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 ; Wed, 12 Jun 91 03:39:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 03:39:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #632 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 632 Today's Topics: Re: Privatization Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated (questions/answers) Re: lifeboats Re: Privatization Re: Asteroid Hazard Avoidance Re: Babies in Space (was: Terraforming Mars? Why not Venus?) Re: Building Infrastructure Re: Privatization Amputation Self-sustaining infrastructures 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: 24 May 91 15:48:16 GMT From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Subject: Re: Privatization In article <10602@plains.NoDak.edu>, stinnett@plains.NoDak.edu (M.G. Stinnett) writes: >Jerry Pournelle says his group could put 40 people on the moon for one >year for $2 billion. He said he had shown the figures to quite a few >qualified people and no one had been able to shoot them down. > >He also figured a major aerospace contractor could do the job for about >$10 billion, but it would take the government $1 trillion to do it. If it were that cheap, and that worthwhile, the Japanese or the Europeans would have already done it. Just to thumb their collective noses at us. Even the Japanese might have bitten on a $10 billion cost figure. Even Shezer isn't claiming he can put 40 people on the moon for one year for two billion dollars. >His main point was that we already know how to do it. We put men on the >moon 20 years ago when the technological base was much poorer. Today a >Mac IIfx has more computing power than was available to all of NASA in >the late 1960's. So put Pournelle and Shezer in a room, Henry Spencer moderating, and they can fight it out the cost figures :-) Would you believe I respect Shezer's numbers more than Pournelle's? Dr. P. wants to bend new metal and build all sorts of new unflown gizmos, as I seem to recall. Alan is claiming significant savings by "recycling" technology. Bending metal, and (re)-creating infrastructure costs money. Some of the tools are much cheaper, but the bottom line is cold metal, liquid hydrogen and oxygen, and hot thrust to provide lifting power. THAT hasn't changed. Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 91 23:38:08 GMT From: spool.mu.edu!rex!rouge!dlbres10@decwrl.dec.com (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated (questions/answers) In article <2447@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> ray@cluster.cs.su.oz.au (Raymond Lister) writes: \There is a simple non-moderator solution to this problem. Postings requesting /information should end with something like ... \"Do not post the answer. Mail it directly to me. I shall post a summary." /This works reasonably well in other groups. Unfortunately, I doubt that \sci.space has the *collective* intelligence to make it work. /Like most people, I'd love to see sci.space moderated. But, like most people, \I don't want to be the moderator. That would be a solution if we were trying to dispense with the informative posts and keep the group to flaming people. I wasn't complaining about INFORMATION being repeated. -- Phil Fraering || Usenet (?):dlbres10@pc.usl.edu || YellNet: 318/365-5418 ''It hardly mattered now; it was, in fact, a fine and enviable madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is beyond the reach of a strong left arm.`` - Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, _The Mote in God's Eye_ ------------------------------ Date: 25 May 91 00:24:13 GMT From: agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: lifeboats In article <42637@fmsrl7.UUCP> wreck@fmsrl7.UUCP (Ron Carter) writes: \However, these jets won't work for orbital maneuvering for /several reasons. \1.) They are designed to maintain spacecraft attitude / during re-entry. Thus, they can only roll, pitch \ and yaw the spacecraft. /2.) Thrusters to translate the spacecraft in the X, Y \ and (important for docking) Z axes are absent. /3.) The rotational thrusters aren't balanced. (They \ didn't need to be.) A little translational push / from a rotation is of no consequence during re-entry, \ but it is a serious problem when docking. I think I have seen ref. to the CM having translation capabilities. When the thrusters around the top side of the base and the bottom side are taken into account, it should have translation... I think Michael Collins referred to the CM as having 'maneuverability' in _Carrying the Fire_. Anyone know anything more definate? Do I have to look in the CM blueprints? Have those been lost too? -- Phil Fraering || Usenet (?):dlbres10@pc.usl.edu || YellNet: 318/365-5418 ''It hardly mattered now; it was, in fact, a fine and enviable madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is beyond the reach of a strong left arm.`` - Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, _The Mote in God's Eye_ ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 91 08:47:05 GMT From: ogicse!plains!stinnett@decwrl.dec.com (M.G. Stinnett) Subject: Re: Privatization In article <12624@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: >If the government gets out of the way, I see no problem in getting a >non-profit organization set up which can manage the few billion a year >needed for the unmanned activities. I see also no major problem in >getting the more than 100 billion needed to really get going on man >in space on a hopefully permanent basis. But such agencies are going >to need the right to do with their funds what many politicians oppose. Jerry Pournelle says his group could put 40 people on the moon for one year for $2 billion. He said he had shown the figures to quite a few qualified people and no one had been able to shoot them down. He also figured a major aerospace contractor could do the job for about $10 billion, but it would take the government $1 trillion to do it. His main point was that we already know how to do it. We put men on the moon 20 years ago when the technological base was much poorer. Today a Mac IIfx has more computing power than was available to all of NASA in the late 1960's. --M. G. ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 91 15:26:32 GMT From: infonode!hychejw@uunet.uu.net (Jeff W. Hyche) Subject: Re: Asteroid Hazard Avoidance explorer@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (James C Krok) writes: >be on a collision course with the Earth, it would be easier to move the Earth >out of the way with nuclear charges (at the poles?) than to intercept the >asteroid with said charges and deflect it. I believe the article was in Ahem, if I may be so bold ... BullShit! The energy requred to move the Earth out of the way of an asteroid is mind boggling. I won't even begin to calculate it here. It will be much easer, and cheaper to move a smaller mass like and asteroid then a larger one such as a planet. I'm pretty sure if you set off all the nuclear weapon on Earth you wouldn't even begin to effect its orbit. Besides if you did set off that much, what would it do the environment? I think I would rather have the asteroid land, at least you don't have to deal with fallout. -- // Jeff Hyche There can be only one! \\ // Usenet: hychejw@infonode.ingr.com \X/ Freenet: ap255@po.CWRU.Edu ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 91 16:23:16 GMT From: agate!spool.mu.edu!rex!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Babies in Space (was: Terraforming Mars? Why not Venus?) In article <1991May24.140310.1324@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes: >... Have either the USA or >the Soviets done research on animals breeding in orbit? Not yet. The farthest anybody has gone, that I recall, is hatching eggs in orbit. Something that has been on the life-sciences wish list for a *long* time is to take the life cycle for something like mice from conception through to birth, and preferably through at least one more generation, in free fall. It's still on the wish list. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 91 23:58:08 GMT From: wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@decwrl.dec.com (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: Building Infrastructure In article <1991May21.181312.13381@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: \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.) But even today, with the government postal service, the average time of sending a letter is longer from L.A. to S.F. than back in the previous century when it was private. And the leading driver in the current air-mail market hasn't been the government, but specialized delivery by private companies, because it is one of the only areas in which competition with the U.S. government's monopoly is allowed. Although they provide the service of next-day air delivery, it was started by others who had 1. The chance that the government would start subsidized competition against them, and 2. The chance that the government would legislate them out of business, as has happened to private mail carriers in the past. -- Phil Fraering || Usenet (?):dlbres10@pc.usl.edu || YellNet: 318/365-5418 ''It hardly mattered now; it was, in fact, a fine and enviable madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is beyond the reach of a strong left arm.`` - Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, _The Mote in God's Eye_ ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 91 14:14:48 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu!hrubin@ucsd.edu (Herman Rubin) Subject: Re: Privatization In article <10602@plains.NoDak.edu>, stinnett@plains.NoDak.edu (M.G. Stinnett) writes: > In article <12624@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: > >If the government gets out of the way, I see no problem in getting a > >non-profit organization set up which can manage the few billion a year > >needed for the unmanned activities. I see also no major problem in > >getting the more than 100 billion needed to really get going on man > >in space on a hopefully permanent basis. But such agencies are going > >to need the right to do with their funds what many politicians oppose. > Jerry Pournelle says his group could put 40 people on the moon for one > year for $2 billion. He said he had shown the figures to quite a few > qualified people and no one had been able to shoot them down. > He also figured a major aerospace contractor could do the job for about > $10 billion, but it would take the government $1 trillion to do it. > His main point was that we already know how to do it. We put men on the > moon 20 years ago when the technological base was much poorer. Today a > Mac IIfx has more computing power than was available to all of NASA in > the late 1960's. While I appreciate others supporting my position, I doubt that it could be done THAT cheaply, but it is feasible to get a "permanent" manned presence in space NOW if the governments can be kept out of interference. I think that the performance of computers now relative to the old ones is somewhat exaggerated, but it does not matter anyway. It would not be as safe, but the calculations for Apollo could have been done without any computational devices not available a century ago. The major need for computers