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, 29 Jun 91 04:50:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8cP4amm00WBwI1W05M@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 04:49:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #744 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 744 Today's Topics: Stafford Commission Report Re: future astro funding Re: Where's Ron Baalke? Radio frequencies Mission to Planet Earth MAJOR GEOMAGNETIC STORM UPDATE - ALERT AND WARNING CANCELLATIONS NASA Prediction Bulletins: Space Shuttle Japanese Space Development Direction The economics of flooding a market 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: 13 Jun 91 16:39:27 GMT From: mintaka!ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@bloom-beacon.mit.edu Subject: Stafford Commission Report In article <3428@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: >This came in this morning, reprinted without comment: > >Los Angeles Times There were a few items the article missed or skipped over lightly: * The panel was dominated by Apollo-era astronauts and engineers. * The panel made the the first recommendation in any major space commission report that the earth-crossing asteroids could also be a good target for astronaut and automated exploration. The Plan does change, even if much more slowly than the real world. I'll take good news wherever it comes from. * The group recommended revival of Saturn/Apollo technology, as has been discussed in this newsgroup. Aside from some details (nuclear power, asteroids) these guys are still living in the 60's, I'm afraid. Geezers rocking back and forth on the patio, reminiscing about the good ol' days, when rockets were big, budgets were bigger, and astronauts had the Right Stuff. Thanks for the memories, gramps. :-) >The 180-page report, calling for a return to the moon by the year >2005, aroused considerable excitement among space buffs but deep >concerns among critics who are worried about the huge cost, put at >$500 billion or more by some analysts. Any real space buff is also worried about the costs. >"It's no accident there are no dollars attached to it," said John E. >Pike, associate director for space policy at the Federation of >American sientists. "People would have sticker shock at the price." >.... >"The report is very long on how from the engineering standpoint. But >it doesn't make a very persuasive case on why we should be doing it," >Pike added. "Engineer's dreams". More solutions in search of problems, which the central planners will be trying to shove down our throats during the next few decades. Sigh.... I reccomend yesterday's Wall Street Journal and this week's Aviation Week & Space Technology for more complete coverage of the report. -- 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: 14 Jun 91 05:36:36 GMT From: ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: future astro funding In article <1991Jun14.013850.24505@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> nelson@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Robert W. Nelson) writes: >...The astro/space community is a tiny >constituency compared with these big contractors and (as demonstrated >in last thursday's vote in the House) no amount of letter writing by >the ~ 4000 members of AAS will change this. If the contractors were in touch with the scientists, and actively promoting science, the AAS and the contractors could be working on the same things. As has been sadly demonstrated in recent weeks, the contractor community is largely ignorant of science, if not downright anti-science. NASA has been increasingly oriented towards defense-related prestige, and its leadership dominated by defense managers and astronauts, despite the fact that defense-related prestige is far less politically important now than it was in the 60's. Both parties lose. Humankind loses. The contractors aren't going to be getting bigger chunks as they continue on with large, nebulous bureaucratic initiatives. Most defense contractors will be finding jobs in private industry. In the short term, this is very healthy for commerce, including start-up space industries like Iridium, SkyPix, and OrbComm, as they get to pick the cream of a large talent pool. In the long run, these developments of new technologies for self- sustaining space industries will greatly enhance the capability of space science, and the revitalization of U.S. industry in general will help the national budget picture. This is provides little consolation for the possible drastic cutbacks facing AAS at the moment. >... >(3) NASA funding will not increase significantly beyond inflation. Most likely. There is no "space race" when the Soviets come begging to us for foreign aid. There is a Trade Race, towards more efficient industries in space and on Earth, but with few exceptions the NASA crowd, and I am afraid even the science crowd, is oblivious of this, much less having an idea what to do about it. Some space fans are so caught up in their "look at all the money spent on pizza" arguments they have forgotten about waste in our own backyard. A NASA budget half today's size could support a much improved program, if we did it right. But hey, if they can waste money on pizza we can waste money on Fred and EOS and Hubble and all sorts of other Big Stuff right? Yea, right. Sooner or later, the space community is going to learn how to work efficiently, like the satellite communications