Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 05:10:00 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #032 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sun, 10 Jan 93 Volume 16 : Issue 032 Today's Topics: Cheap Mars Rocks (was Re: Moon Dust For Sale) future space travel question on privately funded space colonization SEI Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Jan 93 04:50:51 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Cheap Mars Rocks (was Re: Moon Dust For Sale) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 11 Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In article <1993Jan8.200623.18874@cc.uow.edu.au> gkm@cc.uow.edu.au (Glen K Moore) writes: >>... I think I'll wait until a *large* lunar meteorite drops down >>somwhere... > >Why not go out and buy a tektite? Even cheaper! Because tektites probably aren't of lunar origin. That was a pre-Apollo theory. -- "God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 93 07:30:07 GMT From: Nick Janow Subject: future space travel Newsgroups: sci.space rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (rabjab) writes: > If they don't find water on the moon, I have a hard time believing that > there will ever be large colonies there. Why not? there's plenty of water only a small delta-v away (asteroids, Mars' moons, etc). > Mars will be the only real place for a large colony, but then again, if > there isn't anything there that's very interesting (like life or fossils) I > can't see large colonies being placed up there. Who needs a gravity well (otherwise known as planet)? The entire solar system could be colonized. All you really need is raw materials and energy, and those exist in convenient packages out in the solar system. Do you have to have a planet under you just because your parents did? Let your imagination roam... :) -- Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 93 05:34:23 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: question on privately funded space colonization Newsgroups: sci.space In article roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes: >...Your complaint is that US citizens can't circumvent US safety >regulations by going overseas. I don't see why they can't launch and also >conform to the safety regulations. John, are you under the impression that safety is the only reason why the US government can refuse permission for a launch? Would that it were so. If you want to fly a plane, that's more or less true. But if you want to launch a rocket, they can refuse permission because it is "not in the national interest", they don't have to explain, and there is no appeal. For example, for some years it was government policy that any private remote-sensing satellite with ground resolution better than 30m would be denied launch permission. One of the more interesting provisions of the late, lamented Commercial Space Incentive Act was a clause exempting launches carried out under it from DOT regulation *except* for safety. >... And consider human rights issues - suppose >US citizens set up a colony on the moon, and decide to revive the >institution of slavery - would you say the US would have no legitimate >interest in the matter? Suppose we stack the deck the other way. US citizens set up a lunar colony. The US then gets involved in a nasty little war in a country named, say, Nam Viet, and reinstates the draft. Some of the residents of the lunar colony are draft-age, and they are ordered to report to an induction center. They refuse, noting that slavery was abolished in the US over a century ago, and that the constitutional amendment which did it made no exception for the US Army. The colony's government backs them, noting that the Neocommunist revolutionary movement in Nam Viet presents no threat to the colony. Does the US have a legitimate interest in *this* matter? The war gets worse. Some of the colony residents were formerly members of the Neocommunist party. The US government decides that having such people on the Moon is a security risk, and orders them returned to Earth. The colony government refuses. Does the US have a legitimate interest in *this* matter? The war becomes increasingly brutal. A visiting US astronaut, who happens to be a USAF officer, declares his opposition to the tactics being used (on the grounds that they are illegal) and requests political asylum in the colony. The colony grants it. The US demands his return for trial. Does the US have a legitimate interest in *this* matter? (Note, regarding John's comments about "governments that ignore international laws and agreements", that the colony is doing just that! The Outer Space Treaty requires return of astronauts, and makes no provision for political asylum.) -- "God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 00:48:17 EST From: John Roberts Subject: SEI -From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) -Subject: Re: SEI -Date: 7 Jan 93 09:41:19 GMT -roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes: ->...SEI didn't sell, largely because of the projected ->horrendous cost (~$400 billion, if I recall correctly). [liability ->to any mission related to SEI, "camel's nose under tent" effect] -SEI was the ultimate manifestation of the old NASA/Von Braun style -of space development, sold honestly. We're going to tell you today -just how we're going to develop space, out into the middle of the next -century. We've got all the Next Logical Steps planned out, just so. -Of course there won't be any technological advance before 2030 that -would make our plans obsolete. Of course we won't discover anything on -the asteroids that would make them better targets than the Moon -or Mars, or on the comets, or on Jupiter, or anywhere else in -space; obviously the Moon and Mars are the Next Logical Steps -and that's that. Obviously the commercial and military satellites -are just trivial child's play against our inspiring and ambitious -Plan. Obviously Man In Space is central, and robot probes will play -only a peripheral role, and no technoligical advance can change that. -This is a Long Term Plan, so don't expect any sort of applications -or payback, except of course there will be Spinoffs. That was very well argued - clearly, there are problems with promoting such a technology-dependent program in such an inflexible manner, and in failing to more clearly define intermediate benefits and the value of corollary activities (such as unmanned space exploration and resource exploitation). Any idea where SEI as a political entity originated? I get the impression that it came from outside the top NASA administration of the time. There's another interesting point - many people who post to sci.space on the topic of space policy say that the main need is for a single coherent plan that covers all space activity. But SEI shows the pitfalls of such an approach. I'm inclined to believe there should be several approaches, which are fairly non-overlapping in their scope, but which cooperate with one another. Such an approach might provide greater flexibility to deal with new developments. Care must still be taken to balance long-term goals and near-term plans - part of current activity should be directed toward immediate interests, and part should be preparation for future activities. The latter should not be so solid that they can't be readily changed as new information and technology is acquired. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 93 05:57:56 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993Jan06.171601.10077@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes: > A) Alan will fight for Freedom and favor it over renting space > on Mir, yet Freedom has yet to be launched. Mir Exists. Hmmm... I don't think anybody has ever accused me of fighting for Freedom. Now I do think we should build ISF and other smaller, cheaper facilities. Some crewed and others not. In the meantime I do indeed support flying experiments on Mir. I do this so that we can execute more experiments in a cost effective manner. That way we can develop the materials and processes wich will make space pay off and free space development from the whims of Government. > B) Alan will fight to shut down the 4 Shuttles, a multibillion > dollar program ) and replace them with a > Soyuz sitting on a U.S. booster. Which hasn't been launched, but > with a few hand-waving tricks, manages to respark the whole > U.S. aerospace industry. Lower cost attracts more demand. Compare the number of four function calculators sold in 72 for $150 with the number sold today for $1.95. Yes I think that lowering costs will respark the industry. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------105 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 032 ------------------------------