HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser)
Subject: Re: NASA budgets....etc
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:18:29 GMT

In article <92289.124055WAF102@psuvm.psu.edu> William Fabanich  
<WAF102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> I would like any info you experts might know of the top of your heads...or  
wher
> e to find it...about NASA bugets/ Military space bugets...and any comparison  
wi
> th other governement agencies....something for me to show that the amount we  
sp
> ent on space is not really enough to solve all our countries ills.
>   Thanx!
>     Bill Fabs
> 

Well, the best place to start is a book called "The budget of the United  
States"  It is the budget the President submits/recomends to Congres.  Bear in  
mind that the current year values are only _recomendations_ to which Congress  
can do what they want (usually cut them, in the case of space)  Howver it does  
have some real spending values for the two preceeding years.  You can find this  
book at a local library or more likely a college library.  It is about three  
inches thick, but also has tons of interesting information.  For instance, it  
has major aspects of the President's domestic policy.  This year R&D took a big  
chapter, with a good chunk devoted to space.  In addition you find tid bits  
like: the department of defense will spend about $100M for cementary  
maintenance.  Each department is usually broken down about three levels (space  
shuttle operations, major space probes in the case of space)  And every  
department except for the military (not civilian) department of defense is  
listed.

Of the top of my head I can give you some ball park numbers:

Defense 30%
Interest on the debt %25 (This also happens to be the size of the deficit)
Social Security %25

All basic science (including NIH and NSF) 3%

Again these numbers are ball park.  The whole budget is about a trillion per  
year.  In addition there are about 200 billion "off budget" which are not taken  
into account for deficit purposes, but are spend none the less.

Hope this helps.



--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |
|                                 |   and the reality of tomorrow   |
| carlosn@phoenix.princeton.edu   |---------------------------------|
| space@phoenix.princeton.edu     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: andy@osea.demon.co.uk (Andrew Haveland-Robinson)
Subject: Laser Space Mirror 
Distribution: world
Organization: Haveland-Robinson Associates
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 04:39:32 +0000


In article <1992Oct10.151428.8423@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP writes:

>
>In article <718606909snx@osea.demon.co.uk> andy@osea.demon.co.uk (Andrew> Haveland-Robinson) writes:
>>In article <BvrGs5.9q3.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:
>>>The secret to opening the space frontier is to be found in plastic  
>>>mounted bits of old satellites; pet moon rocks; committing ashes to  
>>>the deep; asteroid desk sets (Ceres, Vesta, Pallas... Collect em!  
>>>Trade em with your friends!); garbage disposal... and so forth.
>>
>>How err... very um.. well...  American! :-)
>>
>>Why not laser raster scan the clouds with MacDonalds adverts?   >cringe<
>
>I've heard of a proposal to "paint" the Coke logo on the Moon. Using a
>highly reflective "dust", say titanium dioxide smoke particles, sputtered
>onto the surface by an electron beam from a lunar orbiting satellite.
>The layer could be molecules thick since there's no wind or weather
>to wash it off. The Moon's surface is actually very dark and the highly
>reflective material should be visible even in daylight on Earth. It
>shouldn't cost more than a couple year's worth of Coke's normal advertising
>budget.
>
>Gary

Argghh!!  Conceptually brilliant - the ultimate graffito!

Still, it's better than "Neil woz ere" :-) On second thoughts, dunno though...

A story comes to mind when the local council painted "|\/\ SCOOL /\/|"
on the road outside a school, instead of "|\/\ SCHOOL /\/|"
(as is normal in England)... :-)

Andy.

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Haveland-Robinson Associates     | Email: andy@osea.demon.co.uk         |
| Pine Cottage, Osea Island, Essex |        ahaveland@cix.compulink.co.uk |
| CM9 8UH England.  0621-88756     | Also:  081-800 1708  081-802 4502    |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:58:16 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <Bw0tC9.2xC.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:
>> Probably no more than $8 billion even with the modifications  
>required
>> for surface use.
>
>I don't entirely disagree with your numbers, but this statement is  
>financial nonsense (no offense). You amortize R&D costs over some  
>number of units...   You don't write it off in one  
>lump sum against the first unit of production.

Except that it *is* being written off in one lump sum against the first
unit of production, because nobody can be sure there'll ever be another.
It is fair, legitimate, and correct to say that the incremental cost of
building another is, say, $8G.  Whether some fraction of development
cost should also be assigned to the second user is a political issue,
not a financial one, given that the development is being funded on the
basis of a production run of 0001.