people have been doing all along. I'm afraid it may take a heck of a shaking up to do that, though. >With two giant programs coming on line in NASA, and without significant >increases in the total NASA budget, it seems to me that all other >"nonessential" programs within NASA, including Space Science and >Applications, will have to take deep cuts. I don't see any other >way around this. If you see a hole in my reasoning I'd like to know. The only hole is the continuing myth about the political viability of Fred. It's already becoming a symbol of American mediocrity, not leadership, and Congress will soon become aware of that, even if it escaped them in this latest debate. I think you're right that EOS will start to dominate the funding due to the perceived importance of environmental threats. Not even both EOS and Fred can survive with the Shuttle, and the astronauts unless they are entirely stupid will want to scrap Fred before scrapping the Shuttle, so Charles Radley's oh-so-important CAD drawings are going to hit the bit bucket. This may not happen until Richard "there aren't very many ways to get into space" Truly is ousted as NASA administrator, but we will never see the Fred budget climb above $2 billion a year, either, so it will never be launched. It will be refreshing to see an automated program make the astronauts eat humble pie, but nothing to cheer about when another monster takes Fred's place, and space science suffers. Unless astronomy can cut a deal with the contractors, it's back to privately funded astronomy. As the Keck telescope demonstrates, this wouldn't be a total disaster, but it isn't a pleasant thought, either. -- 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: 14 Jun 91 06:13:36 GMT From: leech@apple.com (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Where's Ron Baalke? In article jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes: >It is true that JPL had a right to get Ron Baalke to stop posting, >but it may also be true that the Freedom of Information Act >can be used to get the posting resumed - by someone. >Anyone favor trying? This seems to be getting out of hand. Ron and Peter Yee should be back from vacation soon, so we can get the story directly. Assuming Ron has indeed been prevented from reposting NASA reports in the future, we could try and avoid legal controversy in favor of making our wishes known to people who can do something about them. Last December, Greg Roberts posted to sci.space indicating that he was in contact with Charles Redmond, Chief of Internal Communications at NASA, about setting up a system to send unfiltered NASAMail material to the net. I don't know what's become of Greg or what he learned, but contacting Redmond (or whomever is in that position now) is probably a good place to start. I'm willing to pursue this if the problem doesn't just go away when Ron returns. -- Jon Leech (leech@apple.com) __@/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 05:20 EDT From: Mike Bishop <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:SNOMCB@MVS.SAS.COM> Subject: Radio frequencies 00010000 This has been asked before I'm sure, but pardon if I ask 00011004 again. Can anyone tell me the short wave frequencies for 00012004 listing the shuttle flights? Many thanks in advance. 00013004 00014004 00020003 00030000 00040000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 00050001 | Mike Bishop 00060003 | "I didn't do it, nobody saw me 00070003 | SAS Institute Inc. do it, you can't prove anything!" 00080004 | Cary, NC - Bart Simpson 00090004 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 00110001 00120001 ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 91 13:45:55 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!cam-cl!news@uunet.uu.net (John Bradshaw) Subject: Mission to Planet Earth I am looking for info on NASA's Mission to Planet Earth. Major aims and objectives etc. What are the important publications which describe the work done and that planned? Where is the mission being coordinated from? By who? For what? Thanks in advance (I will post a summary of any replies to the net) John Bradshaw ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 12:13:51 MDT From: oler <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:oler@HG.ULeth.CA> (CARY OLER) Subject: MAJOR GEOMAGNETIC STORM UPDATE - ALERT AND WARNING CANCELLATIONS X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ GEOMAGNETIC STORM UPDATE ALERT CANCELLATION /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 18:00 UT, 14 June ------------- STORM UPDATE INFORMATION: Geomagnetic activity subsided after 03:00 UT on 14 June to generally unsettled conditions. Unfortunately, for North American aurora observers, this meant conditions would not be favorable for auroral observations. The last disturbance did not have the energy to persist until after dark. Auroral activity was significantly less active and was generally only observed over the high latitudes in a diffuse post-storm form. We are not expecting any further terrestrial impacts from recent major flares. Yesterdays major class M7.3/2N and M5.4/1F flares are not expected to have a terrestrial impact. The storm periods have ended. A summary of this weeks events will be presented in next weeks STFR report, which has been postponed due to the high uncertainties which existed for terrestrial activity this week. The ionosphere has been weakened due to the recent storm activity