft as the length of time in the shadow increases. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | Is it mind over matter, ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ M/S 301-355 | or matter over mind? /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | Never mind. |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | It doesn't matter. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 18:31:24 EST From: Tommy Mac <18084TM%MSU.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU> Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #180 Re: Nick Szabo's Opinions Well, Nick you've done it again, in your letter to Michael Kent. I won't go over the details, just remember that not all you sarcasm was directed at NASA. I'm going to ask you a question, Nick. Please be so kind as to actually answer it. (I noticed you completely blew off the question about your job. Where you used to work, and the spiritual experiences you had doesn't tell us what you actually DO; I used to work at the MSU Cyclotron. Making wire harnesses.) Others have hinted at this question. But, alas, you missed the hint. Since you have such an extensive knowledge of the issues at hand, please, let us all in on the secret. WHAT CONSTITUTES WORTHWHILE PROJECTS IN SPACE? Based on you previous statements of what is and is not For The Public Good, I will define "worthwile" as; a project that will return 15-20% on it's initial ivestment, in less that 20 years, will not require extensive R+D, and will be possible to begin regardless of the experience level of the crew. Based on your previous letters, I expect to see something more impressive than; -Space stations (as they cost FAR too much for what they deliver) -Space Settlements (they cost too much, and no human can design one) -Plain ol' Probes (THEY don't make any money for those poor taxpayers you're always worried about -Communication Satellites (We've already GOT those. Jeez, get an imagination) Tommy Mac and the Mac Attack 18084tm@msu Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU> ------------------------------ Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 19:26:22 EST Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 02:11:42 EST Resent-From: Tommy Mac <18084TM%MSU.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU> From: space-request+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #186 Resent-To: space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU To: david polito <15432DJP@MSU.BITNET>, Tom McWilliams <18084TM@MSU.BITNET> Reply-To: space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU Resent-Message-Id: Comments: To: space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU Re: Gaia; Kenneth Aromdee writes: >In article 18084TM@MSU.BITNET (Tommy Mac) rites: >> A) uses energy in any form for the organization of matter >> B) experiences growth >> C) reproduces .. >> The only reasons not to accept it >>at face value are: (as far as I can tell) >>1) Gaia is childless >>2) Our defenition of life is non-existent (Or so vague it's meaningless) >>3) Our defenition of individual organisms is non-existent >4) In order to claim that functions by "parts of Gaia" are actually life >unctions, you have to make analogies that don't _completely_ fit. Sufficient >election of analogies can be used to prove that anything is alive; this is not > a problem with the definition of life, but a problem with making excessive >analogies. >For instance, automobiles >-- use energy >-- experience growth (by performing functions for humans, in exchange for > which the humans replace parts) >-- reproduces (an automobile factory is a place for reproduction of > automobiles; just because it's external doesn't mean it's not reproduction. > Plus, automobiles play a part in maintaining the very economy that makes > it profitable for automobile factories to work in the first place). -- Remember, I posted this so someone could get a (probably very limited, simple and non-technical) understanding of the GAIA hypothesis. If you want the REAL understanding (I.e. nitty-gritty, super jargon-filled version) there are lot's of books on the subject (I haven't found the intuitive kind yet). If you want the easy, down-to-earth kind, grow up on a farm. But I believe that the biosphere (the tao?) is alive, so I will defend it: First, the problem IS the defention of life, because there is none. If you could decide whether a virus is alive (and convince your peers) you would be in the market for a nobel prize. This would not be true if there was a handbook that had "Defenitions....Life" on page n. Second, to qualify as reproduction, some material from the parent must be moved to the body of the offspring. A seed would be the minimal case (not including the questionable case of a virus). DNA, at the least, would be required. By this defention, Gaia's potential reproduction fits, while the car anology does not. To qualify as growth, material that the organism takes into itself must be remade into parts of the organism. I.e. you are what you eat. Cars do not make spare parts out of gas and oil (food?), but Gaia covered the land masses of the Planet Earth with plant material. (She grew onto the land!! |-} ) And using energy to go down to the 7-11 is not the same as using it to organize matter. Acting like life by consuming and moving does not define life. If it did, than clouds, black holes, meteors, sand dunes, etc.,etc., would qualify. The question really does hinge on the defeniton of life and the defention of the individual. Our cells can't live outside our bodies without some sort of complex artificial support. And we can't live outside of the biosphere without even more complex artificial support. If we are individuals, what is it about Gaia that makes her (him? it?) different. Are Nations idividuals? Would Darwin say that Saddam's nation will not pass on the political/cultural characteristics which led to it's demise? Will your cells die if you do? Will you die if Gaia does? If you feel inclined to reply, please include YOUR defention of life. Mine is really just an amateur effort. I'm no biologist (although that may be why I'm willing to offer a defention) so if you have a better one, let's hear it. One less stringent defention that Gaia fits anyway: - Possesses DNA (This is why a virus doesn't count) Formal version: The Atmosphere and Oceans of Earth are kept Tommy Mac in such a state as to support life, by the actions of the sum 18084tm@msu total of life on Earth. Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU> ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 91 05:16:40 GMT From: magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu!csn!