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 ; Sat, 22 Jun 91 01:28:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 01:28:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #676 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 676 Today's Topics: RFD: sci.space.internat-coop Re: What is erythropoetin? Re: Extra Terrestrial Intelligence Scientific programming positions at UC Berkeley - space science One Small Step for a Space Activist (vol 2 no 6) Re: Rational next station design process 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: 31 May 91 04:41:41 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bounce-back@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU Subject: RFD: sci.space.internat-coop I would like to ask that the following news group be formed as to meet the increasing need to debate this subject and to define over all feelings and views on how international(multinational)space activities in the future should be undertaken. The newsgroup I would like to present is as follows: Sci. Space. Internat/coop. This newsgroup would offer an outlet for open debate and exchange of ideas about the future of international space related activities. I feel this is now a very relevent topic which needs to be brought into a world forum such as VMSNEWS. Thank you for any support or comments in this regards. -- Rick R. Dobson Executive Director United Space Federation, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jun 91 00:20:14 GMT From: swrinde!sdd.hp.com!think.com!mintaka!ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@ucsd.edu Subject: Re: What is erythropoetin? [I write about how MacDac and Johnson & Johnson were driven out of space pharmaceutical manufacturing by Amgen, which developed ground-based technique via genetic engineering]. In article <32049@rouge.usl.edu> dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Phil Fraering) writes: >What is erythropoetin? >Is it something to do with treating diabetes? It is used, I believe, in treating anemia (dearth of functional red blood cells). The folks in sci.med may have more info on this. The microgravity processing technique is electrophoresis, whereby the drug is separated from poisonous contaminants via electric charge. In general, this technique works much better in microgravity than on Earth; however if the drug in question can be purified reasonably cheaply (c. < $10/gram of raw material) with even large bulky equipment on Earth, it is not economical to do it on small equipment in space. Many drugs (in undiluted form) cost over $100/gram, and if the raw material is at least 10% pure, and the contaminants cannot be extracted on Earth for < $100/gram of product, we have a winner. Erythropoetin was seen as a clear winner, given subsidized Shuttle slots for R&D and the Fairchild Leasecraft for operations. But Amgen came along and blew that one away. No other clear winner has been identified, but our microgravity experience with pharmaceutical electrophoresis is fairly limited. Any info on more recent electrophoresis work and study is solicited. The Fairchild Leasecraft, in turn, was a 1982 proposal for an automated space factory costing c. $200 million that was scuttled in the mid-80's for lack of NASA or commercial interest. It is still, IMHO, superior to the current Space Industries factory design, though the latter borrows much from the Leasecraft design. -- 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: 31 May 91 17:02:52 GMT From: agate!spool.mu.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!uafhp!bmccormi@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Brian McCormick) Subject: Re: Extra Terrestrial Intelligence > I think the conclusions stated here are ridiculous. If a civilization > were capable of "creating" black holes (However unlikely) it would not likely > have all its beans in the same basket. In other words not all of its people > would likely reside in the same solar system or planet. I think it would be > likely that they would not do a great deal of experimenting on their home > planet. If they were advanced enough to destroy them selves quickly and by > accident, they would most probably do research in space. Space offers many > advantages for research, the first of which would be limiting the damage > you could cause. > > Just an Opinion. Don't you think we already have that capability? Just think of the "Land of Confusion" video where Ronnie Reagan pushed the nuke button instead of the nurse button. The end need not be such an obviously ridiculous accident as that though. Even in this day when everyone says the cold war is over, a missile could be accidentally launched from the USSR, and the US could reply with a massive retaliatory strike (you were aware that the US and NATO have a first strike policy weren't you?). It would then matter little whether or not the USSR replied with a similar response. I think I'd call the ability to destroy civilization in a single day "quick", and it is still possible for the scenario above to occur "accidentally", even without extensive space research on other planets ------------------------------ Date: 31 May 91 23:29:10 GMT From: csus.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!agate!root@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (EUVE jobs) Subject: Scientific programming positions at UC Berkeley - space science Map the Unseen Universe The Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer (EUVE) Project is looking for talented and enthusiastic professionals to join our team in exploring and documenting stars and galaxies as they have never been seen before. EUVE is a NASA satellite scheduled for launch in December 1991. Its four telescopes were designed and built at the Space Sciences Laboratory of the University of California, Berkeley. These high-tech instruments will scan the sky in the first-ever study of the extreme ultraviolet, a band of the spectrum that cannot be seen from Earth. Discoveries await us in this previously unexplored region of space. Among the challenges of the EUVE mission is the development of software to interpret the data gathered by the satellite. This software will be used to study the entire sky, creating a map of the