Given that Fred survived its funding battles at least partly because
the development funding is seen as a bone tossed to a starving aerospace
industry, talking about amortization is silly.  This *isn't* a commercial
project, justified solely on the bottom line.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: (none)
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:39:41 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <9210082138.aa27363@Bonnie.ics.uci.edu> syee@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU writes:
>
>Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
>
>In article <Bv90sJ.C3F@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>
>>There is another, and extremely important, reason for colonization, namely,
>>escape from an oppressive government.  The Spanish colonies were moderately
>>successful only where they were eminently profitable; the missions in
>>California must be considered a failure.  The French colonies in Canada
>>and Louisiana were not particularly successful.  On the other hand, the
>>English colonies to escape oppression were generally quite successful,
>>even bringing in others.  A major part of the US immigration in the 19th
>>century was to escape oppression.


>I have one simple question.
>If you're trying to "...escape from an oppressive government.", how are you
>going to escape from this "oppressive government" when they're funding this
>project?

>Keep searching until a group of private corporations get together and fund a
>majority of this project.

You seem to have missed my other postings on this topic.  I, and many others,
have been advocating that the government allow private space expenditures AS
THOSE WISHING TO SPEND THE MONEY WANT TO.  At this time, it is illegal for
an American to launch anything anywhere in the world without US government
approval. 

Get the government out of restricting people, and the money can be raised by
those who feel it worthwhile.  We have some organizations now, and more can
be formed, to get the job done.  Exploration has been done by non-profit
organizations as well as for profit, and quite a bit of it, and the various
organizations can cooperate, much more easily than they can work through a
government monopoly.  

The Planetary Society might fund unmanned exploration, there may be groups
pushing for orbital work, for asteroid missions, etc.  These groups are
likely to share knowledge and expertise, but it would still be the case
that each group would concentrate on funding what it felt to be
important, without the need to get a consensus on priorities.  

For-profit companies would also invest in what they think will bring the
returns.  Of course speculation must occur; WE DO NOT KNOW, and we will
not find out sitting on earth.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood)
Subject: Re: Mass driver/railgun literature (was Re: Transportation on the Moon.)
Originator: keithh@sydrd14
Organization: Telectronics Pacing Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 03:22:14 GMT


In article <1992Oct13.001407.1@fnala.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
. . . Put manufacturing plant at the Lunar north pole.
. . .
> mirrors on a tall tower can give you power 28 days around the clock
> there, too.)

I was under the impression that the moon's axis had much
the same obliquity to the ecliptic as the Earth's, so either
you have very tall towers or six month's light and six
month's dark. (If the moon's axis was normal to the ecliptic
we would get about 28 degrees of north-south libration and
I'm sure it's only about five degrees.) 

Keith Harwood.
From: pgf@srl04.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering")
Subject: Re: ASRM pollution
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:29:05 GMT


\    I'm currently doing some research on goverment-sponsored risk
/communication.  Does anyone out there know were I might find some info
\on the recent debate between NASA and the residents living near the
/ASRM test facilities.

\    This research is for the purpose of understanding the process of
/risk communication only, and will not be used to either attack or
\defend NASA's position on this issue.

I personally would like to find out if there are some dubious
environmental effects to ASRM, especially since it's one of Al
"Environmental Vice President" Gore's favorite pork barrel projects.
It might be worth knowing about these to either 1) Change Gore's mind
about the project, and maybe to favor something else or 2) Change
the mind people about Al Gore.

I've given you my ulterior motives, but could you please let
_me_ know too?

/ Thank's just all to pieces.

Hmmph. Looks like someone's been watching too much of 
the "'Round the Bend Southern Gardening with Euphobia
Stokes" TV show...


-- 
Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
---------------------
Disclaimer: Some reasonably forseeable events may exceed this
message's capability to protect from severe injury, death, widespread
disaster, astronomically significant volumes of space approaching a
state of markedly increaced entropy, or taxes.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski)
Subject: Re: Drop nuc waste into sun
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:12:25 GMT

paul.nimmo@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Paul Nimmo) writes:

>Original to: Hangfore@Spf.Trw.Com
>Hi all, now someone correct me if i'm wrong here, but, isn't the fundamentl
>problem with sending waste to the sun the energy requirements? If my
>schoolboy physics memory serves me correctly it would take more energy to
>toss waste into the sun than it would to send it right out of the solar
>system. this being true it certainly does *not* present itself as a fesible
>alternative.
>see ya, paul.

