yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes: >>WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 16 April 1993  Washington, DC > >>Now, Space Marketing >>is working with University of Colorado and Livermore engineers on >>a plan to place a mile-long inflatable billboard in low-earth >>orbit. > >This sounds like something Lowell Wood would think of.  Does anyone >know if he's involved?  No.  The idea was suggested around here during discussions of possible near-term commercial space activities.  One of the folks involved in those discussions, a spacecraft engineer named Preston Carter, passed the suggestion on to  some entreprenurial types, and Mike Lawson is apparently going ahead with it.  Preston is now at LLNL, and is working with Space Marketing on  the sensors that might be carried. > >>NASA would provide contractual launch services. However, >>since NASA bases its charge on seriously flawed cost estimates >>(WN 26 Mar 93) the taxpayers would bear most of the expense.   Actually, that sounds unlikely.  I don't know what the launch vehicle would be, but I would expect it to go on a commercial launcher -- certainly not on the Shuttle -- and the fraction of the cost paid to NASA for, e.g.,  launch support would probably  cover NASA's incremental costs pretty well.  >>This >>may look like environmental vandalism, but Mike Lawson, CEO of >>Space Marketing, told us yesterday that the real purpose of the >>project is to help the environment! The platform will carry ozone >>monitors he explained--advertising is just to help defray costs. > >This may be the purpose for the University of Colorado people.  My >guess is that the purpose for the Livermore people is to learn how to >build large, inflatable space structures.  No, as noted, LLNL is involved in lightweight sensor design, per  Clementine and related programs.  I'm sure folks around here would like to  see a demonstration of a modern inflatable structure, but after all,  the U.S. did the Echo satellites long ago, and an advertising structure would not be much closer to an inflatable space station than Echo was (or a parade balloon, for that matter). > >>.......... >>What do you think of this revolting and hideous attempt to vandalize >>the night sky? It is not even April 1 anymore.  While I happen to personally dislike the idea, mostly because I've got a background in astronomy, it's hardly vandalism -- it would be a short-lived intrusion on the night sky, doing no permanent damage and actually hurting only a small subset of astronomers.  On the other hand, it would certainly draw attention to space.    > >If this is true, I think it's a great idea. > >Learning how to build structures in space in an essential >step towards space development...  Which, unfortunately, this is not likely to contribute much to.  >If such a project also monitors ozone depletion and demonstrates >creative use of (partial) private sector funding in the process -- so >much the better. > >>Is NASA really supporting this junk?  As far as I know, it's a purely commercial venture. > >And does anyone have any more details other than what was in the WN >news blip?  How serious is this project?  Is this just in the "wild >idea" stage or does it have real funding?  I gather it is being very seriously discussed with possible advertisers. Commercial projects, however, generally don't get "funding" -- they get "customers" -- whether it will have customers remains to be seen. > >>Are protesting groups being organized in the States? > >Not yet.  Though, if this project goes through, I suppose The Return >of Jeremy Rifkin is inevitable...  Nahh.  He's too busy watching for mutant bacteria to notice anything in the sky :-)  > >Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University >yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science  Jordin Kare	jtk@s1.gov	Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory