Message-ID: <8cJCrgO00WBn8efk4z@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 11:36:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #628

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 628

Today's Topics:
       Beta Testers Sought for Space Flight Simulation Software
		  Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
		     Re: LIGO (was Re: IT'S OVER)
		  Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
	   Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated
		       Re: Saturn V and the ALS
	   Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated
			    Privatization
		     Re: Building Infrastructure

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 23:41:47 GMT
From: ecsgate!tcamp@mcnc.org  (Ted A. Campbell)
Subject: Beta Testers Sought for Space Flight Simulation Software


Beta Testers Solicited for Space Flight Simulation Software
-----------------------------------------------------------

Bywater Software will soon release source code and PC-compatible
binaries for its Space Flight Simulator, and seeks persons 
interested in beta testing the software. 

The Space Flight Simulator utilizes graphics-based animation
to depict orbital flight. With map data on the earth (and more
limited data on other orbital foci), it can depict in real time 
how the orbital focus appears from the spacecraft, and can
display simultaneously a ground track of the orbit or a "distant
perspective" showing the orbit around the focus. The program
can track up to sixteen orbits or spacecraft simultaneously.

Version 1.00 (beta) is available for testing. Users should
apply to the address below indicating their interest in testing
the software, and stating that they don't intend to distribute
this version. (We anticipate that a version 1.01 will be ready
for full release in a couple of months, and will be available
on a more or less "freeware" basis.) Beta testers, it should be
noted, will need to have ftp access to obtain the program.

PC compatible binaries for the program are available. Implemen-
tations for Unix-based machines are available for the X windows
system, and for the AT&T 3b1/Unix PC. Those interested in
implementing the software on other computers will be able
to work with specification files for the graphics (and mouse),
keyboard, and directory subsystems.

The Space Flight Simulator is based on the Bywater graphical
user interface (ui). Some testers may be interested in working
simply with the user interface, since it promises a fairly
transparent means of developing graphics-based programs for
PC and X based platforms (and the 3b1) simultaneously.

Direct applications to:		tcamp@uncecs.edu

				Ted A. Campbell
				Bywater Software

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

Date: 18 May 91 08:36:22 GMT
From: ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

In article <29297@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>The point of my 
>posting was that if we are reduced to euphemizing rock-hunting expeditions
>to Antarctica as 'manned sample-return missions', then there is something 
>wrong.  

You're right.  There is something very wrong.  The something wrong
is the horde of astronaut groupies who go around demanding $tens of
billions for narrowly focused projects at the expense of a wide 
diversity of exploration that can be provided during this space 
era by hundreds to thousands of automated instruments and telesopes
across the solar system.   The something wrong is a NASA leadership, 
top-heavy with astronauts, that plots towards a $500,000++ million 
manned mission to Mars and the Moon, while barely throwing a few 
million into Mars Observer and nothing at all into the Lunar Observer.  
The something wrong is people who devote their attention to shallow 
heroes instead of the real heroes of space like James Van Allen, 
Ed Danielson, Eleanor Helin, Steve Ostro, and the many others who 
are gathering the knowledge we need to one day settle space.  This 
my way of saying that it is not humans that are expensive, it is misuse 
of humans that is expensive.

At the same time, the sampling of meteors is far less than what
it could be.  Mass spectroscopy is only the tip of the iceberg.

But you are perfectly correct that having to use the "manned"
euphimism is a symptom of something terribly wrong.  With the 
latest Congressional action saving SIRTF and AXAF, I am hopeful 
we are entering an era where tagging on the word "manned" will no 
longer be seen as politically necessary.


>...an excellent project for a series of small probes.
>
>.... an excellent project for a series of small probes.
>
>...an excellent project for [drum roll, please]
>a series of small probes.

Glad we agree on this.  :-)  Now let's start promoting it.
It's a tough road ahead; the sooner we start the better.


>As for expanding our ground-based observations, that, too, is 
>a good idea, but if you want to actually learn hard facts (as opposed to 
>lots of theories) you are going to have to get out there where the 
>asteroids are and study them.

Facts observed remotely (spectroscope, etc.) are just as much
facts as facts observed semi-remotely (lab experiments).  Each have
their own value -- and their own price.  The idea is to get as
much complementary knowledge for the dollar as possible.  I 
agree that on-site analysis is needed, but not at the expense of
the infrared telescopes, visual searches, etc.