That shouldn't be a problem.  The sun's gravity will pull it towards the
sun, saving energy.  The problem is getting the radioactive crap into
space.  If one of these rockets blows up, there will be mucho radiation
all over the place and the world will soon be glowing in the dark.

-Mark

P.S. I think sending the waste outside the solar system is like dumping it
in the ocean..it just sends the problem somewhere else.

--
- Mark Komarinski - komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
[MIME mail welcome]
Smile.  It makes people wonder what you're up to.

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Pioneer Venus Update - 10/09/92 (End of Mission)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:48:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.155039.17357@engage.pko.dec.com> moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:
>An earlier post suggested that data on Venus's atmosphere would be gathered
>upon reentry.  I take it that since the probe re-entered on the far side and
>was lost, no data was gathered?
>
>-Mike


Data were gathered but at a low s/n. This was the fluorescnec of collisionally
excited gases. We did see some lyman alpha and hints of perhaps CO 4+ but
this is up for further analysis.  There were only two or three orbits 
which dipped deep enough to see this fluorescence. More later as the data
are deconvolved.






-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
From: mwallis@clubzen.fidonet.org (Michael Wallis)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Odyssey system for cellular phone comms
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 92 10:48:20 PST
Organization: Club Zen BBS - (Clan Zen Relay Network) Mountain View, CA

<MKHAN@ESOC.BITNET> writes:

> In a recent issue of AW&ST there was an ad by TRW for a cellular
> phone system using nine satellites in 3 "medium" orbits. This system is
> called Odyssey. The way the ad was worded gave me the impression that
> the system is already up and running, although I can't remember
> hearing about the satellites being deployed. Can anyone provide me with
> some more information on this? Would Odyssey not nip the chances of the
> Motorola "Iridium" system in the bud?

I doubt it is currently running as TRW wasn't one of the three companies
the FCC gave the go-ahead to for developing the new frequencies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wallis -> mwallis@clubzen.fidonet.org

PLAN:   Live fast, die young, leave a neat corpse.
        Oh ... I'm too old to die young?     Rats!
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Drop nuc waste into sun
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:45:16 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <komarimf.718477945@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski) writes:
>P.S. I think sending the waste outside the solar system is like dumping it
>in the ocean..it just sends the problem somewhere else.

True in one sense... but the Sun already pumps out vastly greater amounts
of radioactive garbage, so it's not as if we're polluting the pristine
reaches of space.  (The oceans are a lot smaller and more vulnerable.)

The *sensible* thing to do with the stuff is to just put it down a hole
for umpty-ump years until it decays.  Among other advantages of this
approach, we can recover the stuff if we find uses for it.

It's not as if it was something that's going to be poisonous forever...
like the vastly greater tonnage of stack-scrubber sludge that comes out
of coal-burning power plants.  (Oddly enough, nobody seems to scream and
shout about that, even though it's a far bigger and much more difficult
disposal problem.)

But it's an issue that people are not rational about.

As Jordin Kare said recently:  "shooting it out of the solar system is
more expensive than putting it down a hole in the ground... but it's
cheaper than putting it down a DoE-designed hole in the ground".
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Xref: sparky sci.space:14268 sci.astro:10567 alt.sci.planetary:139
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:37:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.231941.1467@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

>More than enough money _where_?  The SEI budget is in the $10's...

Nick, nobody is talking anything about SEI. The question was raised of how
much a particular project would cost. The estimate you give was wildly 
in error since you failed to account for the cost effects of a larger market.

Your giveing the cost of the project if it is never executed which is rather
pointless. Even there you are way off base since the cost of an unexecuted
project is $0.00.

If the project where executed, launch costs (among other costs) would be
an order of magnitude lower than you estimate. Any estimate which fails to
account for this was either made by a fool or somebody who just doesn't
understand cost estimating.

I just got done putting together a cost estimate for a project we are bidding
on. If I used your methods of cost estimating, we wouldn't win any contracts.
I therefore very much hope your employer doesn't allow you to estimate
project costs or write proposals.

>Have I finally treaded into the central segment of a mass delusion...