now is control of the devices on the spacecraft; the calculation of orbital corrections, etc., are relatively straightforward, and these are, of necessity, robust--after all, how accurate is the amount of delta-V produced by a firing of certain rockets for 89 seconds? -- 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: Fri, 24 May 91 08:51:03 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: Amputation Allen Sherzer writes: > But look at the big picture. The House subcommittee zeroed Freedom > so more money could go to HUD. Next year they will want to put more > money into HUD and of course, it will come from NASA. What part of > NASA will they cut then? What will they cut the year after that? Having heard Rep. Green speak on this issue, he will fight like hell to protect space science. I haven't heard as much from Traxler on this issue specifically, but my impression is he will be even more sympathetic to space science than Green. Neither of these guys were ever strong advocates for Fred. Now... who is it you are afraid of? Mikulski? :-) My portable Machiavelli says the political outcome of this is: 1) JSC will be amputated to stop the gangrene and punish the insolence of the southern centers, 2) appropriations will then start being "nice" in small increments over a long period of time in order to maximize political benefit per dollar. The only damage that will be done to JPL et al will be as a result of Galileo, which: 1) is the closest thing to big science JPL has done and therefore should be punished on general principles, 2) was damaged because by insisting on everything flying on Shuttle, JSC ensured Galileo would have to take a trajectory it was never designed for -- one which damaged it, 3) was encouraged to be such a big science project because JSC was making launch opportunities so scarce. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Bowery 619/295-3164 The Coalition for PO Box 1981 Science and La Jolla, CA 92038 Commerce ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 91 19:19:21 GMT From: sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@uunet.uu.net Subject: Self-sustaining infrastructures In article <1991May24.055121.4873@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) writes: > Value is also highly dependent on goal... I'm speaking of "value" primarily in the economic sense: value that provides a feedback of money. In other words, an infrastructure that is capable of providing its _own_ funding instead of hitting up the IRS via Congress for $$$$ every year. Unless space infrastructure is developed towards this goal, it will always remain at the whim of politics, and will tend toward centralized narrow goals like Shuttle and Fred, and one-shot spectaculars like Apollo. These projects consume huge amounts of scarce resources, taking talent, funding, and attention away from the developers of self-sustaining space infrastructure and the pursuit of other kinds of non-monetary value. Industry puts over $100 billion per year into capital spending in the U.S. alone: auto factories, oil wells and refineries, semiconductor fabs, machine tooling, the list of self-sustaining infrastructure development on Earth is very large. An infrastructure that pays for itself will attract some of this capital; an infrastructure aimed primarily at vague, economically unrealistic long-term goals and mis-scaled technology will not. Non-monetary forms of value will always be funded secondarily, since they have to be paid for by $$$$$ taken away from self-sustaining infrastructures. Self-sustaining space infrastructure is based on "exports" from space to customers on Earth. I call these "primary" space industries. By far and away, the two largest primary industries are defense (c. $25 billion/yr in the U.S.) and communications (c. $6 billion/yr worldwide). Exploration for pure science can also benefit Earth, but it ranks a poor third to these two in terms of sustained funding. Of these, only one (communications satellites) is a commercial primary industry. Primary commercial industries are the most important for getting the space age beyond the era of politically motivated, one-shot spectaculars. As long as defense infrastructure supports real, ongoing defense needs this will also be self-sustaining. Secondary industries: launch vehicles, spacecraft buses, etc. exist only to the extent that they enhance and support the primary industries. Space exploration is very important for the long-term development of space infrastructure, but during this era it much of it must still compete for NASA's budget alongside a bevy of diverse political motivations. Space stations don't develop infrastructure, since the totally disregarded the existence and needs of the large amount of currently existing self-sustaining infrastructure. Instead, unrelated pursuits like "life sciences" are blown out of proportion to an astounding degree. A large problem is that the paradigm of self-sustaining infrastructure as it is actually developing -- small automated spacecraft in diverse orbits -- is far different than the low-earth-orbit Collier's plan that NASA and other central-planning types have been trying to pursue. Until infrastructure designers wake up to the real infrastructure that has already developed, and change their design concepts to enhance rather than detract from it, we will continue to see dead-end nonsense like Fred touted as "infrastructure", and it will take us that much longer to wean ourselves from political whim. -- 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 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #632 *******************