HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: Moral Justification
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:32:34 GMT

18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>Sorry.  Valuable, perhaps, but not moral.

>1) If it has such a good return, why do we need the gov. to pay for it?

Who needs a gov ? :-)) 

>2) How do you convince that factory worker that lost his job to a robot
>   that his money should be spent to help put him on the street?

If I'm not totally misinformed there are at least as many jobs created by
modern technology as go lost to robots. At least in Europe there was a debate
on the dangers of the computer in the late 70s: many people feared that they
could destroy their jobs, and that the government could introduce a "Great
Brother" system supervising and controling them. Now everybody has a PC which
often changed the job but in no way destroyed it, and there are extra jobs
that are now possible and could not be done w/o comp. The problem for the
worker will probably be (on longer terms) that he must qualify again for a 
new job, and some people will fail, since hightech usually requires more
skilled workers.
 Hartmut Frommert                 <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
 Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
                                           -- Eat whale killers, not whales --
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary,comp.robotics
From: kirby@xerox.com (Mike Kirby)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Reply-To: kirby@xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corporation, Webster NY
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:16:24 GMT

In article 7541@cs.rochester.edu, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <21DEC199218250184@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>>In article <1992Dec21.163942.17983@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes...
>
>>>I asked Wingo to bring up a resource that could be obtained from
>>>space that was not substitutable, used in small quantities so that
>>>price rises could be tolerated, or in short supply.   He suggested
>>>platinum.
>>
>>Paul Platinum is only one of many metals that, if we have at a minimum, a 
>>translunar transporation system would be cheaper.
>
>So, trot out your claims so I can shoot them down.  And no more
>of that lunar titanium nonsense, ok?  I debunked that last time.
>
>BTW, it is *not* obvious that having a translunar transportation
>system would make platinum group mining economical.  This system would
>have costs, which could be high, as would the mining operation.  Since
>the market for platinum is rather small (a few billion $/year), it by
>itself cannot justify much space activity.
>
>
>
>	Paul F. Dietz
>	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
>

Okay,  I'll give it a shot.

Given the assumption that we want to build large structures in space
and on other planets, It seems that the mining of minerals in space for
use in space would be profitable because of the huge gravity hole that
you have to haul the stuff out of.  If we want to do any large scale
construction in space I would think the materials would have to come
from space if we want to build anything for a reasonable price.

Another interesting point might be that new mining techniques for "off world"
mining might prove useful in squeezing more out of currently unproductive 
mines on earth.

Of course why we would want to build any large scale construction in space in
the first place is an entirely different discussion.

Mike Kirby
Xerox Corp
E-mail: kirby.roch803@xerox.com
From: jgreen@zeus.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Cassini Undergoes Intensive Design Review
Date: 21 Dec 92 10:56:46 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

>In article <1992Dec10.232527.643937@locus.com> hayim@locus.com (Hayim Hendeles) writes:
>>Pardon my asking an ignorant question, but I can't understand why it
>>should take 7 years to get to Saturn. When Voyager went to Jupiter and
>>Saturn, it took (if I recall correctly) 4 years and a Jupiter flyby to
>>make it to Saturn. Here, you are using 4 flybys, and it's taking you 7
>>years! I would think that if you were to adjust the launch date so that
>>Jupiter and Saturn were in the same relative positions as they were in
>>1977 (when Voyager was launched), you could do the same trick again...
>

One thing to remember that's different about Cassini than
Voyager is that Cassini has to stop while voyager kept going.
Voyager could zoom by, but Cassini has to be able to stop.


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@eros.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ 
| "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving	| 
| the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the 	|
| Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."    		|
|                  <John F. Kennedy; May 25, 1961> 		|
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:39:31 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <9gt204c@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:

>	I thought you said that McDac or SDIO was going to treat
>development costs of DC-1 as sunk costs.  

That depends on exactly who funds DC-1, doesn't it?  SDIO has said
that it won't fund that part of the program, although it could change
its mind.  The Air Force or some other agency might be interested -- too 
early to say.  McDonnell Douglas isn't in great shape right now, so I
don't think there's much chance they could develop it as a commercial
project without external funding.  A joint venture, maybe, like Boeing's
777 venture with the Japanese?