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!sol!yamauchi@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Brian Yamauchi) Subject: Re: Commercially-funded Space Probes (was Re: Space Profits) In article <1991Feb23.232720.1624@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: [ in reference to the Moon Treaty ] The State Department had been heavily involved in negotiating the treaty and wanted to see it ratified. Their rationale was roughly that the treaty was harmless and the show of cooperation would make the Third World happy. Idiots. Which administration was responsible for this monstrosity? Nixon, Ford, or Carter? (Actually, all of these administrations strike me as being sufficiently short-sighted to make such a blunder.) -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Department of Computer Science _______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 91 05:49:54 GMT From: rochester!sol!yamauchi@rutgers.edu (Brian Yamauchi) Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D In article <21217@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: In article <219.27C4F68F@nss.FIDONET.ORG> Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG (Paul Blase) writes: > >....the really advanced R&D that drives >technological advance is VERY expensive and, in general, no private company >(with the possible exception of Bell Labs) can afford (or is willing to risk) >the 10-20 year lead times and the billions of dollars necessary. This is false. The most striking counterexample is the biotechnology industry -- cutting edge research funded by private industry with lead times from research to product in years rather than decades. (Of course, it would be faster without the lethargic process of FDA approval...) >The only organization capable of supporting this long-term R&D is the U.S. >government, and the only government organizations doing so are NASA and the >military. Large government organizations have a poor record of producing both fundamental technological advances and more incremental innovation. Dollar for dollar, government projects are inefficient generators of progress. It's interesting that these two statements are not necessarily contradictory. Most long-term research in this country is funded by the federal government but performed by university and corporate research labs. While I would disagree with the assertion that the government is the *only* organization capable of supporting long-range research (consider IBM Watson and Bell Labs), it does happen to be the largest source of funding. So, the lines are fuzzy -- is a university department which gets its research funds from DARPA considered private or government? How about an aerospace company's long-range research lab? How about a government lab (like JPL, LLNL, LANL, Sandia) which is administered by a university or private corporation? Bringing this back to space exploration, maybe a step in the right direction would be to JPLize the other NASA centers, by having them administered by universities and companies with proven records of excellence in research, while remaining funded by the government. Has anyone in NASA considered this approach? -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Department of Computer Science _______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 91 05:27:00 GMT From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5!szabo@uunet.uu.net (Nick Szabo) Subject: Government vs. Commercial R&D In article <219.27C4F68F@nss.FIDONET.ORG> Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG (Paul Blase) writes: > >....the really advanced R&D that drives >technological advance is VERY expensive and, in general, no private company >(with the possible exception of Bell Labs) can afford (or is willing to risk) >the 10-20 year lead times and the billions of dollars necessary. This is false. * Of U.S. patents granted in 1989, 79,088 (76%) were issued to corporations, 23,624 (23%) to private individuals, and 700 (1%) to government laboratories. While some of the private individuals are government funded, clearly the bulk of innovation comes from outside the government laboratory sphere. * Historically, most fundamental advances come from a commercial or university lab and a handful of people. Here is a list of important 20th-century technology advances that most greatly impact space travel today, and what kinds of people or groups developed them: * Airplane (bicycle shop) * Computer (many small groups in universities & corporations) * Liquid-fuel rockets (physics professor on a farm) * Nuclear fission (German university research lab) * Transistor (Bell Labs) * The "lead times" for most of the successful work vary widely, but average 5-10 years rather than 10-20 years. * For both normal patents and fundamental new technology, the yearly budget for any particular project is usually less than $10 million (in today's dollars). The number of people involved are usually between 1 and 100. >The only organization capable of supporting this long-term R&D is the U.S. >government, and the only government organizations doing so are NASA and the >military. Large government organizations have a poor record of producing both fundamental technological advances and more incremental innovation. Dollar for dollar, government projects are inefficient generators of progress. >In war, the side with the most advanced tools wins (see the >laser-guided bombs and such being used in the current Persian Gulf conflict). Lasers were invented by Columbia University grad students and demonstrated by a Hughes Aircraft Company physicist. U.S. government labs did not become interested in them until they had already been built in dozens of diverse configurations by corporate research labs. Since the 1960's government labs have spent $billions trying to turn lasers into powerful "death rays" without success. This is but one example of the radical mis-scaling of technology, a symptom of economic illiteracy, that runs through the larger socialist research labs. Meanwhile, corporations and universities created hundreds of useful products using lasers. Some of these eventually found their way to defense contractors and became an important part of defense weaponry, their potential fully recognized by the military only in this most recent war. This is by far the most common direction of spin-offs, from the university/corporate world to the government. >People often refer to spinoffs >as one of the nice things about NASA, and then wonder how we can spend money >exploring space. I say that spinoffs are one of NASA's main justifications >for existance, and that lacking them, we might as well start learning >Japanese right now. If spinoffs are NASA's justification, they might as well close up shop. Like most other large government R&D , their dollar for dollar innovation record is poor (though unlike other labs it is well-hyped). In contrast to U.S. government research, Japanese R&D is carried out on an economical scale and directly related to marketable products such as HDTV and biotechnology. Because they don't waste those "10-20" years on mis-scaled technology, they can bring products to market quickly. If NASA really wants to produce spinoffs, they could learn quite a bit from the Japanese (as well as our own American innovators). References: _The Universal Almanac_, 1991. pg. 521 [patent statistics] _The Innovators_ by John Diebold [laser] -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Think long-term, act now. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #195 *******************