locations and intensities of stars and other astronomical sources emitting EUV radiation, and to convert photon events into meaningful data for in-depth scientific study. The following positions are available: STAFF POSITIONS All jobs require a background in Astronomy, Physics, Math, Computer Science, or a related field. In addition, applicants must be familiar with the UNIX operating system and have experience with C and/or FORTRAN. SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMMER Box # 05-212-217-22 Q Work with a team of programmers and scientists to develop novel algorithms and software to analyze the imaging data from the EUVE all-sky survey. Both production programs, which must operate autonomously in a real-time pipeline, and interactive programs are included in the scope of this project. This experienced programmer will work on original methods for finding new astronomical objects amid the noise of geophysical and astronomical background, construction and display of false- color sky maps, measurement of positions and intensities of stars using complex point spread functions, quantifying the time variability of sources, and detection of diffuse EUV emission structures. REQUIRED: Demonstrated scientific programming ability in C. SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMMER Box # 12-213-214-22 Q Work closely with a small team of scientists to design portable software for the project's Guest Observer Program. Responsible for collaborating with scientists to implement innovative algorithms for image processing of event-oriented data. This position requires a programmer who can work independently to develop software to analyze spectrometer data; perform image processing to calibrate observations; and develop user interfaces that allow scientists to select observational data. Assist with theoretical modeling to solve complex tasks of scientific data analysis. REQUIRED: Demonstrated scientific programming ability, preferably in C. DESIRABLE: Familiarity with IRAF. **************************************************************** All jobs are located at the Center for EUV Astrophysics on the UC Berkeley campus. To apply, send a resume and three references to the UC Employment Office, 2539 Channing Way, Berkeley, CA 94720. Cite the box number given for the position. You may also send copies of resumes and cover letters by email to euvejobs@ssl.berkeley.edu. However, official applications MUST go through the UC Employment Office at the address given above. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jun 91 20:31:40 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!ox.com!hela!aws@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: One Small Step for a Space Activist (vol 2 no 6) One Small Step for a Space Activist... by Allen Sherzer & Tim Kyger At ISDC this year the cancelation of Space Station Freedom was the big issue. By and large people thought that Freedom should be fought for, and funding restored. In a rare show of unaniminity both the Board of Directors and the Chapters Assembly of NSS passed resolutions supporting funding (this despite the fact that almost nobody [including the authors] likes Freedom very much). Why did people who generally think that Freedom it too expensive or won't work decide to support funding? The single biggest reason was the perception that the cancelation vote was a vote against manned space and not one that was made for technical or even financial reasons. Many attendees felt that if Freedom wasn't funded then there wouldn't be any space station for a long time. On the other hand, if the money could be restored (so the arguement goes) then it would be available in the future. This argument has some merit; if the funding for Freedom goes to social and environmental programs (where most of it has gone) it makes the 'space pie' smaller. If the money stays, then it can go to Freedom or be diverted to other useful space projects. Despite the merit of the argument it is still pretty painful to be forced into the position of defending Freedom. The current redesign is a lot more likely to work but is still far too expensive. Still, there are other factors to consider. This vote is directed against manned exploration. Congress must see that there is a constituency for putting humans in space. If they see no large opposition to this vote they will conclude that nobody cares about humans in space and will vote accordingly on future issues. For example, the Synthesis Group is about to propose some excellent projects but if Congress doesn't see support for human exploration they will never get funding. We must take steps to insure that we aren't placed in this difficult position again. We must agitate for a more cost effective program. William Lenoir, in charge of Freedom, should resign due to its history of mismanagement. Richard Truly should also resign to pave the way for a leader with more vision. Since microgravity is now second fiddle to life science we must push for commercially, funded man-tended free flyers. We should also push for commercial partners for Freedom; let the private sector add the expansion modules (Boeing has already offered to add commercial modules). Legislative Roundup Plymouth ABC finally showed the Plymouth pilot about the first lunar colony. Despite this it is too late for a series according to the Plymouth publist. The show got a 16% share and was third the time slot (after CBS and Fox). Still, it would be a good idea to write to your local ABC affiliate, the ABC programming department, and the show sponsors and express your opinion. It wold help to show that there is a market out there for this sort of show. A show like Plymouth would go a long way to communicate to the general public our goal of a spacefaring civilization. Major sponsors included: Burger King, Penneys, Pizza Hut, US Air, American Express, AT&T, Exxon, and Heinz. Many of these companies will have 800 public comment lines. Call them. Synthesis Group Release of the Synthesis report has been delayed due to the Freedom situation but details are leaking out. The report will not be a list of hardware to build, but a list of goals and requirements covering the next 20 years. We will tell you how to get