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 ; Thu, 6 Jun 91 02:23:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 02:23:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #607 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 607 Today's Topics: Re: Rational next station design process Moonbase movie *Plymouth* to air Sunday? Re: Gravity vs. Mass Re: Building Infrastructure Re: Stepping back, asking why? (was Re: Rational next station design...) Re: Fred vs. Exploration: head-to-head competition Re: Gravity vs. Mass Re: Rational next station design process Re: Gravity vs. Mass Re: Rational next station design process Re: Revising a biased history of space science funding 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: 23 May 91 06:00:54 GMT From: agate!earthquake.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) Subject: Re: Rational next station design process In article <1991May23.043144.13714@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) writes: >Here are the missions that I want to see done that I think can be done only >or best by a station: > * Long-term Human studies > * some Microgravity (not all) > * most Biological science > * Spacecraft Refurbishment > >Assume, as I do, that these are worthwhile things to do. (Not more or less >worthwhile than any other mission). If you disagree, then we stop here. If >not, proceed to step 2: To satisfy Nick Szabo and others, who think that a station would be a unproductive waste, let me suggest a step 2. Step 2: After selecting those missions which can only be done by a space station, or which are greatly simplified by a station: Make sure that these missions are compatible. (Spacecraft refurbishment would casue vibrations which may interfere with microgravity work...) Then calculate the value of these missions. Based on the value of this work, you can come up with a budget for the station design. If George Herbert and others have some cleaver ideas, and a station could be build within this budget, it should be. If Nick Szabo and others are correct, and to worth of the above missions is too little to justify the station, it should not be built. In any case the cost of the station MUST be compaired to the worth of the work it will do. Two notes: In order to see if the missions justify the station, SOME design work MUST be done on the station (or better yet, several station concepts.) in order to establish the cost of building a station. (Freedom's budget gives us only the cost of building ONE station concept, under poor a poorly administrated organization.) Second, simply considering the worth of the various missions will help the design: It provides a quick and easy way to set priorities. If the most valuable work done on the station will be, say, spacecraft refurbishment, then the designer will know not to waste time and energy on the less valuable missions. (I am not making a judgement on spacecraft refurbishemnt, only using it as an example.) Frank Crary UC Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 1991 02:20 CDT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Moonbase movie *Plymouth* to air Sunday? Original_To: SPACE,smtp%"sf-lovers@elbereth.rutgers.edu" Here's a tip. I just heard a rumor that the made-for-TV movie *Plymouth* will be broadcast on NBC this coming Sunday. I don't know how accurate this rumor is-- but if it's true, catch it! The director made a presentation at last year's Space Development Conference, showing slides of the sets and characters. *Plymouth* is about a near-future community of a few hundred people on the Moon. The filmmakers went to some trouble to tell a hard-science story with plausible tech. The director had really boned up. The people he got as advisors-- such as moonbase maven Dr. Wendell Mendell of NASA, or space artist Pat Rawlings of Science Applications International-- were the same people I would have gotten. I was amazed to hear this Hollywood guy spout all the same technical jargon as I'd heard at professional astronautics conferences. The colony's main export is helium-3, and it makes extensive use of local lunar resources. The designs of equipment, vehicles, and buildings are quite convincing. Hard science is almost never done well in Televisionland, but this movie appears to be an exception. *Plymouth* was intended to be a pilot for a TV series, but didn't get picked up by the network. The quality of the drama is unknown to me. If it's a mediocre story, like *Destination Moon* or *Die Frau im Mond*, the movie should be watchable because its technical background is strong. (No flames, please; how many SF movies have you sat through with interesting plots, or intriguing characters, and lousy, lousy science?) If the story is good, you might be *really* pleased you tuned it in. O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/ - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap! / \ (_) (_) / | \ | | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory \ / Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET - - Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: 21 May 91 13:11:29 GMT From: prism!