and will require several days to recover. Conditions should be back to near-normal by 17 June. The satellite proton event and the polar cap absorption event have ended. Proton levels are continuing to decay and are presently at approximately 5 pfu at greater than 10 MeV. Solar Region 6659 continues to exhibit a fairly potent configuration and could still yield some isolated major flares, although the risk for major flaring and possible proton flaring is diminishing as it nears the western limb. This region is no longer in a sensitive location for producing high terrestrial impacts. The other regions visible on the solar surface are not capable of producing major flare activity. The following alerts and/or warnings have been CANCELLED: - LOW LATITUDE AURORAL ACTIVITY WARNING - POTENTIAL GEOMAGNETIC STORM WARNING - MAJOR GEOMAGNETIC STORM ALERT - SATELLITE PROTON EVENT ALERT - POLAR CAP ABSORPTION EVENT ALERT The following warnings remain IN PROGRESS: - POTENTIAL MAJOR SOLAR FLARE WARNING (PROTON ~ 25%) - POTENTIAL SATELLITE PROTON EVENT WARNING - POTENTIAL POLAR CAP ABSORPTION EVENT WARNING /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jun 91 18:33:09 GMT From: udecc.engr.udayton.edu!blackbird.afit.af.mil!tkelso@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (TS Kelso) Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins: Space Shuttle The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times weekly. Documentation and tracking software are also available on this system. As a service to the satellite user community, the most current elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below. The Celestial BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. STS 40 1 21399U 91 40 A 91163.12508770 .01258176 00000-0 24450-2 0 233 2 21399 39.0061 289.6558 0008945 60.8652 299.6354 15.96805156 1040 -- Dr TS Kelso Assistant Professor of Space Operations tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil Air Force Institute of Technology ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jun 91 00:24:29 GMT From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a684@uunet.uu.net (Nick Janow) Subject: Japanese Space Development Direction No, I don't mean "up". :-) In IEEE Spectrum, Dec 90, there's an article about robotics. Here's one quote that seems pertinent to the present discussion: "Looking far into the future, the Japanese feel that automation in space will be a huge enterprise. Thus they show a willingness to invest in long-term space robotics to develop a vast technological base from terrestrial work." I think the Japanese direction is determined by economic and political foresight, while the US direction appears (at least to me) to be myopic and determined by conflicting political self-interests. -- Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jun 91 22:36:48 GMT From: ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@uunet.uu.net Subject: The economics of flooding a market In article <1991Jun14.183424.654@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> G E Derylo writes: [mining platinum at greatly increased volume and reduced per-unit costs: what revenues can be expected?] > I'm no economist, but wouldn't the introduction of that much gold and >platinum into the market *drastically* decrease its value, making this a >questionable financial venture? It would decrease the price per unit, but not necessarily the overall revenues. Several things to consider: * While there remains only one platinum-group venture at the reduced per unit costs, the company can sell as much or little metal as it likes, keeping the price at or near previous supply market prices. This is why, in previous centuries, companies were given temporary monopolies, called "patents", when undertaking new ventures of colonization. A patent reduces the risk of competitors with the same cost-reducing capability, increasing the incentive for investment in such a venture. Note that the modern notion of patents being temporary monopolies for inventions was derived from the older, broader patent system used for colonization. * Over the long term, volume of a commodity usually (but not always) increases faster than its price decreases. For example, there are greater revenues from corn, wheat, iron, oil etc. in our economy today even though the per unit prices of these are lower than in previous centuries. For platinum, this will probably also be true, since it is widely used in oil refining, environmental cleanup technology, and other important industrial applications. A drop in price could increase demand by a much larger factor. * But nobody knows for sure until they try it. :-) When planning this venture (platinum-group mining at very high volume and very low per unit cost), a reasonable, but by no means certain, assumption is that the company can eventually generate annual revenue equal to the current annual revenues for platinum production, $3.4 billion. A more detailed market analysis would include data on the cost of production at all current major mines. Studies determine new uses for platinum-group metals at $200/oz., $100/oz., $50/oz., etc. would also be valuable. There are probably more accurate models of market penetration out there, which I'm eager to hear about. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter... These views are my own, and do not represent any organization. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #744 *******************