If it's done as a commercial project, the R&D will have to be recouped.
McDonnell Douglas is in business to make money.  This doesn't appear too
hard.  Suppose the development program costs $1.5 billion.  If McDAC can
build DC vehicles for $100 million after than, and sell them for $200
million, it can pay off the R&D on the first 15 copies and be making
a profit after that.  (I'm ignoring interest, which would bump the figures
up a little bit, but not a lot.) 

It's also possible McDAC might find a customer that wants just the
first few vehicles off the assembly line and wants them badly enough
to foot the bill for the entire R&D program.  This, actually, isn't
uncommon with high-tech projects, though probably only the Federal 
government has the money to do it on this scale. 



>As for amortization of the orbiter, the same rule applies to that
>as any aircraft or spacecraft, including, DC-1.  The more you
>fly it, the less this matter.  Right now, if you stopped all flights,
>you could argue this cost (excluding interest) is about $150 million
>a flight. (10 flights/orbiter, $1.5 Billion per orbiter).  This
>number will shrink.

That is by no means certain.  There's a good chance someone else
will fly an orbiter into the ground in the next few years and the
whole fleet will be grounded permanently.  And while the increasing
number of flights tends to bring the average cost down, Shuttle
improvement programs tend to push it back up again. 



Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: LEI financing
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 01:52:49 GMT

In article <n12d5t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> 
>Daniel Goldin. Under his administration, NASA is saying and doing things that 
>would have been hard to imagine years ago. Their Procurement office is talking 
>about not only purchasing lunar, but also Martian, data as well. It is
>possible that the LRDPA (what an acronym) may become obsolete next year, as
>NASA may decide, through the President, to request funding for purchase of
>lunar data.

It seems to me that data purchase belongs more under NSF charter than
NASA's R&D charter. Not that data purchase is a bad idea mind you, just
that you're probably looking in the wrong pocket. Of course it's all the
same pair of pants. :-)

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 12/30/92
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  Galileo, JPL
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:37:00 GMT

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109.  TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011

                     GALILEO MISSION STATUS
                        December 30, 1992

     The Galileo spacecraft is operating normally in the dual-
spin mode and is transmitting coded telemetry at 1200 bits per
second.  It is about 16.5 million kilometers (10.25 million
miles) from Earth, and about 152 million kilometers (94 million
miles) from the Sun.

     Yesterday, December 29, after approximately 20 hours of
warming in sunlight, the antenna-deploy motors were turned on to
"wind up" the system and then pulsed to "hammer" it in an effort
to free the stuck ribs of Galileo's high-gain antenna.  The
procedures began at 6:55 a.m. PST and continued until 2:48 a.m.
PST this morning, December 30.  A total of 2160 pulses were
executed by the motors during this period.  The stuck ribs were
apparently not freed.  This morning the spacecraft was returned
from the warming attitude to the normal cruise mode.

     No spacecraft activities are scheduled during the holiday
weekend.  Activities will resume next week.

                              #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in your life.
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: MOL (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 20:16:03 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1h2egpINNmk9@mirror.digex.com> <BzMwJK.KKG@zoo.toronto.edu>
  <Bzp1w6.D3y@world.std.com>

>In article <BzMwJK.KKG@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) 
w
>rites:
>>In article <1h2egpINNmk9@mirror.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>>>>>You heard wrong.  One MOL flew (unmanned).
>>>>Could somebody provide data ?
>>>
>>>According to a friend of mine who was a MOL engineer.  One MOL flew
>>>Manned.  only it was called ASTP.
>>
>>He's pulling your leg.  ASTP involved one Apollo, one Soyuz, and a docking
>>module.  The docking module might perhaps have inherited a bit of technology
>>from MOL, but no way was it a MOL.  For one thing, it was a fraction of the
>>size.
>
>The very first MOL flight (and only one, if I recall correctly)
>was basically a test of the Titan III, on its way to being man-rated.
>(Does anyone remember if the strap-ons were solids?)  The MOL was a
>mock-up, just a cylinder the right size and shape.  The Gemini capsule
>was a donation to the Air Force from NASA, the former "Gemini 2"
>capsule that had flown unmanned.
>
>I think it all orbited for a few days before burning on reentry.  Yes,
>it was certainly unmanned.
>
>tombaker
>#include <standard-disclaimer.h>
>
  The MOL launch used a standard Titan IIIC but was designated as
  Titan IIIM for the MOL program. It's strap-ons were indeed solids.
  