-- 
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: 19 May 91 04:11:11 GMT
From: valid!caber!lou@uunet.uu.net  (Louis K. Scheffer)
Subject: Re: LIGO (was Re: IT'S OVER)

rivero@dev8g.mdcbbs.com writes:

>One thought that occured to me is that since there is no natural "resonance"
>to a LIGO arm, that a laser beam 6 million miles long will be no more
>efficient that a laser arm 1 mile long if the gravity waves being detected 
>are only a few meters in length. I throught that a better design would entail
>the laser beams re-intersecting the SAME region of space/time multiple times
>to increase the apprent effect.

This is true, but most things that generate gravity waves strong enough to
detect will generate waves with a period ranging between a few hours to a few
milliseconds.  (Of course, there could be other sources no one has thought of
yet.) A millisecond wave is 300 Km long,
so long arms work better than short ones.  The LIGO observatories do bounce
the light multiple times to increase the apparent effect.  This can be carried
too far, however.  If the total light path is longer than the wavelength, you
start to lose effectiveness as the carefully built up phase shift (built up
during one half cycle) is negated during the other.  On the third hand, however,
if you know the period of the wave you are trying to detect, you can use this
to your advantage.  Say you are trying to detect a 1000 Hz wave.  You bounce
the light 150 Km worth in the east-west arm, then switch it into the north-south
arm for 150 Km worth, then back to the east-west arm, etc.  Since one axis is
contracting while the other is expanding, you end up with a monotonically
increasing phase shift.  This dramatically improves the sensitivity at that
one frequency at the cost of hurting all others.

Kip Thorne discusses these and other detector issues, including known likely
sources of waves, in the chapter "Gravitational Radiation" in the book
"300 Years of Gravitation", by Hawking and Israel.

-Lou Scheffer

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

Date: 19 May 91 14:14:57 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!caen!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu!hrubin@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

In article <2943@speedy.mcnc.org>, rlsmith@mcnc.org (Robert L. Smith) writes:
> 
>     I agree with those who in summary claim that nothing of lasting
> human importance will occur in space until private enterprise does it.
> This is true in the main because only a single leader with independent
> resources can hold uncompromisingly to a crisp vision over the long
> run needed to implement it.  But until such a leader arises, one
> commanding vast resources while possessed of supreme charisma and
> fanatic zeal, don't count on private enterprise for more than tokens
> on the fringe.

Unless the leader happens to hit on exactly the right way, this is the
worst way to proceed.  The resources are there, and can be used unless
central organizations prevent it.

There is more to private enterprise than the customary companies.  Most
charitable organizations are private enterprises.  There are a rather
large number of private universities.  There are private space societies.
Except for government restrictions, there is nothing to prevent these
space societies from publicly raising the billions needed for space
activities, AND GOING OUT AND DOING IT.  Without that last right, there
is no point in attempting to raise the billions.

There is also no reason why various groups should not be allowed to 
cooperate.  There are those who believe in unmanned activities, and
those who would give priority to making space the future home for mankind.
There is nothing wrong, and very much right, with allowing both groups to
proceed apace and share their findings and technology.  There is no way of
predicting which group will find the serendipitous pots of gold, and there
are many of them to be found.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)   {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)

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

Date: 19 May 91 18:11:25 GMT
From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated

In article <DLBRES10.91May18220152@pc.usl.edu> dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) writes:

>In article <1991May19.014045.20462@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>>I was not aware that sci.space HAD a moderator. I certainly agree that
>>sci.space would benifit from one (or a more active/visible one). It is
>>worth noting that on sci.military, untill about a month ago, there was
>>apparently no moderator. When one appeared (Actually I think he had beed
>>out of town or something...) the time I spent reading that newsgroup
>>decreased by about 50%, without the quality or level or information
>>really changing.

>Well, I was suggesting that sci.space be moderated; and that in order
>to reduce the workload that the moderator should be changed from time
>to time, just like sci.military, which I believe just changed moderators
>from Bill Thacker to whoever [CDR] is; I haven't read the new one enough
>to know if he's as good as Bill Thacker, but Bill Thacker did a pretty good
>job. I don't know how good, sci.mil is the only moderated newsgroup
>I've read.

Neither of you seems to read sci.military very closely.  The regular
moderator is Bill Thacker and his backup is CDR (Carl Rogers?).  Bill
is on a combination of vacation and business travel for a little over
a month and CDR has the duty.

Sci.military has always been moderated.  The main difference is that
WBT puts his comments at the end of articles and CDR puts his at the
beginning.  CDR is also a little more prone to testy little comments
about the length of included quotes.

I must say that it was in sci.space that I discovered the need for and
learned how to use local kill files.  I'm currently debating about a
global kill file, since I have discovered that the people whose
posting are most objectionable in sci.space are objectionable
everywhere.  (It's also true that the people whose postings are most
interesting in sci.space, like Henry, are interesting everywhere.)
This is not, perhaps, surprising, but seeing their uninformed
political rantings here has alerted me elsewhere, where lower volume
might not have exposed them so quickly.

I'm inclined to leave it like it is.  In general, moderated groups
work best for factual issues and it's obvious that much of sci.space
would not qualify.  I think the group would wither and die.

--
Mary Shafer  shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov  ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
           NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
                     Of course I don't speak for NASA
            "Turn to kill, not to engage."  CDR Willie Driscoll

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

Date: 19 May 91 01:02:22 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <1991May17.201601.17312@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>That figure came from the LLNL Great Exploration Study. Their station
>cost about $1 billion. I doubled it.
>
The costs and schedules in LLNL's Great Exploration are questionable. They
reduce launch costs by having the government offer to pay $250/lb (or
a similar figure) for supplies transported to orbit. They assume that 
the aerospace companies will jump at this, and be launching at very
high rates, using new-and-cheaper launchers within two years. They also
assume "success oriented planning" that is, that everything will work as
planned and on budget, with no money spent on contingencies or any margin
for error. These are EXTREMELY optimistic assumptions.

>It already has the interface to the Shuttle. We could build a docking
>adapter which connects to spacelab using the Shuttle interface. That
>wouldn't cut into lab space at all.
>
I was refering, rather, to the guidance and control systems (no to mention
manuevering rockets and fuel) needed to approch and dock to the station.

>Some are designed to have components replaced. Remember Solar Max?
>
Designing them in this way drives up their mass. In any case, are you assuming
that the only on orbit repairs will be the replacement of failed "black-boxes"
with the new parts shipped up from Earth. (Not a bad assumption, but I had
the impression you meant something more...)

                                 Frank Crary
				 UC Berkeley

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

Date: 20 May 91 04:48:56 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated

In article <SHAFER.91May19111125@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>I'm inclined to leave it like it is.  In general, moderated groups
>work best for factual issues and it's obvious that much of sci.space
>would not qualify.  I think the group would wither and die.
>
You may be right. However, might a sci.space.news, for factual postings
only (e.g. the flare warnings, shuttle and interplanetary probe status
reports, etc.) be a good idea?

					Frank Crary
					UC Berkeley

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

Date: 20 May 91 05:20:46 GMT
From: sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Privatization

In article <12507@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

>....
>There is no way of
>predicting which group will find the serendipitous pots of gold, and there
>are many of them to be found.

Well said.

I might only add that this is the central problem of central planning -- 
if the most popular plan is wrong, or the plan of those who happen to
be in power is wrong, the whole pursuit is a wash.  Right now, the most 
popular space plan -- vintage Colliers' 1953 -- has severe problems.  
Our space program is paying the price.


-- 
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: 20 May 91 15:15:29 GMT
From: mintaka!think.com!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu!hrubin@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Building Infrastructure

In article <1991May20.005240.15933@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, irvine@en.ecn.purdue.edu (/dev/null) writes:
> In article <1991May19.205914.19902@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> > In article <1991May19.055507.25313@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes:
> > 
> > >>No large infrastructure project has ever been done without major
> > >>government involvement.
> > 
> > >Where did the thousands of billions of dollars worth -- over 1,000
> > >times more $$$ than available to NASA -- of oil rigs, oil pipelines, ...
> > >on this planet come from?
> 
> [A bunch of stuff about riding on government built roads, etc]

One of the claims here was about government telephone lines.  Now the
government has regulated the telephone industry, but, except for using
telephone service, none of the domestic telephone activity was in any
way government financed.

In the 19th century, there were privately built roads because the government
did not get there fast enough with enough.

> > I won't go on as I think the point is made. I'm not defending all of
> > these actions and I think many of them are outdated. But I don't think
> > we wold be as well off today without them.
> >
> Unfortunately, you didn't make a point except:  Much of our infrastructure
> is government owned or government generated.  
> 
> This does not support you contention that no major infrastructure project
> wasn't government funded.

I will give a specific example, not very well known, and unfortunately dead.
A single American billionaire attempted to build an ecologically sound, and
eventually to be profitable, enterprise on a part of Brazil, where the Jary
river flows into the Amazon.  This was from scratch, and little, if any, of
Brazilian government resources were used.  Many changes in the plan had to
be made, as things did not work out quite as planned.  But it was interference
by the Brazilian government which did the project in.

So a single billionaire can set up an infrastructure without government 
participation.

Another example is in order, also dead.  A group of libertarians attempted
to build a society on Minerva Reef, at that time unclaimed, in the Pacific.
The reason the project is dead is that the Tongan Navy evicted them, not
the ability to set up an infrastructure.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)   {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #628
*******************