Not a mass delusion, only you deluding yourself.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------197 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Xref: sparky sci.space:14253 sci.astro:10550
From: rfeadf@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Andrew Finegan)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Sally Ride info please (1st female US Astronaut)
Date: 14 Oct 92 11:57:02 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre
NNTP-Posting-Host: minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au
Summary: Looking for a personal profile of Sally Ride
Keywords: Sally Ride, First female US Astronaut

Hi Folks,
	 My 12 year old daughter has asked me for help in preparing a
a profile of Sally Ride, the USA's first female (and youngest) astronaut.

Any details, and particularly any references to (easily) accessable
publications will be gratefully received.

Please mail your replies directly to me.

If there is any interest, I will post the final profile to this group.

Thanking you in advance,

Cheers

Andrew

ANDREW FINEGAN   (Standard Disclaimers)     | RMIT Centre for Remote Sensing
Email : rfeadf@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au         | PO Box 12182, A'Beckett Street
Phone : (03) 6603274   Fax : (03) 6632517   | Melbourne Australia 3000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"... I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by
reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion
of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization."
					                    Petronius, AD 60
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Impact in AD 2000?
Date: 8 Oct 92 01:28:42 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
-Subject: Re: Toutatis impact in 2000 AD? (was Re: Help !)
-Date: 5 Oct 92 06:55:07 GMT

-In article <1992Oct1.160708.26767@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> martin@space.ualberta.ca (Martin Connors) writes:

->[Earth's diameter is]
->000044 AU so even if Toutatis was coming in randomly within a circle of  
->radius 0.011 AU the geometrical chances of impact would be about ten in a  
->million. Maybe double that for gravitational focussing. 

-This translates to (2e1/1e6)*(5e9) or 10,000 dead people, actuarily 
-speaking, or 0.2 per 100,000 population.  The death rate from
-airline crashes is 0.04 per 100,000 people.  Translated into
-more meaningful terms, in the year 2000 each of us has five
-times as much chance of being killed by Toutatis as dying in an
-airline crash.  Presumeabely a more accurate orbit has or soon will 
-be predicted, so that we can do a better analysis than
-the quoted, which uses the expected miss distance as the measurement
-error.

I notice you kill just about everybody on the planet, no matter where the
impact. An impact of a two-mile-diameter asteroid would be pretty severe,
but I'm not sure it would be quite *that* bad. Isn't that only about a
tenth of the mass of the alleged "dinosaur killer" asteroid?

The analysis you refer to is apparently just a worst-case scenario - it
wasn't meant to reflect the actual uncertainty in the trajectory. I believe
a later post gives the uncertainty as a fraction of an Earth radius.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dp10@mc4adm.UWaterloo.ca (Derek Kirkland)
Subject: Re: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:17:24 GMT

You better believe what he has to say. After all he is a writer
for the National Enquirer!!!!    :) :) :)
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Transportation on the Moon.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:55:22 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

>>My God, as far as we know the Moon's as dry as a bone, and we're talking
>>about mining ice on it!  Even if there IS ice, how do we know there's
>>going to be enough to support whatever operation is proposed?  

>If you know there's no ice at the lunar poles, you are one up on the
>entire lunar-science community.  It's distinctly possible; see any good
>technical discussion of lunar resources.  Arguments have been advanced
>both pro and con, but the general consensus is that nothing short of a
>suitable remote-sensing mission will settle the question.  

We should look for the ice, but to assume even for the sake of an
exercise that there's enough to sustain any productive use raises
false hopes.  Better to look at the engineering and economics of ice mining 
on Mars and comets, where we at least know there are materials available in
some quantity.

---------------------
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ree@utrcv1 (Bob Erickson)
Subject: NASA town meetings
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  NASA town meetings future direction
Reply-To: ree@utrc.utc.com
Organization: United Technologies Research Center
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:13:00 GMT

The following blurb was pointed out to me from a recent Aerospace Daily:

   NASA HAS selected six cities around the U.S., including Hartford, CT, for
   town meetings in which individuals and businesses can offer their views on
   the future direction of the nations civil space and aeronautics programs.

Since I'm pro-space and in the Hartford area, I'd like to go and put in
my $.02.  Can anyone tell me what I need to do in order to attend?
Useful info includes: date/time/place, how to register (if necessary), 
who to contact.

Please respond by email.  I subscribe but don't always catch all articles
before they get bagged by the system.  I'll post the info if I get any
and anyones' interested.

Thanks in advance. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Erickson                                         #include <disclaimer.std>
ree@utrc.utc.com
United Technologies Research Center