  -Brian
  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 17:18:51 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <72332@cup.portal.com> <1992Dec27.204310.21837@iti.org>

>A few years ago I saw some figures on the amount of overtime needed to
>process a Shuttle. It was horendous. Adding more Shuttles will just tax
>the groundcrew even more. Adding staff to eliminate this bottleneck will
>only increase costs.

 Maybe so, but I don't see the reasoning that NASA can launch monthly
 (assuming they manage it) from December 1992 to April 1993 (five
 launches of three orbiters) but can't keep up that pace throughout
 the year. Does this mean they're pushing hard to get five flights
 off early and then stopping to do alot of postponed maintenance? This
 doesn't seem likely to me. So WHAT IS the reason for the sparse flight
 rate in the second half of 1993? Politics. 

>Your assuming that orbiter availability is the only bottleneck.
>I'm sure they could add one or two flights a year. But so what? all that
>means is that instead of spending three times what we need we are 'only'
>spending 2.75 times what we need to. I don't consider that much of a
>victory.

 But you digress. This was not a question of costs but one of performance.
 I doubt anyone at the DC program would be happy knowing that DC-1 was
 flying two or three missions per year less than it was able to. The same
 can be said for Titan, Atlas, Delta, or Ariane. So again you seem to have
 two sets of measuring systems: One for the Shuttle and another for
 everything else.
  
>>   This is all
>>   moot, since NASA apparently does not want to push its luck prior
>>   to SSF assembly, but it does show that the launch rate is lower
>>   than it could be.
>
>No because those are factors. The bottom line is that NASA cannot fly
>many more missions per year than they are now.

    That's not what you said earlier, Allen. Even you acknowledge one or
    two more flights per year is possible (I say three of four BTW). With
    the current 8 per year, that's a 25% increase. The folks at Titan or
    Atlas would LOVE that.
    
    -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Lunar Resource Mapper Status (Was Re: funding for Lunar Prospector)
Date: 22 Dec 1992 20:26 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: judy.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <BzoqqC.24@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes...
>In article <22DEC199214281236@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:

>The $30M in question was first-year funding to get Griffin's entire effort
>started; this was to include the beginnings of the mapper project, which
>would end up costing $30M or so for the spacecraft proper.
> 
>Griffin didn't get it.
>-- 

The money is coming from JSC internal funds as well as left over funds from
other operations at Griffin's code. I repeat the project is not dead as of 
this time. It might well be if the new congress critters say that NASA can't
spend the money that is available, but this has not happened. This money
also does not affect the Lunar Geophysical Explorer which is not part of SEI.
It seems that you can get money as long as the SEI tag is not attached. Heck
there is 5 million dollars this year for the Lunar power beaming project and
money is being spent even now for the Lunar far side telescope project. It
helps to be where you can hear these things.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville.
From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Aurora
Date: 21 Dec 92 16:29:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BzMB5D.58.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

John Roberts wrote (Wed, 16 Dec 92 07:58:24 EST):

>It's common to have chase planes flying along with an aircraft
>undergoing tests. One of the two Valkyrie supersonic aircraft was
>destroyed when a chase plane crashed into it.

Thanks for that info. However, does "flying along with" means "chasing"?
(AW&ST wrote "chasing"). Also, was the Valkyrie a "black" aircraft? I
apologize for being so skeptical and stubborn, and for my bad knowledge
of American and/or military aviation words, but I want to be sure...

J. Pharabod
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 17:16:09 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <72332@cup.portal.com> <1992Dec27.204310.21837@iti.org>

>A few years ago I saw some figures on the amount of overtime needed to
>process a Shuttle. It was horendous. Adding more Shuttles will just tax
>the groundcrew even more. Adding staff to eliminate this bottleneck will
>only increase costs.

 Maybe so, but I don't see the reasoning that NASA can launch monthly
 (assuming they manage it) from December 1992 to April 1993 (five
 launches of three orbiters) but can't keep up that pace throughout
 the year. Does this mean they're pushing hard to get five flights
 off early and then stopping to do alot of postponed maintenance? This
 doesn't seem likely to me. So WHAT IS the reason for the sparse flight
 rate in the second half of 1993? Politics. 