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!geomag!cain@gatech.edu (Joe Cain) Subject: Re: Gravity vs. Mass In article <1308@ub.d.umn.edu> jrowliso@ub.d.umn.edu (Isildur) writes: >I was having a debate with one of my friends over this one... You somehow >dug a hole clean through the earth in a diameter through the core and it was >completely insulated from the heat changes running through the planet. When >you climbed into the tunnel (fall into the the tunnel...) and reach the >center of the planet, would your weight be incredibly multiplied because of >your new relative location to the center of the earth (using the >mass/gravitational constant formula) or would you have zero-weight because >you were surrounded by virtually identical mass (and also assuming that the >tunnel closes up outside your immediate location)? You undergo simple harmonic motion in the case of a planet with constant density, and so long as the mass is spherically symmetric, zero gravity at the center. For the real Earth, gravity increases slightly from the crust to the core-mantle boundary since the core is so much more dense. It then decreases about linearly to r=0. Joseph Cain cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu cain@fsu.bitnet scri::cain ------------------------------ Date: 21 May 91 18:13:12 GMT From: agate!spool.mu.edu!think.com!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Building Infrastructure In article <1991May20.054325.2296@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >>Like the Kelly Act, this approach is intended to create markets. > >Not at all. The Kelly Act was aimed at a _current market_, mail >delivery... References, please. My understanding has always been that there was no particular market for *air* mail before the Kelly Act. Customers just didn't think the faster delivery was worth anything to them. (They revised their opinions once it was actually available and dependable.) -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 22 May 91 03:18:36 GMT From: agate!headcrash.Berkeley.EDU!gwh@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) Subject: Re: Stepping back, asking why? (was Re: Rational next station design...) I think I've opened a can of worms 8-) In any case, I would like to suggest that we split a bit into two threads; a discussion of the justifications for wanting or desiring a manned station (or program, or unmanned for that matter...) and one on my origional topic of carefully and rationally designing a station. I'd still be interested in input on missions for a station. I have an intrinsic distrust of things I do totally on my own... 8-) -george william herbert gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: 22 May 91 04:34:46 GMT From: usc!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@apple.com Subject: Re: Fred vs. Exploration: head-to-head competition In article <1991May20.224010.4410@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> ddc@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Douglas Creel) writes: >As far as manned space drawing funds away from "space science" projects, >there certainly was no shortage of unmanned missions to the planets >during the sixties and early seventies, and that was during the height >of the Apollo Program. Let's take a look at the actual facts: * From the time Sputnik, the unmanned satellite, motivated our country into action and radically increased space funding, until 1966 unmanned lunar and planetary exploration drew about $900 million (in $1985) per year. * From 1966 until 1971, the Apollo program dominated funding, and funding for automated exploration dropped to $400 million per year. * During 1971-1975, Apollo flights were cut short, and planetary exploration funding staged a renaissance, to a peak of $900 million in 1975. * During 1975-1985, the Shuttle grabbed an increasing share of the funds, and planetary exploration dropped to a low of $200 million in 1984. * Planetary exploration has since barely risen since, to about $300 million per year (remember these are all $1985 figures) since the Shuttle still dominates costs. Reference: _Breaking the Bonds of Earth_, Lewis & Lewis, Columbia University Press 1987. At each point during history -- the Shuttle being the most dramatic example, but not the only one -- funds for astronaut projects came directly at the expense of funds for planetary exploration. When astronauts projects have been cut back, space exploration has gained a large increase in funding. The most probable scenario, if Fred stays cut, is for exploration to undergo a renassaince in funding, and for the NASA budget as a whole to be reinvogorated now that it has gotten rid of a project almost universally considered wasteful. Unless NASA's leaders scotch the trend, we could see _hundreds_ -- 100's -- of new exploration projects being undertaken in the late 1990's. Do the arithmetic: $120,000,000,000/100 = $1.2 billion for each of 100 projects. In fact, it is better to undertake more than 100 projects for less than $1.2 billion apeice. More efficient are worthwhile projects include Goddard's SMEX program extended into deep space, a new generation of small telescope satellites (eg an infrared telescope dedicated to asteroid and comet search), an infrared telescope put into a meteor-shower orbit to study the mass distribution and makeup of comets and their fragments, several Lunar and Mars orbiters, ground telescope construction and operation, analysis of asteroid samples fallen to Earth, and a host of other projects. Two myths promulgated by the astronaut fans have come crashing down: (a) that astronauts motivate funding -- this has never been true, and (b) that NASA can afford to spend money even on wasteful projects. Both notions have proven to be political suicide. Now the astronaut fans are trying to make up a new myth -- "Fred money is going to HUD". But these myths wear thin after awhile; it is quite obvious that the Committee funded space science, NSF and EPA, not HUD, out of this year's Fred money. BTW, if we are going to fight HUD, proposing to spend money that can buy 2 million houses to instead buy just one house is, politically as well as logically, the worst possible way to win that fight. All in all, the astronaut fans have made up their own little world where scientists are mere pests, the people who fund their programs are "bean counters", the only alternative to their astronauts is HUD, and they have a God-given right to the largest piece of NASA's pie. They forgot that scientists provide the knowledge, politicians provide the money, people still need to live on _this_ planet for a little while yet, and most voters have more important things to worry about than the adventures of a few astronauts. The chickens are coming home to roost. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably knew it already. The more bewildered you are, the more successful the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer ------------------------------ Date: 22 May 91 04:01:51 GMT From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) Subject: Re: Gravity vs. Mass In article <1991May21.152315.4581@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov writes: >Question: assume the ends of the hole are open to the atmosphere. >What's the pressure function of the air in the hole? > Is the tunnel isothermal? Or does its temperature vary as the core/mantel temperature around it? Also, is the tunnel wide enough to allow convective cells (applies only if the gas is not isothermal) or is the gas stratified? Frank Crary UC Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: 22 May 91 04:37:42 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Subject: Re: Rational next station design process In article <1991May21.015856.3921@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) writes: >If you don't feel that such needs are a priority item, feel free to say so, >but don't criticize an approach to designing a station on those grounds. It is precisely the approach that is wrong. I could point out thousands of needs _not_ met by a space station, and demonstrate the opportunity costs. I could show how the needs you are trying to meet can be better met by other methods. But if we don't consider alternative concepts, our only recourse would be to redefine the needs, as space planners have redefined the space station customers from defense (1960's) to earth observation (1970's) to microgravity research (1980's) to "life sciences" (the study of a too small sample size of unrepresentative humans in an unrepresentative space environment). We could argue about these until we were blue in the face. But until we consider the alternatives to a station, and all the major needs of space users and their relative importance, the notion that a space station is a desirable or useful part of a space infrastructure is a non-sequitur. It is merely the classic Solution in Search of a Problem. The whole approach -- and any infrastructure that may result from it -- is, like Fred itself, bankrupt. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably knew it already. The more bewildered you are, the more successful the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer ------------------------------ Date: 22 May 91 15:31:09 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!markh@ucsd.edu (Mark William Hopkins) Subject: Re: Gravity vs. Mass In article <1991May21.213223.22431@comp.vuw.ac.nz> bankst@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (Timothy Banks) writes: >re: Discussion of Gravity at the Centre of the Earth. > >Now for a fun bit: Consider a frictionless straight tunnel right through >the Earth. and not necessarily through the centre. How long to get to the >other side? Without going through any of the calculations, if you assume the Earth is basically uniformly distributed (it's not ;)) then for very fundamental reasons, your motion through the tunnel must be an exact projection along the axis of the tunnel of the corresponding motion *around* the planet in a circular orbit (if it were possible to orbit at zero altitude). ------------------------------ Date: 22 May 91 18:41:46 GMT From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a684@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Nick Janow) Subject: Re: Rational next station design process gwh@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) writes: > No. I'm doing a specific project with a specific set of missions. The life > science/human biology people will use it, as well as a few others 'while > we're there'. I'm sorry, but I can't accept your approach. It sounds like "Let's make a flashy lab facility (for political purposes). I'm sure that once it's built we can find uses for it." That's the approach that led to the space shuttle. :( > The government in its infinite (cough) wisdom already funds similar > missions/needs, so presumably that's where it will come from. It sounds like you're again saying, "This is the way they do things, so it must be okay." > The Executive branch feels it's 'worth' whatever they think it will cost... They are paying for it out of their own pockets, nor will they likely see the final bill in their term of office. This approach is really scary in a deficit situation, since it's a case of, "Oh well, we've already got a deficit; what's a little bit more?" ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 91 02:47:39 GMT From: convex!schumach@uunet.uu.net (Richard A. Schumacher) Subject: Re: Revising a biased history of space science funding krs@dullea.ipac.caltech.edu (Karl Stapelfeldt) writes: >every year. It may be a political reality that Fred doesn't have the >support to be fully funded right now; we'll see what the President >can do. Fred clearly has very little scientific support either. Is the Executive branch meant to be the last refuge for those projects which have continually failed peer review? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #607 *******************