a copy for yourself as soon as it comes out. The report is expected to say that we can have a significant lunar base and associated infrastructure for less than the cost of Freedom. It will also propose several projects with real chance of being economically viable over the long term. For example, the report is expected to place heavy emphasis on Solar Power Satellites (SPS). SPS would have several political advantages for Bush since it provides non-polluting power and Bush wants to be the 'Environmental President'. Things to do: 1. Prepare a presentation on SPS and deliver it to your local environmental groups. If we can sell them on the concept it will be much easier to get funding. Spaceport Financing Act The Financing act was recently evaluated by the Joint Committee on Taxation. They said that making spaceport financing bonds tax free will cost the feds $10M over five years. This low number is good since under the budget agreement a $10M cut in spending must be found to offset the effects of the bill. A larger number may well have killed the bill. Rep. Rostenkowski will be holding hearings on international competativeness at the end of June and in early July. An attempt may be made to get the Spaceport Financing Act considered in these hearings. Things to do: 1. Write or call Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) and ask him to include the Spaceport Financing Act in his International Competitiveness hearings. Mr. Rostenkowski's address is given below (remember, only ask for one thing in your letter). Omnibus Space Commercialization Act Comments on the draft bill are being examined at this writing (May 28). Expect to see the bill introduced in early June. Hearings are expected on both the Republican and Democratic versions of the bill in the middle of June. The bill should see quick passage out of the Space Subcommittee and then the full Science Committee. The bill will then be referred to the Ways and Means Committee because of its tax provisions. It will be MUCH harder to see movement there. Now is the time to start pushing for hearings at Ways and Means. Things to do: 1. Write or call Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) and ask for hearings on this bill. Mr. Rostenkowski's address is: 2111 RHOB tel: (202) 225-4061 fax: 225-6064 Washington DC 20515 Tidbits Sources say that NASA and DoD will begin a push for building NLDP in '93. To get funds they WILL recommend halting NASP and SSX/SSTO. This will be a disaster if it happens... Allen Sherzer: (313) 769-4108 (W) (313) 973-0941 (H) aws@iti.org (net) Tim Kyger: (202) 225-2415 (W) (703) 548-1664 (H) kyger@grebyn.com (net) -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. | | aws@iti.org | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 91 03:33:46 GMT From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a684@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Nick Janow) Subject: Re: Rational next station design process fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: > I admit, and did admit in my origional posting, that my system is less > "generally useful." You are correct. It WILL miss other possibilities. > However, if we study ALL the possibilities, we will be doing a decade of > paper studies before we actually DO anything. I didn't say that ALL possibilities must be studied in great detail. What I was arguing against is the elimination of other factors and possibilities. If you limit your view to building a space station, you are denying any other possibilities for a space program. That's basically saying, "I don't care what effect it has on the future of space development, I want a space station now." That's the thinking that led to the Apollo program and the space shuttle. What sort of launch capability could have been developed by now with the money that was spent on the space shuttle? > My idea will, at least, assure a positive "scientific/technological value" > (e.g. will be in the black.) Yes, that's possible, though I doubt that you'll get complete agreement on the value of the research, no matter what it its. The problem is that one project cannot properly be considered in isolation. If you put resources into one avenue of space development, you have less to put into another. You also affect the direction of other work. Here's an example: you have $100 billion to spend over five years and have two choices (your limited study approach). You can develop a small space station or you can develop unmanned technology (robotics, AI, teleoperation). If you go with the R&D, you can use that technology later to build a manned station for much lower cost (or a much larger station for the same cost). That technology will also be very useful in many of the services a manned station would provide (materials processing, biological research, etc). It would also have useful application here on Earth (bedpan-handling robots to relieve the burden on nurses, seafloor exploration, remote sensing, firefighting robots, etc). I'll let you--or anyone else--present the benefits of the manned space station. Now, if you go with one of the choices, you can't properly pursue the other; that's the way things work. :( The government will use one project as an excuse to limit funding for other projects. There are only a limited number of really good people, and they can't work on both projects at once. The support industries will develop products for one of the projects. For example, they'll optimize their gizmos for human servicing, rather than automated servicing. Once they've done that, it will be hard to get them to change. It will also limit the market potential for an automated space service robot, since there will be competition (possibly subsidized like the space shuttle) and the equipment needed to handle optimized-for-human hardware will be more expensive and complex than necessary. Pushing blindly forward for a manned space station now may be progress of a sort, but be careful that you're not actually heading down a blind alley. :( ps. I've offered the benefits of pursuing R&D into automation technology. I'd like to see a similar argument for pursuing manned space technology. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #676 *******************