>Your assuming that orbiter availability is the only bottleneck.
>I'm sure they could add one or two flights a year. But so what? all that
>means is that instead of spending three times what we need we are 'only'
>spending 2.75 times what we need to. I don't consider that much of a
>victory.

 But you digress. This was not a question of costs but one of performance.
 I doubt anyone at the DC program would be happy knowing that DC-1 was
 flying two or three missions per year less than it was able to. The same
 can be said for Titan, Atlas, Delta, or Ariane. So again you seem to have
 two sets of measuring systems: One for the Shuttle and another for
 everything else.
  
>>   This is all
>>   moot, since NASA apparently does not want to push its luck prior
>>   to SSF assembly, but it does show that the launch rate is lower
>>   than it could be.
>
>No because those are factors. The bottom line is that NASA cannot fly
>many more missions per year than they are now.

    That's not what you said earlier, Allen. Even you acknowledge one or
    two more flights per year is possible (I say three of four BTW). With
    the current 8 per year, that's a 25% increase. The folks at Titan or
    Atlas would LOVE that.
    
    -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Saturn lift capabilities
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:57:54 GMT
Reply-To: cecil@physics.unc.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

In article 9z9@zoo.toronto.edu, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Uh, Dennis, the ASTP payload was *not* a "full up" CSM; indeed, it was
>the lightest CSM ever flown manned, because it needed almost no main-engine
>fuel for its mission.  (In fact, it carried more RCS fuel than main-engine
>fuel.)  It weighed 12.7 tons.

A question: was a fully fueled CSM, flown in the ASTP launch inclination,
capable of reboosting Skylab?  Was it structurally feasible?  If so, when
was the decision made not to reboost after the AST-part of the mission was
over?
---
Gerald Cecil cecil@wrath.physics.unc.edu  919-962-7169 
Physics & Astronomy, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: funding for Lunar Prospector urgently needed
Date: 21 Dec 92 13:39:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BzM3BE.GvJ.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


-From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
-Subject: funding for Lunar Prospector urgently needed
-Date: 20 Dec 92 02:21:46 GMT

-A small group of folks in Houston -- Lunar Exploration, Inc -- has been
-working for several years on a privately-funded lunar polar orbiter
-mission, dubbed Lunar Prospector.  The objective is a geochemical survey
-of the Moon, with some emphasis on resolving the question of whether
-there is ice in permanently-shadowed areas at the lunar poles.  

-When NASA or politicians talk
-about "reviving unmanned planetary exploration", they may be talking about
-Mars, or Saturn, or Pluto... but not the Moon.

-Prospects of getting such a mission flown as a government project seem
-slim:  Congress does not like SEI and has consistently refused funding
-for unmanned precursor missions, and the official Clinton/Gore space
-position says "no serious money for SEI".  It looks like it's private
-funding or nothing.

Ah, a light begins to dawn...

-The plan is to fly a small spin-stabilized spacecraft in low lunar
-orbit for a nominal one-year mission.  Experiments are a gamma-ray
-spectrometer (geochemical mapping), a neutron spectrometer (hydrogen
-mapping, including mapping of possible ice deposits and solar-wind
-gases), an alpha-particle spectrometer (mapping of radon releases,
-indicating ongoing geological activity and possible sources of other
-volatiles), a magnetometer and electron reflectometer (mapping the
-lunar magnetic field, using hardware designed for Mars Observer),
-and precision spacecraft tracking (mapping the poorly-known
-gravitational field of the Moon).  

Realizing that it doesn't have the same instruments, is it possible that
the recent Galileo lunar polar flyby (preliminary science press conference
Dec 22) will tell us annything that might be helpful in making up our minds?
Such as the exact placement of candidate craters?

-This is a reputable, professional effort, despite having been (so far)
-primarily a volunteer project with a minimal budget.  The folks
-running it are mostly engineers from the JSC contractor community.
-Principal investigators for the six experiments include people from
-LANL, two universities, and JPL.  It has the approval of NASA
-officials, including Goldin.  

So what happens if the government breaks what you consider to be a promise
and decides a lunar resource mapper is a good idea? Given this "approval",
is it possible that they would be willing to involve these guys?

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space